You just can't infer it from the sources I gave you. You've become hung up on the very specific way you framed your question originally, and made it an "either or" question, and can't seem to get past that. Paft's original comment you objected to was "In the days before a government safety net, people most certainly did die from lack of necessities." You doubted this, and asked for proof that social safety nets improved things. Necessities that would affect life span would include 1. food and 2. health care. You picked 1900 for some arbitrary reason, but the first social safety net programs didn't exist until the mid 1930s, and others like and Medicare and Medicaid didn't get enacted until the 1960s. Social programs in the United States have mitigated these (and are specifically discussed in the links I sourced originally, and are compared to other countries as well). And for what it's worth-- you wouldn't find statistics on death by starvation anyway (not in the United States), but people would instead die from causes related to malnourishment. So the way you framed the original question was wrong too.
This white paper looked at the effects of Depression government relief through social safety net programs unique to the period, (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8902.pdf?new_window=1) as measured against infant mortality and the fertility rate of women. Malnourishment would affect the health of women (women that are malnourished can't even ovulate) and babies.
So much of this is intuitive anyway, and judging from your glib comments on other threads (e.g. "so what if Paft gives money to Africa, there will always be poor people, so why bother trying!"), I don't think you're really serious, and are an ideologue.
no subject
You just can't infer it from the sources I gave you. You've become hung up on the very specific way you framed your question originally, and made it an "either or" question, and can't seem to get past that. Paft's original comment you objected to was "In the days before a government safety net, people most certainly did die from lack of necessities." You doubted this, and asked for proof that social safety nets improved things. Necessities that would affect life span would include 1. food and 2. health care. You picked 1900 for some arbitrary reason, but the first social safety net programs didn't exist until the mid 1930s, and others like and Medicare and Medicaid didn't get enacted until the 1960s. Social programs in the United States have mitigated these (and are specifically discussed in the links I sourced originally, and are compared to other countries as well). And for what it's worth-- you wouldn't find statistics on death by starvation anyway (not in the United States), but people would instead die from causes related to malnourishment. So the way you framed the original question was wrong too.
This white paper looked at the effects of Depression government relief through social safety net programs unique to the period, (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8902.pdf?new_window=1) as measured against infant mortality and the fertility rate of women. Malnourishment would affect the health of women (women that are malnourished can't even ovulate) and babies.
So much of this is intuitive anyway, and judging from your glib comments on other threads (e.g. "so what if Paft gives money to Africa, there will always be poor people, so why bother trying!"), I don't think you're really serious, and are an ideologue.
T.e.D.