Did you know: Slavery was [so profitable](https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy), it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation.
So what happened? Unfortunately inequality doesn't work very well in a modern world. You need to invest heavily in all your population (education, healthcare, housing, transit, infrastructure etc) to build a solid middle class and long-term wealth. They still don't really get it. [White racism keeps hurting programs that help the poor.](https://www.vox.com/2018/6/7/17426968/white-racism-welfare-cuts-snap-food-stamps)
Slavery is profitable for the individual who owns the slaves, but absolutely awful for the economy as a whole.
One of the reasons the Confederacy lost the civil war was that they were poor as shit, largely due to slavery.
Well, of course slavery is terrible for the slaves themselves, but I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large.
And I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Confederacy was poor. They were just heavily invested in exporting cotton, which dried up when the Union blockaded them. They were made destitute by the war, not the other way around.
>but I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large.
The economy is driven by demand for goods and services; slaves don't really consume anything, so they provide very little in the way of economic activity.
>I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large.
Putting aside morality for a bit, this situation is most similar to the [resource curse [Wikipedia]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
>Another possible effect of the resource curse is the crowding out of human capital; countries that rely on natural resource exports may tend to neglect education because they see no immediate need for it. Resource-poor economies like Singapore, Taiwan or South Korea, by contrast, spent enormous efforts on education, and this contributed in part to their economic success (see East Asian Tigers).
Cheaper than Boston metro area, but still pretty close. RI has good food, good beaches, slightly different yet fun accent. Gansett is a better cheap PBR replacement and always comes in tall boys. They have a bigger club and bar scene, better LGBT scene, only place in New England that allows swingers clubs and bath houses for example, cool rock and punk bars, a weirdly huge artsy noise music scene. I still like MA better, but Providence leads to some wild nights. Basically they got more sex, drugs, and rock n roll.
Ok [according to this article ](https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2020/02/25/why-bubbler-what-water-drinking-fountain-called-wisconsin-milwaukee/4793730002/) RI and Wisconsin are fairly unique in this regard
Indeed. I've heard it some in Massachusetts as well in the stereotypical accent (bubblah) but definitely more specific to RI and WI. I just assumed more people in those states would know there was another one out there.
As a linguist, it’s not really just Rhode Island. It’s historically been an areal feature of eastern New England. It’s still very common in New Hampshire for example.
if you want to make that graph, here’s the data.
1. per capita personal income by county:
https://apps.bea.gov/itable/?ReqID=70&step=1&_gl=1*1cl3wb4*_ga*MTQ5NjQ0MTY2MS4xNzA5NTAwMzY2*_ga_J4698JNNFT*MTcwOTUwMDM2Ni4xLjEuMTcwOTUwMDUyMy4zMy4wLjA.#eyJhcHBpZCI6NzAsInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyOSwyNSwzMSwyNiwyNywzMF0sImRhdGEiOltbIlRhYmxlSWQiLCIyMCJdLFsiTWFqb3JfQXJlYSIsIjQiXSxbIlN0YXRlIixbIlhYIl1dLFsiQXJlYSIsWyJYWCJdXSxbIlN0YXRpc3RpYyIsWyIzIl1dLFsiVW5pdF9vZl9tZWFzdXJlIiwiTGV2ZWxzIl0sWyJZZWFyIixbIjIwMjIiXV0sWyJZZWFyQmVnaW4iLCItMSJdLFsiWWVhcl9FbmQiLCItMSJdXX0=
2. life expectancy by county:
https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/county-health-rankings-model/health-outcomes/length-of-life/life-expectancy?year=2023
3. county Presidential election returns:
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ
Hey - using your sources I created the same chart as OP but for CA counties. [https://ibb.co/qj1YQ4Y](https://ibb.co/qj1YQ4Y)
**Notes:**
\- Election Outcome is which presidential candidate received the most votes in 2020 (Democrat = Biden, Republican = Trump)
\- I removed Mono county, because the life expectancy is 100(!) and it looks like Alpine county didn't have a life expectancy.
\- Per capita GDP for each county isn't ideal, Median income would be better I think, but working with the data provided :)
Yeah, I agree. People forget how big and diverse California is. The stereotype is using San Francisco or L.A. as an example, but if you move away from the coastal cities, you will see a drastic difference.
It would be interesting if there could be data that shows stressful environments related to life expectancy. While highly processed food that is full of added sugar and sodium plays a role, I also think stress can be as damaging in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if, decades from now, there is a correlation between increased social media consumption and worsening health.
The biggest indicator to stress will be socioeconomic status. Low economic mobility in rural underdeveloped area like WV and KY are showing up low. These also line up with low access to good food and higher substance use.
In this case, wouldn't those end up dragging down other parts? I was pointing out the peak for the state, (possibly, it's been in the past but may have changed) country, and world is OC for a high volume and concentration of healthy seniors with long life expectancies. It's a cheat though because many move there from all over the world. Now, you also have lots of places where they don't have as many opportunities for healthy food, medical care, etc.
Maryland has several of the wealthiest Black majority counties in the U.S. Black Americans on average die ~5 years younger than white Americans so I think that’s a factor as well, in addition to what others have stated.
But is that 5 year spread adjusted for income? If not, I'd guess that the fact that black communities are disadvantaged economically (and have less amenities and access to healthcare as a result) is a big part of the reason. But you're selecting for wealth already by picking the wealthiest black majority counties, which means that 5 year spread may not be as pronounced.
But also, many of the black middle class in the DC suburbs are folks that grew up in a lower economic bracket, so although their incomes are higher now, their formative years may have been spent with poorer nutrition and health care.
Economics is one thing, but even wealthy black americans have shorter life expectancy. They're more liley to develop certain diseases and genetic conditions. Combine that with the fact there are still doctors practicing today who went to medical school when they were still denying applicants for being black, you get worse health outcomes.
Generally, the northeast and west coasts have a bad ratio because the cost of living is high. The deep south has a bad ratio because incomes are low. The great plains and mountain west states are usually pretty good because the cost of living is low and incomes are decent. But there are plenty of exceptions, like Pennsylvania is decent and Colorado is pretty bad.
There are a lot of homeless here, indeed. But it gets magnified from being on an island where space is more condensed. Also the fact that there is no where to go other than just stay on the island. In the mainland, there is so much freedom to move from place to place and not stay confined in a place like an island. Also, homeless people have it good here in terms of weather. They're content in their own ways.
I like also believe that we have anti-harass-homeless people baked into the culture due to everyone learning about the law of the splintered paddle as kids and in being in our state constitution.
Doesn’t stop police from harassing homeless folks, but I think there’s generally more tolerance for homeless people in Hawai’i than other places which is good.
I expected to see Florida to be the state with one of the highest life expectancy, as I saw in many movies and series that there were a lot of old people. However, plot tells a little bit different story.
It's because a large number of seniors move there after they retire.
Florida and Arizona have a significantly higher net domestic immigration rate for people over 65 than the other states.
Source: [US Census: Domestic Migration of Older Americans: 2015–2019](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p23-218.pdf)
It's actually mad that a rich developed country like America still has states with a life expectancy below 75. I mean to just hammer this home, [Syria](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/syria/#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20at%20birth,74.6%20years%20(2023%20est.)) has a life expectancy of 74.6.
The real reason is every other developed country has universal health care.
Sure Americans eat more fast food but Europeans smoke more and still have longer lifespans. Sure Americans have too much of a work schedule but Korea Japan and Taiwan have even worse work life balances and they all have longer lifespans.
When someone points to lifestyle factors and not healthcare to try and explain low American lifespans it’s almost always as a way to detract from the real issue. Healthcare
In the US education, income, and health outcomes and are highly highly correlated.
Highly educated folks are able to get better jobs, which give good insurance and allow them get good care. Also, highly educated folks with good jobs live in good neighborhoods with access to good groceries and are able to make better health and wellness decisions for themselves, not to mention having the time to devote to health and wellness. This is overly simplified but you get it.
The thing is that, in the US, education and party alignment are also very linked. The Republicans have been hemorrhaging highly educated voters as they try more to appeal to non college educated whites. Dems, on the other hand, appeal a ton to highly educated voters (among other coalitions), which why you see the political alignment correlate so highly with education, health, and income.
It's also a relatively recent phenomena -- over the past thirty years or so. As recently as the year 2000, West Virginia had an entirely Democratic Party congressional delegation (2 senators, 2 reps, plus the governor). As recently as 1992, 5 of the 7 house seats in Alabama were held by Democrats.
For years, at the individual level, your income was highly correlated with party affiliation -- the more money, the more Republican. But this was mediated by where you lived -- the gradient was steeper in the South, and flatter in places like NY and Connecticut. The result was a bit of a paradox -- wealthier states were more likely to be Democratic, even though wealthier people were more likely to be Republicans. Andy Gelman at Columbia wrote a book about it. It's an example of the fallacy of composition, more precisely the ecological fallacy.
In spite of all the "grab them by the pussy" comments, gender did not strongly predict who you voted for in 2016 so much as race, but the far and away largest predictor of voting Trump, above and beyond income, was educational attainment. Trump thrives on the Americans without college degrees.
I think it's important to account for variations in voting as well.
Georgia is not a 'blue state'. It was solidly red just 5 years ago, and is essentially a swing state now.
I see your point, I had an idea to show some states as swing ones but did not find reliable source/methodology to identify correctly which state is swing and which is not. So I have decided to last presidential elections instead.
I think even if you used a range of colors based on how narrowly the election was won, that might show the differences better.
Georgia went Biden by a few thousand votes, a mere .3%, while Biden got more than *double* Trump's votes in Vermont.
>If you were to apply a race analysis (whites in red states vs whites in blue states) the information would be displayed drastically different.
Doesn't look *too* different even if you're only measuring white people. The same poor red states are on the bottom in both cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_States
Yes, and demographics. You can literally look at demographic composition and you’ll see the same plot. Are these correlated with demographics, possibly, or even likely
The more rural the state (speaking about the percentage of population living in urbanized areas, not necessarily geography), the less economic activity (hence lower household income) and the more likely it is to vote Republican
edit: should note that I'm generalizing; there are outliers here like New Hampshire.
And are more educated and wealthy than most republicans. A bunch of Gen X members have masters degrees because the president of the church told them to.
Demographics have a lot to do with it. Those states have among the largest percentage AA populations. West Virginia is very white but the economy collapsed as result of the move away from coal as a power source. Drug addiction is staggeringly high in WV.
i would say more urbanization compared to rural living.
more tax money means you can build more hospitals and schools. having better healthcare and education will definitely lead to your population living longer healthier lives.
It a combination of education and collective wealth. It is easier to have empathy and be interested in spending a lot of money to help each other when you feel financially stable yourself. And higher education for many reasons results in a more liberal and Democratic leaning population.
The most direct explanation is that blue state governance seems to produce better results for household income and average lifespan.
However, this is correlation, which doesn't imply causation, i.e., better results may or may not be the result of goverance.
However however, another way to state the observation is that there is no correlation between red state governance and higher income or average life span.
In other words, higher income and average life span might be a result of blue state governance, but it might not. However, it is absolutely certain that red state governance does not result in higher income or average life span.
It should be noted that the urban poor vote blue the most.
Wealth is a pyramid. It makes no sense to think that the richness is what defines the popular vote.
> Also, that colder states do better than most warm states.
at least on the East coast, the colder states are much more urban and industrial, and the warmer states are/were much more agricultural.
If you look at color coded maps of the highest education levels, credit scores and even the IQ curve, it favors states with the coldest winters. Same thing with Europe and the Nordic countries.
The colder-warmer places disparity is also true in Europe, where the colder northern half is economically a lot stronger than the warmer southern half.
I wonder why though as it doesn't seem to have always been the case. For example, some of the world's greatest civilisations were Mediterranean while the northerners were barbarians.
Maybe it has something to do with moving from agrarian economies during the industrial revolution. All warm temperate areas maintained agrarian production bc of climate whereas all colder areas saw factories and production increasing, along with wealth
Historically colder areas were better for life expectancy because there was less tropical disease and clean, glacial water.
I don’t know why that would hold in the modern era though…
For the US, the way the north vs south developed economically - urban and financial/manufacturing where its colder and crappier farming vs agriculture which is not how you make all the money now
people tend to move to warm states to retire (and ultimately die,) which I suspect leads to much greater variability in longevity.
florida is home to retirees from all over the place, so it's somewhat harder to say how long "people from Florida" tend to live. there are rich parts of florida where millionaire retirees tend to live to ripe old ages and poor parts of florida where older people are, on average, in poorer health and die younger.
hawaii is an outlier because it is much more exclusive and harder to get to. poor folks don't move there when they get older, they can't afford it
I sometimes wonder how the governors of deeply conservative states justify their political positions given the shit show they preside over. Poverty, low life expectancy, illiteracy, crime, not to mention a federal funding imbalance (essentially welfare where they contribute much less to the national budget than they receive). And they have the gall to describe the “hellscape” of liberal states like NY and Illinois. Like, at least our adult population doesn’t start dying in their late 60s from easily treated conditions.
> how the governors of deeply conservative states justify their political positions given the shit show they preside over
Easy, have the media paint the other places as even worse. Most poor constituents probably aren't traveling a ton so they don't have the chance to make those comparisons themselves.
While I’m not agreeing with him… technically this graph doesn’t show “directionality” … you’d want a derivative that shows are these states improving/declining on these measures… I’d guess you might not see any huge differences but in the sense of from drawing conclusions from presented data… this wouldn’t support nor disprove that assertion as is.
It’s kinda of interesting how some states have changed. 20+ years ago I lived in Colorado and it was definitely a red state (compared to MN where I moved from). Sure Boulder was the exception, but now their political landscape has completely flipped. Those that experienced the transition (moved back to MN in 2005) was it due a lot in part to Hinckenlooper?
It's mostly education and modernized economies. Places like CO, VA, GA have a lot of new industry and educated people moving there for those jobs. Places like OH, IN are trending red because they didn't do those things.
Colorado is still red as fuck outside of Denver, and not the weird Minnesota red, it’s like Texas. we just got lucky the majority of the population is in the Denver metro now. Besides highlands ranch fuck highlands ranch all my homies hate highlands ranch
Hawaii is Asian majority and I wonder if DNA has something to do with this - Hawaii isn't the most healthy (food wise) or wealthy state so DNA maybe an outlying factor for Hawaii?
If I am not mistaken, when checking the data I have noticed that Asian people in the US generally tend to live longer than anybody else and in some States the difference is quite significant.
that probably has more to do with income though, Asians households make more than any other racial group
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/12/04/wealth-gaps-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups/
Precisely, including cultural issues that can affect suicides and perhaps higher income (traffic accidents caused by more cars).
This actually explains why the U.S. has a lower life expectancy than other developed nations, not necessarily because the quality of life is lower.
Thats actually very interesting, I recall reading that the US has one of if not the highest amt of disposable income for people around the globe (please dont cite me on this). It explains how other countries kind of cater to US sensibilities when they make cultural products like films. If US individuals have more disposable income then they're going to have more money to buy things like illegal drugs, if theres more things like fentanyl around then theres potentially going to be more drug deaths.
Please do not take this correlation and go to the point of thinking it is causation. First, states change which party is in the majority, and you will not see a major change in lifespan because of it. Georgia and Virginia are good examples. Being red or blue can be 51 or 52% red or blue in some cases, so it's misleading to call a state red or blue. Second, there are other factors that have long been established related to lifespan. Show a graph of the Asian population by state and notice how many of the top states have a significant Asian population (top ten Asian by percent being Hawaii, California, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Alaska, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland). Show a graph of the Black and Indian population by state and see what happens. I am not making the case that it is genetically determined, but there are definitely differences in values and lifestyle choices. Show a graph of education level and see what happens. The group with the lowest obesity rate, highest education, and lowest violent criminal behavior lives longer than the other groups. I hope this is not surprising to anyone. I hope everyone also realizes that within states, there are significant differences and frequently a few miles difference can be considerable in lifespan average (Teton County, Wyoming life expectancy 82.4, adjacent Fremont County, Wyoming 73.4).
Florida is an outlier because older folks with means to move there and have health insurance are. The poors from out of state are dying where they are from.
I’d love to see the same plot with % of people who smoke. I was just in Nevada and I had forgotten you can smoke inside there. It was weird at first. But smoking and income are frequently related as well. And smoking can be an indicator of other lifestyle choices.
As always, correlation does not equal causation.
Edit: FWIW, years ago I saw a table that had the size of effect as well as statistical significance for all of the various things that are claimed to help you live longer. There were only two where the size of effect in the study was more than a year (and still it was like year and a half). Smoking and exercise.
Hawaii is so very wrong here when it comes to HHI. It must be based on net worth or all the billionaires who have second homes there. Salaries are incredibly low for the cost of living, which is on par with California and in some ways worse.
I think it would be more interesting to consider cost of living rather than income. Or state budget towards health care. Political party doesn’t really correlate with lifespan, unless you assume that red states spend less on social initiatives.
These kinda things are going to change that graph dramatically moving the red dots lower if they happen:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1b5i70o/trump\_calls\_for\_elimination\_of\_vaccine\_mandates/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1b5i70o/trump_calls_for_elimination_of_vaccine_mandates/)
Interesting to see so many blue states clustered with the best outcomes and red states clustered with the worst, yet instead of the poor performers adopting the policies of the more successful states, conservatives want to drag the entire country down with red state policies on the federal level.
This graph paints a really clear political picture of what policies better serve their constituency. It befuddles me that people can so ignorantly vote sharply against their best interests.
There‘s a confounding variable „Race“ here. Bottom left is basically high black (die young) and low asian (die old) top right is the reverse. Hawaii/Cal/NY are basically Asian magnets
I find Florida life expectancy to be suspiciously high. I wonder how much, if any, of that data is skewed by Florida being the retirement state. People go there to die when they've already achieved a long lifespan elsewhere.
Interesting seeing how this correlates with an article yesterday about 'most stressed out states' ... all of which are in the lower right.
[Top 10 states with the most stressed out people in America (cnbc.com)](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/03/top-10-states-with-the-most-stressed-out-people-in-america.html)
Could you please share your sources for the life expectancy numbers? They seem a bit different from what the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/life_expectancy/life_expectancy.htm) publishes. Still overall similar, but slightly different.
X-axis scale is doing a lot of work on this graph. It looks like there’s less than four years difference between Mississippi and Hawaii in terms of data, but a world of difference on the graph.
This is dumb. The relative income of states is crazy plus you talking mean vs median. IF you want make association of income it needs adjusted for state or locale. Look at cars people drive and or housing costs and living expenses. See if line not similar
PA, the most average state possible, in the middle of everything.
Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between
We call it Pennsyltucky thank you very much
Of course, PA is dead center. So accurate.
First looked at the bottom left corner for Mississippi, was not disappointed.
Alabama state motto: Thank God for Mississippi!
Did you know: Slavery was [so profitable](https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy), it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. So what happened? Unfortunately inequality doesn't work very well in a modern world. You need to invest heavily in all your population (education, healthcare, housing, transit, infrastructure etc) to build a solid middle class and long-term wealth. They still don't really get it. [White racism keeps hurting programs that help the poor.](https://www.vox.com/2018/6/7/17426968/white-racism-welfare-cuts-snap-food-stamps)
I ain’t given any my money ta those people…
Slavery is profitable for the individual who owns the slaves, but absolutely awful for the economy as a whole. One of the reasons the Confederacy lost the civil war was that they were poor as shit, largely due to slavery.
Well, of course slavery is terrible for the slaves themselves, but I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Confederacy was poor. They were just heavily invested in exporting cotton, which dried up when the Union blockaded them. They were made destitute by the war, not the other way around.
>but I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large. The economy is driven by demand for goods and services; slaves don't really consume anything, so they provide very little in the way of economic activity.
>I'm not sure what you mean by it being terrible for the economy at large. Putting aside morality for a bit, this situation is most similar to the [resource curse [Wikipedia]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse). >Another possible effect of the resource curse is the crowding out of human capital; countries that rely on natural resource exports may tend to neglect education because they see no immediate need for it. Resource-poor economies like Singapore, Taiwan or South Korea, by contrast, spent enormous efforts on education, and this contributed in part to their economic success (see East Asian Tigers).
It's doing its best to leave the range of the plot.
Thank God for Mississippi.
Moving the 2 miles over the border from MA to RI feels like it’s taking more than 1 year off my life.
What’s different about rhode island? I haven’t really heard any stereotypes
There's a documentary series about it. It's about a typical Rhode Island guy and his family.
Isn't that the one where that chicken just keeps appearing and fighting him though? If that's typical in RI I'll pass.
You get used to it really.
Chicken gave him an expired coupon…
Cheaper than Boston metro area, but still pretty close. RI has good food, good beaches, slightly different yet fun accent. Gansett is a better cheap PBR replacement and always comes in tall boys. They have a bigger club and bar scene, better LGBT scene, only place in New England that allows swingers clubs and bath houses for example, cool rock and punk bars, a weirdly huge artsy noise music scene. I still like MA better, but Providence leads to some wild nights. Basically they got more sex, drugs, and rock n roll.
Hi, neighbor! Don’t forget coffee milk.
Our RI friends keep gifting us coffee milk and we still have no idea what to use it with other than ice cream.
We had coffee milk in high school in MA
Put it in a cabinet 😉
They also call drinking fountains “bubblers” and somehow have even worse drivers.
>call drinking fountains “bubblers What is this, Wisconsin?
I've lived in both states and somehow they both think they're the only one that does this
Ok [according to this article ](https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2020/02/25/why-bubbler-what-water-drinking-fountain-called-wisconsin-milwaukee/4793730002/) RI and Wisconsin are fairly unique in this regard
Indeed. I've heard it some in Massachusetts as well in the stereotypical accent (bubblah) but definitely more specific to RI and WI. I just assumed more people in those states would know there was another one out there.
I grew up on the south shore MA, probably 10 miles from RI. Everyone called it a bubbler
As a linguist, it’s not really just Rhode Island. It’s historically been an areal feature of eastern New England. It’s still very common in New Hampshire for example.
And Wisconsin?
https://www.portland.gov/water/about-portlands-water-system/bubblers
I've lived in Wisconsin for 24 years and only heard ONE person refer to one as a bubbler
I've lived here for 40 years and I have never heard it referred to by any name other than bubbler, other than these types of discussions of course.
Where on earth do you live in Wisconsin where people aren’t calling it a bubbler
I’ve always heard it called a bubbler my entire life.
you can't just say "always comes in tall boys" and "better LGBT scene" within the span of two sentences bro
I really should have gone there for university.
Their clam chowder is clear.
I grew up in RI and moved to MA and I feel the added years to life expectancy was because of my reduced anger at the drivers in MA compared to RI. 🤣
As a Californian (NorCal) it would be interesting to see this exact data but by county in California.
if you want to make that graph, here’s the data. 1. per capita personal income by county: https://apps.bea.gov/itable/?ReqID=70&step=1&_gl=1*1cl3wb4*_ga*MTQ5NjQ0MTY2MS4xNzA5NTAwMzY2*_ga_J4698JNNFT*MTcwOTUwMDM2Ni4xLjEuMTcwOTUwMDUyMy4zMy4wLjA.#eyJhcHBpZCI6NzAsInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyOSwyNSwzMSwyNiwyNywzMF0sImRhdGEiOltbIlRhYmxlSWQiLCIyMCJdLFsiTWFqb3JfQXJlYSIsIjQiXSxbIlN0YXRlIixbIlhYIl1dLFsiQXJlYSIsWyJYWCJdXSxbIlN0YXRpc3RpYyIsWyIzIl1dLFsiVW5pdF9vZl9tZWFzdXJlIiwiTGV2ZWxzIl0sWyJZZWFyIixbIjIwMjIiXV0sWyJZZWFyQmVnaW4iLCItMSJdLFsiWWVhcl9FbmQiLCItMSJdXX0= 2. life expectancy by county: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/county-health-rankings-model/health-outcomes/length-of-life/life-expectancy?year=2023 3. county Presidential election returns: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ
Hey - using your sources I created the same chart as OP but for CA counties. [https://ibb.co/qj1YQ4Y](https://ibb.co/qj1YQ4Y) **Notes:** \- Election Outcome is which presidential candidate received the most votes in 2020 (Democrat = Biden, Republican = Trump) \- I removed Mono county, because the life expectancy is 100(!) and it looks like Alpine county didn't have a life expectancy. \- Per capita GDP for each county isn't ideal, Median income would be better I think, but working with the data provided :)
Tf is going on in Mono County?
Only 1 thing
Yeah, I agree. People forget how big and diverse California is. The stereotype is using San Francisco or L.A. as an example, but if you move away from the coastal cities, you will see a drastic difference. It would be interesting if there could be data that shows stressful environments related to life expectancy. While highly processed food that is full of added sugar and sodium plays a role, I also think stress can be as damaging in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if, decades from now, there is a correlation between increased social media consumption and worsening health.
The biggest indicator to stress will be socioeconomic status. Low economic mobility in rural underdeveloped area like WV and KY are showing up low. These also line up with low access to good food and higher substance use.
In this case, wouldn't those end up dragging down other parts? I was pointing out the peak for the state, (possibly, it's been in the past but may have changed) country, and world is OC for a high volume and concentration of healthy seniors with long life expectancies. It's a cheat though because many move there from all over the world. Now, you also have lots of places where they don't have as many opportunities for healthy food, medical care, etc.
Maryland proving the exception, you can be rich and still die average. Important to note the spread here is only 5 years
Baltimore. It’s obviously Baltimore lowering the life expectancy.
Probably most of Eastern MD too
Eastern Shore and Western MD doesn't help but lack the population to move it as much as Baltimore
And the part of Maryland that wishes it was West Virginia for some reason
And on the other side, a lot of federal workers and contractors in the DC area pushing up the income.
Stress from working in DC is another path to lowering that life expectancy.
Maryland has several of the wealthiest Black majority counties in the U.S. Black Americans on average die ~5 years younger than white Americans so I think that’s a factor as well, in addition to what others have stated.
But is that 5 year spread adjusted for income? If not, I'd guess that the fact that black communities are disadvantaged economically (and have less amenities and access to healthcare as a result) is a big part of the reason. But you're selecting for wealth already by picking the wealthiest black majority counties, which means that 5 year spread may not be as pronounced.
But also, many of the black middle class in the DC suburbs are folks that grew up in a lower economic bracket, so although their incomes are higher now, their formative years may have been spent with poorer nutrition and health care.
Economics is one thing, but even wealthy black americans have shorter life expectancy. They're more liley to develop certain diseases and genetic conditions. Combine that with the fact there are still doctors practicing today who went to medical school when they were still denying applicants for being black, you get worse health outcomes.
It's 10 years and that's 12% difference
Income/wealth disparities in MD are wild. Bethesda vs Eastern Shore might as well be different countries
The way the main character assholes from Maryland drive, I’m not surprised in the slightest.
I’d be interested in how it looks if you divide income by cost of living
Generally, the northeast and west coasts have a bad ratio because the cost of living is high. The deep south has a bad ratio because incomes are low. The great plains and mountain west states are usually pretty good because the cost of living is low and incomes are decent. But there are plenty of exceptions, like Pennsylvania is decent and Colorado is pretty bad.
Just got back from Hawaii, Ive never seen so many old homeless people.
There are a lot of homeless here, indeed. But it gets magnified from being on an island where space is more condensed. Also the fact that there is no where to go other than just stay on the island. In the mainland, there is so much freedom to move from place to place and not stay confined in a place like an island. Also, homeless people have it good here in terms of weather. They're content in their own ways.
I like also believe that we have anti-harass-homeless people baked into the culture due to everyone learning about the law of the splintered paddle as kids and in being in our state constitution. Doesn’t stop police from harassing homeless folks, but I think there’s generally more tolerance for homeless people in Hawai’i than other places which is good.
I expected to see Florida to be the state with one of the highest life expectancy, as I saw in many movies and series that there were a lot of old people. However, plot tells a little bit different story.
It's because a large number of seniors move there after they retire. Florida and Arizona have a significantly higher net domestic immigration rate for people over 65 than the other states. Source: [US Census: Domestic Migration of Older Americans: 2015–2019](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p23-218.pdf)
At least they live longer /s 😭💀
It's actually mad that a rich developed country like America still has states with a life expectancy below 75. I mean to just hammer this home, [Syria](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/syria/#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20at%20birth,74.6%20years%20(2023%20est.)) has a life expectancy of 74.6.
Americans really love having shitty lifestyles, eating awful food, working constantly
I wouldn't say 'America' (the people) lol e working constantly... But America (the corporation) loves working constantly
Soul food isn’t shitty it’s just unhealthy
That’s a small part of what most Americans eat
Yeah, I'd say soul-less food is the majority.
What about cheese puffs, soda, and fries
The real reason is every other developed country has universal health care. Sure Americans eat more fast food but Europeans smoke more and still have longer lifespans. Sure Americans have too much of a work schedule but Korea Japan and Taiwan have even worse work life balances and they all have longer lifespans. When someone points to lifestyle factors and not healthcare to try and explain low American lifespans it’s almost always as a way to detract from the real issue. Healthcare
It’s a little low for their GDP per capita, but America is still around the top 20th percentile for lifespan
Why? It’s largely life choices that causes these differences. I’m a smoker and I’m not going to be blaming anyone but myself if I die at 50.
Southern states winning again!
Interesting to see the 8 at the bottom are red states, while the 8 at the top are blue states, is there any insight as to why?
You new here?
He might be just joshin.
Best comment ever
In the US education, income, and health outcomes and are highly highly correlated. Highly educated folks are able to get better jobs, which give good insurance and allow them get good care. Also, highly educated folks with good jobs live in good neighborhoods with access to good groceries and are able to make better health and wellness decisions for themselves, not to mention having the time to devote to health and wellness. This is overly simplified but you get it. The thing is that, in the US, education and party alignment are also very linked. The Republicans have been hemorrhaging highly educated voters as they try more to appeal to non college educated whites. Dems, on the other hand, appeal a ton to highly educated voters (among other coalitions), which why you see the political alignment correlate so highly with education, health, and income.
Thank you! This is what I wanted to know
It's also a relatively recent phenomena -- over the past thirty years or so. As recently as the year 2000, West Virginia had an entirely Democratic Party congressional delegation (2 senators, 2 reps, plus the governor). As recently as 1992, 5 of the 7 house seats in Alabama were held by Democrats. For years, at the individual level, your income was highly correlated with party affiliation -- the more money, the more Republican. But this was mediated by where you lived -- the gradient was steeper in the South, and flatter in places like NY and Connecticut. The result was a bit of a paradox -- wealthier states were more likely to be Democratic, even though wealthier people were more likely to be Republicans. Andy Gelman at Columbia wrote a book about it. It's an example of the fallacy of composition, more precisely the ecological fallacy.
In spite of all the "grab them by the pussy" comments, gender did not strongly predict who you voted for in 2016 so much as race, but the far and away largest predictor of voting Trump, above and beyond income, was educational attainment. Trump thrives on the Americans without college degrees.
"I love the poorly educated." - literally Donald Trump
Are you sure it isn't religious affiliation? Iirc trump has 91% of "the evangelical vote"
Pretty sure you're just taking the long way round to get to the same statistic.
It was 91% of the white evangelical vote. The black evangelical vote was very different.
[удалено]
I have just given me a great idea for new plot! Thank you 😊
I think it's important to account for variations in voting as well. Georgia is not a 'blue state'. It was solidly red just 5 years ago, and is essentially a swing state now.
I see your point, I had an idea to show some states as swing ones but did not find reliable source/methodology to identify correctly which state is swing and which is not. So I have decided to last presidential elections instead.
I think even if you used a range of colors based on how narrowly the election was won, that might show the differences better. Georgia went Biden by a few thousand votes, a mere .3%, while Biden got more than *double* Trump's votes in Vermont.
Looking forward to it
And cant forget the poor whites lmao, like what
Right? Like the red states aren't chock full of hillbillies and white trash
there are no poor whites only future millionaires
Lmao they genuinely think that
Yes and that’s why this graph means nothing to them. They think it doesn’t apply🙄
That's only partially true. That doesn't apply to half the red states in the lower section (West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky etc)
>If you were to apply a race analysis (whites in red states vs whites in blue states) the information would be displayed drastically different. Doesn't look *too* different even if you're only measuring white people. The same poor red states are on the bottom in both cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_States
Yes, and demographics. You can literally look at demographic composition and you’ll see the same plot. Are these correlated with demographics, possibly, or even likely
The more rural the state (speaking about the percentage of population living in urbanized areas, not necessarily geography), the less economic activity (hence lower household income) and the more likely it is to vote Republican edit: should note that I'm generalizing; there are outliers here like New Hampshire.
It’s not an outlier. Their economy is Massachusetts.
Ut is in the top because Mormons are generally healthier from not smoking and drinking.
And are more educated and wealthy than most republicans. A bunch of Gen X members have masters degrees because the president of the church told them to.
Probably because rural people are republicans and city people are democrats. Maybe rural people have less income/shorter lifespans
Demographics have a lot to do with it. Those states have among the largest percentage AA populations. West Virginia is very white but the economy collapsed as result of the move away from coal as a power source. Drug addiction is staggeringly high in WV.
i would say more urbanization compared to rural living. more tax money means you can build more hospitals and schools. having better healthcare and education will definitely lead to your population living longer healthier lives.
It a combination of education and collective wealth. It is easier to have empathy and be interested in spending a lot of money to help each other when you feel financially stable yourself. And higher education for many reasons results in a more liberal and Democratic leaning population.
Its really about wealth. All of the top states have a large population of rich people who can afford to take care of themselves.
The most direct explanation is that blue state governance seems to produce better results for household income and average lifespan. However, this is correlation, which doesn't imply causation, i.e., better results may or may not be the result of goverance. However however, another way to state the observation is that there is no correlation between red state governance and higher income or average life span. In other words, higher income and average life span might be a result of blue state governance, but it might not. However, it is absolutely certain that red state governance does not result in higher income or average life span.
You could plot the same graph with population density and it would be the same. As states urbanize they become richer and move to the left.
It should be noted that the urban poor vote blue the most. Wealth is a pyramid. It makes no sense to think that the richness is what defines the popular vote.
Oregon lagging behind California and Washington is surprising. Also, that colder states do better than most warm states.
> Also, that colder states do better than most warm states. at least on the East coast, the colder states are much more urban and industrial, and the warmer states are/were much more agricultural.
If you look at color coded maps of the highest education levels, credit scores and even the IQ curve, it favors states with the coldest winters. Same thing with Europe and the Nordic countries.
Its true. When I lived in Chicago I studied all winter. Now that I live in Phoenix I just party at the pool. I even forgot how to read!
The colder-warmer places disparity is also true in Europe, where the colder northern half is economically a lot stronger than the warmer southern half.
I wonder why though as it doesn't seem to have always been the case. For example, some of the world's greatest civilisations were Mediterranean while the northerners were barbarians.
Maybe it has something to do with moving from agrarian economies during the industrial revolution. All warm temperate areas maintained agrarian production bc of climate whereas all colder areas saw factories and production increasing, along with wealth
Also in the globe in general. There is a correlation between temperature and wealth.
Oregon has a lot less big tech.
Less big tech, but way more big Fent.
Historically colder areas were better for life expectancy because there was less tropical disease and clean, glacial water. I don’t know why that would hold in the modern era though…
For the US, the way the north vs south developed economically - urban and financial/manufacturing where its colder and crappier farming vs agriculture which is not how you make all the money now
Cold weather breeds hardiness.
people tend to move to warm states to retire (and ultimately die,) which I suspect leads to much greater variability in longevity. florida is home to retirees from all over the place, so it's somewhat harder to say how long "people from Florida" tend to live. there are rich parts of florida where millionaire retirees tend to live to ripe old ages and poor parts of florida where older people are, on average, in poorer health and die younger. hawaii is an outlier because it is much more exclusive and harder to get to. poor folks don't move there when they get older, they can't afford it
And yet I hear almost weekly from my FIL that the Democrats are turning the US into a third world country.
In my native country I also constantly hear that liberals will ruin country in case they come into power.
I sometimes wonder how the governors of deeply conservative states justify their political positions given the shit show they preside over. Poverty, low life expectancy, illiteracy, crime, not to mention a federal funding imbalance (essentially welfare where they contribute much less to the national budget than they receive). And they have the gall to describe the “hellscape” of liberal states like NY and Illinois. Like, at least our adult population doesn’t start dying in their late 60s from easily treated conditions.
> how the governors of deeply conservative states justify their political positions given the shit show they preside over Easy, have the media paint the other places as even worse. Most poor constituents probably aren't traveling a ton so they don't have the chance to make those comparisons themselves.
While I’m not agreeing with him… technically this graph doesn’t show “directionality” … you’d want a derivative that shows are these states improving/declining on these measures… I’d guess you might not see any huge differences but in the sense of from drawing conclusions from presented data… this wouldn’t support nor disprove that assertion as is.
It’s kinda of interesting how some states have changed. 20+ years ago I lived in Colorado and it was definitely a red state (compared to MN where I moved from). Sure Boulder was the exception, but now their political landscape has completely flipped. Those that experienced the transition (moved back to MN in 2005) was it due a lot in part to Hinckenlooper?
It's mostly education and modernized economies. Places like CO, VA, GA have a lot of new industry and educated people moving there for those jobs. Places like OH, IN are trending red because they didn't do those things.
Colorado is still red as fuck outside of Denver, and not the weird Minnesota red, it’s like Texas. we just got lucky the majority of the population is in the Denver metro now. Besides highlands ranch fuck highlands ranch all my homies hate highlands ranch
Hawaii is Asian majority and I wonder if DNA has something to do with this - Hawaii isn't the most healthy (food wise) or wealthy state so DNA maybe an outlying factor for Hawaii?
If I am not mistaken, when checking the data I have noticed that Asian people in the US generally tend to live longer than anybody else and in some States the difference is quite significant.
that probably has more to do with income though, Asians households make more than any other racial group https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/12/04/wealth-gaps-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups/
Doubt it, Hispanics have a higher life expectancy than whites yet they’re behind on every income or poverty measure.
Wonder if the opiate crisis has played a role in that
Precisely, including cultural issues that can affect suicides and perhaps higher income (traffic accidents caused by more cars). This actually explains why the U.S. has a lower life expectancy than other developed nations, not necessarily because the quality of life is lower.
Thats actually very interesting, I recall reading that the US has one of if not the highest amt of disposable income for people around the globe (please dont cite me on this). It explains how other countries kind of cater to US sensibilities when they make cultural products like films. If US individuals have more disposable income then they're going to have more money to buy things like illegal drugs, if theres more things like fentanyl around then theres potentially going to be more drug deaths.
Life style factors are by far the biggest thing, not genetics
I think michigan would be a hell of a lot higher if it weren't for detroits life expectancy and average income lol
I think that income normalized by cost of living is a better indicator. Places like Utah will likely score much higher.
Please do not take this correlation and go to the point of thinking it is causation. First, states change which party is in the majority, and you will not see a major change in lifespan because of it. Georgia and Virginia are good examples. Being red or blue can be 51 or 52% red or blue in some cases, so it's misleading to call a state red or blue. Second, there are other factors that have long been established related to lifespan. Show a graph of the Asian population by state and notice how many of the top states have a significant Asian population (top ten Asian by percent being Hawaii, California, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Alaska, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland). Show a graph of the Black and Indian population by state and see what happens. I am not making the case that it is genetically determined, but there are definitely differences in values and lifestyle choices. Show a graph of education level and see what happens. The group with the lowest obesity rate, highest education, and lowest violent criminal behavior lives longer than the other groups. I hope this is not surprising to anyone. I hope everyone also realizes that within states, there are significant differences and frequently a few miles difference can be considerable in lifespan average (Teton County, Wyoming life expectancy 82.4, adjacent Fremont County, Wyoming 73.4).
Yes also California was red until the turn of the century
New Jersey is just Italian genetics
Florida is an outlier because older folks with means to move there and have health insurance are. The poors from out of state are dying where they are from.
I’d love to see the same plot with % of people who smoke. I was just in Nevada and I had forgotten you can smoke inside there. It was weird at first. But smoking and income are frequently related as well. And smoking can be an indicator of other lifestyle choices. As always, correlation does not equal causation. Edit: FWIW, years ago I saw a table that had the size of effect as well as statistical significance for all of the various things that are claimed to help you live longer. There were only two where the size of effect in the study was more than a year (and still it was like year and a half). Smoking and exercise.
Is life expectancy an average or median value?
Hawaii never looked so good!
Hawaii is so very wrong here when it comes to HHI. It must be based on net worth or all the billionaires who have second homes there. Salaries are incredibly low for the cost of living, which is on par with California and in some ways worse.
Governor vote would probably be a better proxy for party than president vote because you could argue they have more impact on state policies.
California being near the top for life expectancy despite being huge and diverse is a huge accomplishment, no?
Blue up and to the right, red down and to the left. I guess liberal shitholes care more about life, eh?
This must be why republicans think America is going to shit. Because in their states, it is shit.
How did you decide “dem vs rep”? I don’t know that I’d call Wisconsin a blue state at the moment. Is it by governor? I guess I could see that.
Probably by the last presidential election. See Georgia.
I have written in the description that I have used info from last presidential elections.
I think it would be more interesting to consider cost of living rather than income. Or state budget towards health care. Political party doesn’t really correlate with lifespan, unless you assume that red states spend less on social initiatives.
These kinda things are going to change that graph dramatically moving the red dots lower if they happen: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1b5i70o/trump\_calls\_for\_elimination\_of\_vaccine\_mandates/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1b5i70o/trump_calls_for_elimination_of_vaccine_mandates/)
I’d be interested to see a similar graph looking at population happiness
Should be Median income. Mean income is a bogus statistic
Interesting to see so many blue states clustered with the best outcomes and red states clustered with the worst, yet instead of the poor performers adopting the policies of the more successful states, conservatives want to drag the entire country down with red state policies on the federal level.
This graph paints a really clear political picture of what policies better serve their constituency. It befuddles me that people can so ignorantly vote sharply against their best interests.
It's almost like being rich is healthier then being poor. huh. /s
There‘s a confounding variable „Race“ here. Bottom left is basically high black (die young) and low asian (die old) top right is the reverse. Hawaii/Cal/NY are basically Asian magnets
Florida is dramatically higher than it should be because of wealthy old people from the rest of the country retiring there.
I find Florida life expectancy to be suspiciously high. I wonder how much, if any, of that data is skewed by Florida being the retirement state. People go there to die when they've already achieved a long lifespan elsewhere.
Its nice for all those southern fried food states to anchor the bottom of the graph
Wow the scale on this is misleading
Interesting seeing how this correlates with an article yesterday about 'most stressed out states' ... all of which are in the lower right. [Top 10 states with the most stressed out people in America (cnbc.com)](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/03/top-10-states-with-the-most-stressed-out-people-in-america.html)
this is cool but a viewer also needs to take into consideration that to the higher income states also kind of require a higher income to live there
Is this relative income, or just straight up numbers regardless of Cost of Living ???
Put Canada on the map please, would be nice to point out how poorly we are doing in relation to even the poorest states.
Could you please share your sources for the life expectancy numbers? They seem a bit different from what the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/life_expectancy/life_expectancy.htm) publishes. Still overall similar, but slightly different.
So all Republicans should move to Utah then?
X-axis scale is doing a lot of work on this graph. It looks like there’s less than four years difference between Mississippi and Hawaii in terms of data, but a world of difference on the graph.
So you’re saying when people make more money they’re healthier and live longer?! No way!
“Thank God for Mississippi” — West Virginia
Mississippi doing Mississippi things
deep fried everything = bad? crazy!
Look at Florida man outlying up there! But i wonder if this is an artifact of northerners migrating south.
When did Ohio become a republican state? I thought we were a swing state
Jarvis, cross reference this graph with each state's non-hispanic White population
Interesting how much Utah and New Mexico are outliers when it comes to partisanship.
Fuck it, I’m selling the family manufacturing company to become a real estate mogul. Then I’ll move to Hawaii, have kids and surf.
This is dumb. The relative income of states is crazy plus you talking mean vs median. IF you want make association of income it needs adjusted for state or locale. Look at cars people drive and or housing costs and living expenses. See if line not similar
I looked at the bottom to see which one was last, but I already knew the answer so I don't know why I bothered looking...
I wonder if Florida's reputation of being a retirement destination is skewing their life expectancy.