Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is fun, but you can look this info up yourself if you are interested. Do I need more?
It was already explained to you why life expectancy was a poor barometer, you came back with some feeble and inaccurate claim about how road accident rates in the US compares to the countries ranked above it in western Europe. Apparently you believe repeating the same thing over and over, while ignoring reasons it isn't a good measure, will somehow make it valid.
United States road mortality rate per 100,000 versus the three most populous countries in Western Europe:
United States 10.6
France 5.1
Germany 4.3
UK 2.9
Here is from the top five countries from the graph you posted showing lifespans longer than US:
Switzerland 3.3
Italy 6.1
Japan 4.7
Iceland 4.6
Spain 3.7
Clearly it isn't about the same as you claim, the countries with higher life spans have way less accidental deaths than the US which is obviously a factor in mortality rate. Death from accidents is a lifestyle/culture measure, not healthcare quality.
The graphs on cost aren't relevant here, I already stated the biggest problem with US healthcare is cost and access. The actual treatment is just fine, which is backed up five year survival rates for major diseases that you choose to discount.
That's what real incomes tell you. Stagnant for 40 years.
I think it is a large part, but not the whole banana. That's why I say lifestyle/std of living is more important if it can be measured. How does income itself take into account some of our advancing technologies that provide new and huge benefits, and at low cost? Like computers and now cellphones. How does it account for new and very expensive medical technologies that improve on the quality and duration of lives?
How does income itself take into account some of our advancing technologies that provide new and huge benefits, and at low cost?
Computers and cell phones are included, and hedonic adjustments are made to account for better quality.
How did it take into account the tremendous advances made in all areas prior to 1980? Things like trains, cars, planes, running water, electricity, telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, etc. And talk about medical advances! The most important ones occurred prior to 1980. Don't pretend that advancing technologies are a new thing.
The bottom line is that they didn't need any BS apologetics to convince people that things were improving prior to 1980. It was demonstrably obvious. Everything became cheaper over time, and people had to work less to obtain more. Even people in the poorest countries have cell phones. If your living standard fell to that level would you still say, "but, but... we have a cell phone! See how much better things are."
It was already explained to you why life expectancy was a poor barometer, you came back with some feeble and inaccurate claim about how road accident rates in the US compares to the countries ranked above it in western Europe.
If you want to debate this you need to stop making stuff up.
The claim I made was that the current US traffic accident fatality rate is currently just a little higher than the European average (which is posted on that wiki page, so you don't have to calculate it). That is true. It is also true that the US traffic and homicide rates have dropped a lot since the 1980-1999 data you posted. And it is also true that the US has slipped in the life expectancy ranking in spite of this.
But you don't need to keep harping on life expectancy since apparently neither of us is ambitious enough to remove the accident component and bring the data up to date. The fact that some countries currently have quite a bit lower auto fatality rates does not demonstrate that it accounts for the difference in longevity.
I responded with was several graphs showing how poor the US scores on healthcare compared to other countries. Look at those.
Real incomes being stagnant is not a 50% pay cut for a 2% on total expenses. Stagnant means just that, wages match purchasing power.
We took a real 50% pay cut compared to productivity and GDP/capita increases, which never happened before and shouldn't happen in a democratic country. And it is directly tied to our trade, fiscal, and finance policies.
Is it really too esoteric for you to understand as well?
Wars, monopolies which kill competition (and our competitiveness globally), plus a Congress that is bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Stop the military adventurism that is draining the treasury, get money out of politics, break up the monopolies, and level the economic playing field and watch a new generation of entrepreneurs grow the economy!
Our major problem is also that our society tends to look down on hard working blue collar people. It is part of what is going wrong in America. Respect for work and respect for those who work hard are no longer lauded. Consequently, the money and the skills have increasingly gone towards financial manipulation, banking, marketing, and asset speculation. This is not good for the economy in the long run.
Yes there are benefits to hedging, stock options, diversification, etc. however, when the focus of the whole economy goes away from increasing goods and services towards making housing prices and stocks go up through financial wizardry which actually discourages capital investment in favor of stock buybacks and asset speculation over increased growth and production you get a zombie economy.
Yes, our economy today is ZOMBIE ECONOMY. No wonder it sucks for majority of our citizens and this so called "recovery" for many Americans it actually feels worse then recession.
Most people think the growth of consumerism is what makes a better economy. In the 1950 the world population was less than 3 billion. More consumerism with 7 billion is idiotic. Unpredictable repercussions will echo around the world.
Yes there are benefits to hedging, stock options, diversification, etc. however, when the focus of the whole economy goes away from increasing goods and services towards making housing prices and stocks go up through financial wizardry which actually discourages capital investment in favor of stock buybacks and asset speculation over increased growth and production you get a zombie economy.
It's an economy that allows the rich to extract nearly all the gains from productivity. This wasn't possible in prior history, because a wealthy consumer base was necessary to support rising production. But the "wonders" of fiat money and finance (debt), along with global trade (deficits)... and the fortuitous event of women increasing the employed population... have given the oligarchs over the whole world an opportunity to massively increase their wealth and power. Only the middle class in the US and most developed countries are paying the price for this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
