Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Has Global Health and Wealth Increased or Decreased?

Aaron_K123
Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
in Debate Club
Just a random poll, curious whether or not people in general feel like average health of humanity as a whole (child mortality, life expectancy, quality of life etc) has improved, gotten worse or stayed about the same over the past 50 years? What do you base that feeling on?
«134

Replies

  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    I would say these measures have improved for much of the world in that timeframe. Considering the world population has increased about 111% in that timeframe (~3.5 bn -> 7.4 bn), I would say the overall wealth of the world necessary to support that increase has improved greatly, even considering wealth inequalities that are more apparent now. The places that are worst off are suffering mostly due to ongoing conflicts or political problems (such as Syria and Venezuela).

    If anything, many of the health problems in the developed world are due to overabundance and these are moving into developing societies.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    edited May 2018
    Dramatically increased. The only period in human history where we have seen an equal or greater life quality improvement being the preceding 50 years (1910-1960).

    There are two primary drivers impacting disease rates - longevity and detection. This mass expansion of healthcare availability can hold the appearance that disease is on the rise, when the disease has always been there, but is now being managed/treated.

    The advent of the internet and mass communication has a similar impact. Horrible things happened before, but we were never aware of them. There was a motivation to hide and minimize events that could have a negative impact.

    As for basis - general knowledge of history and epidemiology.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    It's probably more static than we would expect, although I suspect a minor upturn.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    Feeling? Well, I was reading a U.N. document a few weeks ago and quoted it in these discussions wherein has been documented that food calories available to each and every human on earth exceeds 2400/day now, and was much less than that 50 and 25 years ago.
    A few days ago I read an article which explained that the portion of the planet subsisting on less than $2/day is smaller than ever before and getting smaller fast.
    One of my facebook friends who lives in a Ugandan village away from the capital posted a home security video showing she had a refrigerator, but not an A/C, and a piece of fabric, not a door. I'm pretty sure she has a home security video system, too.

    The reason that Venezuela is experiencing a crisis of population loss through emigration is that the people are unwilling to re-adjust to living on less than $2/day because that population has never before had to learn how to do so. The reason that Europe had an immigration crisis after the various upheavals in the various countries south of Europe is that those populations also did not want to have to learn how to live on less than $2/day.

    Deng told not only the poor of China that it was glorious to get rich.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Wealth inequality is a problem and one that is likely to just get worse with the advent of information technologies where more and more intellectual property rather than labor is wealth.

    I'll muck around with Google Public Data explorer and see what I can chart with regards to wealth...I know the indicies for global health better than I do for economics though.

    I invite other people to play with that data viewer as well, its kind of fun and definitely eye opening. Plus you are looking at the raw data, no filter of bias from someone writing a story.

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/directory
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    The reason I ask is because, in my opinion, all the data suggests that global health and wealth have vastly VASTLY improved over the last 50 years to the point where "third-world" doesn't really mean what it used to. Just to demonstrate what I mean I went to the world census data which is available via google public data (a seperate service kind of like google scholar). If you plot the two major indicies of health (life expectancy and child mortality rate) over time and by region this is what you get:

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sh_dyn_mort&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&ifdim=country&pit=-304448400000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    Hit the play button


    Still some improvement to be had in subsaharan Africa for sure but even that region in 2015 is as good as east asia and central america was in the 60s. There just isn't a "third world" anymore in the way it was used previously. The fact that giant population centers like China and India have come close to the standards of Europe alone means the majority of people on the planet are so much better off than they used to be. Looking at China alone China in the 60s is where Somalia is in 2015 and in 2015 China is better off than the United States was in the 60s.

    That said you talk to most people on the internet and they act like health is on the decline or something and you ask why they think that and they start talking about the unnatural food coloring in their carmel macchiato. As someone who works in the global health sector it is super frustrating. I'm just not sure if that is actually a majority of people who feel that way or just the loud mouths.

    I was going to say "vastly improved" before reading this, just so you know I didn't cheat. :wink:
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    sarahbums wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    sarahbums wrote: »
    the US is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, the distribution of that money across the population is such that the top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth.

    Not surprising. The average American overspends, doesn't save or invest enough, and doesn't like the job they chose. With those choices, they shouldn't expect to accumulate wealth.

    you're assuming people are just 'choosing' Sh*tty jobs. People take the best jobs they can get. And all too often those jobs don't pay enough for people to save or invest because those at the top have set the minimum wage well below what's considered a liveable wage.

    ...so it has more to do with the exploitative nature of Capitalism itself than individual financial literacy/irresponsibility

    but go off, i guess.

    But globally speaking rather than regionally speaking....? I meant more how do you think humanity is doing.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Well wealth in terms of per capita GDP is certainly very well correlated to health in terms of overall life expectancy

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    The reason I ask is because, in my opinion, all the data suggests that global health and wealth have vastly VASTLY improved over the last 50 years to the point where "third-world" doesn't really mean what it used to. Just to demonstrate what I mean I went to the world census data which is available via google public data (a seperate service kind of like google scholar). If you plot the two major indicies of health (life expectancy and child mortality rate) over time and by region this is what you get:

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sh_dyn_mort&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&ifdim=country&pit=-304448400000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    Hit the play button


    Still some improvement to be had in subsaharan Africa for sure but even that region in 2015 is as good as east asia and central america was in the 60s. There just isn't a "third world" anymore in the way it was used previously. The fact that giant population centers like China and India have come close to the standards of Europe alone means the majority of people on the planet are so much better off than they used to be. Looking at China alone China in the 60s is where Somalia is in 2015 and in 2015 China is better off than the United States was in the 60s.

    That said you talk to most people on the internet and they act like health is on the decline or something and you ask why they think that and they start talking about the unnatural food coloring in their carmel macchiato. As someone who works in the global health sector it is super frustrating. I'm just not sure if that is actually a majority of people who feel that way or just the loud mouths.

    There's an element of human nature that rejoices in suffering. Having lived in the third world for a good portion of my youth I find it difficult not to slap people complaining of first world problems. At some point my restraint will break and this will trigger my tri-state slapping spree. You can all remember this post and the multiple warning signs.

    If you have the ability and leisure time to vent your frustrations on the internet...you have a damn good life.

    I look at what's happening in China as an interesting experiment into human nature. They are experiencing their "Western" boom, but only on the cusp of their labor moment. People will tolerate oppression as long as needs and wants are met, but if these are not met....Venezuela comes to mind.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I would have said basically what's already been said -- globally, huge improvement. In the US, more static.
  • geneticsteacher
    geneticsteacher Posts: 623 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Wealth inequality is a problem and one that is likely to just get worse with the advent of information technologies where more and more intellectual property rather than labor is wealth.

    I'll muck around with Google Public Data explorer and see what I can chart with regards to wealth...I know the indicies for global health better than I do for economics though.

    I invite other people to play with that data viewer as well, its kind of fun and definitely eye opening. Plus you are looking at the raw data, no filter of bias from someone writing a story.

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/directory

    Fun!

    Looked at infant mortality in several countries - it has definitely declined over the years, but in the US, the rate of decline is much slower.

    "Babies born in America are less likely to reach their first birthday than babies born in other wealthy countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a new study found. While infant mortality rates have declined across the OECD since 1960, including in America, the U.S. has failed to keep pace with its high-income peers, according to a report published in the journal Health Affairs.

    Compared to 19 similar OECD countries, U.S. babies were three times more likely to die from extreme immaturity and 2.3 times more likely to experience sudden infant death syndrome between 2001 and 2010, the most recent years for which comparable data is available across all the countries. If the U.S. had kept pace with the OECD’s overall decline in infant mortality since 1960, that would have resulted in about 300,000 fewer infant deaths in America over the course of 50 years, the report found.

    The reasons the U.S. has fallen behind include higher poverty rates relative to other developed countries and a relatively weak social safety net, says lead author Ashish Thakrar, medical resident at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System.

    “The poorer children are, the worse their health outcomes are,” says Thakrar, whose team found that poverty among U.S. children has been higher than in the 19 comparable OECD countries since the mid 1980s.

    Premature delivery and low birthweight have been consistently associated with poverty, which affects over 20% of U.S. children, the second highest percent among 35 developed nations, according to a 2013 United Nations Children’s Fund report."

    Sobering. I never thought of the US as a poor country.

    http://time.com/5090112/infant-mortality-rate-usa/
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I would have said basically what's already been said -- globally, huge improvement. In the US, more static.

    Well things like child mortality and life expectency can only improve so much, there is a limit...one a hard limit (0 deaths) and one a limit of technology and biology.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    sarahbums wrote: »
    as a whole, health has gotten exponentially better in most areas. Global life expectancy is still improving (although it's still disproportionally low in africa and parts of asia) and infant mortality is decreasing.

    with wealth, it's hard to say. Wealth inequality in a lot of places (including the US) is still REALLY bad. Even though the US is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, the distribution of that money across the population is such that the top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth. And that's only getting worse.

    While there will always be a top/bottom x% the individuals are continually moving through various brackets, so the top 1% will change from generation to generation, just as the bottom 1% will. This mobility is vastly improved in capitalist systems as opposed to more authoritarian systems.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I would have said basically what's already been said -- globally, huge improvement. In the US, more static.

    Well things like child mortality and life expectency can only improve so much, there is a limit...one a hard limit (0 deaths) and one a limit of technology and biology.

    Yes, and I think something of the feeling of decline that some in the US have is because the same results feel better when you are way ahead vs. feel like everyone is gaining on you.

    Not that things in the US could not be improved in some ways, such as infant mortality (compared to other developed countries).
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.

    I honestly don't understand the concern regarding the 0.1%. As everyone in the first world has needs met and most wants, then what is the issue? Furthermore what is the solution? If the money was earned through legal exchange where is the problem? To the exception I applaud anyone able to develop and market a product that enriches the lives of others.

    I've watched Nick Hanauer's take on this and agree on the inevitable outcome, but again this is an issue of physician heal thyself. If you hold issue with your wealth, then lead by example and develop a system to exchange wealth for services. If you hold issue with the wealth of others...that is envy.
  • geneticsteacher
    geneticsteacher Posts: 623 Member
    Not everyone in first world countries has needs met.

    "By whatever name, the number of people going hungry has grown dramatically in the U.S., increasing to 48 million by 2012—a fivefold jump since the late 1960s, including an increase of 57 percent since the late 1990s. Privately run programs like food pantries and soup kitchens have mushroomed too. In 1980 there were a few hundred emergency food programs across the country; today there are 50,000. Finding food has become a central worry for millions of Americans. One in six reports running out of food at least once a year. In many European countries, by contrast, the number is closer to one in 20."

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.

    I honestly don't understand the concern regarding the 0.1%. As everyone in the first world has needs met and most wants, then what is the issue? Furthermore what is the solution? If the money was earned through legal exchange where is the problem? To the exception I applaud anyone able to develop and market a product that enriches the lives of others.

    I've watched Nick Hanauer's take on this and agree on the inevitable outcome, but again this is an issue of physician heal thyself. If you hold issue with your wealth, then lead by example and develop a system to exchange wealth for services. If you hold issue with the wealth of others...that is envy.

    I agree some people are simply envious. I think there is a legitimate concern, however, when we see a significant divergence in the statistical distribution of wealth. It's one thing if the shift is organic, but another if it's a result of structural barriers (such as laws or government policies, business practices, etc). It wastes the economic potential of people unnecessarily if they are kept out of productive roles, and creates the potential for worse problems when we hit the inevitable downturn.

    Why I included the critical caveat "legal exchange". Where corruption occurs then this is the root cause and should be addressed accordingly. Simply having wealth does not equate to corruption.

    Who is to be trusted to disperse this wealth? ....and what percentage of wealth do the distributors take during this act of remarkable "compassion"?

    That's the thing about construction of barriers. There will always exist a ruling class. Having a bureaucracy of ruling class ensures that corruption will occur as you have the worst elements at play:

    No accountability
    No incentive to progress/change/improve
    Minimal shift in personnel
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.

    I honestly don't understand the concern regarding the 0.1%. As everyone in the first world has needs met and most wants, then what is the issue? Furthermore what is the solution? If the money was earned through legal exchange where is the problem? To the exception I applaud anyone able to develop and market a product that enriches the lives of others.

    I've watched Nick Hanauer's take on this and agree on the inevitable outcome, but again this is an issue of physician heal thyself. If you hold issue with your wealth, then lead by example and develop a system to exchange wealth for services. If you hold issue with the wealth of others...that is envy.

    I agree some people are simply envious. I think there is a legitimate concern, however, when we see a significant divergence in the statistical distribution of wealth. It's one thing if the shift is organic, but another if it's a result of structural barriers (such as laws or government policies, business practices, etc). It wastes the economic potential of people unnecessarily if they are kept out of productive roles, and creates the potential for worse problems when we hit the inevitable downturn.

    Why I included the critical caveat "legal exchange". Where corruption occurs then this is the root cause and should be addressed accordingly. Simply having wealth does not equate to corruption.

    Who is to be trusted to disperse this wealth? ....and what percentage of wealth do the distributors take during this act of remarkable "compassion"?

    That's the thing about construction of barriers. There will always exist a ruling class. Having a bureaucracy of ruling class ensures that corruption will occur as you have the worst elements at play:

    No accountability
    No incentive to progress/change/improve
    Minimal shift in personnel

    Which is why I included the critical caveat "statistical distribution". I didn't recommend confiscation or forceable redistribution , but there are other remedies that can be implemented to enable more people to advance economically.

    For example, removing structural barriers to banking services, education, and employment. Identifying corrupt or discriminatory business practices (such as redlining). Limiting NIMBY lawsuits and onerous zoning barriers to housing construction are others. The more people are able to invest in themselves, their business or career, and are able to realize those gains fairly, the more the economy as a whole grows.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.

    I honestly don't understand the concern regarding the 0.1%. As everyone in the first world has needs met and most wants, then what is the issue? Furthermore what is the solution? If the money was earned through legal exchange where is the problem? To the exception I applaud anyone able to develop and market a product that enriches the lives of others.

    I've watched Nick Hanauer's take on this and agree on the inevitable outcome, but again this is an issue of physician heal thyself. If you hold issue with your wealth, then lead by example and develop a system to exchange wealth for services. If you hold issue with the wealth of others...that is envy.

    I agree some people are simply envious. I think there is a legitimate concern, however, when we see a significant divergence in the statistical distribution of wealth. It's one thing if the shift is organic, but another if it's a result of structural barriers (such as laws or government policies, business practices, etc). It wastes the economic potential of people unnecessarily if they are kept out of productive roles, and creates the potential for worse problems when we hit the inevitable downturn.

    To add to this, I think mere inequality (existence of superrich) is not important (except to the extent it leads to structural issues or a power imbalance that goes way beyond money, like influence in gov't). I think increasing income inequality relating to a decline of the middle class and more people who are functionally lower income and don't have spending ability (without going into damaging levels of debt) is a problem, since having a strong middle class is good for stability and the economy.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I would have said basically what's already been said -- globally, huge improvement. In the US, more static.

    Well things like child mortality and life expectency can only improve so much, there is a limit...one a hard limit (0 deaths) and one a limit of technology and biology.

    Yes, and I think something of the feeling of decline that some in the US have is because the same results feel better when you are way ahead vs. feel like everyone is gaining on you.

    Not that things in the US could not be improved in some ways, such as infant mortality (compared to other developed countries).

    Oh yeah, US is certainly not at the very very top, there is room for improvement...but we are close enough to the top there isn't a lot of room.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=c8op9mhgodplq_#!ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=mean_income_current&fdim_y=country:US&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&idim=distribution_bracket:1:2:4:3:5:6&ifdim=distribution_bracket&pit=-83610000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    That is the distribution of mean household income over time in the United states over the last 50 years broken down by distribution (lowest 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20%, next 20% then top 5%). Overall it seems like each bracket has seen increases and there hasn't been all that much change in the differences between brackets. I'm sure the top 0.1% are an exception but in general I don't think it is as bad as some make it out to be. I think the top 0.1% have gotten ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the population has minor increases in wealth...but everyone has gone up on average.

    I honestly don't understand the concern regarding the 0.1%. As everyone in the first world has needs met and most wants, then what is the issue? Furthermore what is the solution? If the money was earned through legal exchange where is the problem? To the exception I applaud anyone able to develop and market a product that enriches the lives of others.

    I've watched Nick Hanauer's take on this and agree on the inevitable outcome, but again this is an issue of physician heal thyself. If you hold issue with your wealth, then lead by example and develop a system to exchange wealth for services. If you hold issue with the wealth of others...that is envy.

    I think it is hard to hear about how the GDP has doubled while noticing that your salary hasn't....the idea that the benefit of all of that progress is just to make a few people extra extra rich is not that satisfying. But I'd agree from the perspective of meeting people's basic needs if anything the last 50+ years has seen improvement, certainly globally, but also in the United States.

Categories