In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Why do you need to make up an example of something nutty as and ATV
riding fad to explain a rise in infant mortality? How about some real
scenarios, like poverty, disease, lack of health care, women who are too
young to have children, drug use, alcohol use, and STDs? With so much
to choose from that actually exist and reflects directly upon quality of
life why did you choose some silly-assed hypothetical?

Because the vast majority of those infant deaths are the result of
life choices by the mothers. They are in poverty because they made the
choice to be a drunk or more likely a druggie. And they CAN afford
the high costs of addiction because there is enough loose money
floating around that they can get their hands on it by one method or
another to buy their drugs of choice, and spawn crack babies and
babies with fetal alcohol syndrome etc, and still yet get enough care
that they are not miscarrying in an alley somewhere.

There are more people in the US than jobs, so even if everyone were
choosing to work hard there would be poor.
Beyond that, I have personal experience with trying to live off
minimum wage, and I'm not an addict. I could get by, but there was no
way I was going to pay for school. Without school it gets damn
difficult to get a job worth more than minimum wage. After staying at
the same place for four years I got a $.45 raise, which was almost
enough to offset the increase in my rent over that time. Each year
after basic expenses I was able to save up roughly $200 dollars, which
got wiped out every year one way or another. Once my glasses broke,
once I got so sick I couldn't work for a month, and once my work decided
to change the parking rules underneath my car, giving me close to $300
in parking fines with no chance to move my vehicle. **** happens.
And I didn't have any kids, didn't have to take care of my own
parents, and didn't have any medical problems.
So, no offense, but when I hear people tell me that all of the poor
are poor by choice I have to laugh. Hard.

Are you unable to find a real example of high infant mortality not
reflecting a poor quality of life? Even if you did, would it be
statistically significant enough to counteract all the correlations
between a low standard of living high infant mortality?

A low standard of living with cable tv, a car, a phone, cell phone,
booze and drugs?

I had none of that. I had a bed, clothes, some dishes, and a ton of
books I got for free at the used book store. A real shame your
fantasies couldn't miracle a bunch of free stuff into my apartment.

Compare that with a turd worlder who has dead kids because of lack of
proper food or exposure. How many skinny poor Americans have you
seen? Other than the crack heads and the winos, who spend their money
on their drug of choice. Visit any welfare office and take an
informal poll on girth. Those folks are eating. Just not eating the
right healthy stuff. And thats their choice.

Life is worse in some places, sure, but that doesn't make things any
better elsewhere. Maybe the poor are fat where you're from, but not
over here.

I had to bring up an off the wall hypothetical to catch your
attention. You seem to think that the "poor" in the US matches the
actual poor in other countries. Have you ever looked at the figures
in the US poverty level index? Have you ever checked into the
freebies such as decent medical care the "poor" have readily available
to them? And yet they have kids that die a couple points higher than
other countries that have a far far lower ability or opportunity for
medical care and income. Why is that? Perhaps its the drugs, the
booze and the **** poor life choices?

Got cites to the contrary?

The decent medical care is?
So I'm expected to provide cites and you're expected to provide
pregnant women riding ATVs?
I don't think that the poor in the US are on the same level as the
poor elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't mean poverty over here
magically has no bearing on life expectancy and standard of living. If
that isn't enough, I was comparing the US and Europe and your
counter-argument is that the third (note: spelling) world is even worse?
What kind of reasoning is that?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/