[another_poster]

The US is difficult to compare with other developed countries because it essentially has (1) affluent core regions and (2) poor peripheral regions. The US is essentially bimodal.

The core regions resemble the developed world, with similar levels of education, wealth, and political perspectives.

The peripheral regions are much worse off. Entire states, such as West Virginia, are peripheral. Think low wealth, low life expectancies, and entirely different politics from the rest of the developed world.

If you average values from both regions, you won’t really be characterizing either of them. The value will be too low for everyone in the core, and it will be too high for everyone in the periphery.

So when comparing the US to other countries, you’ll get a much more accurate picture by providing separate summary statistics for the core and periphery.

[throw_pm23]

This is true, but it's more fractal than that. You go to the most affluent, in your words "core" region like San Francisco, and you still find it to be bimodal: high wealth, high education, clean and tidy on one side, and medieval conditions just two streets away. Also, I suspect general health levels are lower even in the affluent parts compared to the rest of the developed world due to wide-spread obesity.

[srge]

I see why it’s more confortable to see it your way. But somehow it seems to prove the point of the OP: individualism. Even if one sees the US as two different countries cohabitating, this data forces to consider the US as a whole, and maybe it’s healthy as a country.

[avgcorrection]

Oh I’m sure you could find a (1) high-income workers and higher (wink wink) and (2) the unwashed, hinterland masses comparison between countries if you wanted. But then one asks what kind of point you would be proving with that.