3 ms·

> I still dont understand why do you think it better to depend on scraps thrown by rich people just because they are better at manipulation laws for their benef

by bhupy 6y ago

> I still dont understand why do you think it better to depend on scraps thrown by rich people just because they are better at manipulation laws for their benefit? I never said I think that, I never made any value judgements about charity. All I said was that: 1) it isn't some forgone conclusion that charity is inherently bad, or something we inherently have to replace entirely with government welfare, and 2) you have to look at the outcome of the system as it exists today, and per the OECD data, the poorest 20% of the US are richer than the average person in Canada, Greece, the UK, Sweden, Australia, etc — once you account for all forms of income, transfers, in kind benefits, charity, etc. When analyzing the standard of living for the bottom 20% in the US, it's a misrepresentation of reality to ignore charity because the US happens to be the most charitable nation on the planet: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generou... I also think it's a mischaracterization of the status quo to consider charity "scraps thrown by rich people". In general, you should try to articulate the best version of your opponents point of view before trying to defeat it. I'll do it for you: in the US, charity accounts for $427B per year — hardly "scraps": https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2019-americans-gave-427-71-billion-to-charity-in-2018-amid-complex-year-for-charitable-giving/ https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2019-americans-gave-427-71-.... > Maybe I missed that part where did you do that? By showing you the OECD rankings of per-person consumption, including the average consumption of the bottom 20% of US persons. > So its just indeed's data which may not reflect the actual state of the market? It's a compelling data point because Indeed is one of the largest job boards on the market today, and has income and employment data. In any case, because you don't like the data, I've found another source that corroborates Indeed's findings: the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bigger-raises-than-bosses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-wage-workers-are-getting-bi... > Hypothetically everything is possible but in reality its not. Just declaring it doesn't make it so. Per the actual data that I showed you, the majority of the variance in US's average life expectancy is attributable to lifestyle choices and cultural factors (obesity rate, opioid deaths, car travel, homicide rate). That data isn't a hypothetical. It stands to reason that changing this culture will provably bring the US's average life expectancy close to parity with OECD nations. It is also a demonstration of the folly of "averages" in general. When Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average wealth of everyone in the bar increases many-fold. Likewise, when an opioid addict walks into a bar, the average life expectancy of everyone in the bar falls. > Since you dont like the data, lets look at some actual use cases. No, I never said I "don't like the data", I pointed out that the data that you cited is completely unrelated to the question at hand: how do the poor in the US compare to the poor in other first world countries. "Inequality adjusted HDI" doesn't answer that question; it's totally unrelated. It would be like me citing the average SAT score among high school students in the world when answering the question: "which country has the best universities?" > How much would a poor mother in US spend on pregnancy in a hospital, atleast in Australian Govt hospitals its zero dollars, is that the same in US? A mother in the bottom 20% in the US would spend close to nothing on pregnancy in a hospital because they would be covered by Medicaid, in addition to receiving the Child Tax Credit for every child the mother already has (which was doubled in 2017). If the mother in the US was employed, they would also receive cash in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. If the mother was unemployed, they would qualify for unemployment insurance, and during the pandemic that's actually higher than the median wage. In fact, one of the bigger problems with the US's healthcare system is that it's fragmented: https://twitter.com/CPopeHC/status/1234510323425652737 https://twitter.com/CPopeHC/status/1234510323425652737 — 60% of Americans have some of the best healthcare in the world, and that includes Medicaid recipients, all of whom are in the bottom 20% in the US. This is also why you need to look at total PPP adjusted consumption AFTER transfers and in-kind benefits, which is what the OECD data does.

sumedh 6y ago
> hardly "scraps" Your link says charity given by individuals decreased while scraps thrown by rich people increases, thanks for defeating your own argument. > the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: Which says wages are rising partly because the states are increasing their minimum wage. So you can thank the law not the employers for that. > the majority of the variance in US's average life expectancy is attributable to lifestyle choices and cultural factors Yes you claim that but when I asked you the reason, you dont know the answer and yet if the these hypothetical reasons are fixed it will magically fix the life expectancy. Do you see a flaw in your logic? > A mother in the bottom 20% in the US would spend close to nothing Is it nothing or close to nothing, it its close, what is it? Poor people and even middle class people atleast in Australia dont have to jump though all these hoops, the cost is nothing. Is jumping though all these hoops the reason why US has the highest maternal mortality rate among the developed world. Why would a nation whose poorest 20% are richer than average OECD people have the highest maternal mortality rate?
- bhupy 6y ago
  > Your link says charity given by individuals decreased while scraps thrown by rich people increases, thanks for defeating your own argument. What? My link shows that charity is more than just "scraps from the rich". It doesn't defeat the argument at all. It means that it's a reliable source of transfers for the poor, and therefore an amount you need to account for when computing standard of living and consumption. The NBER does this in a systematic way. > Which says wages are rising partly because the states are increasing their minimum wage. So you can thank the law not the employers for that. Sure, nobody ever claimed that the increase in standard of living is SOLELY due to economic growth, just that economic growth is a necessary but not solely sufficient condition for it. The central question at hand is how prosperous the poorest in the US are, given its institutions and welfare systems — BOTH public and private. It's why OECD metrics account for taxes and transfers, because as you rightly point out, you can't ignore them. > Yes you claim that but when I asked you the reason, you dont know the answer and yet if the these hypothetical reasons are fixed it will magically fix the life expectancy. Do you see a flaw in your logic? No, what I claim is that the variance in life expectancy is measurably attributable to lifestyle and cultural factors. Therefore changing the culture and lifestyle can provably close the gap. What I don't know the answer to is why the culture is the way it is, or how best to change it. Why does the average American cook cheeseburgers and casserole and drink Coca-Cola? Why does the average Japanese eat vegetable rice, healthy omega-3 fish dishes, and drink tea? Why do first-generation immigrants eat healthier than middle-class white Americans? These are cultural questions that are harder to answer. > Is it nothing or close to nothing, it its close, what is it? Poor people and even middle class people atleast in Australia dont have to jump though all these hoops, the cost is nothing. It's "close to nothing" because there are still co-pays for visits, just like in Australia. It can even be "literally nothing" depending on the circumstances because, in addition to Medicaid, the poor qualify for other transfer programs that can be used to cover even the cost of co-pays. You don't "jump through hoops" to qualify for Medicaid, you just have to show that your income is below a certain level. I myself have qualified for Medicaid when I started a company after college and had no income. If your argument is that we ought to make it easier for poor people to get welfare, I don't disagree, but it's a serious mischaracterization of the status quo to suggest that we're not already generously funding welfare for the poor. > Why would a nation whose poorest 20% are richer than average OECD people have the highest maternal mortality rate? Because the flaw in your statement is assuming that the mortality rate is concentrated among the poorest 20%. In fact the poorest 20% have some of the best healthcare in the US. The fundamental problem in America is that if you happen to not be one of: {below poverty, employed, old}, you slip through the cracks and have inadequate healthcare. THAT is the problem. Per my linked source, 30% of Americans have poor quality insurance (gaps), and 10% are uninsured — but importantly, the bottom 20% do not intersect with that set because they qualify for Medicaid. But this isn't a "the poor in the US are worse off" problem, this is a "the healthcare system in the US is a byzantine mess" problem, and there are various ways to specifically fix that (and not just the one proposal you keep hearing about).

by bhupy 6y ago

sumedh 6y ago

> hardly "scraps" Your link says charity given by individuals decreased while scraps thrown by rich people increases, thanks for defeating your own argument. > the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: Which says wages are rising partly because the states are increasing their minimum wage. So you can thank the law not the employers for that. > the majority of the variance in US's average life expectancy is attributable to lifestyle choices and cultural factors Yes you claim that but when I asked you the reason, you dont know the answer and yet if the these hypothetical reasons are fixed it will magically fix the life expectancy. Do you see a flaw in your logic? > A mother in the bottom 20% in the US would spend close to nothing Is it nothing or close to nothing, it its close, what is it? Poor people and even middle class people atleast in Australia dont have to jump though all these hoops, the cost is nothing. Is jumping though all these hoops the reason why US has the highest maternal mortality rate among the developed world. Why would a nation whose poorest 20% are richer than average OECD people have the highest maternal mortality rate?

bhupy 6y ago
> Your link says charity given by individuals decreased while scraps thrown by rich people increases, thanks for defeating your own argument. What? My link shows that charity is more than just "scraps from the rich". It doesn't defeat the argument at all. It means that it's a reliable source of transfers for the poor, and therefore an amount you need to account for when computing standard of living and consumption. The NBER does this in a systematic way. > Which says wages are rising partly because the states are increasing their minimum wage. So you can thank the law not the employers for that. Sure, nobody ever claimed that the increase in standard of living is SOLELY due to economic growth, just that economic growth is a necessary but not solely sufficient condition for it. The central question at hand is how prosperous the poorest in the US are, given its institutions and welfare systems — BOTH public and private. It's why OECD metrics account for taxes and transfers, because as you rightly point out, you can't ignore them. > Yes you claim that but when I asked you the reason, you dont know the answer and yet if the these hypothetical reasons are fixed it will magically fix the life expectancy. Do you see a flaw in your logic? No, what I claim is that the variance in life expectancy is measurably attributable to lifestyle and cultural factors. Therefore changing the culture and lifestyle can provably close the gap. What I don't know the answer to is why the culture is the way it is, or how best to change it. Why does the average American cook cheeseburgers and casserole and drink Coca-Cola? Why does the average Japanese eat vegetable rice, healthy omega-3 fish dishes, and drink tea? Why do first-generation immigrants eat healthier than middle-class white Americans? These are cultural questions that are harder to answer. > Is it nothing or close to nothing, it its close, what is it? Poor people and even middle class people atleast in Australia dont have to jump though all these hoops, the cost is nothing. It's "close to nothing" because there are still co-pays for visits, just like in Australia. It can even be "literally nothing" depending on the circumstances because, in addition to Medicaid, the poor qualify for other transfer programs that can be used to cover even the cost of co-pays. You don't "jump through hoops" to qualify for Medicaid, you just have to show that your income is below a certain level. I myself have qualified for Medicaid when I started a company after college and had no income. If your argument is that we ought to make it easier for poor people to get welfare, I don't disagree, but it's a serious mischaracterization of the status quo to suggest that we're not already generously funding welfare for the poor. > Why would a nation whose poorest 20% are richer than average OECD people have the highest maternal mortality rate? Because the flaw in your statement is assuming that the mortality rate is concentrated among the poorest 20%. In fact the poorest 20% have some of the best healthcare in the US. The fundamental problem in America is that if you happen to not be one of: {below poverty, employed, old}, you slip through the cracks and have inadequate healthcare. THAT is the problem. Per my linked source, 30% of Americans have poor quality insurance (gaps), and 10% are uninsured — but importantly, the bottom 20% do not intersect with that set because they qualify for Medicaid. But this isn't a "the poor in the US are worse off" problem, this is a "the healthcare system in the US is a byzantine mess" problem, and there are various ways to specifically fix that (and not just the one proposal you keep hearing about).