…and this is a 
Accept the implications
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: January 12, 2007 2:33 PM, by PZ Myers
Awww, poor William Dembski is puzzled by the data that shows that acceptance of evolution rises with education level. I'm sorry, guy, but that's what the evidence shows: better educated people tend to support good science more than poorly educated people, and Intelligent Design creationism derives its popularity from ignorance. Larry Moran puts him in his place.
At the risk of boring anyone with an IQ over 80, let me make the point that Dembski is deliberately missing. In 2002, if you rejected evolution you were an idiot. That's because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The same correlation holds today, only more so.
One other thing that that graph shows is that conservatism is associated with disbelief in evolution, and several people have complained that they dislike the way I phrased it, as "American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science". They've complained that it's only a correlation, not evidence of causation, and that it's not about science, it's about evolution. However, I stand by my wording.
The voice of conservatism in America is the Republican party, and the Republican party stands against evolution, against stem cell research, against reproductive rights, against education, against the environment, against alternative energy research, against pollution controls, against good science education, against universal health care, on and on and on. I appreciate that individual conservatives in good conscience may deplore the anti-science agenda and divorce themselves from rather large chunks of the Republican platform, and I understand that the party has not always been such a refuge for know-nothings and may someday reshape itself, but face it: conservatism in this country is tightly coupled to scientific ignorance. If you are a conservative, that is your problem (just as the ineffective, dithering dullards of the Democratic party are my problem, as an openly declared liberal). Buck up, accept the responsibility, and do something about it. Fight for reform of America's conservative political party.
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
Comments
Poor Willy--didn't he hear the Rev. Ray Mummert exclaim Aiiieee!! Help!! "We're under attack by the intellectual and educated segment of society!" in Pennsylvania during the Kitzmiller trial? Oh, that's right, Dembski wasn't there.
Posted by: mark | January 12, 2007 2:46 PM
i saw some guy in a minivan driving around the other day with a huge magnetic sign on the driver's side door. in big black letters:
and the word "science" was bright red and bold.
oy.
Posted by: cleek | January 12, 2007 2:47 PM
PZ: Well stated!
On this:
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
Or, recognize that some of your conservative views should be modified (to embrace the more correct, liberal views) or put aside (because they are private issues and should not be part of legislation or politics). What remains can probably be accommodated in the Democratic party (hey, we have Joe Lieberman, right?).
You don't have to declare yourself a Democrat, or joint the party. Just vote Democratic. Trust us, you'll be happy you did.
(That was for all 1.5 of you conservatives reading this thread.)
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 2:53 PM
Re Greg Laden
Actually, Ben Nelson is well to the right of Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: SLC | January 12, 2007 2:59 PM
PZ: Is there a difference in the education specialty of conservatives vs liberals. Is there a larger percentage of liberals with science education compared to conservatives? While your conclusion may be valid, I think we would need to know more about the educational background of the two groups before positively concluding it is solely a difference between being a conservative or being a liberal.
Posted by: KH | January 12, 2007 3:03 PM
>>I appreciate that individual conservatives in good conscience may deplore the anti-science agenda and divorce themselves from rather large chunks of the Republican platform, and I understand that the party has not always been such a refuge for know-nothings and may someday reshape itself, but face it: conservatism in this country is tightly coupled to scientific ignorance. If you are a conservative, that is your problem
AND they still voted for him, they still support his policies, they still patronize Fox and Limbaugh, they still turn a blind eye to those within their party that DO or say the things some of them claim to not support.
I say, if you voted for the Doofus, and voted for his Rubber Stampers in the Senate and Congress, then I don't care if you claim you don't support all of it, YOU'RE STILL THE PROBLEM. Forget distancing yourself now, it's too late.
Redemption is possible, I guess, but it'd better be accompanied by action.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | January 12, 2007 3:08 PM
Cleek:
The NIV Bible has "science" as "knowledge" instead; the passage is actually intended to warn against anyone who promulgates prevarication as fact, such as the Van Guy himself is doing. That is, he's acting in direct contradiction to the admonition he's plastered on the side of his vehicle.
But then, unlike the Van Guy, I've actually done some research into various religions ... which is of course why I reject them all. :\
Posted by: Warren | January 12, 2007 3:31 PM
Actually, I think you were more than fair when you implied at the end that it isn't enough to accept evolution if is only because it is the "leftist" thing to do (these days, anyway) and not because of scientific understanding.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 12, 2007 3:42 PM
"the Republican party stands against... stem cell research"
How would you feel about funding churches and anti-evolution seminaries? From what I have gathered, most conservatives are against FEDERAL funding of stem cell research which is a good thing.
I'm all for stem cell research for as long as it's done by private individuals and companies.
"against education"
The policies of the Democratic Party have long been more anti-education (in practice) than those of the Republican party. The Republican party advocates market-based solutions, vouchers and private schools which all are sane alternatives to the platform of the Democratic Party. The Dems only want more money (which some states already spend more than the so called "welfare" states in Europe) on education and are unwilling to fight against the teacher unions that uphold the poor quality of education by fighting for the "rights" of bad teachers.
"against the environment"
Economic growth is more important than "controlling" (which can't be done) global warming (for example). Economic growth also leads to technological research and development which has always been mankind's best weapon (of adaptation) against nature and "overpopulation".
"against alternative energy research"
On the contrary - the Republicans want to lower corporate taxes so that companies can invest more into the kind of research they want to which ultimately means investing into alternative energy research (since it's their future incomes that depend on exploiting alternative energy sources).
The Republicans also want to make oil more available by advocating drilling oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico.
"against universal health care"
And this is a bad thing?
Have you ever read a book on economics? Keeping in mind that economic planning doesn't work and that you can advocate Socialism only by relying on moral arguments it seems to be you who's advocating unscientific, religious crap here.
If anything the US should liberalize its private health care system even more and get rid off MedicAid and MediCare.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 3:44 PM
Cleek, notice that scripture warns against "science falsely so-called."
And creationists think it doesn't apply to creationism. Isn't that rich?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 12, 2007 3:48 PM
One could make a case for this, as PZ began to do in this blog: "American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science". For taken as a whole (which is allowable depending on context), conservatives impede or block science through political means.
However, no scientist would come to the cause-effect conclusions that PZ did earlier, not based on those data alone. If one were clearly editorializing, rather than trying to make apparently factual claims that (as far as I can tell) Science doesn't make--probably due to confounding issues--then it would be fine.
The Republican party is the voice (not "a primary" or "the primary" voice) of conservatism? Has PZ had a divine revelation to this effect, or may people still think for themselves in the US? Ought pro-science conservatives to shut up, not contradict their leaders? I would hate to push that, simply as a matter of trying to win some over to science. And does PZ think that one must be conservative in order to call him on his inadequate analysis?
Well they aren't my dogs in this fight, so I'll leave off this subject now. I wanted to disagree with those who think that saying one "believes in evolution" or "believes evolution" is somehow a misuse of words (instead of merely leaving the door open to the yahoos' constant misuse of words).
The first definition for "believe" that I looked up had as its first meaning "To accept as true or real", with the sentence example being "Do you believe the news stories?". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/believe Well, does one believe in exercise, quantum mechanics, the judicial system, mathematical axioms and prooofs, or is that somehow impossible (I know that not all examples are fully comparable)? Did people believe in continental drift prior to its widespread acceptance, and may they believe in it now (I mention both cases because "believing in" continental drift prior to its mainstreaming seems an especially common way of stating one's mind)?
Of course I don't recommend using "believe in evolution" any more than is necessary today, because the secular vernacular meaning of "accept as true" is either ignorantly or deliberately equivocated with the religious meaning of the phrase "believe in God". They have to say that they "believe in God" because one cannot make an adequate case for this God being in existence, while we have alternatives like "acknowledge" or "accept" (I know that they say these too, but these are predicated on belief without adequate (or any) evidence).
So I do recommend not using "believe evolution" or the like, but there was really nothing wrong with its use in common parlance. One may say "I believe" in order to affirm assent to a reasonable proposition or a well-evidenced theory, yet it is not wise to do so any more with respect to evolution.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 12, 2007 3:57 PM
Dr. Dembski would do well to remember that you can't spell IDiot without ID. In fact, it can be argued that ID is an essential part of being an IDiot. A quick perusal of his Uncommonly Dense blog backs this up, and a more in-depth look at the postings of the sycophants he has surreonded himself with give even more credence to ths view.
His next book will probably called "ID - Greetings From The Fringe".
Posted by: J-Dog | January 12, 2007 4:00 PM
Except when 'conservatives' got into office all they seemed to want to do was cut taxes for the rich and run up huge deficits.
They don't believe in government other than as a police force and as a military.
They want everything privatized so they can get a big pay off. They don't want to do anything.
The last time I checked healthcare and health insurance were incredibly expensive...
and yes that's great for the corporations but not for the average working person who's
wages have gone down while the top 5% got richer.
But fuck'em right, that's the free market.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 4:00 PM
Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus tells a similar tale of progressive religious transformation toward lesser belief in the mystical with increasing education. I believe he's now an atheist. No wonder higher education is and always will be on the hit list.
Posted by: Jim in STL | January 12, 2007 4:03 PM
Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.
How long before the Insane Christianist party broke down into a few dozen squabling fundamentalist sectarian strains all pointing the finger of godlessness at each other? Not to mention the outsider Catholics and Mormons who wouldn't meet qualifification for admission in the first place (the godless heathen "Christian" need not apply - only REAL Christians need apply clause).
Posted by: Jim in STL | January 12, 2007 4:18 PM
One other thing that that graph shows is that conservatism is associated with disbelief in evolution, and several people have complained that they dislike the way I phrased it, as "American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science". They've complained that it's only a correlation, not evidence of causation, and that it's not about science, it's about evolution. However, I stand by my wording.
Well, you can stand by it, but the evidence you've presented doesn't support it. Science is obviously much more than just evolution. I wonder what the results would look like for similar graphs on belief in things like homeopathy and numerology and parapsychology.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 4:31 PM
I heard Ehrman describe himself as happily agnostic in an NPR interview last year.
Posted by: dcbob | January 12, 2007 4:34 PM
Well, it's difficult to maintain a literally-interpreted Biblical view when you're exposed to a decent education.
Posted by: Rhampton | January 12, 2007 4:43 PM
Buck up, accept the responsibility, and do something about it. Fight for reform of America's conservative political party.
I've been doing it longer than you've been in long pants, guy. But thanks for the inspirational lecture. What I really needed was encouragment from a leftist.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | January 12, 2007 4:44 PM
Statistics and analysis come from national surveys conducted by Barna Research.
Posted by: Rhampton | January 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Two snippets from Dembski's post:
and
Sometimes further comment is superfluous.
Posted by: RBH | January 12, 2007 5:01 PM
Against universal health care, someone said:
I'll bet the support of universal health care corresponds well with college education, too.
First, socialism requires planning of outputs in the classic models. Unless you have some means of planning who will get sick, with what diseases or injuries, and when, the health care system can never be socialism. If you're softening the definition of socialism to mean "concerned about the welfare of other people," then you could be right -- but then one would be a fool to oppose it.
Second, any economic study would show that delivery of medical care is cheaper than not delivering it. Preventive care, and frequent doctor visits, and catching diseases earlier rather than later, reduce the costs of health care over the lifetime of the average person by about 50%. Currently in the U.S. we spend a minimum of $0.25 of every $1.00 in health care for administrative purposes designed to prevent people from getting health care if they are not insured. If we stopped doing that one thing alone, health care costs would remain flat at least for two years.
Reading a book on economics and studying health care economics are not the same things.
Universal health care, by the way, would be the Christian thing to do. Jesus' ministry included healing the sick, halt and lame - especially those who couldn't afford insurance. A true Scotsman would pinch that damn penny wisely.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 12, 2007 5:34 PM
""against universal health care"
And this is a bad thing?
Have you ever read a book on economics? Keeping in mind that economic planning doesn't work and that you can advocate Socialism only by relying on moral arguments it seems to be you who's advocating unscientific, religious crap here.
If anything the US should liberalize its private health care system even more and get rid off MedicAid and MediCare."
Does this poster ealise that EVRY EU country + Switerland+Norway has "Socialst" helth-care, and all of it is better than given to people in the USa - especially those without VERY EXPENSIVE private health insurance - and sometimes, even then it is better - especially if you get a prolonged cancer.....
Posted by: G. Tingey | January 12, 2007 6:31 PM
Ed Darrell:
"I'll bet the support of universal health care corresponds well with college education, too."
With the way universities are these days, especially in Finland, it's no wonder the welfare model seems to be considered a value in itself.
"First, socialism requires planning of outputs in the classic models. Unless you have some means of planning who will get sick, with what diseases or injuries, and when, the health care system can never be socialism."
That's the way it works here (Finland). First you plan an estimate on how much money the health care sector is going to need and then you work with it. Because governments can't plan (also known as "the economic calculation problem") they can't adjust supply properly with demand. This is why our socialized health care system doesn't work; there isn't enough workers, the work environment isn't very appealing (the work load and stress have been increasing for years), the pay is very low, you have to wait from months to years to get treatment (it's no wonder our cancer survival rate is lower than that of America's) and the whole system is basically a free rider of the American system (Americans pay the bill of r&d and we take advantage of your innovations since our system doesn't create enough wealth, or can't allocate resources efficiently enough, for r&d).
And we have only five million people here. A universal health care in a country of 300 million people with a heterogeneous population would be a disaster.
"Second, any economic study would show that delivery of medical care is cheaper than not delivering it."
Medical care can be delivered by the private sector more efficiently.
"Reading a book on economics and studying health care economics are not the same things."
Reading a book on economics helps you understand the cause of problems within our health care system.
"Universal health care, by the way, would be the Christian thing to do."
And why you think I care? I'm an atheist.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 6:31 PM
(That was for all 1.5 of you conservatives reading this thread.)
I guess I'm the .5, since I'm a Libertarian. I embrace some conservative views, but definitely not of their religious and anti-science ones. In fact, education is one of the few places I think the government should focus on. If we can stop paying for useless projects and misguided wars, we should adopt the Irish plan and start giving out free college. With a highly educated workforce, we won't need welfare or any social security nets; people will be smart enough (hopefully) to not run up credit card debts, understand economics, vote in a more mature way, and restore America to it's brilliant past.
But that's Libertarian idealism for you.
Posted by: JD Kolassa | January 12, 2007 6:43 PM
G. Tingey:
"Does this poster ealise that EVRY EU country + Switerland+Norway has "Socialst" helth-care and all of it is better than given to people in the USa"
Read my earlier post in which I listed some of the problems we have. The bottom line is that WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THIS SYSTEM. The day the American consumer is attacked with high taxes the European welfare system falls. We're already having major problems. The growth of the welfare system stopped during the nineties but was partly saved by your economic growth during Clinton (restrained by Gingrich's Congress).
"especially if you get a prolonged cancer....."
Chances of surviving one is higher in America. The welfare system sacrifices lives in the name of egalitarianism.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 6:44 PM
JD Kolassa:
"I guess I'm the .5, since I'm a Libertarian. I embrace some conservative views, but definitely not of their religious and anti-science ones. In fact, education is one of the few places I think the government should focus on."
That's quite anti-libertarian. The government should back off instead of focusing on anything.
"With a highly educated workforce, we won't need welfare or any social security nets;"
Heh! Poverty in Finland is INCREASING and our unemployment rate is at 10%. At the same time more and more people are better educated. Again; governments can neither calculate nor allocate resources efficiently.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 6:50 PM
Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now.
Posted by: afterthought | January 12, 2007 7:39 PM
Maybe accepting evolution just MAKES you intelligent. Some may want to consider offering some kind of baptismal acknowledgment of evolution that people can just take to be certified intelligent hahaha HEY, I'm JOKING.
I pass from any argument leading to the ole "be like me or be stupid" notion, from any of the sides involved (since most sides always make similar bad arguments based on crappy data).
We should not piddle our pants in enthusiasm over any of this kind of "suggestive" soft crap. On the most frivolous or unsincere can be moved by such an argument into accepting evolution. It's no use.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 12, 2007 7:47 PM
Wow. A Finn is telling us to listen to conservatives?
He has no idea what it's like here.
Do you even know how much we spend on insurance?
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 8:27 PM
afterthought:
"Ah, I now see why I had Mikko in the filter file.
I will just put him back there now."
Another fine example that economically left-wing people and Christians are from the same tree. Both live in a world which can be protected only by preventing facts from flowing in. This is why most left-wing "debators" start relying on ad hominem and moral arguments when things get rough.
Steve_C:
"Do you even know how much we spend on insurance?"
Yes. Do you know that Finns have hardly any wealth and that 44% of income is taxed? On top of that the whole system is falling apart.
So much for "free" health care and education.
And that's not even relevant. American Capitalism works and has worked for more than two hundred years while the welfare state lasted for maybe two or three decades.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 9:11 PM
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
Also we're one of the UNhealthiest countries in the industrialized world.
I didn't say capitalism didn't work. I said our healthcare system isn't. I have nothing against captialism. But it must be managed. And it should not be used to shirk a government's responsibility to its citizens.
Conservatives got their chance here... and what did they do?
Nothing positive.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 9:18 PM
I'd like to comment on this a bit more:
"A Finn is telling us to listen to conservatives?"
Don't get me wrong - conservatives are hardly better. After all, they spent like socialists for the past six years.
But Christianity has always been there and America has triumphed despite Christianity because of the economic system. That's why it's more important to oppose left-wing economics than to oppose right-wing Christians.
As a Classical Liberal I, of course, also oppose all attempts by the government to mess with social liberties and, like most Finnish libertarians, advocate rationalism (of which advocating Capitalism is a result of) and atheism.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 9:18 PM
Left wing economics have been around since the 30's.
Also the only president to preside over an economic boom in the past 20 years was a liberal democrat.
Actually I'm not sure conservatives have had ANY positive record when it comes to the U.S. economy in the past century.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 12, 2007 9:24 PM
"Americans have hardly any wealth."
Americans have more wealth than 99% of all nations on this planet.
"I didn't say capitalism didn't work. I said our healthcare system isn't."
And I said I partly agree and that is because the system is not free, because of Medicare and Medicaid, because of those million-dollar lawsuits etc.
There's no reason to sosialize the system even more since we have all seen how the so-called "welfare" states are doing.
"I have nothing against captialism. But it must be managed."
Capitalism is economic liberalism. Laissez-faire is the whole point of Capitalism. It should never be managed.
"Conservatives got their chance here... and what did they do?"
I agree. I hoped to see them lose but only to force them to get back to their original principles.
"Left wing economics have been around since the 30's."
Which is quite unfortunate especially when considering the fact that the Great Depression was caused by the government (the Federal Reserve).
"Also the only president to preside over an economic boom in the past 20 years was a liberal democrat."
Restrained by a conservative Congress. After all, Hillary did try to socialize the US health care system.
"Actually I'm not sure conservatives have had ANY positive record when it comes to the U.S. economy in the past century."
Ronald Reagan turned the tide although he actually does get a bit too much of credit. But still; "he" brought down the unemployment rate, encouraged economic growth and most importantly - brought inflation down and unregulated the sluggish oil markets.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 9:38 PM
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542. The U.S. also has one of the highest rates of homeownership in the world, higher than that of almost all European nations.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 9:42 PM
Yes. Do you know that Finns have hardly any wealth and that 44% of income is taxed? On top of that the whole system is falling apart.
"[T]he whole system is falling apart"? Forgive me, but this sounds a bit like the rhetoric we get from right-wingers that our social security system is "falling apart". They've been saying this since FDR, always relying on the same bogus economic pseudoscience.
So much for "free" health care and education.
Ah, I see. Our education system is falling apart too. But it seems that most other countries have education statistics that trump ours. I supposed Europe and East Asia can only have viable public education systems because we don't, though.
But hey, public education is obviously a failure. Those countries which have invested in massive public education and wiping out illiteracy over the last 150 years have failed miserably, while those who have not are top-tier world economies.
And that's not even relevant. American Capitalism works and has worked for more than two hundred years while the welfare state lasted for maybe two or three decades.
How do you define "American capitalism"? America has never had the purely laissez-faire system that right-wingers dream of. We have almost always had high protective tariffs and have had anti-trust laws, union-organizing rights, workers compensation laws etc. (which all, by the way, used to be much more stringently enforced) for more than a century, not to mention social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. for decades. And then there is the fact that we have had a graduated income tax...do I really have to go on?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 9:45 PM
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542.
He probably means net income, which is actually in the $36,000 range.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 9:47 PM
Either you need our public sector, or we need your private sector. Handling a health care claim costs 10 times as much run through the private sector in the U.S. that the same claim costs run through Medicare or Medicaid. The public sector is vastly more efficient at handling the paperwork, and has been for 30 years. On health delivery, Canada's system is vastly more efficient than the U.S. system -- a heart attack hospital stay runs about 25% in Canada what it runs in the U.S. for exactly the same treatment. Lines are nonexistent up there. Here in the U.S. we have different waiting lines: Forever if one lacks the best insurance. About 100 million Americans are grossly under-served, and 50 million have almost no access at all except at the most expensive end, the emergency room once they are close to death.
Cancer and heart survival rates are better in Canada than the U.S. simply because everybody gets treated, and consequently cancers, for example, get treated earlier, when the treatments are cheaper and much more effective.
The least expensive health care is the best health care: Top notch prevention, early intervention. U.S. health care now is designed to prevent access at almost all costs ("gatekeepers" is what our general practice physicians are called, and they get bonuses from the insurance companies for preventing access to specialists -- no kidding).
Market systems rarely work in health care where there are secondary payors. The person ordering the product doesn't pay the bill. "Privatizing" the system can't fix it, it only rations health care by denying it to more people of lower economic means, which raises the overall costs in the medium and long run (and sometimes the short run). The magical drugs we get from U.S. citizens paying more for drugs are less than 15% of the cost of health care -- less than administration, almost equalled by legal complications from lack of timely delivery.
At every step of the way in the U.S., a universal payor system has been shown to be cheaper.
By the way, one reason Japanese autos cost less than U.S. autos is because Japan has a government-operated health system that both works better in delivery of health care to workers, and costs a lot less. The most efficient of the world's industrialized free market nations typically have a government-run health system that beats the heck out of the U.S. system.
If there were a way to make health care truly a free market, free market solutions would work. Trauma victims can't afford to shop; people with company insurance are prevented from shopping. In such a non-free-market system, socialized medicine is a vastly superior delivery system, vastly more efficient and efficacious, vastly less expensive, and a long, long way from socialism.
Every one of the problems you cite for Finland, Mikko, is worse here. There is a constant, chronic shortage of nurses and technicians, they get paid a pittance (I was arguing this with Sen. Orrin Hatch some years ago, and he said that was untrue; we walked into his office, where his new receptionist had come from Utah where she had a masters in nursing, and I asked her why she took the job. She explained to Hatch that she was making much more answering the phone there, one of the lowest-paid staffers, than she made as a nurse. It's still true. I wish I had that sequence on video.)Work conditions are stressful, especially for physicians who must argue with insurance companies constantly.
Poverty in America is rocketing. Free market failures are no prettier than socialism failures, but with no government safety nets the falls are longer and the deaths more grisly.
The government bureaucracy that covers everyone, by dint of its being much, much smaller, and not greed-driven, is much more efficient than a fractured, private bureaucracy that fails to cover at all a sixth of the population. Private socialism is no better at allocating resources than government socialism, it's just more expensive.
I rant too long. My apologies. I hope you get your problems resolved there, and keep those telephones and fancy design items coming our way. Vodka, too.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 12, 2007 9:49 PM
Here are some number I happen to have handy for 2004:
The mean family before-tax income in 2004 was $70,000. The median family income in that year was $43,200
Mean household income in 2004 for the top 10 percent of the US population in 2004 was $302,100
The number you cite may be from a subset of data of homeowners only, with equity adjustments. That's the only thing that could come close to the figure you cite. It is not the median household income of actual households.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 9:57 PM
Ed Darrell,
You make numerous factual claims and provide nothing to substantiate them. The Canadian health care system suffers from serious problems of rationing and shortages. Health care services in Canada are increasingly provided by private, for-profit companies. See, for example, this piece from the New York Times.
Quote:
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 10:02 PM
Another point that should be made is that 90% of the research on medical drugs in done by that ghastly public sector, not private R&D. Not only that, but most of what counts as private research is a copy-cat version something already produced by universities, the NIH, small biotech labs using public grants, etc. We already have a health-care system in America, it's just a ramshackle system due to the influence of private extortionists.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 10:05 PM
Jason,
Ed Darrell provided about as much factual content as the article you cite. Most the railing against Canada's system is interpretation, and it says later in the article that Canadian provincial officials are drawing plans to shore up the system. Full privatization is unlikely to happen when less then 10% of their population prefers out system.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 10:14 PM
He probably means net income, which is actually in the $36,000 range.
He said "wealth." The Census Bureau reports that median household money income in 2005 was $46,326. That doesn't seem like "hardly any" income, either.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 10:15 PM
No, I don't think Net Worth is there either, unless you only count the median for people with, well, worth.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 10:19 PM
Tyler DiPietro,
Ed Darrell provided about as much factual content as the article you cite.
We don't know if Ed Darrell's post contains any factual content at all. He makes a lot of factual claims but provides nothing to substantiate any of them. Without even having to check, I knew immediately that his "poverty in America is rocketing" claim is utter nonsense. The U.S. poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6%, barely different from the rates in previous recent years. The rate has been roughly stable for around three decades [source].
Most the railing against Canada's system is interpretation, and it says later in the article that Canadian provincial officials are drawing plans to shore up the system.
Huh? The piece documents serious shortages and rationing of health care services in Canada's government-run health care system, and the rapid growth of private, for-profit medical centers to satisfy public demand for services.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 10:27 PM
Greg Laden,
No, I don't think Net Worth is there either, unless you only count the median for people with, well, worth.
Assuming this is addressed to me, the median household net worth figure for 2005 of $224,542 is from here. The figure comes from the Federal Reserve Board's annual Survey of Consumer Finances. And it reflects all U.S. households, not just those with a positive net worth.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 10:37 PM
The U.S. poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6%, barely different from the rates in previous recent years. The rate has been roughly stable for around three decades [source].
Looking at what he said:
Poverty in America is rocketing. Free market failures are no prettier than socialism failures, but with no government safety nets the falls are longer and the deaths more grisly.
It looks like he's using an informal definition of poverty,
and the source you cite corroborates many of his claims on the matter (increase in the percentage of uninsured Americans, for instance). Plus one could take note of the chart showing increases in real median income between about 1960 and 2005, which can be complimented by this article detailing the largely disproportionate rise in productivity and corporate profits.
Huh? The piece documents serious shortages and rationing of health care services in Canada's government-run health care system, and the rapid growth of private, for-profit medical centers to satisfy public demand for services.
It's one article in the New York Times that makes such unbiased and journalistic-ally objective claims as "Canada's health care system is falling apart". That there are private clinics operating and shortages being experienced in Canada (one country with universal health-care among every industrialized nation outside the U.S.), doesn't justify the grandiose conclusion that it is "falling apart". It also mentions later that provincial authorities are drawing up plans to shore up the system. And still, less than 10% of Canadians support the American system, making privatization politically unlikely. And if you want statistics on how much better Canada does in health than the U.S., you can start here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 10:55 PM
I don't see much detail in statistical methodology in your source re: net household worth. This detailed 2001 U.S. Census report is giving far lower numbers.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 11:06 PM
Ed Darrell:
Lines are nonexistent up there [in Canada]
The New York Times, reporting a study by the Fraser Institute on waiting times in the Canadian public health care system:
The median wait between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist in 2005 was 8.3 weeks (up from 3.7 weeks in 1993).
The median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment in 2005 was 9.4 weeks (up from 5.6 weeks in 1993).
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery.
The Quebec court case that opened the floodgates to private, for-profit medical care in Canada was Chaoulli v. Quebec. The court's ruling in that case included the following findings:
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 11:07 PM
PJ seems to be confusing Conservatives with the people who have taken over the Republican party. Like some of the posters above, I'm working hard to get my party back on track. Hopefully some real conservatives will run for office next time and we'll get a chance to reclaim our party's values.
Posted by: JScarry | January 12, 2007 11:10 PM
This detailed 2001 U.S. Census report is giving far lower numbers.
Of course it is. The year for which that document is reporting data is 1995, 10 years prior to 2005. Household net worth increased dramatically during that decade due to the stock market and real estate booms. And the numbers aren't directly comparable anyway, because of inflation. The 1995 figure would need to be adjusted to 2005 dollars to allow a direct comparison. There are also probably differences in methodology between the Census Bureau's analysis and the Survey of Consumer Finances analysis.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 11:19 PM
Richard Dawkins once said, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
I gather this is both true and clearly part of the reasoning for the correlation between intelligence and acceptance of evolution. As you move up in education (and one would hope intelligence) you reduce the chance of finding an ignorant person or a stupid person. As for insane and wicked I don't know, but I doubt they occur in a high enough frequency to skew the results.
Posted by: Tatarize | January 12, 2007 11:26 PM
There are also probably differences in methodology between the Census Bureau's analysis and the Survey of Consumer Finances analysis.
Which is what I said, there isn't much detail. And anyway, the net household worth is a bit of a red-herring from the original topic you used it in response to. As you mention, the higher home values were largely due to the inflated housing bubble created by artificially low interest rates. It doesn't necessarily translate into more overall economic well-being. This 2006 story from the Washington post paints a different picture:
U.S. families' wealth stagnated during the economy's recession and recovery from 2001 through 2004, as lackluster wage growth, sagging stock prices and rising debt levels offset the gains from higher home values, the Federal Reserve reported yesterday in its latest Survey of Consumer Finances.
Home prices did jump nearly 27 percent during the survey period, and the share of households owning homes rose to 69.1 percent in 2004, the report said. That made Americans feel good. And it did help boost the total value of families' assets, such as homes, autos, stocks, bonds and other investments.
But wealth, or net worth, measures the value of a household's assets minus its debts, such as mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit card balances. And debt climbed steadily during the survey period, as the Fed slashed interest rates to stimulate borrowing and spending in rocky economic times.
After totaling up both sides of the ledger, the median net worth of American households rose just 1.5 percent over the three years measured, to $93,100, according to the Fed's report, which is compiled every three years to provide a portrait of family finances.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 11:29 PM
Just to be clear, those last three paragraphs are from the WaPo story.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 11:31 PM
Tyler,
It looks like he's using an informal definition of poverty,
Please show me an "informal" definition of poverty by which "poverty in America is rocketing." It's nonsense. In fact, there are very good reasons to think that the official poverty figures substantially overstate the true poverty rate. Ed Darrell doesn't know what he's talking about. He's obviously just making things up or uncritically repeating assertions he read or heard somewhere without bothering to check whether they're true.
and the source you cite corroborates many of his claims on the matter (increase in the percentage of uninsured Americans, for instance).
I don't know what statement of his you're referring to here. He does say "[Americans need to wait] forever if one lacks the best insurance. About 100 million Americans are grossly under-served, and 50 million have almost no access at all except at the most expensive end, the emergency room once they are close to death." This statement contains at least two false claims. First, the claim that Americans have to wait "forever" for health care services unless they have the "best" insurance is obvious nonsense. And second, even indigent and uninsured Americans have access to free or low-cost comprehensive primary health care services through a network of public and private agencies and programs, including the federal government's Community Health Centers Program. So Ed Darrell's claim that "50 million have almost no access at all" is yet more nonsense.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 11:35 PM
From what I have gathered, most conservatives are against FEDERAL funding of stem cell research which is a good thing.
Gosh! Just like 90% of all **other** research that goes on right.. Oh wait... No, the vast majority of research *is* funded, at least in part, by the federal government. Want research on how to use *existing* technology to make a better iPod, throw it at private businesses. If you want to know **how** something works, with no certain and specific goal, go for federal funding. Why? Because 90% of corporations are short sighted idiots, who only think about the product line for the next year, not whether or not knowing the genetic sequence of some obscure bit of DNA in stem cells, which have no apparent relevence to any *known* disease, *might* have some use 50 years from now. By the time the private sector, which is directed at "goals" instead of "knowledge", figures out they need something, its about 20 years too late.
The Republican party advocates market-based solutions, vouchers and private schools which all are sane alternatives to the platform of the Democratic Party.
Hmm. Interesting how those things promote market results too. Think Beta Max. Do we really want "education" to be based on the most popular fracking brand, instead of on the best, most well reviewed, accurate and detailed information and the most *effective* methods? I certainly hope not, since the single most popular type of schools in the country are ones that cave in to every lunatic with an agenda, kiss the asses of the parents and let people "opt out" of things that they *need* to learn, because someone involved is "offended" by the idea their kid either A) needs to know it, B) someone else knows better than they do what their kid needs or C) it contradicts one of their pet delusions. Again, you want the next iPod, you give it to a business, if you want a fracking tack, you pay government funded institutions that have strict and specific standards.
Or, lets put it another way. In the market system 90% of *all* new businesses fail. Not just don't make money, they completely and totally fail, going out of business. So.. You want a system where 90% of all schools don't just fail to teach students well, they fail to teach them *anything*, so that your "market" can produce 10% of them that are perfect.... Briliant!!!
If that is not what you mean, then you damn well better rethink how perfect this so called system is supposed to be.
Economic growth is more important than "controlling" (which can't be done) global warming (for example).
Sure, because everyone knows that the best solution to stop a ship from sinking is to build more decks on it, not fix the fracking holes in the hull. Again, get @$%@#@ real. The private sector only fixes things *after* they become critical. I can count the number of companies I know of that don't work that way on the fingers of one hand, and I know a lot of companies. We needed alternative fuel vehicles 50 years ago. Now we have "some", but it might be another 50 before "most" vehicles will use those. The private sector produces BS shit like the article in a local paper, which said, "Light rail will slow traffic." No shit! If you build 5,000 roads and sell every half wit that walks in a door one to drive, then, when the problem becomes impossible to ignore, you decide on trying light rail, of fracking course its going to slow traffic. There isn't any damn place left to put the rail system you should have installed for 90% less money years ago, because all of the space is now taken up by traffic from something even the people complaining about how light rail is going to slow traffic think is a problem they need to solve.
Some countries plan 50 years in advance. About 20 years ago "some" US companies got the idea that *maybe* they should start thinking ahead, the novel length of 5 years. Before that, you wouldn't find one of them thinking farther ahead than one year, and some not even months ahead. If you want to plan for what your city, state *or* country is going to look like, you might revise things along the way, but you had better be @#$#$#@ thinking farther ahead than 5 years.
And more to the point, you shouldn't piss on the sorts of people that warned 50 years ago that a major problem was going to arise if we didn't do something, then *still* complain about them toady, when most people are going, "Damn... They might have been right all along!" That is how *your* prefect system has done things...
On the contrary - the Republicans want to lower corporate taxes so that companies can invest more into the kind of research they want to which ultimately means investing into alternative energy research (since it's their future incomes that depend on exploiting alternative energy sources).
Yeah.. Now. Where were they 50 years ago when half these technologies where first proposed? Oh, right.. Back then they were considered unnessary, too expensive to research, not likely to make a profit, etc, etc, etc. What has changed? The fact that it will now cost 50 times as much in todays dollars to make them work, but it will cost the same companies 500 times as much to ignore the fracking problems. Suddenly its profitable to do something about it, so now the Republicrats are interested. Gosh! I am so sorry for not seeing how much visions these people have...
"against universal health care"
And this is a bad thing?
Already covered by other people, but sure, if you are unwilling to develop a *working* universal system, but have no choice but to impliment a broken one, like Medicare, then do every damn thing you can to make it more broken, or just keep it unfixed, so that people don't accuse you of trying to create the boogie-man of "univeral healthcare", what the hell do you expect?
Are the solutions easy? No. Of course not. But pretending that you can fix the damn thing at some imaginary "future" date with the technology of economy catches up, and it costs you $50 billion, all because you hate the idea of spending $50,000 now, you are a complete and total idiot and shouldn't have the right to claim the title of conservative. Conserving what? National debt and mediocraty?
Posted by: Kagehi | January 12, 2007 11:42 PM
Tyler,
And anyway, the net household worth is a bit of a red-herring from the original topic you used it in response to.
Huh? I "used it in response to" the false claim that "Americans have hardly any wealth." I fail to see how this is a "red herring."
As you mention, the higher home values were largely due to the inflated housing bubble created by artificially low interest rates.
I didn't say any such thing. I said the large increase in median household net worth between 1995 and 2005 was due in part to the boom in real estate values.
It doesn't necessarily translate into more overall economic well-being. This 2006 story from the Washington post paints a different picture
That Washington Post story refers to the 3-year period between 2001 and 2004 and concludes that the typical U.S. family's wealth was merely "stagnant" during that period. I am not sure how you think that alters the fact that wealth grew dramatically between 1995 and 2005.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 11:49 PM
So Ed Darrell's claim that "50 million have almost no access at all" is yet more nonsense.
This is partially correct. Ed Darrell was sloppy in saying that those without the best insurance need to "wait forever" or have to "access at all" to treatment. But he would be correct to say that about 50 million lack health coverage and need to go through public agencies like Medicare and Medicaid to get such coverage. That is assuming they can get it. Such programs are means tested, and not all who lack insurance get them (they are primarily intended for the disabled and the elderly). Those who need expensive surgeries and are not covered by a public program stand to incur massive debts.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 12, 2007 11:54 PM
Huh? I "used it in response to" the false claim that "Americans have hardly any wealth." I fail to see how this is a "red herring."
In response to this, specifically:
Americans have hardly any wealth. Only the top 5% do. Most are into $10K in debt too.
You responded with:
Where do you get this nonsense? The Federal Reserve reports that the Median Household Net Worth in 2005 was $224,542. The U.S. also has one of the highest rates of homeownership in the world, higher than that of almost all European nations.
That is an isolated statistic from a real-estate boom that was created primarily by artificially lowered interest rates. That is why it is a red-herring. Compare it to the data from the same period that shows foreclosures and household debts on the rise.
I didn't say any such thing. I said the large increase in median household net worth between 1995 and 2005 was due in part to the boom in real estate values.
And so did I, except I posited that the cause was the post recession artificial lowering of interest rates. Of course rises in median household worth are on the rise because of...a boom in values. That's tautological.
I am not sure how you think that alters the fact that wealth grew dramatically between 1995 and 2005.
Median household worth did. And on average we've experienced large GDP growth. The problem is disproportionality. Wages were (and are) still stagnant, personal and consumer debts are increasing, as well as household debts and foreclosures.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 13, 2007 12:14 AM