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.
Kerala's remarkable socio-economic progress, despite low per capita income, stems from prioritizing social development over economic growth. Early investments in universal education, healthcare, and land redistribution, along with strong social movements and political action, fostered high literacy rates and improved health outcomes. While its economic growth lagged behind other Indian states, these social investments created a foundation for human capital development. This focus on social well-being resulted in impressive social indicators like high life expectancy and low infant mortality, effectively transforming Kerala into a "welfare state" within India, demonstrating an alternative model for development prioritizing human flourishing over purely economic metrics.
Hacker News users discuss potential contributing factors to Kerala's prosperity beyond those mentioned in the article. Several commenters emphasize the significant role of remittances from Keralites working abroad, particularly in the Gulf countries. Others highlight the historical influence of Christian missionaries in establishing educational institutions, fostering high literacy rates. Some point to the state's matrilineal inheritance system as a contributor to women's empowerment and overall societal development. The influence of communism in Kerala's politics is also discussed, with varying opinions on its impact on the state's economic progress. Finally, the relative homogeneity of Kerala's population compared to other Indian states is suggested as a factor that may have eased social development and reduced internal conflict.
Inherited wealth is increasingly rivaling earned income in importance, especially in advanced economies. As populations age and accumulated wealth grows, inheritances are becoming larger and more frequent, flowing disproportionately to the already wealthy. This exacerbates inequality, entrenches existing class structures, and potentially undermines the meritocratic ideal of social mobility based on hard work. The article argues that governments need to address this trend through policies like inheritance taxes, not just to raise revenue, but to promote fairness and opportunity across generations.
HN commenters largely agree with the premise that inherited wealth is increasingly important for financial success. Several highlight the difficulty of accumulating wealth through work alone, especially given rising housing costs and stagnant wages. Some discuss the societal implications, expressing concern over decreased social mobility and the potential for inherited wealth to exacerbate inequality. Others offer personal anecdotes illustrating the impact of inheritance, both positive and negative. The role of luck and privilege is a recurring theme, with some arguing that meritocracy is a myth and that inherited advantages play a larger role than often acknowledged. A few commenters point out potential flaws in the Economist's analysis, questioning the data or suggesting alternative interpretations.
Paul Graham argues that the primary way people get rich now is by creating wealth, specifically through starting or joining early-stage startups. This contrasts with older models of wealth acquisition like inheritance or rent-seeking. Building a successful company, particularly in technology, allows founders and early employees to own equity that appreciates significantly as the company grows. This wealth creation is driven by building things people want, leveraging technology for scale, and operating within a relatively open market where new companies can compete with established ones. This model is distinct from merely getting a high-paying job, which provides a good income but rarely leads to substantial wealth creation in the same way equity ownership can.
Hacker News users discussed Paul Graham's essay on contemporary wealth creation, largely agreeing with his premise that starting a startup is the most likely path to significant riches. Some commenters pointed out nuances, like the importance of equity versus salary, and the role of luck and timing. Several highlighted the increasing difficulty of bootstrapping due to the prevalence of venture capital, while others debated the societal implications of wealth concentration through startups. A few challenged Graham's focus on tech, suggesting alternative routes like real estate or skilled trades, albeit with potentially lower ceilings. The thread also explored the tension between pursuing wealth and other life goals, with some arguing that focusing solely on riches can be counterproductive.
Jeff Atwood, co-founder of Stack Overflow and Discourse, discusses his philanthropic plans in a CNBC interview. Driven by a desire to address wealth inequality and contribute meaningfully, Atwood intends to give away millions of dollars over the next five years, primarily focusing on supporting effective altruism organizations like GiveWell and 80,000 Hours. He believes strongly in evidence-based philanthropy and emphasizes the importance of maximizing the impact of donations. Atwood acknowledges the complexity of giving effectively and plans to learn and adapt his approach as he explores different giving strategies. He contrasts his approach with traditional philanthropy, highlighting his desire for measurable results and a focus on organizations tackling global issues like poverty and existential risks.
Hacker News users discuss Jeff Atwood's philanthropy plans with a mix of skepticism and cautious optimism. Some question the effectiveness of his chosen approach, suggesting direct cash transfers or focusing on systemic issues would be more impactful. Others express concern about potential unintended consequences or the difficulty of measuring impact. A few commend his willingness to give back and experiment with different approaches, while others simply note Atwood's historical involvement in coding communities and the evolution of Stack Overflow. Several users also mention effective altruism and debate its merits, reflecting a general interest in maximizing the impact of charitable giving. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities and nuances of philanthropy, especially in the tech world.
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.