Live data from Hacker News

Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

gatesnotes.com

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

low education, low income, and high religiosity This describes much of Europe less than a century ago. None of my grandparents had more than four years of schooling. The local priest had enough power to imprison people. People were punished for homossexual acts until quite recently (e.g. Turing). In Ireland, divorce only became legal in 1995 . Low income and education is not a genetic characteristic, it can and is ch…

Right, but the problem is once people do obtain a healthy income and good education, they are not reproducing even to the point of sustainability. Because of this we end up taking 1 step forward, but then 2 steps back. You bring x units of population to education, out of poverty, and so on. But then they fail to reproduce to the point of sustainability. At the same time, some number much larger than x units that rema…

Why not let people in prosperous regions have a smaller population. I would love a country of smaller cities and increased prosperity

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#62

Looks good right? but all is not so great. Whats happening is a squeezing of the middle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1oHJezqBYU Thats why this is also front page HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413622

What is inherently wrong with squeezing the middle? Seems like you'll get increased competition and innovation as people scramble to move to the top. Could be a net positive for mankind

Let's do an experiment then. Let's say I come down to your neighborhood and remove a sufficient volume of food so they can only feed 70% of the total number of people in the neighborhood.

Sounds good, right? I mean, you will absolutely see increased "competition and innovation" as you and your neighbors scramble to make sure you end up on the right side of that 70%!

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#63
The book which Bill Gates recently gave a copy of to all 2018 college graduates - Factfulness, is a very well written and comprehensive treatment of this and more by Hans Rosling (Gapminder). Highly recommended, it's not long either - you could read it in a couple of evenings or a weekend easily.

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#64

Looks good right? but all is not so great. Whats happening is a squeezing of the middle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1oHJezqBYU Thats why this is also front page HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413622

What is inherently wrong with squeezing the middle? Seems like you'll get increased competition and innovation as people scramble to move to the top. Could be a net positive for mankind

By that logic I think you would want to squeeze the top right? I mean if you remove the middle then people will have to fill the middle before the even attempting at the top (and the top is saturated under current conditions) ;)

Beyond such myopic reasoning I think there is a great deal of economic theory around the collective economic benefits of having a strong middle class. You could try to argue against this but I think its at least a popular mainstream theory.

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#65

Relevant Kurzgesagt video on overpopulation: https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 I learnt about the overpopulation myth during my undergrad, but I'm continuously surprised by how many people (including Thanos) didn't know this. Edit: Here's a chart of expected population growths. It's expected to start slowing down[1] [1]: Select WORLD from the menu: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/

We're actually already overpopulated. The issue isn't so much how much people we are but how much resources these people use. We for sure cannot sustain as many people as today leading a life as resource-intensive as in Western societies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is inherently wrong with squeezing the middle? Seems like you'll get increased competition and innovation as people scramble to move to the top. Could be a net positive for mankind

By that logic I think you would want to squeeze the top right? I mean if you remove the middle then people will have to fill the middle before the even attempting at the top (and the top is saturated under current conditions) ;) Beyond such myopic reasoning I think there is a great deal of economic theory around the collective economic benefits of having a strong middle class. You could try to argue against this but…

It is a popular mainstream theory. I'm not optimistic that this can continue. With technological innovations, I am convinced that we will end up in a can and cannot society where some people will be able to keep up and some won't.

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#67
post #28

I think this is the most important thing to retain from reading this article: >[...] Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful. >To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world as it is…

I agree with you, and that's succinctly said. It reminded me of this article from a couple days ago. >Trump administration claims only 250,000 Americans live in extreme poverty, despite UN estimates of 18m https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-extreme...

These seem to be two different measurements of "extreme poverty," each of which is different from the world-wide definition used by economists in the original article:

"The UN’s numbers come from the official Census definition which has been kept for decades by the US government, defining extreme poverty as having an income lower than half the official poverty rate."

"Citing a recent survey of American households, Heritage found only 0.08 per cent of American households (or about to 250,000) are in “deep poverty,” defined by Heritage as living on less than $4 (£3) a day. This statistic does account for government social spending programmes which help the poor – like Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance – while the figure cited by the UN does not."

I guess if you're going to memorize facts, you should also memorize definitions.

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic I think you would want to squeeze the top right? I mean if you remove the middle then people will have to fill the middle before the even attempting at the top (and the top is saturated under current conditions) ;) Beyond such myopic reasoning I think there is a great deal of economic theory around the collective economic benefits of having a strong middle class. You could try to argue against this but…

It is a popular mainstream theory. I'm not optimistic that this can continue. With technological innovations, I am convinced that we will end up in a can and cannot society where some people will be able to keep up and some won't.

Well if we all go around promoting the destruction of the middle class im confident will be able to create that future that you are unoptimistic about ;)

How it will turn out is kinda unknown. 100 years ago many people couldnt read and worked on farms. We past the first transition quite well, how will we fair in the next transition is indeterminate. I do know that this is the one area where what people THINK actually could have an effect on the outcome. (unlike most science)

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#69

I'm curious about one thing. Like the article alludes to there is currently an extremely strong connection between fertility and low education, low income, and high religiosity. This [1] is a list of nations by net natural population growth. So births - deaths. From the top (according to UN predictions for 2015-2020): Uganda, Angola, Mali, Somalia, Tanzania, etc. From the bottom on nations that are collectively dying…

Within a nation this is a very good argument for taxation and wealth redistribution. You have to give those kids born to poorer parents a chance. It's better for them, it's better for you, it's better for everyone. It's also what Gates is kind of doing - redistributing his wealth to help the people who most need it.

This seems reasonable but there are some issues here as well. For instance it seems that if you gave somebody a huge amount of money, that they'd likely be able to pull themselves out of poverty. I mean, by definition, they are immediately placed in the upper or middle upper class. Unfortunately this has shown to be ineffective. For instance of all individuals who receive large windfalls of money, or win the lottery, some 70% [1] manage to end up bankrupt!

Giving money to people is not really enough to solve problems. We can see this same problem in our education system for instance. US education has been slipping quite severely by most metrics, yet we spend much more per student than most of anywhere in the world excepting something like 3 nations (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway IIRC).

While obviously the wealth of wealthy households is undoubtedly useful for child rearing, I think more important is the education that these households instill in their children. I grew up very poor and in an urban area. And I know that, undoubtedly, what helped me more than anything else was the 'Big Brothers and Big Sisters' program. I think the lessons and learning from there set me up for success far more so than having some money splashed my parent's way would have.

[1] - https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_...

Re: Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the problem is once people do obtain a healthy income and good education, they are not reproducing even to the point of sustainability. Because of this we end up taking 1 step forward, but then 2 steps back. You bring x units of population to education, out of poverty, and so on. But then they fail to reproduce to the point of sustainability. At the same time, some number much larger than x units that rema…

Why not let people in prosperous regions have a smaller population. I would love a country of smaller cities and increased prosperity

These are again the tangential issues. I think you as well as the person I was initially responding to are conflating this issue with the one of decreasing population. I agree with you - I do not see population decline as a problem in and of itself.

The problem is population dynamics. Those that are more well to do and most capable of producing productive offspring are not doing so. By contrast those least able to care for and produce productive offspring are multiplying. Imagine we start with a nation that's incredibly prosperous - there are 9 wealthy families and one poor family. But each generation the wealthy families only have 1.6 children on average - 80% of what's necessary to maintain their population. By contrast the poor family has an average of 3 children - 150% of what's necessary to maintain their population.

Generation 1: 9 wealthy, 1 poor

Generation 2: 7.2 wealthy, 1.5 poor

Generation 3: 5.76 wealthy, 2.25 poor

Generation 4: 4.6 wealthy, 3.38 poor

Generation 5: 3.68 wealthy, 5.06 poor

Generation 6: 2.94 wealthy, 7.59 poor

Of course as has been mentioned some of the poor will become wealthy and some of the wealthy will become poor, but all things being equal even in very socially balanced nations the parents' income is strongly correlated with the child's. People of no means reproducing beyond their ability to sustain themselves is not a new problem, and is something people have pondered for centuries. But what is new here is that people of means are no longer producing enough to even sustain their population. When you combine these effects together, it turns poverty into a sort of virus that spreads and expands rapidly. Our utopia where 90% of people are wealthy (somehow.. that doesn't even make sense if you consider the connotation of wealthy, but that's another topic) ended up being a nation that was heavily impoverished in just 6 generations.

I also think a somewhat interesting pattern to observe in those numbers is that there was a population decline during periods of prosperity, but as the nation became more impoverished its population began to rapidly grow. The generation where the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy being the first generation to have a greater total population than we started with at generation 1.

The whole point here is that all the work in the world against poverty means nothing if those that escape poverty do not reproduce, while those that remain within it do!

Post reply on HN