Slashdot Mirror
Life Expectancy Study: It's Not Just What You Make, It's Where You Live (npr.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report on NPR.org: Poor people who reside in expensive, well-educated cities such as San Francisco tend to live longer than low-income people in less affluent places, according to a study of more than a billion Social Security and tax records. The study, published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, bolsters what was already well-known -- the poor tend to have shorter lifespans than those with more money. But it also says that among low-income people, big disparities exist in life expectancy from place to place, said Raj Chetty, professor of economics at Stanford University. "There are some places where the poor are doing quite well, gaining just as much in terms of life span as the rich, but there are other places where they're actually going in the other direction, where the poor are living shorter lives today than they did in the past," Chetty said, in an interview with NPR.The New York Times' take on the same study: New York is a city with some of the worst income inequality in the country. But when it comes to inequality of life spans, it's one of the best. Impoverished New Yorkers tend to live far longer than their counterparts in other American cities, according to a detailed new research of Social Security and earnings records published Monday in The Journal of the American Medical Association. They still die sooner than their richer neighbors, but the city's life-expectancy gap was smaller in 2014 than nearly everywhere else, and it has shrunk since 2001 even as gaps grew nationwide. That trend may appear surprising. New York is one of the country's most unequal and expensive cities, where the poor struggle to find affordable housing and the money and time to take care of themselves.
I refuse to take seriously any topic where inequality of life circumstances is held up as some sort of moral evil. Imposed equality needs to be limited to very few domains, like equality -before the law-, to the extent even that is possible. But to use inequality as a cudgel against different people living longer or better than others ... hell no, go away. Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
Wealth pays for good health care system with good hospitals and trained physicians. Also more hospitals are located in the well doing areas. If the poor walks in to the ER, first they have the ability to reach the hospital on foot, and second they also benefit from the same higher quality materials and equipment, and not the least from the experience of the doctors, which is going to be not surprisingly better. So they do have a better chance of receiving good quality health care that is set up for the wealthy people, and they have much better change of actually reaching that healthcare than in the middle of nowhere town, where the closes hospital is the large animal vet in the next town 10 miles over. Also, the article speaks about poor people. Not those that are homeless, not those that are in poverty. Just poor people, and in New York or San Fran you are poor making 40 - 50k annually, which is actually not bad compared to the below the poverty line homeless living on the corner.
Allow me to summarize their findings. Poor people are more likely to be obese and obese people have a shorter life expectancy*.
*Except in dense urban areas where walking and public transit are more common than driving and parking.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Maine or Idaho. sorry NY and CA.
Might as well blame it on the South being the Krispy Kreme belt.
But then Yankees will never experience the bliss of injecting lard and sugar directly into their aortas, so overall it's a wash.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Of course poor people in wealthy cities live longer. They're still poor, but they get better health care and better food from charities, because wealthy people give more to charity. Wealthy cities also tend to be blue, which means more programs for the poor.
IQ = human peacock feathers. People in smarter parts of the world have higher IQs and lower incidents of genetic abnormalities, and hence live longer AND are richer (because they aren't stupid).
IQ is the best predictor of genetic load (errors in the DNA replication process). It is what makes humans so special compared to other animals, and why we came to dominate this earth.
Yes, this is why Asians live the longest, followed by Northern Europeans, then Southern European/Arabs, and blacks at the bottom. Caucasian Asians are a more complex story, i.e. India, but Brahmin caste people there live a long time.
How can anyone be dumb enough to believe this 1960s bullshit in this day and age?
When there is no public transit, the threshold is a few hundred dollars. One fender bender, one blown tire or busted alternator is all it takes for a poor person without public transit to fall off. Can't get to work, can't earn the money needed to fix the car. They would depend on the kindness and help from near and dear to get past that kind of emergency.
Most poor people would rather have a dependable transportation system to their work place and affordable child care than dole. Poverty rates can be halved just by providing/subsidizing transportation and child care.
Urban area unemployment rate is over 33% approaches even 50%. That means even in those blighted areas 50 to 66% of the people actually go to work. Somehow, despite all the hardships, despite seeing the drug dealers and pimps rolling in dough, people line up to work for minimum wage in a burger joint. Shows how much poverty could be alleviated if we make it possible for them to work.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Urban area unemployment rate is over 33% approaches even 50%.
Let me guess... you believe that 92 million Americans are still unemployed?
Nice rant for mod points, but that's where the niceties end.
Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
I have no clue what planet or country you live in, but here in the USofA we are not free. You can't own a house and land, you pay rent to the Government and a Bank. You can't own a business, in fact good luck with all the regulations and paperwork required even if you are doing 1 person contracting. Work in the city? Well, some rich person is going to make sure that the majority of your income goes to them in rent. Don't like it, don't live in the city and spend 4 hours a day commuting. And even if you "buy" a house in the sticks you are only rending the land from the Government. Have doubts, refuse to make your tax payments and call me so I can laugh at you. You sure as hell can't buy land in the city, because property value is intentionally over inflated to keep people like you and me out. You can't drive the car you bought until you pay the State annual fees to drive, and depending on where you live pay for the proper testing on your car, and pay for the right amount of insurance, and of course you can only drive as fast as the Government tells you you can drive.
You are not free to work, free to eat what you want, free to hunt, and you are no longer free to practice your religion.
I emphatically state that it IS a moral evil to have people like Gates and the Koch brothers with billions and billions of dollars, who use their money as bribery to influence the system to further enrich themselves. Meanwhile we have people that can't afford basic clothing and food, and mentally ill people on the streets with no support system what so ever.
We have no equality because people like you not only ignore the morality of certain people who abuse the system, but attempt to claim that does not happen or have influence if it does.
See Socrates the story of the Artisan. Nothing new here except the people who spout the same tired bullshit. .
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The message is - send the poor to NYC. They take better care of them.
Just don't take MY MONEY for it.
I donate to the charities that I prefer and NYC is not one of them.
Egads, is that what you think? The popularly quoted government statistic for unemployment rate only considers people who (claim they) are actively looking for a job.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It is really our belief that if something is not illegal it must be morally good, or that if it is illegal it must be morally bad? That is what you just said in a round about way twice.
*waiting*
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Would you care to demonstrate why that's incorrect? I think it includes retired people, but as far as I can tell it's factual. Don't post that fantasy drivel that's the "official" unemployment rate. It's propaganda at best. Chocolate rations are up to 20 grams, sure. The economy blows so hard right now that social security disability seems to be becoming the unofficial universal basic income. Woe to anybody who can't claim disability.
There is a very simple answer to a large skew in New York's favor.
"according to a study of more than a billion Social Security and tax records"
"That trend may appear surprising. New York is one of the country's most unequal and expensive cities, where the poor struggle to find affordable housing and the money and time to take care of themselves."
That wouldn't get most of the poor in NYC. The poor who fail in that struggle neither pay social security nor taxes.
There are some places like in California where being poor or even homeless is a life choice and the people aren't self-selecting for mental illness or other tragedies that force poverty or homelessness on them. This would raise the life expectancy of the whole group.
Would you care to demonstrate why that's incorrect? I think it includes retired people, but as far as I can tell it's factual.
The 92 million figure includes the elderly and students. The earliest mention of the 92 million figure was January 2014. So no changes in that figure for the last two years? Unemployment not getting better or worse?
It's propaganda at best.
So is the 92 million figure straight out of the right wing echo chamber. A false fact repeated a million times doesn't make it true.
Preempting my *waiting* because your last paragraph is grating. It simply states exactly what I said was the problem. In your general view, unequal is good. You said it twice, so you must believe it to be true. It is completely unfair, so is unfair also good? Should we codify this unfairness so that certain people always have everything they want and never need to work, and other people perpetually work for no gain?
The summary of Socrates's story of the Artisan is this: When the artisan makes a masterpiece in the Republic should he be allowed to be showered in coins so that he should never want or need again? Socrates argues that the Republic needs to protect against this, because the person will become a detriment to the Republic. Not only does it ensure that they never need to be productive in their craft again, but it will provide the means for them to meddle in the affairs of everyone around them.
We see exactly the latter when we find out how much money certain political figures make for attending a dinner and giving a short speech. Sorry, but there is nothing a politician can say in an hour worth $250,000,000.00 US. If they were giving out cures for cancers in that hour, sure. There is nothing legal that people can get by paying these extraordinary "speaking fees". This is exactly what Socrates discussed in action, and the fact that it is not strictly illegal does not make it morally good. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The fact that you ignore the dialogue and go right to "unequal is good" demonstrates that you are immorally defunct yourself. It could be caused by ignorance and be curable, but could also be the behavior of a sociopath.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Once again proving income inequality is a purely political problem. It shouldn't come as a big surprise you'd much rather be poor in NYC, with its relatively robust safety net paid by wealthy people, than in some rural Appalachian town where everybody around you was also poor.
Every urban area in the US already has public transportation. That is not an issue.
So trickle down DOES work!
Yes, "worst fuel economy" strongly implies something beyond "lowest mileage".
True. "Worst" is a charged word with an implicit normative value judgment.
"lowest" is a word of measurement that denotes being at one end of a measurement. There is not necessarily normative judgment implicit in it, although people may hear a normative judgment in it depending on what it is measuring.
If I note you are the child with the worst height, I am being cruel; if I note you are the child who is shortest, I am being factual.
bwhahahahahahaha.
bless your heart.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's generally more interesting talking about how many are currently looking for jobs.
A recent study published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." also revealed that the death rate of middle-aged, non-Hispanic white people is increasing while all other groups continue to see a decline in mortality rates.
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
Rural white people don't need to be lectured by elitist liberal academics and BLM activists about how "privileged" they are.
I'm poor and I live in a poor zip code. I'm gonna die!
(||) Nehmo (||)
retired people and children are not unemployed.
you're only unemployed if you want to work, eligible to work, and not working.
children are too young to work.
the retired are done working.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.