Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#101

Post by intopieces »

charles-salvia wrote: post #49
rtx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you sympathise with someone who blames his problems on slavery?

I would say it's counter-productive - but at least a direct causal line can be drawn between slavery and the current lower average socio-economic status of black people in the US. Whereas, there is absolutely no causal line between the current plight of poor white people and Mexican immigrants/Islamic terrorism.

Not trying to derail the topic, but is Islamic terrorism a claimed cause for the plight of poor white people? If anything, Islamic terrorism is a boon to poor white people. US Military will provide a decent cash influx at sign-up, fund education, and provide a steady paycheck for a few years.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#102

Post by LurkingPresence »

wtetzner wrote: post #71
gmarx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny (ironic?) thing is that each incremental advance in civilization may be a good thing in isolation and, given the choice between adding benefit X to their existing situation or not, most people would choose adding benefit X without hesitation. And yet, somehow the sum of hundreds of such benefits (secure food, healthcare, fire departments, internet) doesn't lead to a significant increase in average happiness. In…

I wonder if it's because of the kinds of stress people in western societies deal with. Humans have always had to deal with stress, but the modern world seems to have more "intangible" kinds of stress. It's one thing to be stressed about being in danger from a predator. The stress drives you to action, and you either survive or don't. But the kinds of stress people deal with now is somehow different. Most of the time,…

I think you hit the nail right on the head. I believe there has been research with rats on this type of thing (sorry I don't remember the name of the study). The sort of 'ambiguous' stress of modern life is much harder on the body/mind than say, being chased by a tiger.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#103

Post by charles-salvia »

noobiemcfoob wrote: post #89
charles-salvia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

I'd like to see some data for that 80% urban population statement. Unless the definition of "dense suburbs" is outlandish, I can't see the percentage getting that high. Most studies I've seen put the US at a fair rural to urban split that up until very recently has always favored the rural population. It is only in the past 10 years that we've approached 50% urban to rural. I know this to be true in North Carolina, a…

You're right - the 80% is exaggerated. I got it from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.htm.... Their definition of "urban" is actually outlandish, in that it includes "urban clusters", which means towns that have > 2,500 and < 50,000 inhabitants. I assumed the 80% just included all the sprawling, dense suburbs, but I see the definition the census is using here is much looser.

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#104

Post by dctoedt »

zeveb wrote: post #92
charles-salvia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

> However, this doesn't happen in practice because the electoral college system heavily reduces the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas, and also excludes votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state. The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to populat…

> The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to population.

Um, that depends on what you mean by "roughly proportional":

+ Each state, no matter how low the population, gets a minimum of three votes in the Electoral College (one per House member and senator).

+ House representation increases by population, but Senate representation is capped at two, no matter how large the population.

+ As a result: "Each vote cast in Wyoming is worth 3.6 as much as the same vote cast in California. How can that be, you might ask? It’s easy to see, when you do the math. Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1." [0].

[0] E.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to...

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#105

Post by com2kid »

zeroer wrote: post #82
com2kid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here is the interesting thing, none of us ever had to see an occupational therapist to help us with our hand eye co-ordination. Falling out of a tree was enough incentive to figure it out on your own. Survivorship bias. I have poor eyesight, no amount of practice would ever allow me to throw a spear and hit a wild animal. Heck with lots of occupational therapy as a kid, I can kinda-sorta catch a ball. On a good day…

> I have poor eyesight, no amount of practice would ever allow me to throw a spear and hit a wild animal. What, specifically, is your eyesight problem? There's some growing suggestive evidence that our eyes need time outside in bright sunlight to develop properly. Depending on your particular sight problem, it may very well be the case that a failure to be outside attempting to throw a spear and hit a wild animal as…

> What, specifically, is your eyesight problem?

I'm missing an optic nerve. Sunlight isn't going to fix that. :)

Re: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

#106

Post by charles-salvia »

zeveb wrote: post #92
charles-salvia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated. Inner-city populations heavily vote Democrat, along with most densely populated areas. In fact, something like ~80% of Americans live in urban areas (which also includes dense suburbs), and therefore we should expect Democrats to win elections most of the time (even in spite of the fact that some dense sub-urban areas heavily lean Republican). However, this doesn't happen in practice beca…

> However, this doesn't happen in practice because the electoral college system heavily reduces the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas, and also excludes votes coming from urban areas that lie within a larger, Republican-leaning state. The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to populat…

> The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to population.

It does reduce the weight of votes coming from inner cities, because it does not allocate votes proportionally all the time. The disparity occurs most obviously between the high populated states like New York, California, and Texas, compared with very low-population states like Montana or Wyoming. I live in New York, so my individual vote is worth less than someone living in Wyoming or Montana.

Post reply on HN