Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

But is the portion of people without those restrictions increasing or decreasing? How would you measure it?


sort by: page size:

Incorrect. You can have an increasing segment of the population in count but the percentage of that population of the whole of the population is decreasing.

That describes an increasing portion of the population.

I'd be curious how this number has changed over time. I'd suspect that (as a percentage of overall population) this number is the lowest it's ever been in human history. Still something to continue improving!

Article was posted April 2020.

The numbers today are probably much higher with little change in overall proportions.


That's what the parent post was speaking about - for various reasons these percentages are increasing, especially among the younger people, and the expectation is that in a generation or two the situation would be quite different from the current one that you've described.

A complicating factor not addressed in that graph is the aging of the U.S. population. I don't have great numbers immediately available, but it looks like over that same period of 10 years the population over 65 has grown from about 40million to 50 million. Those people are still considered in that graph as not participating.

>the proportion of the population that fits this bill has increased dramatically in the past few years.

Wait really? Source?


I disagree with the ratio being linear. No. I don't think 10% population increase results in that.

Perhaps “indoorsyness” however they measure it is increasing, but not enough to cancel out population growth.

Yes a decade roughly flat per capita but number of people has risen 10% in that time.

And it also matter how this number evolved over time, and how other places do (counting with the same criteria, which is very hard I admit).

I mean if 50% has a chronic illness but in the 1950's 45% had them, then only the 5% increase can be used as an argument, which then holds a lot less weight.


The only surprise here is that there have been no significant changes to these proportions in decades.

Correction: changes will come after sufficient people are surprised by the consequences.


> First link has historic data, showing no reduction in the last three decades.

The movement (including within the LE community) mostly was one of concern without concrete action till the early 2000s, and the wave of new restrictive policies came in the 2000s.

Even ignoring that, the chart in the link you provides shows much less growth over it's 30 year period than would be expected if the practice remained equal in danger over a period where population increased by ~40%.


look at any objective statistical trends worldwide and you'd likely come to the same conclusions I've come to.

violence trends down

life expectancy trends up

poverty and hunger trends down

child labor is in decline

leisure time is increasing

nuclear weaponry is on the decline

migration is trending up

I'm not sure which objective metrics I could look at would imply anything other than what I've concluded.


Often true, but this is a percentage increase so presumably it is fairly independent from raw population size.

This is why my original comment ended with "so far".

In any case, we definitively do not have millions of people sitting on ARMs that just went from from 2% to 7% like we saw in '08.


The raw numbers don't lie. Both brackets (0-35k and 35k-100k) have been shrinking as a percetage of the population, with 100k+ growing.

I don't have a ready source, but I thought somewhere there were numbers for 2010-2020 and it was a more significant change. Like there has been a significant change in attitudes over the last 10 years.

The article shows the rise in people that meet these criteria over time, based on the same criteria self-reported in the same way.
next

Legal | privacy