Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,613 posts)
2. You quote effect.
Thu Jul 11, 2013, 09:11 AM
Jul 2013

Not cause.

Go to a poor area and you find that it's not the area and it's not the poverty, it's the people.

In general: more education = better health. Control for race and ethnicity, more education = better health. Control for age, and more education = better health. Control for geography, more education = better health. Control for income, and more education = better health.

This is in addition to the generalization that more education = better income. If you take all families making 12-15k/year (making sure to eliminate health as a reason for the low income) and pick the bottom and top quartiles for education, you'll find a health difference, even if the education difference is likely to be not all that great.

In general, geographical differences are a matter of accident (although if you're agrarian, living in a rich, fertile area is probably better than living in a swamp or the Sonoran desert).

For some groups, it's not a big difference. But we're talking aggregate here, so even that little difference would alter the overall statistics. Yes, it's appropriate to blame the victim.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The worst bad habit is marybourg Jul 2013 #1
You quote effect. Igel Jul 2013 #2
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Americans Live Longer, St...»Reply #2