Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#271

Post by beagle3 » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 10:56 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #132

beagle3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely, you prefer not to pay because it costs way more than it should. I am not familiar with analysis of e.g. Day care costs, but Americans pay significantly more for healthcare than Europeans, and get significantly worse results; also, they pay significantly more for education and get significantly less. The party line is that it is a preference - but anecdotally, I've only heard that preference from people w…

More likely, you prefer not to pay because it costs way more than it should. Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP . I.e., taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average. Americans do pay more for education than Europeans, but our results are quite good compared to most of Europe. The only reason it appears our educational system…

> Americans earn 30% more than Finlanders adjusting for PPP.

You're taking PPP to mean much more than it actually does. Just consider the fact that there's no accepted "PPP" measurement methodology.

But even assuming one existed (pick your favorite), it only effectively encodes one specific consumption profile - one that e.g. takes into account the health care costs of a 30-year-olds with healthy 4-year-old kids, but not that of your average 50-year-old which are considerably different.

> taking into account higher cost of health care, lower cost of most other things, we still have 30% more on average.

Averages are totally the wrong tool to measure anything like that - especially when disparity in the US is so much higher.

Compare the proverbial USElbonia to Eulbonia:

In USElbonia, 1% make $16100/month, 99% make $100/month' avg=$260/month

In EUlbonia, 1% makes $400/month, 99% make $200/month, avg=$202/month

USElbonians, make, on the overage 30% more - but every single EUlbonian is at least 100% better off than 99% of the USElbonians.

Real stats are not quite as bad, of course - but disparity in the US is ridiculously high. But there are many respects in which all EU people are better off than US people which do not make it into any PPP comparison -- e.g., http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bill... "Unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, you are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy" - I can't find a real European comparable, but http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2009/11/17/no_one_goes_ban/ suggests that there's more the quality than 30% parity-adjusted purchasing power can buy.

> The only reason it appears our educational system is poor is because certain subgroups of the student body drag our averages down.

Cherry picking statistics will get you anywhere you want, regardless of any "truth" however that may be defined.

Consistently in STEM, about 50% of PhD and postdoctoral students in the US are not USA citizens, and this has been going on for at least 20 years. I would take that as empirical evidence that the US STEM education is, indeed, poor.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#272

Post by pfedor » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #182

euroclydon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the g…

I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education,…

I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system.

Really? But Wikipedia tells me that After 1970 the desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who assert that cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved, proposing the alternative metaphor of the mosaic, salad bowl or "American Kaleidoscope" – different cultures mix, but remain distinct.[6][7]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#273

Post by andrewflnr » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:55 PM UTC

clicks wrote: post #260

andrewflnr wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that using the word "coercion" is repugnant, and then quote a definition that perfectly fits taxation? You've got some nerve. You can see it however you want, but if you don't pay taxes, someone will come and physically haul you off to jail whether you like it or not, someone who is prepared to escalate to deadly force. Sure sounds like coercion to me. Taxation might make sense as an "entrance fee" if someone…

It is a curious thing that you object to this. Are you not also being coerced to conform to virtually every other societal norm? Try walking out naked down the street in broad daylight. See if you're not jumped by the police. Try hunting some deer in the non-hunting season for food, -- because afterall you're hungry and the meat would do: you'll meet the heavy side of law. You're seeing things from a libertarian-lens…

Where did I say I objected to it? Coercion has it's place, and government's role is to use coercion where and only where it's justified. My point is, let's be clear that when we talk about things the government should do, we're necessarily talking about things for which coercion is justified.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#274

Post by riffraff » Thu, Jun 06, 2013, 10:50 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #64

riffraff wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well the thing about the article is that it singles out finland as if something special happened there, while similar improvements happened basically everywhere in the first world I wouldn't dream of saying national healthcare in finland is the same as italy or US, which appears to imply that what really happened is mostly just science marching on and general improvements in wealth.

I don't read the articles focus as being on the reduction in infant mortality, but as a piece about cultural differences in care for infants, by describing one aspect of what Finland does, and where the reduction in infant mortality was mentioned in passing and not much more. You'll note the title is not "How did Finland reduce its infant mortality rate?" or similar, but "Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes".…

sorry I forgot to reply. You are right, and I misinterpreted the article.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#275

Post by phaemon » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:53 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #195

phaemon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous conclusion to reach. If I lose weight because I start exercising and my neighbour loses weight because he started eating less, it's foolish to state that my exercise had no effect since my neighbour didn't do it and he lost weight too. [edit: too harsh]

This word "because" isn't as easy to use as you think. You seem to be very sure of the exact reason why something happened. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. Virtually every country on earth had reductions in infant mortality over the years. Only one of them had a box. Clearly the main driver of the improvement is something else. So you might want to talk about the tiny differences, those things that im…

> You seem to be very sure of the exact reason why something happened. But it doesn't work that way in the real world.

That's completely backwards. You made the absolute statement that "None of that did anything either". How do you know? I see you've even switched now to "Maybe the box".

I wasn't picking anything at all, I just pointed out that your logic was flawed with an example, and now you're trying to argue that I'm wrong by arguing against your very own logic!