Useful Links

Helena · 06-11-2019, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR

Some even suggest the Russians nearly lost to Germany because Stalin had purged (i.e. killed/imprisoned) so many officers.

Of course, Hitler’s stupidity and the Russian winter might have been factors as well...

In late 1920s/early 1930s... Stalin stole much of the harvests in Russia then destroyed Russian family farms via forced conversion of family farms into communist collectives. Farmers who protested were executed. Stalin also moved massive amounts of rural people into the cities. Tens of millions of Russians starved. While millions of Russians were starving... Stalin stole Ukraine's harvests while also destroying Ukraine's family farms to create communist farm collectives in Ukraine causing millions of Ukrainians to also starve [see key word, Holodomor.]

Ironically, in contrast, Hitler enacted laws which protected German family farmers. Farmers and rural family life were idealized and revered as the mainspring of the Third Reich's "blood and soil" philosophy.

Here's more irony... the battle that turned the war in Russia's favor was near Stalingrad. That area of Russia was settled by German farmers when Russia's Empress Catherine the Great [who was originally a German princess] encouraged them to move to that part of Russia. At the beginning of WW2, Stalin moved those Germans [called the Volga Germans] east to Siberia and many [only God knows how many] died in the process.

.

Bongleur · 06-12-2019, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markola

1960 was when the birth control pill was introduced, hence one big, popular reason for the decline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birt..._United_States

I recall reading that it wasn't really available until 1964 (due to state laws).

Also -- I long ago read that in order to get it legalized, the govt wanted buy-in from the Catholic Church. They required that a woman still menstruate. So that is why the monthly package contains sugar pills. But female doctors routinely went right to another package, thus ridding themselves of the nuisance.

if true, this is major malpractice -- for all the women who had lifetimes of painful periods.

Markola · 06-12-2019, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bongleur

I recall reading that it wasn't really available until 1964 (due to state laws).

Also -- I long ago read that in order to get it legalized, the govt wanted buy-in from the Catholic Church. They required that a woman still menstruate. So that is why the monthly package contains sugar pills. But female doctors routinely went right to another package, thus ridding themselves of the nuisance.

if true, this is major malpractice -- for all the women who had lifetimes of painful periods.

As a male, I don’t want to comment further on women’s reproductive choices but I mentioned the factor because I was born in the mid-60s and our particularly small class sizes in school were sometimes commented on. Whatever the reason/s, competition for college admissions and jobs has since worked to my advantage and still does, and I need and appreciate any bit of help I can get!

HFWR · 06-12-2019, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bongleur

I recall reading that it wasn't really available until 1964 (due to state laws).

Also -- I long ago read that in order to get it legalized, the govt wanted buy-in from the Catholic Church. They required that a woman still menstruate. So that is why the monthly package contains sugar pills. But female doctors routinely went right to another package, thus ridding themselves of the nuisance.

if true, this is major malpractice -- for all the women who had lifetimes of painful periods.

Griswold v Connecticut

ckelly78z · 06-12-2019, 08:05 AM

In 1965, so 93.3 % of us still kicking. I do know/knew of some friends that are in the other part of this equation.

jollystomper · 06-12-2019, 08:15 AM

Interesting. DW and I recently attended our 40 year college class reunion. I calculated about 6% of our entering class has died. Since almost everyone was born from 1956 through 1959, our class is ahead of the listed percentages for those years. This is probably use to the demographics of who our college chose to admit, and the career/lifestyle opportunities available to its graduates.

JoeWras · 06-12-2019, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper

Interesting. DW and I recently attended our 40 year college class reunion. I calculated about 6% of our entering class has died. Since almost everyone was born from 1956 through 1959, our class is ahead of the listed percentages for those years. This is probably use to the demographics of who our college chose to admit, and the career/lifestyle opportunities available to its graduates.

Yes but also because the numbers start at birth. Childhood diseases and accidents took out a certain number before they even reached college age.

Big_Hitter · 06-12-2019, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras

Yes but also because the numbers start at birth. Childhood diseases and accidents took out a certain number before they even reached college age.

yep - it may help to look at a life table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_table

so at age 55, you have 91.181% of the 100,000 life cohort alive

from age 18 to age 55 you have 91181/98851=92% conditionally alive at age 55 from age 18

jollystomper · 06-12-2019, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras

Yes but also because the numbers start at birth. Childhood diseases and accidents took out a certain number before they even reached college age.

True, I had not thought of that. I guess multiplying the mortality factor of birth thru age 16-19 for those years by the data in that table would yield a more accurate result. Also, since the class is a biased selected group (as Ivy League schools tend to be) that is also an influence.

JoeWras · 06-12-2019, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper

Also, since the class is a biased selected group (as Ivy League schools tend to be) that is also an influence.

Absolutely a factor too. There's a whole other set of people in jail, on drugs, working in the coal mine, too sick to go to college, etc. They may be still alive at age 18, but might expire earlier than the college kids.

Big_Hitter · 06-12-2019, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper

Also, since the class is a biased selected group (as Ivy League schools tend to be) that is also an influence.

rich people definitely live longer - that's why mortality tables have collar and quartile adjustments

Winemaker · 06-12-2019, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras

Absolutely a factor too. There's a whole other set of people in jail, on drugs, working in the coal mine, too sick to go to college, etc. They may be still alive at age 18, but might expire earlier than the college kids.

Why would working in a coal mine factor in? I w@rked underground for 35 years in the production aspect of coal mining. My colleagues and I are just as healthy as any other demographic and a majority of those colleagues went to college, also. I know of three people, out of about 3000, who were diagnosed with black lung disease, and two of them never worked a day underground. They were early hires, and had seniority to work outside as a lamp man, and always had a cigarette in their mouths.

Amethyst · 06-12-2019, 12:11 PM

When did young people start regularly using sunscreen? I feel like women from the 1950's and early 60's age cohort are awfully wrinkled - from all that "laying out" in the sun as teens, trying to get tans. I tried to avoid it, but have my share of sun damage - no sunscreen in our home.

But something changed. For at least 21 years that I know of, if you don't coat your baby with an inch of sunscreen every time he/she goes out, you are considered an unfit parent.

JoeWras · 06-12-2019, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winemaker

Why would working in a coal mine factor in? I w@rked underground for 35 years in the production aspect of coal mining. My colleagues and I are just as healthy as any other demographic and a majority of those colleagues went to college, also. I know of three people, out of about 3000, who were diagnosed with black lung disease, and two of them never worked a day underground. They were early hires, and had seniority to work outside as a lamp man, and always had a cigarette in their mouths.

Sorry, I meant that as a metaphor. Like the song.

Big_Hitter · 06-12-2019, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winemaker

Why would working in a coal mine factor in?

because blue collar workers have higher rates of mortality than white collar workers

you can search the document below for "blue"

https://www.soa.org/globalassets/ass...-rp-report.pdf

slowsaver · 06-18-2019, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths

Wonder what happened to the 1946 cohort?

Uhg. My father just passed away, and was born in 1946.

I learned from his brother that he started smoking at age 12. He never could quit, even after a heart attack he survived 8 years ago. He also refused to improve his diet or do any exercise. I can't help but think some of this is cultural for his generation... breaks my heart.