A new study reveals that even wealthy Americans experience higher death rates than their economically disadvantaged European counterparts. Researchers compared mortality rates across different income levels in the US to those in 12 European countries and found that the richest 5% of Americans had similar death rates to the poorest 5% of Europeans. This disparity persists across various causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, and drug overdoses, suggesting systemic issues within the US healthcare system and broader societal factors like access to care, inequality, and lifestyle differences are contributing to the problem. The findings highlight that socioeconomic advantages in the US don't fully offset the elevated mortality risks compared to Europe.
The blog post "Money lessons without money: The financial literacy fallacy" argues that financial literacy education is largely ineffective because it fails to address the fundamental problem of insufficient income. Teaching budgeting and saving skills to people who barely have enough to cover basic needs is pointless. The post contends that focusing on systemic issues like wealth inequality and advocating for policies that increase wages and social safety nets would be far more impactful in improving people's financial well-being than traditional financial literacy programs. It uses the analogy of teaching dieting to starving people – the issue isn't lack of knowledge about nutrition, but lack of access to food.
HN users largely agreed with the article's premise that financial literacy education is ineffective without practical application and access to financial resources. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes reinforcing this point, describing how abstract financial concepts became meaningful only after encountering real-world financial situations. Some argued that focusing on systemic issues like predatory lending and wealth inequality would be more impactful than financial literacy programs. A few dissenting voices suggested that basic financial knowledge is still valuable, particularly for young people, and can help avoid costly mistakes. The discussion also touched on the importance of teaching critical thinking skills alongside financial concepts, enabling individuals to navigate complex financial products and marketing.
Homeschooling's rising popularity, particularly among tech-affluent families, is driven by several factors. Dissatisfaction with traditional schooling, amplified by pandemic disruptions and concerns about ideological indoctrination, plays a key role. The desire for personalized education tailored to a child's pace and interests, coupled with the flexibility afforded by remote work and financial resources, makes homeschooling increasingly feasible. This trend is further fueled by the availability of new online resources and communities that provide support and structure for homeschooling families. The perceived opportunity to cultivate creativity and critical thinking outside the confines of standardized curricula also contributes to homeschooling's growing appeal.
Hacker News users discuss potential reasons for the perceived increase in homeschooling's popularity, questioning if it's truly "fashionable." Some suggest it's a reaction to declining public school quality, increased political influence in curriculum, and pandemic-era exposure to alternatives. Others highlight the desire for personalized education, religious motivations, and the ability of tech workers to support a single-income household. Some commenters are skeptical of the premise, suggesting the increase may not be as significant as perceived or is limited to specific demographics. Concerns about socialization and the potential for echo chambers are also raised. A few commenters share personal experiences, both positive and negative, reflecting the complexity of the homeschooling decision.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43584156
HN commenters discuss potential confounders not addressed in the Ars Technica article about differing death rates. Several suggest that racial disparities within the US are a significant factor, with one user pointing out the vastly different life expectancies between Black and white Americans, even within high-income brackets. Others highlight the potential impact of access to healthcare, with some arguing that even wealthy Americans may face barriers to consistent, quality care compared to Europeans. The role of lifestyle choices, such as diet and exercise, is also raised. Finally, some question the methodology of comparing wealth across different countries and economic systems, suggesting purchasing power parity (PPP) may be a more accurate metric. A few commenters also mention the US's higher rates of gun violence and car accidents as potential contributors to the mortality difference.
The Hacker News post titled "Wealthy Americans have death rates on par with poor Europeans," linking to an Ars Technica article, has generated a number of comments discussing the complexities of comparing health outcomes across different countries and socioeconomic groups.
Several commenters delve into the potential reasons behind the disparity highlighted in the article. Some point to the fragmented and profit-driven nature of the American healthcare system as a significant contributing factor, arguing that even wealthy Americans may face barriers to timely and effective care due to issues like high costs, insurance complexities, and administrative hurdles. They contrast this with European systems that offer more universal coverage and often emphasize preventative care.
Others discuss the potential influence of lifestyle factors, suggesting that even wealthy Americans might engage in less healthy behaviors compared to their European counterparts, such as consuming less nutritious diets, exercising less frequently, or experiencing higher levels of stress related to work or societal pressures. These commenters acknowledge that while access to healthcare is important, it's not the sole determinant of health outcomes.
The issue of data interpretation and comparison also arises in the discussion. Some users question the methodologies used in such studies, raising concerns about how accurately different countries collect and report health data. They also point to the difficulty of isolating specific factors like wealth when comparing populations across countries with varying cultural norms, social safety nets, and environmental factors. For instance, some commenters suggest that factors like social mobility and income inequality, which differ significantly between the US and many European countries, could play a role in the observed health disparities.
Furthermore, some comments highlight the potential impact of access to social support systems. They argue that stronger social safety nets in European countries, even for the poor, might mitigate some of the negative health consequences of poverty, while the more individualistic American society might leave even wealthy individuals more vulnerable during times of health crisis.
Finally, several commenters offer anecdotal evidence from their personal experiences navigating healthcare systems in the US and Europe, providing real-world illustrations of the challenges and advantages of each. These anecdotes add a personal dimension to the discussion, highlighting the human impact of the statistical trends presented in the article.