An amazing new study shows the U.S. is doing much worse than other developed countries at performing the most basic function of civilization: keeping people alive.
In the last 30 years, two important things have happened with US lifespans.
1. US longevity fell way behind much of Europe
2. This happened even though the Black-white mortality gap shrunk by half, thanks to strong improvements in Black mortality in high-poverty areas.
1. In the last 30 years, Black infant mortality in the U.S. has improved by a lot
2. But the slope of the red line is still steep, which means Black infants in high-poverty areas have much worse outcomes
3. In Europe, no slope = very little effect of poverty on infant death
It's the same story for all ages
1. Black Americans have higher mortality than whites 2. The Black-white mortality gap is declining 3. In the US, where you live still strongly determines when you'll die 4. In Europe, ppl live more similar lifespans in rich and poor areas
Why is the Black-white mortality gap shrinking?
- Fewer homicides, which disproportionately affect Black Americans
- More deaths of despair, which dis. affects whites
- Declining infant mortality
- Cancer treatments seem to be reaching more Black Americans since the '90s
It's tempting to reach for 1 Big Explanation, but many things suppress US lifespan growth
- We kill one another with guns more, bc there are more guns
- We die in cars more, bc we drive a lot
- We have higher infant mortality, too, but I don't think that's bc of guns or cars
If one thing connects the decline in Black-white mortality differences *and* the superior performance of Europe, it's this:
Life and death are more interconnected than many ppl think. And policies to reduce differences in mortality outcomes seem to help EVERYBODY live longer.
Important coda: The paper above only looked at white and Black mortality, by county.
The fact that US immigrants seem to be exceptions to the overall US mortality penalty is a very interesting thing that I wish I had a handy explanation for!
My big-picture explanation for Trump’s crushing victory is this:
This wasn’t the 1st post-pandemic election. It was the 2nd COVID presidential election.
You can’t explain Trump’s across-the-board romp without seeing the ways—obvious and subtle—that the pandemic haunted 2024
1. Inflation was *a part of* the pandemic.
That is, the economic emergency was as global as the health emergency, and nearly as contagious. But while many voters forgave their leaders for COVID, they blamed their leaders for inflation, making this a horrendous year for incumbents worldwide.
Did Harris underperform. I don't think so. Her performance was total normal, adjusted for Biden’s popularity in a year of global anti-incumbency.
2. I think the 2024 election was, for many, an opportunity to protest the perception of pandemic-era excesses.
I don’t think I have as good a grasp on the significance of cultural changes in America—eg, claims of blue states upending society; or Biden admin attempts to regulate speech for public health reasons; or the salience of trans rights to conservative voters. But I think my frame—2024 was the 2nd COVID election— could easily extend to the cultural realm, too.
America's biggest and richest cities are losing children at an alarming rate.
From 2020 to 2023, the number of kids under 5 declined by
- almost 20% in NYC
- about 15% in LA, SF, Chicago, and St Louis
- >10% in NoLA, Philly, Honolulu
This exodus is not merely the result of past COVID waves.
Even at the slower rate of out-migration since 2021, several counties—Manhattan, Brooklyn, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—are on pace to lose 50% of their under-5 child population by the mid-2040s. Insane.
Progressives have a family problem.
It's not the "childless cat lady" problem that Vance etc want to talk about. It's an urban policy.
Progressives preside over counties that young families are leaving. And that's bad.
1. New Fed survey: 72% of Americans say their own finances are "doing at least okay" ... but just 22% say the national economy is good
2. In all 7 swing states, majority say (a) their state’s economy is good, and (b) the nat'l economy is bad
"Everything is terrible but I'm fine" has a lot of parts to it.
But one part of it is ppl have direct experience of their own life but draw impressions of the world from media, which is negative-biased and getting more negative over time.
The most fundamental bias in news is not left, right, pro-corporate, or anti-tech. It's a bad toward catastrophic frames. An analysis of 105,000 different variations of news stories generating 5.7 million clicks found that "for a headline of average length, each additional negative word increased the click-through rate by 2.3%"
2. Extreme opinions drive in-group sharing
On Twitter, 97% of political posts on Twitter come from 10% of the most active users, and 90% of political opinions are represented by less than 3% of tweets. Because these users are disproportionately extreme, it creates a situation where the moderate middle, which might be dominant in corporeal reality, is absent online.