YOWZAH! Those are horrendous numbers indeed, Turkana. The only, slight caveat I would add, to be fair, is that the US is a vast, sprawling country. Some communities are more dispersed than would even be possible in most of the other, developed countries. Plus, we have the largest proportion of immigrants, I believe, which certainly affects the literacy rates and language barriers.
Those slight defenses aside, it seems clear to me that the main culprit is the society of greed which we have become. Led by the New American Business Model, I've got mine and I'm comin' to get yours!, those with the most "political speech" aka money, have severely warped what American citizens see as "normal" and acceptable. Screwing your neighbor, rather than helping him/her has become the norm. Why on Gore's Green Earth should "insurance" companies be entitled to make massive profits on and control access to, our health care? We literally live or die according to someone's idea of profitability.
Can you say single payer? I knew you could.
Posted by DeminNewJ at July 17, 2008 12:06 PMSingle payer? where's the profit in that for korporations?
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 17, 2008 12:11 PM"How horrendous has the Bush Administration been?"
In June workers' average weekly earnings (adjusted for inflation) fell 0.9%.
So how's the Bush/McCain economy working for you?
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 17, 2008 12:25 PMThe only, slight caveat I would add, to be fair, is that the US is a vast, sprawling country. Some communities are more dispersed than would even be possible in most of the other, developed countries. Plus, we have the largest proportion of immigrants, I believe, which certainly affects the literacy rates and language barriers.
No, Canada beats the US on both counts -- lower population density over large areas AND higher immigrant rate. Ever spent time in Toronto? Descendants from the mother country are a small minority there -- Canada does lots of immigration, because a lot of their immigrants get that Canadian passport and move on.
So, so much for that theory.
No, the problem is directly coorelated to the massive diversity of wealth in the US versus any other first world country. In the 1950s the U.S. had a top marginal tax rate of 90%. No, that is not a typo -- NINETY PERCENT. The 1950s was also the decade of our greatest GNP growth -- easily disproving right wing theories about taxes on the wealthy being bad for the economy.
Some funny things happen when the top tax rate is that high. The old supply-sider, Laffer, argued that the top earners forgo the opportunity to work harder because they get so little reward for the extra dollar, and to some degree that may be true. But the other thing which happens is that the top earners aren't so fixated on finding ways to screw the system, because, again, their earnings are limited. Salaries of CEOs, movie stars, professional athletes, etc. are within reason. And, on the other end of the spectrum, the lowest income earners get better treatment. Insurance companies don't try to squeeze every dollar out of every claim in order to meet the CEO's profit goals. Manufacturers don't (as much) slash pensions or cut worker's holiday bonuses, because the CEO and board won't personally profit if they do. That isn't to say corruption disappears -- but corruption is a lot lower in a society like the U.S. in the 1950s with a high marginal tax rate.
You can track this statistically. The decline in the U.S. in health care started when Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% (Kennedy, that rich man's son, dropped it from 90 to 70%) to 50% in 1991, then accelerated after that as the top rate fell and more loopholes for the rich were created.
Posted by Anonny at July 17, 2008 01:00 PMAnony,
I stand humbly corrected. I wasn't thinking about immigration in Canada being greater than the US. In my defense, however, I would point out the the population is roughly, 10 times greater in the US than Canada.
That might be significant. However, I agree completely that the income disparity in the US, over the past 50 years, is unique in the developed world. It's part of the society of greed to which I was referring. The oligarchs seemed to be personally offended by high tax rates and took "appropriate" action.
Posted by DeminNewJ at July 17, 2008 02:32 PMBushAmerica is a nation where most citizens hate one another. So of course we aren't concerned about overall "human development" of Americans as a whole.
They hate each other because of their opposing politics and their different races, a racial pluralism which is only increasing. We relish our supposed differences.
One party, the "conservative" one, has spent the better part of 30 years convincing its team members that "other" races are unproductive spongers (or now illegal spongers) and encourged white "conservatives" to always and endlessly focus on racial "differences". This has succeeded to a wild extent, and thus you see the statistics before you.
I categorically assure you that no member of Pinhead Majority (those who voted for Bush in 2004) has the slightest concern about these sort of social and economic inequalities. Far from it---they celebrate them.
While other countries might be concerned (for example) that other Swedes or Danes or Japanese are not doing well, or that some citizens aren't getting a fair shake, in BushAmerica these sorts of social, economic and societal disparities are cheered on by "conservatives" who want to continue to have a "system" whereby certain races and classes (in which they themselves belong) do much, much better than other "Americans"---i.e. people and groups which these conservative Americans literally despise and do not actually consider "American".
And these "numbers" will only get worse, because for them to alter, the "conservative" movement would have to be politically smashed into oblivion.
So we don't like each other very much and our "system" encourages well-off citizens to see themselves as self-made successes and see others who aren't doing as well as miserable failures in a land of plenty who foolishly are the authors of their own failure. Thus conservative whites continue to profit from a rigged game and to feel smugly satisfied with themselves to boot. The worse the well-being "numbers" are across BushAmerica, the "better" they feel, not the worse. We are a crappy people, and worse now than ever.
Posted by euzoius at July 17, 2008 07:02 PMWhat is often forgotten in this discussion is that, across the board, we could work our way up the scale while saving money/resources against the society as a whole.
The inefficiencies of medical care go well beyond the direct $ cost. How many hours does an insured American spend each year 'unproductively' engaged with medical paperwork? Same with businesses. How much does the taxpayer pay for the "Open Season" as Federal workers spend time figuring out what insurance to buy?
What does it cost the society in terms of lost opportunities that people feel imprisoned to jobs due to health care? How much is innovation stifled?
How much does the society suffer through uninsured? Whether the quite real (and significant) travails that the uninsured do/can go through, but also through things like uninsured/underinsured people getting inadequate care and perhaps infecting others?
We, as a society, would be more moral but also far wealthier (in multiple ways of defining wealth) if we would move toward a saner, comprehensive coverage system.
Excellent discussion of this study. Thank you.
Posted by A Siegel at July 18, 2008 04:36 AMeuzoius: "...in BushAmerica these sorts of social, economic and societal disparities are cheered on by "conservatives" who want to continue to have a "system" whereby certain races and classes (in which they themselves belong) do much, much better than other "Americans"---i.e. people and groups which these conservative Americans literally despise and do not actually consider "American"...."
I agree that a lot of "conservatives" think that. But POOR "conservatie" whites (and poor middle class also) are not helping themselves by screwing over poor minorities. At the end of the day they are ALL still poor.
GV: absolutely true.
But the "conservative" rhetoric of constantly focusing on racial (and other) "differences" between groups encourages poor whites to think they are in the "favored" and "superior" group. They eat that shit up, as they they fall farther and farther behind, whiping the asses of the rich, who are laughing all the way to the bank.
Conservative rhetoric of the past 30 years is almost totally about identifying supposed differences with the hated "other"---be they racial, sexual, religious---all the weapons of division are used.
Thus the poor religiously-deluded white is encouraged by the GOoP to "properly" see himself in the same class as the admired wealthy white---and much, much superior to the hated black, Mexican, Asian, gay, muslim, single woman, feminist, you name it.
Rovian GOoP propagandists give the boobs the false "data" and individual white conservatives are "free to choose" which "other" they hate the worst! It's the Murican Way! (tm)
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2008 06:43 AMI'd even say that the main political motivation of most conservative white males is that they could never vote for a candidate from the party supported by the groups they hate. Hated of the "other" trumps actual policies.
Thus, the weird situation where huge numbers of people say they support policies advocated by Dems, yet continue to vote for the GOoP and its policies of destruction. Such white "conservatives" simply refuse to have anything to do with the party of the hated blacks, gays, feminists, unbelievers, Mexicans, etc.
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2008 06:52 AM"...Conservative rhetoric of the past 30 years is almost totally about identifying supposed differences with the hated "other"---be they racial, sexual, religious---all the weapons of division are used...."
absolutely true!
"...Thus, the weird situation where huge numbers of people say they support policies advocated by Dems, yet continue to vote for the GOoP and its policies of destruction. Such white "conservatives" simply refuse to have anything to do with the party of the hated blacks, gays, feminists, unbelievers, Mexicans, etc."
again, absolutely true, they simply cannot support a candidate if they think the "niggers" will benefit (even if they benefit also).
The smartest move by the plutocrats (smart for them, that is) was to divide poor whites from poor minorities.
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 18, 2008 10:07 AM