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?

124»

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    This guy says violence spreads like infectious disease and suggests that we can apply lessons learned from disease control to eradicate violence.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/up-next

    The problem is that one cause of violence is evil men.

    Most conflict is over resource. Whether that is water, oil, land or access to routes and markets.

    Evil has little to do with it.

    That's an incredibly naïve opinion.

    Especially when any time you find endemic violence it is those who have resources perpetuating violence upon those who have fewer.

    So how are you defining evil in this sense?

    You referred to gang violence upthread. That's largely around access to markets, and security of supply. Those defending their position against those who are trying to break in. You see similar in the displaced persons camps in Kenya and Somaliland, relating the reference to aid in Somalia earlier.

    If you look at Northern Ireland, that's been about access to means of production. Originally farmland.

    So when we're talking about global wealth, violence is inextricably linked to the growth of that wealth and the distribution.

    I alluded upthread to admiration of Putin. He got where he is today through abuse of position. Would you describe him as evil, or as self interested and power hungry?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.

    Well they tend to go along with decreased rates of birth so if you are referring to overpopulation I don't think it has the affect you are implying it does.

    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that decreased infant mortality rates and/or increase life spans don't have a meaningful impact on population numbers?

    Actually they do but in the opposite direction you are implying. Countries that have high life expectancy and low infant mortality rates have much MUCH lower birth rates than countries with low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates. If you look at where population growth is highest you will find it in poorer regions that tend to be less developed and have higher mortality and lower life expectancy...look at where population growth is lowest and you will find the most developed nations with the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality.

    Japan has the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality rate and its population growth is actually negative.

    Nigeria has some of the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates and its population growth is 2.6%

    These stats are and have been historically very well inversely correlated.

    Higher the infant mortality rate higher the population growth:
    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_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&ifdim=country&pit=1431586800000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

    Higher the life expectancy, the lower the rate of population growth
    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_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&ifdim=country&pit=1431586800000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Basically think of it this way.

    You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life not to mention savings you have accumulated thusfar.

    You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.

    Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Basically think of it this way.

    You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life.

    You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.

    Which country has the higher population growth rate? Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.

    Good posts... a lot for me to think about there...
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Basically think of it this way.

    You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life.

    You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.

    Which country has the higher population growth rate? Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.

    Good posts... a lot for me to think about there...

    Sure no problem, I recognize it is counter-intuitive. Here is perhaps a better way of viewing it...fertility rate (number of births per woman) versus life expectancy. Look how perfect that negative correlation is.

    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

    Life expectancy tends to be a good readout for how developed a nation is and if you think about it living past 40 years old doesn't actually mean you get to have a lot more babies. So areas that tend to have low life expectancies tend to have low infrastructure and social services and tend to have people who have as many children as they can to help support themselves and their community.

    So yes life expectancy has been going up world-wide, but along with it birth rates have been declining.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited May 2018
    I don't doubt that the numbers line up... for me it's a question (thought) about correlation vs causation. Is it really that direct - my town/city/county has a high infant mortality rate, and thus I must have more children to compensate for that.

    Or do things like education or career pressure or social/cultural norms or... also play a role in reproduction rates?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    I don't doubt that the numbers line up... for me it's a question (thought) about correlation vs causation. Is it really that direct - my town/city/county has a high infant mortality rate, and thus I must have more children to compensate for that.

    Or do things like education or career pressure or social/cultural norms or... also play a role in reproduction rates?

    Well I don't think life expectancy directly causes lower birthrate, more that life expectancy tends to come along with the affluence that is actually related to birth rates. I'm just saying that added life expectancy is never going to result in higher population burden because the higher the life expectancy the more affluent the area the lower the birthrates even to the point where population growth is negative or flat.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    This guy says violence spreads like infectious disease and suggests that we can apply lessons learned from disease control to eradicate violence.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/up-next

    Interesting insight - I spent a few years overseeing the security of aid forces in Somalia. Having spent years in martial arts there is the underlying philosophy "The only rational reason of mastering violence is to abolish it".

    “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” - Sun Tzu, Art of War
  • geneticsteacher
    geneticsteacher Posts: 623 Member
    "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."

    "For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour."
    money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    geneticsteacher wrote: »
    "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."

    "For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour."
    money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html


    Ok, just did the math. The Standard calculation for working hours per year is 2080. By my math that's 40 an hour. with a single wage earner. If you've only got 1 working adult in the home, you don't need to pay child care, which reduces the COL by 15-35K. So now you're looking at 50-70K and 24-35 dollars an hour. Or one adult at full time in the 20-25 an hour range and the other working nights or weekends part time.

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    geneticsteacher wrote: »
    "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."

    "For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour."
    money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html


    Ok, just did the math. The Standard calculation for working hours per year is 2080. By my math that's 40 an hour. with a single wage earner. If you've only got 1 working adult in the home, you don't need to pay child care, which reduces the COL by 15-35K. So now you're looking at 50-70K and 24-35 dollars an hour. Or one adult at full time in the 20-25 an hour range and the other working nights or weekends part time.

    As someone who lives in Seattle with a family of 4 I can do that "survival" breakdown for myself.

    housing: $3200/mo (includes insurance, tax, utilities, basic maintenance)
    Food: $1200/mo (could definitely spend less)
    Child care: $2500/mo
    transportation: $250/mo (includes parking, insurance and gas)
    health care: $200/mo (subsidized by employer)
    Cell phone: $110/mo

    So that is $7460/mo or $89,500 per year. That is what take-home, not salary, needs to be. So slap an extra 25% to account for taxes and you are up to a household of more than 110k to basically just cover food and bills. It is most certainly expensive to live here.

    By the way I am not claiming I don't have luxuries or that I am merely "surviving" I make enough to be comfortable...that said my "survival" amount came out to much more than what was given in the article. I just am giving a real world example

Categories