Right. It just seems obvious to me. Shouldn’t all studies and reports reflect per capita relativity and not mere national boundaries or landmass? Who does that? I guess you’re saying a lot of studies do. I’m just not sure why McKinsey is stating something so fundamental as illuminating considering it’s readership. The graphs even try to illustrate this in blindingly simply ways. I just wandered if I’m misunderstanding, if they’re creating click-bait, or if most people really do get this wrong and it’s worth clarifying. You’d suggest the latter it sounds like. It’s just interesting.
This study by McKinsey Institute seems very misleading. Email headline: “How much does the country you live in affect life expectancy? Not as much as you think.” Goes on in the email: “Microregions matter more
In Cambodia, the national average life expectancy was 69.8 years in 2019. But in some microregions along the coast and around the country’s largest cities, life expectancy is 74.6 years—while it dips as low as 61.4 years in rural areas (where 80 percent of the population lives). Find out some possible reasons why in Pixels make the picture: A guided tour through the granular world, Chapter 1 of Pixels of Progress from the McKinsey Global Institute.”
So, is it all a hyped way to look into “granular” data? Why is McKinsey focusing on something so obvious? Click-bait?
Hailifiknow OP t1_j2uazgg wrote
Reply to comment by st4n13l in Report on average life expectancy by country versus micro-region. Misleading? by Hailifiknow
Good point