On Aug 17, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Paul wrote:
> Thanks to Doug for posting this. The article takes up much of the
> same
> message that the Bloomberg Administration has tried to peddle since
> taking
> office (sadly, since as a private donor Bloomberg had given tangible
> support to public health).
>
> As a reminder, here is a key quote:
>> In essence, there is a health gap emerging between our massive
>> metropolis
>> and the rest of the country—some X factor that’s improving our
>> health in
>> subtle, everyday ways.
>
> I know we have all seen this before and despite the source (NY Magaz),
> somehow I still become aghast at how the well off in America have
> moved
> into self-congratulatory class bubble. They manage not to even
> know about
> the majority - those pushed out or just passed over by the new
> economy.
>
> New York City has swapped populations to a surprising degree.
It'd be interesting to redo this work with, say, the population of NYC in 1990 applied to 2005 ACS data. Still, have things changed as much as you say?
The point of the article is that New Yorkers now live longer than other Americans. As of 2005, New York was less white than the rest of the U.S. (44% vs. 75%), twice as black (25% vs. 12%), almost twice as Latino (28% vs. 15%), and three times as Asian (12% vs. 4%). Our poverty rate is half again as high (19% vs. 13%). All those things suggest we should live shorter, not longer, lives than the national average. We may have swapped pops, but we're still darker and poorer than the average.
And we're less white than in the 1990 census - it was 52% then. The poverty rate then was 19%, vs. a national of 13% (yeah, the same as 2005). So given that we're less white and just as poor, why'd we surpass the U.S. average?
Doug