The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

[mongers]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

Which makes the situation all the more worrying.

And under Johnson England might end up as a semi-51st state.

[The Larch]

IIRC the UK is by far the most unequal country in the EU.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

Which makes the situation all the more worrying.

And under Johnson England might end up as a semi-51st state.

Agreed.  The UK becoming as bad as the US seems a likely outcome

[garbon]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

Sure, but I wasn't refuting that there are income inequality issues in the US. I was only pointing out that it seemed rather absurd for mongers to say that inequality in the US would make him sad and unable to live in the US when near similar issues in the UK haven't triggered the same feelings.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

Sure, but I wasn't refuting that there are income inequality issues in the US. I was only pointing out that it seemed rather absurd for mongers to say that inequality in the US would make him sad and unable to live in the US when near similar issues in the UK haven't triggered the same feelings.

I think he is very disappointed about his own country.  It not surprising he would not want to live in a country that represents the worst of what he dislikes about his own country.

[mongers]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/uk-heading-toward-the-inequality-seen-in-us-nobel-prize-winner-warns.html

As I was saying, UK is no bed of roses for income inequality.

But as the  article you linked notes, they are heading toward the thing best avoided - the situation in the US.

Sure, but I wasn't refuting that there are income inequality issues in the US. I was only pointing out that it seemed rather absurd for mongers to say that inequality in the US would make him sad and unable to live in the US when near similar issues in the UK haven't triggered the same feelings.

I think he is very disappointed about his own country.  It not surprising he would not want to live in a country that represents the worst of what he dislikes about his own country.

This.

And of course it's the direction of travel that matters.

[dps]

You can live somewhere where only 2% of the population smoke or are obese, but if you're part of that 2%, you're not any better off than you would be if you lived somewhere where 98% of the population smokes and is obese;

If you live where health care, income level, availability of leisure time and ready access to healthy foods and regulation of unhealthy foods is such that your jurisdiction has only a 2% obesity rate, then those 2% certainly have a better quality of life (even though obese) than the hell hole that has 98% obesity.  The only reason it would get that high is if all the above metrics were shit.

Actually, it's almost the opposite, if we're just looking at obesity.  In the US, the places with the highest incidence of obesity tend to be the poorer places, and vice-versa--but if you happen to live in an area with high obesity but are well-off financially, there's no reason for the prevalence of obesity in the area in which you live to affect you personally.  Conversely, if you live in an area with relatively low rates of obesity, but are yourself poor, you may not be able to afford a healthy diet.

Though it says something about the standard of living in the US that the main health problem facing poor people here is obesity, not starvation.

[DGuller]

Actually, it's almost the opposite, if we're just looking at obesity.  In the US, the places with the highest incidence of obesity tend to be the poorer places, and vice-versa--but if you happen to live in an area with high obesity but are well-off financially, there's no reason for the prevalence of obesity in the area in which you live to affect you personally.  Conversely, if you live in an area with relatively low rates of obesity, but are yourself poor, you may not be able to afford a healthy diet.

Though it says something about the standard of living in the US that the main health problem facing poor people here is obesity, not starvation.

Maybe 100 years ago it would've said something.  In an era when caloric intake is no longer cost-prohibitive anywhere, it doesn't say a whole lot.

[crazy canuck]

You can live somewhere where only 2% of the population smoke or are obese, but if you're part of that 2%, you're not any better off than you would be if you lived somewhere where 98% of the population smokes and is obese;

If you live where health care, income level, availability of leisure time and ready access to healthy foods and regulation of unhealthy foods is such that your jurisdiction has only a 2% obesity rate, then those 2% certainly have a better quality of life (even though obese) than the hell hole that has 98% obesity.  The only reason it would get that high is if all the above metrics were shit.

Actually, it's almost the opposite, if we're just looking at obesity.  In the US, the places with the highest incidence of obesity tend to be the poorer places, and vice-versa--but if you happen to live in an area with high obesity but are well-off financially, there's no reason for the prevalence of obesity in the area in which you live to affect you personally.  Conversely, if you live in an area with relatively low rates of obesity, but are yourself poor, you may not be able to afford a healthy diet.

Though it says something about the standard of living in the US that the main health problem facing poor people here is obesity, not starvation.

Yes obesity is correlated with poverty.  That is the point.  The poor can not afford nutritional low calorie food and subsist in cheap junk food.  They do not have the leisure time to engage of activities that promote fitness.

[dps]

Actually, it's almost the opposite, if we're just looking at obesity.  In the US, the places with the highest incidence of obesity tend to be the poorer places, and vice-versa--but if you happen to live in an area with high obesity but are well-off financially, there's no reason for the prevalence of obesity in the area in which you live to affect you personally.  Conversely, if you live in an area with relatively low rates of obesity, but are yourself poor, you may not be able to afford a healthy diet.

Though it says something about the standard of living in the US that the main health problem facing poor people here is obesity, not starvation.

Maybe 100 years ago it would've said something.  In an era when caloric intake is no longer cost-prohibitive anywhere, it doesn't say a whole lot.

I'm pretty sure that there are still a lot of starving people in the third world who would disagree with you.

And actually, part of the reason we have so much of a problem with obesity is that many of us are eating a diet that would have been better suited for a century or more ago.  The calorie intake that a lot of Americans have nowadays would have been fine for people doing hard physical labor from sunup to sundown.

[DGuller]

I'm pretty sure that there are still a lot of starving people in the third world who would disagree with you.

And actually, part of the reason we have so much of a problem with obesity is that many of us are eating a diet that would have been better suited for a century or more ago.  The calorie intake that a lot of Americans have nowadays would have been fine for people doing hard physical labor from sunup to sundown.

The problem is that we are eating shit that doesn't regulate our appetite well.  Human bodies are actually capable of regulating their food intake, so that those busy with farming eat more than those working behind their desks, but that regulation works much better with fatty foods than with Coke.

[derspiess]

Poor people have leisure time, and they can afford low calorie food. Veggies still aren't that expensive.

[Threviel]

I have seen or read that veggies is actually hard to come by in poorer areas of the US. Propaganda or sometging to it?

[Syt]

I have seen or read that veggies is actually hard to come by in poorer areas of the US. Propaganda or sometging to it?

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