from the world's big
USA ranked 27th in the world in education and healthcare — down from 6th in 1990
America continues to tread water in healthcare and education while other countries have enacted reforms to great effect.
- The American healthcare and education systems are known to need some work, but a new study suggests we've fallen far in comparison to the rest of the world.
- The findings show what progress, if any, 195 countries have made over the last twenty years
- The study suggests that economic growth is tied to human capital, which gives a dire view of America's economic prospects.
The concept of human capital has only been around since the '50s but it's become an increasingly popular way of looking at the economic potential of countries. Typically defined as "the attributes of a population that, along with physical capital such as buildings, equipment, and other tangible assets, contribute to economic productivity" it includes things such as education levels, skill sets, and other intangible items that foster economic growth.
While we already know that a countries' average education level is associated with its economic growth, a recent study looking into the growth of human capital around the world over the last 26 years has included healthcare outcomes to the mix. While it was created to help motivate lower and middle income countries to increase their human capital investment, it offers a harsh look at the progress the United States has made over the previous 20; if any.
As part of the World Bank's call for more data on human capital, a team of researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington scoured over three decades worth of educational and medical data to help create an index showing the levels of human capital for every country in the world for both 1990 and 2016.
In this study, human capital was defined as "expected years lived between the ages of 20 and 64." Adjustments were also made for health and education levels, which were also ranked and compared. The four variables listed in the final analysis were expected years lived between 20 and 64, functional health status, years of educational attainment, and learning or education quality.
All of this was then fused into a single "expected human capital" score for each country.
That’s great and all, but where is my country?
School children in the Central African Republic. Fostering human capital by means of education and improved healthcare systems is especially important in developing countries where growth projects typically focus on material goods.
(ALEXIS HUGUET/AFP/Getty Images
The United States fell 21 spots over the years from 6th to 27th. This places us in the company of Germany (24), Greece (25), Australia (26), and the Czech Republic (28). The top spots are dominated by Western European and Nordic countries, with Finland topping the list both in 1990 and 2016. South Korea and the Republic of China are the only non-European representatives in the top 10 for 2016, edging out Canada, which fell to 11th place.
Wait, how did that happen?
One problem was that America's scores declined in one significant category, educational attainment. The decrease in education spending during the time period studied might have caused this. Nevertheless, countries that increased spending in analyzed areas, such as Turkey and both Chinas, saw tremendous improvements in their position on the list.
That was the only dimension where the United States saw a decline, however. The other categories saw improvement — albeit marginal. The primary reason why the U.S. fell so far was that other countries were able to improve their scores by a lot more than America was. Austria, for example, was ranked 19th in both 1990 and 2016 but saw substantial gains across the board, allowing it to surpass the United States.
But, we spend so much money!
It's not that Americans don't spend a lot of money on these things. As a matter of fact, the U.S. spends more per student than almost any other country on education and way more than anybody else on healthcare.
The problem, or at least part of it, is that much of this money is spent inefficiently. The Nordic countries, which dominate the top spots on the list, have universal healthcare which provides better outcomes at a lower price than the American system does. Because of this system, the cost of drugs and health care administration is lower in Europe than in America. Last year, half a billion dollars was spent on lobbying on behalf of healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies which could have been spent on actual healthcare.
Today, there are still around 30 million Americans without health insurance despite progress over the last decade. The number of those uninsured has increased in the last couple of years due to rollbacks on Medicaid and reduced advertising of government programs.
These inefficiencies add up to mean that, despite increased spending, America's human capital scores hardly moved over the last three decades.
What does this all mean?
The study reconfirms the relationship between human capital and economic growth. With countries that make the most substantial investments in their populations seeing higher growth rates as a result. This could speak poorly for the future growth prospects of the United States if its relative position continues to decline.
President Jim Yong Kim of the World Bank hopes the data collected will help spur further investment by governments into education and healthcare. He framed the benefits of a single, comprehensive human capital index as a motivating force.
With the right measurements, an index ranking the human capital in countries will be hard to ignore, and it can help galvanize much more — and more effective — investments in people
The findings also offer a bit of good news for the world. Even the country that came in last place, Niger, made progress over the years. It just did so at a slower rate than everybody else.
If nothing else, the relative decline of the United States over the last few decades shows that no country can rest on its laurels. Like the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass tells us, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>