8 ms·
Isn't simply explained by the fact that immigration processes generally select for the fittest individuals? If you are not operating well it is going to be diff
by randomdata 4y ago
Isn't simply explained by the fact that immigration processes generally select for the fittest individuals? If you are not operating well it is going to be difficult to find the capacity to start the immigration process, and if you do make it that far you are likely to find out that the destination country doesn't want you.
The same kind of phenomenon is seen in college graduates who love longer than non-graduates. There is no reason to think that attaining a college degree somehow cures what ails you. Rather, those who are not in tip top health don't have the capacity to make it all the way to graduation.
It is even likely why we see those with more money living longer. While it is often thought they live longer because they are more able to care for themselves, at the same time if you are not in perfect health it is much harder to make money. The same capacity determines qualities like what kind of job you can focus your attention on, and even something as simple as a few extra unpaid sick days each year can greatly reduce your net wealth potential over time.
- neffy 4y agoNot really. We also have to put this in the context of US life expectancy being significantly lower than comparable European countries. Britain for example has also had a very high immigration rate for a couple of centuries now, but no comparable difference is seen there. In the US money (and as proxy college education) is a gateway to a lot of things that influence health outcome, notably access to health treatment. So Occam's razor would suggest that is the simplest explanation - Europe has national health programs that provide access to good quality medical treatment for all levels of society. The US simply doesn't. See the infant mortality statistics.
- randomdata 4y ago> We also have to put this in the context of US life expectancy being significantly lower than comparable European countries. Yes, this is due to drug-related deaths. The US loses 277 per million, while the UK only loses 53 per million. That is a problem, one usually attributed to how the US cares for sick individuals with a more lackadaisy attitude towards prescribing certain addictive drugs. So, again, those who are unwell are in a disadvantaged position. > See the infant mortality statistics. The US does has an exceptionally high infant mortality rate, but mostly due to the US counting pre-term births differently to other countries. Canada, with universal healthcare, also has a mortality rate of 6 per 1,000 when using the same methodology although only reports 4 per 1,000 when using its standard methodology.