| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of U.S. states by American Human Development Index article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The American Development Report has indicated that their data could not have been used to compile the table on this page, which has been cited in the New York Times blog:
"I have no idea who created that table in Wikepedia and what methodology they used to convert our scale to the UN scale. We have data tables on our website where the person could have gotten the LIEX by state; I'm not sure what he or she used for income, but if they used median personal earnings, it's not comparable to the UN scale and if they used state GDP, they would run into the problems described above; and in terms of education, he or she may well have used school enrollment, which we have, but I don't know what they would combine it with as we don't have literacy by state and, again, the educational attainment figures would not be comparable."
See http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-which-i-get-debunked-at.html
If a proper source cannot be found, this article may have to be deleted. Tyronen ( talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I second that, and have added a ProD to this. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If a proper source can be found this should be kept. It is obviously a subject of enough sociological importance that it deserves to be included —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Genovese12345 (
talk •
contribs) 12:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did none of you think to simply undo this edit, where the original data, from the source cited by the original editor who introduced them, were completely altered by 68.243.31.161? The statement that this page wasn't showing AHDR data because it was using a scale of 0–1 was true. But the article had been vandalized. The pre-vandalism data are not on a scale of 0–1, and indeed appear to agree exactly with the source cited. (I've cross-checked a sample. Please correct any disagreements that you spot.) Uncle G ( talk) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this article, when there is American Human Development Report? Especially when it is NOT a "List of U.S. states by Human Development Index", because there is no HDI data but (somewhat differntly derived---it seems) AHDR data? 193.52.24.125 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
- Perhaps we should move the article to a more accurate name? "List of US states development according to AHDR" or something (preferably something a little less strained). TastyCakes ( talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I know there aren't many people in Wyoming, but I think they should be on the list. I can't find the data on the website for any state though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.130.60 ( talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted back to the AHDR numbers and Wyoming is included. Please note - the decimal numbers between zero and one are from here, it is unclear where the author of that blog got those numbers, but it appears to be here, on a Wikipedia mirror. So Wikipedia is referencing itself on numbers that apparently come out of nowhere. They clearly do not classify as reliable, so please do not put them back in. TastyCakes ( talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kind of a list to prove a point, isn't it? Alaska is the only Republican state above average. Not because it's "done anything", but because it's way too large to do anything!
The only Democratic state below average is Oregon.
Pretty much just another pov listing. Student7 ( talk) 13:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The measure is seriously flawed, I agree. But not by political reasons. The problem as I look at it, is that it does not take into account the vast differences in cost of living in the various states, thus states with a high cost of living are 'rewarded', even though they really aren't necessarily more developed. Take for example Alaska and Hawaii. Very high cost of living in both states and both are top ranked. Really the index is quite flawed, but not 'politically' as you mention. It just so happens that most high cost of living states are also Democratic states and these cost of living differences are swamping much other data. -- 71.214.209.59 ( talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. We need a "criticism" section that makes your point. Would need a citation, of course. Student7 ( talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- What a bizarre criticism. Not sure of the reasons for such a discrepancy but I would assume that Democrat states score highly because they traditionally offer better health coverage (at lower cost), better education (ditto), more equality, etc. whereas in Republican minds it's every man for himself and screw the down-trodden.--
83.224.69.193 (
talk) 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a WP:RS for that statement?
- I'm inclined to agree with ...209.59. Densely populated states have a large population, with concurrent high salaries, taxable income, etc. that can permit some Socialization without upsetting the economy. Lower density states, like Vermont, for example, cannot really do that. Vt is a great example because they are mostly poor outside of the main city, rural, needing lots of high maintenance roads for low density traffic, electricity, along with concurrent other services, like sewage, potable water, etc. As a result, the state is highly dependent on federal handouts. With two (Democratic/Socialist) senators for only 600,000 people, they manage to obtain these handouts. The cost of living is high, but the wages for the population outside of Burlington, are low. The options for the state to do "anything more", raise taxes, for examples, are extremely limited.
- Another problem is that no retiree with a choice (who has money) will choose to live in a high cost of living state. This contributes even more to the imbalance. The state loses their income. Retirees that stay behind (don't have the option to move) need more services. Student7 ( talk) 22:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article use the normal, standard, world-wide HDI rather than some American one? Being different means that comparisons with other countries is more difficult.-- 83.224.69.193 ( talk) 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good question. "Just because" is all I could out of Measure_of_America#American_Human_Development_Index. Perhaps there is a better answer than what is written there.
- Poses this question: what if the results using the "standard" world guide wound up making each state look about the same as every other? For example, the US has "pretty much" the same age expectancy, roughly the same education, etc. My guess is the "American" spin magnifies the differences between the states so they look far apart. In other words, for political reasons. Student7 ( talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't HDI! The data makes no sense at all, this article is rubbish! Jubblubs ( talk) 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)