Utopia Talk / Politics / U.S. life expectancy decreases

Paramount Member	Mon Oct 01 15:54:24 Shocker stat of the day: life expectancy decreases by 4 years among poor white people in the U.S. September 22, 2012 7:24 AM By Kathleen Geier Yesterday, the New York Times reported on an alarming new study: researchers have documented that the least educated white Americans are experiencing sharp declines in life expectancy. Between 1990 and 2008, white women without a high school diploma lost a full five years of their lives, while their male counterparts lost three years. Experts say that declines in life expectancy in developed countries are exceedingly rare, and that in the U.S., decreases on this scale “have not been seen in the U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918.” Even during the Great Depression, which wrought economic devastation and severe psychic trauma for millions of Americans, average life expectancy was on the increase. What are the reasons for the disturbing drop in life expectancy among poor white folks, and in particular for the unusually large magnitude of the decline? According to the Times, researchers are baffled: one expert said, “There’s this enormous issue of why … It’s very puzzling and we don’t have a great explanation.” Undoubtedly, the increasing numbers of low-income Americans without health insurance is a major contributor factor. Researchers also say that lifestyle factors such as smoking, which has increased among low-income white women, play a role; poor folks tend to engage in more risky health behaviors than their more affluent counterparts. I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep declines in life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is also a period during which economic inequality soared. Moreover, there is a compelling body of research that suggests that inequality itself — quite apart from low incomes, or lack of health insurance — is associated with more negative health outcomes for those at the bottom of the heap. One of the most famous series of studies of the social determinants of health, Britain’s Whitehall Studies, had as their subjects British civil servants, all of whom health insurance and (presumably) decent enough jobs. Intriguingly, these studies found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the lowest grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate three times higher than that of men in the highest grade (administrators). The Whitehall studies found that while workers in the lower grades were more likely to be at risk for coronary heart disease due to factors such as higher rates of smoking, higher blood pressure, etc., even after controlling for those confounding factors, these workers still experienced significantly higher mortality rates. So what was behind such disparate health incomes among high-status and low-status workers? Researchers pointed the finger at inequality, hypothesizing that various psychosocial factors associated with inequality — such as the higher levels of stress at work and at home experienced by the lower tier workers, as well as their lower levels of self-esteem — were behind the dramatic differences in mortality rates. I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as well. I’m surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not specifically identify inequality as a causal factor, because the health risks associated with economic inequality are well-established in the scientific literature. For decades, the United States has been making a series of political choices that has distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans not only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over their lives. The consequences of these choices have been devastating, and absent a dramatic reversal in our political course, they are likely to get even worse. Where inequality is concerned, Republicans have their foot on the accelerator, while the best the Democrats seem to be able to do is to (temporarily) put their foot on the brake. We are on a trajectory all right, and it’s not a good one. http://www...t_of_the_day_life_e040058.php#
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 01 16:06:12 There's no reason to live past 72 anyway.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 01 16:09:33 Kathleen Geier @Kathy__Gee Chicagoan, unreconstructed lefty, snarky feminist, classic movie aficionada, born-again punk rocker, and gay (in the old timey sense) divorcée https://twitter.com/Kathy__Gee Is it wrong to have developed a hatred of someone within fifteen seconds of learning of their existence?
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Oct 01 16:11:57 >>Is it wrong to have developed a hatred of someone within fifteen seconds of learning of their existence? << Generally, yes. After seeing that description, no.
Pissflaps McGee Member	Mon Oct 01 16:17:01 ^this
The Children Member	Mon Oct 01 16:17:55 camaban just found out that his life is now 4 years shorter.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 01 16:20:17 "Shocker stat of the day: life expectancy decreases by 4 years among poor white people in the U.S. " Something to remember when talking about how SS age must be raised because people live longer nowadays. Wealthy people live longer, people who actually depend on SS don't.
Renzo Marquez Member	Mon Oct 01 16:21:57 Crystal meth beez rayciss and classist.
Pissflaps McGee Member	Mon Oct 01 16:22:23 Yeah, motherfuckers!!!
pillz Member	Mon Oct 01 16:26:34 Meth & Oxy are ruining poor America? Excellent.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 01 16:47:57 Hate to say it, but meth was the very first thing that popped into my head for this one. I have a feeling when they talk about risky health behaviors there is a significant statistical corrilation there.
Im better then you Member	Mon Oct 01 16:49:27 life expectancy decreases by 4 years among poor white people in the U.S You know what's really fucked up is that these people will benefit the most from obamacare and are fighting it tooth and nail.
Dakyron Member	Mon Oct 01 17:44:29 Lets face it. If you are white, and poor, this means you had every advantage in the world and totally fucked it up. You are the bottom of the barrel. There is a strong correlation between failing at life and not living a healthy lifestyle. Recreational drugs, unprotected sex, unhealthy diet, alcohol abuse, suicide, etc, etc, etc... This shouldnt surprise anyone.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 01 18:01:54 "You know what's really fucked up is that these people will benefit the most from obamacare and are fighting it tooth and nail." In all fairness not everyone determines what they view as right or approprate based on what will directly benefit them sometimes they believe that they will be better benefited in the long run by avoiding the direct benefit. Just because something directly benefits them in one way may not outweight whatever they cost they believe will be paid in the process. There are a few approprate sayings on this subject: Nothing in life is free If it looks too good to be true it probably is Watch out for what you ask for you just might get it
jergul Member	Tue Oct 02 00:32:21 Its just an end of empire thing: "life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years"
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Oct 02 00:37:57 Yep. You don't get to just live longer unless you put in the obligatory effort.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 14:45:03 >>Its just an end of empire thing: "life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years" << Overall US life expectancy is increasing and has been steadily increasing since the 60's up until 2010 at least. What's decreasing is the lifespan of people without a high school diploma, which now encompasses the bottom 13% of people rather than the bottom 20% or so it used to.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 02 15:17:44 Cam You facts are off. (16% in 1983 and US life expectancy leap forward in the 50s and 60s, with a much more lethargic change after that). Its an end of empire thing. Just watch it play out.
mexicantornado Member	Tue Oct 02 15:20:51 It isn't an end of an empire thing. Our medical abilities aren't going to get worse in the next 10 years.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:21:03 No they're not.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Oct 02 15:23:33 Medical abilities are hardly the most important factor in long lives.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:25:03 They're an important factor, but from what we're seeing here, education is the most important factor. At least for differences within one country.
mexicantornado Member	Tue Oct 02 15:25:25 I took the implication by jergul that it is "the end of an empire" to imply that high death rates will come from structural issues within the empire. Not shitty life choices by the po folk.
Ork Member	Tue Oct 02 15:25:47 One thing that wasn't directly brought up in the article is the obesity crisis. Today you can be poor and still eat all sorts of processed cheap shit until you explode, at taxpayer expense.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:26:46 Jergul's entire argument is based on an incorrect use of data relevant to the bottom 13% of the population. So therefore his entire argument is wrong.
Dakyron Member	Tue Oct 02 15:28:13 Jergul pretty much just trolls now, and has been doing so for awhile.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:28:17 >>Today you can be poor and still eat all sorts of processed cheap shit until you explode, at taxpayer expense. << That and things like smoking are far more common among less educated people than they are among university educated people.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:29:19 >>Jergul pretty much just trolls now, and has been doing so for awhile. << Pretty much.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 02 15:29:23 Cam You have issues with causation I think. You seriously believe that all other things being equal, the lack of a high school degree alone will knock years off a person's life?
Ork Member	Tue Oct 02 15:31:53 Poor people have always smoked more then educated people. Smoking rates have also declined in the past several decades among virtually all levels of society. The one thing that has gotten much worse, however, is the obesity rate.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Oct 02 15:33:58 Poor people are obese more so than educated people.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:34:22 >>Cam You have issues with causation I think. You seriously believe that all other things being equal, the lack of a high school degree alone will knock years off a person's life? << All other things aren't equal. The lack of high school diploma is merely the beginning.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:35:06 And you know this, why is why you put "all other things being equal" and "alone" in your question.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 02 15:36:53 So decreasing life expectancy correlates to a lack of a high school degree, but is not cause by it. Is that what you are trying to convey Cam?
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 15:40:39 I'm saying that lower levels of education correlate with poor choices, including higher incidents of self-destructive behaviour such as smoking and poor dietary choices.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 02 17:47:24 It seemed so clear earlier that you thought lower education caused pre-mature death. I am glad we could fix this. Causation not equalling correlation and whatnot. Now if you wanted causation, you would google "poverty".
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 02 18:11:23 RE: the Soviet statistics. They are Soviet statistics, hence either educated guesses (if externally arrived at) or outright fiction (if government numbers). Accuracy can only be approximate at best.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 02 18:15:42 >>It seemed so clear earlier that you thought lower education caused pre-mature death. I am glad we could fix this. Causation not equalling correlation and whatnot. Now if you wanted causation, you would google "poverty". << You have a habit of perceiving things incorrectly. We're used to it.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 02 18:33:51 starve the poor!
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 00:55:46 Cam No need to be defensive. I doubt causation-correlation issues were part of your studies. My, this forum does have its virtues. In a "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" kind of way. If you understand the Pygmalion reference. Ruggy So the USSR overstated its life expectancy and the decrease simply represents improved statistical methods you reckon?
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 01:02:29 >>Cam No need to be defensive. I doubt causation-correlation issues were part of your studies.<< They were. Which is why I (and the article) went to low education, rather than simply poverty, which is commonly caused by low education as the root factor. That you seem to think that distinctly picking poverty out is a stroke of genius is a bit sad.
Cloud Strife Member	Wed Oct 03 01:06:06 If education is a prevention of poverty I'm going to attempt some radical lifestyle changes... Perhaps I will try to bed four women at once.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 02:01:29 Cam Its hardly a stroke of genius to know that poverty is the root cause of all kinds of ills. Though interesting that you would think I thought that. I notice you are slipping back into thinking the correlation between decreasing life expectancy and low education is causation. So I guess you must have missed the class when your teacher explained such things. Also, poverty gives a poor education. The main cause of poverty is becoming a single income household with dependants. In regards to poor lifestyle choices. CS Uhm, converse causation is of course also not true. But your plan has the merit of being entertaining, so go for it.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 02:44:07 >>Cam Its hardly a stroke of genius to know that poverty is the root cause of all kinds of ills. Though interesting that you would think I thought that. << You seemed overly proud of your realisation of this. >> I notice you are slipping back into thinking the correlation between decreasing life expectancy and low education is causation. So I guess you must have missed the class when your teacher explained such things. << You should probably re-read what has been said. Next time try not to let your imagination put what you'd like there, but try to read what is actually there. I'll give you a hint: You're close, but you haven't quite grasped it. >> Also, poverty gives a poor education. The main cause of poverty is becoming a single income household with dependants. In regards to poor lifestyle choices. << And the main people who are likely to fall into that situation are the poorly educated.
sstrickland New Member	Wed Oct 03 03:10:40 It's Bushes fault.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 03:19:01 Cam Ah, you are mistaking condescension for pride. Easily done with basic functional literacy. I don't really need to review given my superb memory. It seems very clear you are slipping back into thinking a high school degree cures death. How very ROB of you. No, the main of people likely to fall into that category are the children of single income households with dependants. Given that the average number of dependants is greater than 1 and the average number of single income earners is by definition 1.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 10:19:51 You should probably re-read what has been said. Next time try not to let your imagination put what you'd like there, but try to read what is actually there. I'll give you a hint: You're close, but you haven't quite grasped it.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 11:00:08 I will just be repeating that until you understand. Mainly because you seem to have problems processing information when it's handed to you once, so hopefully repetition will help it sink in.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 13:17:43 No need to be ashamed of the limits to your education Cam. It seems very functional for what its worth and earned you an exit from Australia - which obviously is worth something. With wife in tow to boot. Lucky her.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 14:45:52 I will just be repeating that until you understand. Mainly because you seem to have problems processing information when it's handed to you once, so hopefully repetition will help it sink in. Sorry you're a bit slow, it must be hard.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 14:48:05 Anyhow, your trolling is boring me now, so you're dismissed. I understand why you do it. You must find it fun to pretend to be intelligent every now and then. Unfortunately it doesn't fool anyone.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 15:19:16 Yes yes, We get that you miss the "dismiss" button that caused you so much pain when you used it in your moderating days. Alas, you will have to do it old-school now the gnashing of teeth while you wait for a thread to drop off the board. We all get it. You mixed up causation and correlation initially, were corrected in a overbearing manner, yet manage to fall down that same slippery slope again in a later post. Which I corrected in a condescending manner. Oh the pain you could feel. A lesser man than you would cut himself.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 15:20:35 *scratches* *yawns*
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 15:32:39 hehe, I was going to run with the dog analogy in regards to your returning to your own vomit (I was curious how many times you would repeatedly post words to effect of "I will say no more")...the "scratch" and "yawn" of a nervous mutt knowing he has done wrong would have fit right into that mental imagery. Perhaps add a "yip", "woof" and "wags tail partly between legs" in you next post before "gnaws haunch"?
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 15:33:58 Sorry dude, I just don't care enough for a flame war. You're not entertaining enough for that.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 15:42:19 Too late I'm afraid. Way too late. You just suck at it as a review of your rather impotent reposts show.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 15:48:45 riposte*
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 16:04:34 Feel free to believe that if you want to. You have an admirable ability to believe whatever you like. Unfortunately I'm too grounded in reality.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 16:23:07 Yes, thank you for illustrating what I meant about weak-ass riposte. Try not to bring a plastic teaspoon to a gunfight next time Cam. Read some 19th century novels or something and get a clue, though the true masters were the letter writers of the age of reason. Nasty bastards, but for a good cause.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 16:26:03 Feel free to continue whenever you feel confident to debate facts rather than provoke a flame war.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 16:35:17 A bit late for that Cam. Its been a flame war since your first post, though I happily multi task of course. Given among other things your poor grasp of correlation-causation. How could I avoid pointing that out repeatedly?
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 16:45:19 >>A bit late for that Cam. Its been a flame war since your first post<< "Generally, yes. After seeing that description, no. " Is a flame war? >>Given among other things your poor grasp of correlation-causation. How could I avoid pointing that out repeatedly?<< China Gini.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 23:30:13 Cam Again, context is king and you are a knave. The context in this case was someone asking if it was wrong to hate, to which you responded as above. Don't play with fire if you hate getting burned. Yes, you got around to reading the source I provided showing regional improvements far faster than in Shanghai. Good for you!
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 23:49:49 >>Cam Again, context is king and you are a knave. The context in this case was someone asking if it was wrong to hate, to which you responded as above. << If I asked how it was a flame war, I don't expect an answer. You seem incapable of giving those. >>Yes, you got around to reading the source I provided showing regional improvements far faster than in Shanghai. Good for you! << You seem to have forgotten what your claims were and what they related to. Find the thread, re-read, imagine something else, then come back and let us know about your latest fantasy.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 03 23:54:12 While your inability to actually argue your beliefs using facts and sources is boring, I'll admit the fantasies you come up with are fascinating at times.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 03 23:56:39 Its also topical US 2011 gini = 0,463 China 2012 gini = 0,438 For China a decrease from the high water mark of 0,48 in 2007. So the predicative bit as stated earlier is resolved as was the obvious outcome for those knowing anything at all about rural credit availability improvements and shifts in internal consumer demand. Note that a high gini is good. From a Sammy perspective. The coefficient runs from 0 (absolute equal division of all wealth and income) to 1 (a single person has all the wealth in a country). Levels above 0,4 can be the basis for unrest according to the UN. On topic of course because growing income inequality in a context where the poor are getting poorer in real terms does of course explain why they are dying faster.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 00:00:30 Given that China has refused to publish its gini rating for about 12 years, I'm fascinated to know where you got that number from. >>So the predicative bit as stated earlier is resolved as was the obvious outcome for those knowing anything at all about rural credit availability improvements and shifts in internal consumer demand. << You seem to have forgotten that the predictive bit was wrong when using your model and comparing it with known past results. >>On topic of course because growing income inequality in a context where the poor are getting poorer in real terms does of course explain why they are dying faster. << I know you think you've got a great memory and reading comprehension skills, but if that's what you're taking away from this, you should re-read the thread. Maybe take a night class for adults with poor literacy skills.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 00:00:44 Cam You mean my stating it is quite pointless to provide you with sources because you simply don't understand them and I am disinclined to be your online personal tutor? Like I said earlier. Read some 19th century novels or something and begin to get a clue. Driving trucks through the holes in your education is amusing at times, but do embark on a program of self-improvement please. Overspecialised low level technocrats do not make good dinner guests.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 00:03:45 >>Cam You mean my stating it is quite pointless to provide you with sources because you simply don't understand them and I am disinclined to be your online personal tutor? Like I said earlier. Read some 19th century novels or something and begin to get a clue. Driving trucks through the holes in your education is amusing at times, but do embark on a program of self-improvement please. Overspecialised low level technocrats do not make good dinner guests. << You say this. I see someone who was owned because of his poor comprehension retreating with his tail between his legs.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 00:04:30 I gave you the numbers. 0,48 in 2007 and 0,438 in 2010 (not 2012. Slip of the key). Exactly in line with what I claimed, and also as I said, we would need to wait until newer data was available for confirmation. Which we got with the 2010 Gini index. The predictive bit was not rocket science. Rural consumer demand increased dramatically as the result of policy change. A decrease in Gini could not possibly be avoided.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 00:06:03 Oh Gawd, find your own metaphor. I called you a cowardly dog a while back. Surely you have imagination enough to invent your own imagery without blatant plagarism. You truly suck at this Cam. Fix your education, or stick to talking with computers.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 00:08:08 >>I gave you the numbers. 0,48 in 2007 and 0,438 in 2010 (not 2012. Slip of the key). Exactly in line with what I claimed, and also as I said, we would need to wait until newer data was available for confirmation. Which we got with the 2010 Gini index.<< Given that China has refused to publish its gini rating for about 12 years, I'm fascinated to know where you got that number from. >>The predictive bit was not rocket science. Rural consumer demand increased dramatically as the result of policy change. A decrease in Gini could not possibly be avoided. << It wasn't rocket science. But using the criteria you gave, you got it wrong, as could be seen from the pre-2000 numbers which were the last that the Chinese government allowed to be released.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 00:09:55 >>Oh Gawd, find your own metaphor. I called you a cowardly dog a while back. Surely you have imagination enough to invent your own imagery without blatant plagarism. You truly suck at this Cam. Fix your education, or stick to talking with computers. << Mine was accurate. I've never seen a scared dog yawn or scratch itself. Which means that this is another field you seem to know nothing about.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 00:24:13 Cam Then you know very little about dogs beyond what puppies fed on milk soaked rice may have taught you between a pair of chopsticks. You mentioned earlier that you think I troll. That is not an entirely correct observation. For example the end of empire bit. Well, things in the US are good now. It has access to free government financing and borrows like there is no tomorrow (google z1 gov if you want the latest data). And all we see from that is increasing inequality and very lethargic growth. Now, the US is very good at monetizing debt and handing the proceeds to the ultra rich in one way or another, but that is simply not viable over the long term. What do you think is going to happen when government borrowing costs eventually normalize? The same is true of Gini. Even a semi informed person knows Gini has to be decreasing in China. So that is not what you attack if you are critical. You attack the mechanism (consumer credit) as simply a new way the Chinese regime is failing miserably at self-perpetuation. Or whatever. Messy minds. Daky worries about massive 35% of gdp debt in Venezuela and cannot equate that worry to truly devastating outlooks at home. Nor can you discuss Gini in a meaningful way because you simply don't know enough to move beyond "no, it cannot be true, because it messes with my preconceptions". So I cordially invite to meaningful discussion, and am generally heartedly disappointed in how little you know and how incapable you are of discussing anything in a meaningful manner. Then I trawl.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 01:03:08 >>Cam Then you know very little about dogs beyond what puppies fed on milk soaked rice may have taught you between a pair of chopsticks. << Link? >>You mentioned earlier that you think I troll. That is not an entirely correct observation. << Evidence? >>For example the end of empire bit. Well, things in the US are good now. It has access to free government financing and borrows like there is no tomorrow (google z1 gov if you want the latest data). And all we see from that is increasing inequality and very lethargic growth. Now, the US is very good at monetizing debt and handing the proceeds to the ultra rich in one way or another, but that is simply not viable over the long term. << Your argument was that declining lifespans were an end of empire thing. Lifespans in the US aren't declining. >>What do you think is going to happen when government borrowing costs eventually normalize? << Wonder what relevance it has to your claims re: lifespans. >>The same is true of Gini. Even a semi informed person knows Gini has to be decreasing in China. So that is not what you attack if you are critical. You attack the mechanism (consumer credit) as simply a new way the Chinese regime is failing miserably at self-perpetuation. Or whatever. << Link to decreasing Gini? >>Messy minds. Daky worries about massive 35% of gdp debt in Venezuela and cannot equate that worry to truly devastating outlooks at home. Nor can you discuss Gini in a meaningful way because you simply don't know enough to move beyond "no, it cannot be true, because it messes with my preconceptions". << Just your crap sources and data. >>So I cordially invite to meaningful discussion, and am generally heartedly disappointed in how little you know and how incapable you are of discussing anything in a meaningful manner. << I'm interested in sourced facts. You provide unsourced fantasies and excuses.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 01:24:45 Cam You really are a slow learner. I am not giving you links. Though I did provide the information you need to figure it out for yourself. Sure a low level technocrat such as yourself masters the use of google? My argument was that declining lifespans in segments of the population was an end of empire thing. And as I pointed out, things are currently good in the US. Expect the segments hit by decline to expand when credit normalizes and government resources are channelled towards interest payment. You claim to be interested in sourced facts. I have just never seen that interest materialize as you inevitably dispute sources if they diverge from your preconceptions. This is quite independent of who posts sources you ask for. The only tool in your rhetorical toolbox it seems. So do your own googling and perhaps petition your employer for access to academic databases if you ever decide a journeyman's degree simply does not provide you with enough ballast to partake in society as a fully fledged landed immigrant.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 02:43:50 >> You really are a slow learner. I am not giving you links. Though I did provide the information you need to figure it out for yourself. Sure a low level technocrat such as yourself masters the use of google? << It's quite simple: Anything you say is a lie until you've sourced it. >> My argument was that declining lifespans in segments of the population was an end of empire thing. And as I pointed out, things are currently good in the US. Expect the segments hit by decline to expand when credit normalizes and government resources are channelled towards interest payment. << Which would have been relevant to this thread if lifespans were declining. >> You claim to be interested in sourced facts. I have just never seen that interest materialize as you inevitably dispute sources if they diverge from your preconceptions. This is quite independent of who posts sources you ask for. The only tool in your rhetorical toolbox it seems. << I will dispute crap sources, yes. >> So do your own googling and perhaps petition your employer for access to academic databases if you ever decide a journeyman's degree simply does not provide you with enough ballast to partake in society as a fully fledged landed immigrant. << Why you expect me to support your own arguments for you is quite beyond me. Particularly as you simply have a habit of making things up and lying rather than actually providing facts.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 03:46:49 Maybe you could also point out where you mentioned segments of society. That post was the first post you mentioned segments. For the rest it was a blanket statement, as you acknowledged by not disputing it when I said "Overall US life expectancy is increasing and has been steadily increasing since the 60's up until 2010 at least." Sorry dude, you lie too frequently and too easily. You're at the point where you're incapable of making an argument that doesn't consist of a constant stream of lies.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 08:46:22 Cam I doubt you could find a single example of me lying. Knock yourself out with that search function you are so amazingly fond of. Any educated man know lying is quite unnecessary even if he wants to avoid the truth. 4-year olds tend to think more in the dogmatic way you are demonstrating "he lied mommy. he told a lie". The adult world does not work like that son.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 10:28:48 >> I doubt you could find a single example of me lying. Knock yourself out with that search function you are so amazingly fond of. << Don't need the search function: It was your second claim in this thread. I said: " What's decreasing is the lifespan of people without a high school diploma, which now encompasses the bottom 13% of people rather than the bottom 20% or so it used to. " You corrected that roughly 20% figure with: "You facts are off. (16% in 1983" As you can see there, the percept of people withough a high school diploma was getting close to 40% in 1980 and was still greater than 20% in 1990. http://www...nsusatlas/pdf/10_Education.pdf You're either incompetent or lying. Either way, you need sources. And that was easy. >> Any educated man know lying is quite unnecessary even if he wants to avoid the truth. 4-year olds tend to think more in the dogmatic way you are demonstrating "he lied mommy. he told a lie". The adult world does not work like that son. << And yet, you feel the need to. Which is why I feel the need to ask for sources. If I trusted your word, I wouldn't :-)
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 11:06:25 First off, that would make you a liar or incompetent if true as you stated 20% lacked high school degrees. "Since 1983 the percentage of people graduating from high school has increased from 85% to 88%" http://en....ttainment_in_the_United_States Or exactly what I claimed. Wiki is an acceptable due diligence in this type of fora, making me neither a liar nor incompetent. Fail. Try again.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 11:44:08 >> First off, that would make you a liar or incompetent if true as you stated 20% lacked high school degrees. "Since 1983 the percentage of people graduating from high school has increased from 85% to 88%" http://en....ttainment_in_the_United_States Or exactly what I claimed. Wiki is an acceptable due diligence in this type of fora, making me neither a liar nor incompetent. Fail. Try again. << Literacy fail: " "Since 1983 the percentage of people graduating from high school has increased from 85% to 88%" " That's graduatING not graduatED. As in that percentage per year are graduatING. Which is why the 25-29 range flatlines but the overall continues to increase. Graph reading fail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_attainment.jpg As you only saw "High school graduate 25 to 29 years" but ignored "25 years and over" which was exactly in line with what I said. But I'm willing to give you incompetence on this one, as well as thank you for a brilliant demonstration of whh your sources should be open for scrutiny :-) - You seem to have problems understanding your own sources.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 12:06:45 Cam Context is king. You cited the 88% in your post, I checked up and noted that the increase was from 85% a number of years earlier. So the fault then would be your own as I was just using the same data basis you were. Note that the fraction of graduates of a cohort is the important data in any event. The alternate basis of overall number of non graduates simply reflects non graduates dying faster than graduates do. Which would lead to a circular line of argument (look, non graduates die earlier. This is not important because they die earlier). So the issue here is with the source you quoted initially that I responded to with comparative data. If you misunderstood your source, then fair enough. You are no wordsmith, that is for sure. That you use different terms freely disconnected from any standard meaning is quite understandable. I refer you to your issues with correlation-causation for illustrative detail.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 12:15:53 >>Cam Context is king. You cited the 88% in your post, I checked up and noted that the increase was from 85% a number of years earlier. So the fault then would be your own as I was just using the same data basis you were. << Context is king. And in the context given, you had a literacy fail, as detailed in my last post. >> Note that the fraction of graduates of a cohort is the important data in any event. The alternate basis of overall number of non graduates simply reflects non graduates dying faster than graduates do. Which would lead to a circular line of argument (look, non graduates die earlier. This is not important because they die earlier). << Non-graduates die faster to a host of reasons, and you were unable to comprehend what the source you quoted meant. >> So the issue here is with the source you quoted initially that I responded to with comparative data. << And you completely misunderstood your own data. >> You are no wordsmith, that is for sure. That you use different terms freely disconnected from any standard meaning is quite understandable. << No, which is why I stick to honest facts. I don't need to twist facts and words because I'm right. >> I refer you to your issues with correlation-causation for illustrative detail. << My issues with correlation-causation revolve around me being correct. However, I can the real reason you won't post your sources. You have massive comprehension problems. If I had your problems I'd avoid posting sources as well.
Billah Member	Thu Oct 04 12:33:09 This thread scares Hot Rod. I can tell. All these people would live longer if they had healthcare.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 13:43:11 Cam You don't understand the facts you present. Hence the issue with your thinking my supplying a statistic from the same set you used is somehow misunderstanding the data. The reason for the trouble rests in your weak understanding. It allows you to drift from one area to another. The 88% you cited remains from one set, the 85% is from the same comparative base. Comparing apples to apples. That you later decided that the apples are now bananas is well your problem. You cannot absorb sources made available to you remains the simple explanation. Occams razor y'know.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 14:50:22 >>Cam You don't understand the facts you present. Hence the issue with your thinking my supplying a statistic from the same set you used is somehow misunderstanding the data. << I do. The problem is you don't understand the difference between past and present tense. >>The reason for the trouble rests in your weak understanding. It allows you to drift from one area to another. The 88% you cited remains from one set, the 85% is from the same comparative base. Comparing apples to apples. << Incorrect again, from your own source. Have a look at the graph on the wiki page. >>That you later decided that the apples are now bananas is well your problem. << In your mind, apples turn into bananas, but they're still apples. >>You cannot absorb sources made available to you remains the simple explanation. Occams razor y'know. << The simplest answer is that English is your second language, and you can't read graphs.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 15:07:47 A simple answer seldom includes the word "and". We will leave the comment on relative linguistic fluency fall on its own unreasonableness. Though I thought this the best in thread so far: Jergul: "Then you know very little about dogs beyond what puppies fed on milk soaked rice may have taught you between a pair of chopsticks." Match that you jack of few languages and master of none.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 15:12:16 >>A simple answer seldom includes the word "and". << Either of those work on their own. Take your choice of which simple answer you prefer. >>We will leave the comment on relative linguistic fluency fall on its own unreasonableness. << You attempt to play with a language that's not your own, and fail. It's very good, but second language is second language. >>Match that you jack of few languages and master of none. << Why? You fail where it counts. I don't :-)
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 15:28:03 Its ok, I doubt very many native speakers would be able to match the elequence of that insult, so don't waste your energy trying. Now that I think about it, you do have first language issues yourself if memory serves. Something about an inability to speak English like a native and with a vestial chinese twang. Nothing too dominant, but rather like your home environment had people who spoke English as a second language to influence you. I think the lurkers can judge the relative merits of our claims by now Cam.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 15:29:45 >>Its ok, I doubt very many native speakers would be able to match the elequence of that insult, so don't waste your energy trying. << I couldn't be bothered trying. You've become proud of something pointless while failing the basics. >>Now that I think about it, you do have first language issues yourself if memory serves. Something about an inability to speak English like a native and with a vestial chinese twang. Nothing too dominant, but rather like your home environment had people who spoke English as a second language to influence you. << This has come up before... Where do you think I'm from and what do you think my ethnicity is? >>I think the lurkers can judge the relative merits of our claims by now Cam. << Probably. It's not difficult to see you can't read a graph or differentiate between past and present tense.
jergul Member	Thu Oct 04 16:05:34 How kind of you to provide your perception yet again. I am sure the lurkers will be thrilled. I think you are from a place and ethnic background where men are men, sheep are frightened, and puppies are dinner. Yes, it has come up before. You mentioned it a while ago. And yes, we know you find the finer things pointless. Your loss.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 17:27:41 You seem to have completely run away from your attempts to claim that your reading of your own source weren't incorrect. Congratulations. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 04 17:28:03 Not much smarter, and I didn't give you much credit, but still...
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 00:34:57 Cam The data I used belonged to the same set you used. Apples and Apples. Its not hard to understand. The change in high school graduation rates change from 85 to 88 percent like I said, not from 80 to 88 [87] percent as you claimed. Speaking of running away, have you given up on your attempts to find me lying at some point. That I can understand. I doubt you would succeed.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 01:49:49 >>Cam The data I used belonged to the same set you used. Apples and Apples. Its not hard to understand. The change in high school graduation rates change from 85 to 88 percent like I said, not from 80 to 88 [87] percent as you claimed. << "What's decreasing is the lifespan of people without a high school diploma, which now encompasses the bottom 13% of people rather than the bottom 20% or so it used to. " I wasn't talking about graduation rates, I was talking about the percent of people without one. >>Speaking of running away, have you given up on your attempts to find me lying at some point. That I can understand. I doubt you would succeed. << See the last item I quoted for another example. You're making things up to make your argument. This is nothing new.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 02:08:54 Cam No Cam. I am explaining to you what happened. You cited a number, I found data from the same time line series. That you mistakenly thought the 88 [87] percent was the fraction of graduates in the population and not the fraction of graduates in a cadre is your mistake. Discussing increasing numbers of graduates is in any event a circular argument. We know that non-graduates increasingly die faster than graduates do. So of course the number of non-graduates in a population is decreasing. In sum, you were arguing (using the wrong data) that non-graduates die faster, but that is not relevant because non-graduates die faster. You do understand what a circular argument is, right? Well google it. You are wrong (note that a 4 year old would claim you are lying). The 13% cited is for non-graduating from a cadre, and the 20% you cited is a number you pulled out of your ass. The correct number there for 1983 is 15%. Its bad form to use apples as data when you are talking about bananas. For future reference.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 02:27:41 >> Cam No Cam. I am explaining to you what happened. You cited a number, I found data from the same time line series. << You found a similar number and decided I'd said something I hadn't. >> That you mistakenly thought the 88 [87] percent was the fraction of graduates in the population and not the fraction of graduates in a cadre is your mistake. << No, I correctly thought that the 87% was the proportion of graduates in the population. I've quoted my source. That you keep repeating this lie is a problem you have. >> Discussing increasing numbers of graduates is in any event a circular argument. We know that non-graduates increasingly die faster than graduates do. So of course the number of non-graduates in a population is decreasing. << Your own data shows that that isn't the only reason. >> In sum, you were arguing (using the wrong data) that non-graduates die faster, but that is not relevant because non-graduates die faster. << Which was also not my actual argument. Another lie. What I said was was: "What's decreasing is the lifespan of people without a high school diploma, which now encompasses the bottom 13% of people rather than the bottom 20% or so it used to. " Something you've been corrected on multiple times, and shouldn't have needed to be corrected on because it was there in plain text. Another lie. >> You are wrong (note that a 4 year old would claim you are lying). The 13% cited is for non-graduating from a cadre, and the 20% you cited is a number you pulled out of your ass. The correct number there for 1983 is 15%. << I was only talking about the general population. Your own sources prove me right. That you continue to claim otherwise is another lie. The correct percentage of PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL for 1983 is closer to 40% Now to wait for you to ignore this and continue to lie :-)
McKobb Member	Fri Oct 05 02:47:53 The US is also loosing it's religion. Those that attend regularly have the same effect on lifespan as those that do aerobic exercise or those that quit smoking. http://lon...tyboosters/a/religion_life.htm These are correlational studies, but the association bears fruit. Those that attend weekly live longer.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 02:57:27 Bye Billah. Cam Yes, I tend to compare apples with apples and correctly assumed we were using the same source (wiki). This is generally the approach approved of in academic circles. Now, I see that I was incorrect in doing so in this case as you correctly pointed out it was a comparable number. However, I employed an adequate degree of due diligence, my only mistake was to assume you were using relevant data and not one that is simply circular (non graduates are increasing dying younger, but that is not relevant because non graduates are simply dying younger). In sum, it represents good, honest academic standards given the nature of the fora we are in. Here is the base source btw: http://www...tion/data/cps/2011/tables.html Closer examination of the overall population shows that the percentage of non-graduates in 25-34 is higher (11%) than the percentage of graduates aged 35-54 (10,8%). 55+ has a non-graduation rate of 15% for reference. This seems to indicate that the number of graduates in a cadre has remained stable over the last number of decades. Improvements then in graduation ratios main explained by non-graduates dying off in the 55+ age range. Note that graduation rates are given for non-institutionalized populations, so any increase in prison populations where non-graduates are overrepresented would wrongly imply that graduation rates have improved. For example. The 40% you cited is far away from the 20% you claimed. Which makes you wrong. A 4 year old might call that lying of course.
	show deleted posts