Submitted by idapitbwidiuatabip t3_y88rue in Futurology
AftyOfTheUK t1_it0loz3 wrote
Reply to comment by idapitbwidiuatabip in Ikea is trialing driverless truck deliveries in Texas. by idapitbwidiuatabip
>Cool beans. Doesn't change the fact that by objective measurements, the US healthcare system is more expensive and has less desirable outcomes.
It is more expensive (that's not always a bad thing, having costs makes things better prioritized, though it's TOO much more expensive) but on outcomes...
It's worth noting that "has less desirable outcomes" mostly comes from stats related to healthcare for the entire population. This means it includes lots of people who don't have health insurance, the homeless etc. This skews the data pretty violently - if you take the subset that have jobs and decent health insurance, you'll find the numbers suddenly look a whole lot better.
>I'm glad you found some sources, but your cherry picked bits of data don't refute the more comprehensive scope of my data.
Wow. Just wow. Which of my data was "cherry-picked" exactly? National medians and averages? How exactly COULD I have cherry picked any of them?
>I've proven that economic mobility in America has all but disappeared.
Tell that to the guy I hired to bring his team to build fencing recently. He immigrated to the US just 15 years ago, spoke almost no English, knew how to weld, but worked his first year in fast food. Since then he got a job welding, then in auto repair, took over the shop, now has a welding company, an auto shop, and about fifteen mostly full time guys doing concrete, welding, fencing etc. He seems to have done fine with NO money, qualifications, contacts and just one vaguely marketable skill.
Just because lots of people are failing doesn't mean it's difficult.
>Now calculate it without the top 10%.
Oh. My. Lord. HOW DUMB ARE YOU? I gave you the MEDIAN figures.
Do you know what median means? Seriously, I'm not debating this with you. I gave you your sources you wanted, and you don't even have the reading/math comprehension of a 14 year old to understand it when the data is distilled down to the most simple presentation possible.
THE MEDIAN INCOME IS THE INCOME OF THE MOST ORDINARY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY.
I'm not going to debate with a mental midget, good day to you, sir.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it39ysf wrote
> This means it includes lots of people who don't have health insurance, the homeless etc.
Which is a flaw in our healthcare system lol
> This skews the data pretty violently -
No, it proves my point that America's healthcare system is in shambles.
> if you take the subset that have jobs and decent health insurance, you'll find the numbers suddenly look a whole lot better.
That's called cherry picking. We're talking about public health. America ranks the lowest out of the three nations we've discussed.
> Wow. Just wow. Which of my data was "cherry-picked" exactly? National medians and averages? How exactly COULD I have cherry picked any of them?
All of it. You chose headline figures that obscure the truth. Just like the headline unemployment rate obscures the fact that our labor force participation rate hasn't ever recovered from 2008.
> Tell that to the guy I hired to bring his team to build fencing recently. He immigrated to the US just 15 years ago,
15 years ago, things were different.
Just like 30 years ago, he would've had even more opportunity.
The data doesn't lie. I've given you links to the hard data proving that the poorest in America work, but don't increase their wealth and can't reliably move from one quintile of wealth to the next.
> Just because lots of people are failing doesn't mean it's difficult.
The data proves that it's much harder today. It gets harder every year that wages continue to remain disconnected from the cost of living, and they detached quite some time ago.
> Oh. My. Lord. HOW DUMB ARE YOU? I gave you the MEDIAN figures.
And they include the highest earners.
> Do you know what median means?
Are you asking me because you don't know?
> Seriously, I'm not debating this with you. I gave you your sources you wanted, and you don't even have the reading/math comprehension of a 14 year old to understand it when the data is distilled down to the most simple presentation possible.
Says the guy ignoring all of the hard data and graphs.
You linked me to landing pages. You have no hard data and it's obvious.
> THE MEDIAN INCOME IS THE INCOME OF THE MOST ORDINARY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY.
And $67.5k isn't enough to live on. That's why most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Over 2x as many Americans do compared to Brits.
Yet you try to feebly argue that America's economy is better off, that American workers have more stability. Even though twice as many of them live hand to mouth compared to Brits.
You have no logical argument. You're utterly limited by your lived experiences and seem incapable of looking at hard data and processing it.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it3eolv wrote
Like I said, not debating with a mental midget. Doubling down on your positions while offering nothing new is not the mark of a good debater. You still don't understand what median means. LOL
>And $67.5k isn't enough to live on. That's why most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Over 2x as many Americans do compared to Brits.
LOL, you're a fool. Americans earn 2x as much, have cheaper equivalent housing, cheaper cars, cheaper gas and much less tax. It's simply not possible - unless the average healthcare spend is 20k+ per working person (hint: it's not) for life to be economically harder for an American than a Brit.
However, it is possible for them to spend stupidly, and end up living paycheck to paycheck.
​
Good day.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it3fh4h wrote
> Like I said, not debating with a mental midget. Doubling down on your positions while offering nothing new is not the mark of a good debater. You still don't understand what median means. LOL
No, I do. But it's not proving what you think it is.
> LOL, you're a fool. Americans earn 2x as much, have cheaper equivalent housing, cheaper cars, cheaper gas and much less tax.
The data proves otherwise.
> It's simply not possible
Lol
Reality hurts
> However, it is possible for them to spend stupidly,
No, it's literally just wages having stagnated for 50+ years.
Here are some simple graphs that even someone as uneducated as you should be able to grasp
AftyOfTheUK t1_it3g62z wrote
>No, it's literally just wages having stagnated for 50+ years.
LOL again total failure to understand that it's even worse in the UK. Bye
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it3mwfu wrote
Yet you can't provide any data to prove that assertion
Which means you're full of it lol
AftyOfTheUK t1_it41izl wrote
I posted up links specifically to income, taxes, housing costs etc.
Go click on them and read them.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it48qcw wrote
None of those links prove the comparative assertion you’re making.
You have no data on economic mobility in the UK
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments