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?

Options
2456

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    I think it is hard to look past ones own financial difficulties or those around them to assess wealth on a global scale. Wealth, in terms of average income in inflation adjusted dollars per person on the planet, has most definitely gone up by a large amount over the last few decades and health along with it. People should be aware of that and happy about that but I just don't see it.

    I am not saying it is impossible for ones own financial situation to get much better while the World's does as well but I do find it a bit annoying that people act like their own financial/health concerns in a developed nation are some sort of indication of how the global econonomic/health is fairing. Ultimately I think the goal is to bring up the standard of living for as many people as we can as a species and that we have made some really good progress that people in developed countries complaining about their 401k matching rate and the cost of their pumpkin spice latte just seem ignorant of.

    That isn't to say people in developed nations can't also have problems or that just because there is a person starving in an impoverished nation doesn't mean you don't have a right to complain about getting the shaft in your last raise...I certainly have griped about my salary before....but there should be at least a little bit of perspective here right?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Well I heard if you get on the dole in the UK or Western Europe, you collect more money than if you get on welfare in the U.S. and it isn't fair.

    You've been reading right wing tabloids again haven't you.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.

    However, people are subjective beasts. We act in irrational ways, for a number of reasons.

    With respect to the specific example, it's expressed in an emotional way because that's how it's perceived. How the business is run is a material point in compensation, but that's rarely a factor considered by employees. In this instance the business owner uses I in two different contexts; I the business, that pays salary, and I the recipient of a salary.

    What we're really talking about is salary disparity. Clearly without the clinician the business wouldn't exist, and the education/ skill level is higher, hence a higher salary. But could the business afford to reward the individual for recognised performance?

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    geneticsteacher wrote: »
    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/

    That's utter nonsense.

    Yes. the US reports a higher level of premature delivery and a higher percentage of those reported deliveries die.

    The reason that rate is higher is because those births are reported as births.

    In MANY similar countries that same delivery will be reported as a stillbirth or a miscarriage if the death occurs within 12-24 hours. In the US a single minute, a single breath is all that is required for report of successful delivery.

    Just as many countries fudge their violent crime rates by discounting violent crime that did not use a weapon. So many countries fudge their live birth rate.

    Going back to the infant mortality rate, the US leads the world in success and advancements in improving viability in extreme immaturity. And where it has been possible to normalize the numbers, we're actually beating our peers.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.htm
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Analysis of the infant mortality issue in the US beyond the difference in how the numbers are kept:

    http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.html

    Also, even from the Science Daily piece: "Generally, especially compared to the worldwide statistics, American babies have good survival rates in their first few weeks of life. It is only after they reach one month of age that differences between the United States and other developed countries start to widen."

    The issue isn't a lack of medical expertise in the US, certainly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect a problem.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.

    And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.

    And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.

    Is this a case of:

    A: Jealousy; or

    B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or

    C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.

    You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.

    What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?

    Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?

    Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.

    This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.

    If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.

    The problem is that those for most of those who perceive that there is a problem, it is easier to whinge about the problem than to take meaningful steps to fix it.

    AND for those who have taken personally meaningful steps to resolve their own inequities, there is diminishing sympathy for those who aren't or haven't taken meaningful steps to resolve those inequalities.

    Finally, for those who are adults, there is little that can be done in the short term, and long term solutions only benefit their grandchildren. And many of the long term solutions are socially unpopular.

    1. Graduate college or trade school and get married before procreating-this is unpopular for many reasons, but is the leading discriminator between success and failure
    2. Read for yourself, read to/with/for your children-There was a series of recent articles suggesting that due to the inequities caused by this behavior, we should discourage successful members of society from reading to/with their children--Rather than suggesting that like many who have gone from nothing to success, we should encourage this behavior more broadly


    https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/14/100-race-really-tell-us/
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Analysis of the infant mortality issue in the US beyond the difference in how the numbers are kept:

    http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.html

    Also, even from the Science Daily piece: "Generally, especially compared to the worldwide statistics, American babies have good survival rates in their first few weeks of life. It is only after they reach one month of age that differences between the United States and other developed countries start to widen."

    The issue isn't a lack of medical expertise in the US, certainly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect a problem.

    It's certainly more complicated than it appears on the surface, and the US as a diverse culture does lag behind small European monocultures. But the gap is not as dramatic as the Time article portrays. And is more complicated than simple answers.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193257/
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Okay but what if you work in a doctor's office and you ask your boss for a raise because all your reviews have been good and in the classifieds your job currently lists for $4 more an hour than what you're actually making.

    And he says sorry I can't afford to give you a raise right now.

    And then after lunch you catch him bragging about the family vacation to Paris he's planning for July and rubbing the noses of the working class receptionists in the fact that he's sending his daughter to Yale in September. When for them, sending their kids to community college all expenses paid is basically an impossibility.

    Is this a case of:

    A: Jealousy; or

    B: Maybe rich people who exploit the working class for the lowest possible wage they can pay them are just pricks; or

    C: Newmeadow, doctors aren't "rich". You don't even know what rich even is so shut up. Wages are dictated by the market so stop making it about the feelz.

    You guys always talk about this stuff theoretically, academically. Never viscerally.

    What skillsets do you bring to the office that make your labor value $4 greater than you are currently making?

    Why are you not applying for the job which pays $4/hr more?

    Feelings are not facts and completely subjective. This does not set a good foundation for discussion or solutions.

    This wasn't about me. It was about a conversation I overheard taking place when I was a patient by my doctor at the time and one of his technicians, both of whom I'd known for years. But yeah, I have very similar stories of my own as do all working class people that I know. Especially about the bragging episodes, and my G_d do they not get it.

    If we're discussing solutions, have we pinpointed the problem? Have we pinpointed it globally or locally since that would make it subjective too. It being what though. Is there a problem with the distribution of wealth, the criteria for who gets paid what and how much for what work and why? If the affordability of rents and mortgages don't reflect the earning capacity of the average schmo who wants a roof over their head but doesn't want a handout, what's up with that and whose fault is it (Let me guess - it must be the schmo's). Let's set a good foundation for this discussion because I don't think that's happened yet.

    The problem is that those for most of those who perceive that there is a problem, it is easier to whinge about the problem than to take meaningful steps to fix it.

    AND for those who have taken personally meaningful steps to resolve their own inequities, there is diminishing sympathy for those who aren't or haven't taken meaningful steps to resolve those inequalities.

    Finally, for those who are adults, there is little that can be done in the short term, and long term solutions only benefit their grandchildren. And many of the long term solutions are socially unpopular.

    1. Graduate college or trade school and get married before procreating-this is unpopular for many reasons, but is the leading discriminator between success and failure
    2. Read for yourself, read to/with/for your children-There was a series of recent articles suggesting that due to the inequities caused by this behavior, we should discourage successful members of society from reading to/with their children--Rather than suggesting that like many who have gone from nothing to success, we should encourage this behavior more broadly


    https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/14/100-race-really-tell-us/

    Okay, I see your point. But I don't know if it would make the balance of power more or less exploitative if the ideal (two parent married families for everyone who carefully cultivate the literacy and impulse control of their own children) were to fit the reality.

    I suppose we could go back to the 1950s in the U.S. and say, well, most people fit into this category during this decade and the balance of power seemed less exploitative financially then.

    Although I suppose it could be countered that the 1950s reflected a short, boom time where there was generalized abundance and a sort of built in discipline because it came right on the heels of World War 2 ending. After that it seemed to unravel completely by the end of the 1960s.

    Another counter I would guess would be that the 50s were kind to some but not so much to others for reasons that would now be considered very politically incorrect.

    Power and success differentials are inherent in any system.

    The question is "Is the goal equal opportunity or equal result?" Equalizing results is easy. Look at Venezuela or Cuba or Somalia. 99% of the population is equally miserable. Equalizing opportunity is much harder. Most successful industrial countries like the US have 60-75% of the population has the same opportunity to succeed. The margins are much larger, but even at the bottom end of the lower margin. Food insecurity doesn't mean the same as it does in Somalia, Venezuela, or Afghanistan. A "middle class" Somalian or Afghan would improve the standard of living of his family if he were homeless in Dallas or Richmond or Seattle.

Categories