Page 1 of 1

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:19 pm
by rubato
Actually what I'm hoping for is a prescriptive response; what are the minimum of things we need to do to have a society where the difference in outcomes is justified by actual equality of opportunity. Health is so central to ability that we really can't pretend that we aren't nobbling the children of the poor before they even get to the gate. At minimum we need health care, decent diet, decent housing and an environment free of lead and other forms of pollution.



http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... -at-birth/

Inequality of Opportunity Begins at Birth
July 26, 2013 at 11:42 am
Bill Gardner

Equality of opportunity means that we are not a caste society. Who we will become is not fixed by the circumstances of our births. Some children will do better than others, but this should result from a fair competition. Nearly every American politician espouses a commitment to equality of opportunity. For example, Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote yesterday that

We must continue to fight for equal opportunity to a quality education for all children.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many American politicians said the same thing yesterday.

But we don’t appreciate how deep inequality runs. The graph below is from a presentation by Angus Deaton which (I believe) reported data from the National Health Interview Survey. The horizontal axis is the logarithm of family income in 1982 dollars, running from about $3600 to over $80,000. The vertical axis is self-reported ill-health (higher numbers reflect worse health). The parallel lines represent different age groups of respondents.

Image

There are three important facts packed into this slide. First, the lines stack up in order of increasing age, meaning that older people reported worse health than younger people. Second, all the lines slope downward, meaning that the poorer you were, the more likely you had poor health.

These facts are unsurprising, until you notice how powerful the income effect is. The leftmost point of the youngest (turquoise) line is above the rightmost point of the oldest (purple) line. This means that the poorest teenagers reported themselves as less healthy than rich middle-aged people.

Lastly, notice how the age lines are much more dispersed on the left (poorest) side of the graph than the right (richest) side of the graph. This means that health deteriorates more quickly with age among the poor than among the rich.

...

As Janet Currie argues, there is huge inequality in health at birth. For example, the incidence of low birth weight (birth weight less than 2500 grams) is more than three times higher among children of black high school dropout mothers than among children of white college educated mothers.

This may be partly a matter of genes. But the infants of the poor are also at risk because poor mothers have poorer health, are more stressed, and are more likely to be exposed to environmental toxins. Poverty gets underneath the skin, starting in the uterus.

Poor health deriving from inequality of economic well-being begins at birth and accumulates as children develop. We are farther from equality of opportunity than most of us acknowledge.

Re: What's wrong with this picture?

Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:39 pm
by dgs49
So who's to blame, rubie?

The mothers who pop out children who they know for a fact they have no resources to nurture?

Or the unsuspecting taxpayer who told her not to keep popping out bastard kids?

The playing field is level, but in a free society you can't prevent people from making disastrous personal choices. But what you could do is stop paying people for making those choices, stop government programs that try to eliminate the normal and natural consequences of those choices.

Maybe we could sterilize HS dropouts.

Re: What's wrong with this picture?

Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:19 pm
by rubato
Blame someone and turn your brain off!

It's the republican way.


Yrs,
Rubato