American mothers die in childbirth at twice the rate they did in 2000

Here’s something for the 80-some countries celebrating Mother’s Day today to cheer: compared to a few decades ago, many more mothers are around to be celebrated. In the last quarter century, the rate at which women die of pregnancy-related causes has dropped 45%, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) report (pdf), to just 210 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2013.
While rates are still high in many part of the world, overall, their near-universal downward trajectory is encouraging.
One country, however, bucks this trend. Each year, around 1,200 American mothers die in childbirth—meaning about 28 mothers die for every 100,000 live births.
That’s an alarming increase from mere decades ago. In fact, between 1990 and 2013, the US’s maternal mortality rate surged 136%.
Even with that increase, the US’s current rate maternal mortality rate is still much smaller than that of many poorer countries—but by no means not all of them. Mothers in Uruguay, Lebanon, Libya, Kazakhstan, Chile, Albania, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Thailand die at lower rates. The average for developed countries, excluding the US, is just shy of 11 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.
It’s not just the deaths. On top of the 1,200 American women who die every year of pregnancy-related causes, there are 60,000 “near misses,” or women who were really close to dying but survived. The combination of deaths and near-misses makes American women over 10 times more likely than their peers in, say, Austria or Poland to die of pregnancy-related causes—this despite the fact that the US’s per capita spending on maternal care is higher than any other country.
What’s behind this alarming spike in US maternal mortality?

The economic case for paternity leave

Nearly two decades ago, Japan started running out of workers, dragging on economic growth. Making things worse is the fact that seven-tenths of Japanese women drop out of the workforce after having their first child. Getting them back to work could boost Japan’s GDP by as much as 15% (paywall), says Abe. And the way to do that was to make maternity leave longer.
Japan is hardly the only country that would benefit from keeping more mothers in the labor force. If American women worked at the same rates men did, US GDP could grow 9%, say economists; France’s would pop by more than 11%; and Italy’s would see a whopping 23% boost, according to OECD calculations. The average across the OECD would total 12%.
There’s only one problem with Abe’s plan: It’s targeting the wrong people. More maternity leave might sound like a great idea, but as long as mothers are the only parents taking leave, longer stints at home actually worsens job discrimination against them and makes them less likely to pursue a career.
Rather, as the experiences of Sweden, Iceland, and a handful of other countries show, the secret to keeping mothers in the workforce lies not in giving them more time off, but in getting more fathers to stay at home instead.
 

If America really valued mothers, we wouldn’t treat them like this

Sweden is an example of what it looks like when a country really believes that being a parent is a difficult and important job that needs to be supported by public policy. They guarantee parents 480 paid days per child. Those days can be allocated as the parents see fit until the child is eight years old. In order to encourage fathers to take on more parenting responsibilities, 60 of those days are specifically given to the father.
The United States, by contrast, is an example of what it look like when a country merely pays lip service to the importance of parents. While a handful of states, like California, offer modest paid maternal leave, there's no federal guarantee of either paid maternal or paternal leave. We make mothers choose between spending a month with their newborn child or keeping a roof over their child's head. That's not how it looks in countries that value the work mothers do.

America's trailer parks: the residents may be poor but the owners are getting rich

Trailer parks are big and profitable business – particularly after hundreds of thousands of Americans who lost their homes in the financial crisis created a huge demand for affordable housing. According to US Census figures, more than 20 million people, or 6% of the population, live in trailer parks.
It is a market that has not been lost on some of the country’s richest and most high-profile investors. Sam Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) is the largest mobile home park owner in America, with controlling interests in nearly 140,000 parks. In 2014, ELS made $777m in revenue, helping boost Zell’s near-$5bn fortune.

Some unwelcome good news

The announcement by Tesla of a new home battery storage system, called Powerwall, costing $3500 for 10KwH of storage, has been greeted with enthusiasm, but also a good deal of scepticism regarding its commercial viability, which depends in any given market on such things as the gap between retail electricity prices feed-in tariffs for solar PV.
This is missing the forest for the trees, however. Assuming the Tesla system comes anywhere near meeting its announced specifications, and noting that electric cars are also on the market from Tesla and others, we now have just about everything we need for a technological fix for climate change, based on a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency, at a cost that’s a small fraction of global income (and hence a small fraction of national income for any country) . 
That’s something hardly anyone expected (certainly not me) a decade ago...

Uncertain forecast for Social Security

The study compared all forecasts made by the Social Security Administration over the 80-year history of the program with its actual outcome, and found that its forecasts of the health of Social Security trust funds have become increasingly biased since 2000. Current forecasts are likely off by billions of dollars, and the program could be insolvent earlier than expected unless legislators act, the study found.

No statement of when that might be, but it's not soon, and, as the essay later states, now that these problems are better known, proper fixes are more likely.

Welfare Is the Best Weapon Against Nepotism

Today, The New York Times’ David Brooks gave family dynasties a hearty endorsement in one of his increasingly deranged fireside chats, suggesting that since some “powerhouse families” regularly produce successful members, "we should be grateful that in each field of endeavor there are certain families that are breeding grounds for achievement. … I bet you can trace ways your grandparents helped shape your career," Brooks advises, proving once again he knows zero people who are not rich.
...
After all, if we acknowledge that sources of income—especially the choicest jobs on the market—are destined to be acquired through sheer luck, then it makes sense to put in place a failsafe for the unfortunate masses who are born to ordinary people. Universal healthcare, child benefits, heavily subsidized or free college education, and basic incomes are all sturdy and sensible programs that can ensure that all citizens, regardless of their parentage, will have a fair shot at enjoying their lives and their potential. We would all likely care a lot less about the special avenues to wealth available strictly to the parentally privileged if missing out on those juicy jobs didn’t mean losing health insurance, slipping into poverty, and finding oneself unable to afford a family of one’s own.
So I guess that, in the end, I’m with Williamson and Brooks: Nepotism is here to stay, and there’s no sense in fighting the partiality of parents for their children, especially when it comes to jobs. To respect the sanctity of those family relationships—and to save the conservative commentariat the horror of anti-nepotism policies—we need only to make sure no other person’s future is compromised, which means putting a strong system of wealth transfer programs in place. Thus, poor kids everywhere can rejoice: welfare is (rich) family-friendly after all!

Distractions

Technology helps, but it also hinders...

Of course, these devices aren’t just tools - they’re windows. They bring the world to us, into the workplace, and the home, and even the palm of your hand. They’re a wonder, but also a danger.
With each type of device, we sacrifice a little more of the world immediately around us in exchange for the virtual one. Desktop computers are things of total immersion, where we’re almost piloting a machine. Laptops let us enter that machine from a wider variety of starting locations, and perhaps let us climb out more easily. Then we have mobile devices, which superimpose the digital world as a semi-transparent overlay on every part of our lives.
We’ve been trained by these objects. We’re presented with stimuli, and we display conditioned behaviour. Notifications and interruptions permeate the membrane between actual life, and our electronic existence - and our devices are the conduits.
A few days ago, I began wearing an Apple Watch, and I did so with some unease.

My fear was that a wearable would be the most intrusive of all devices, bringing trespass even to situations where my phone was away, and I was engaged in other activities - eating up the last remaining uninterrupted portions of my life.

I was surprised to find that, instead, the Watch helped me regain lost ground.

The problem with notifications is that they occupy the junction of several unhealthy human characteristics: social pressure of timely response, a need for diversion, and our constant thirst for novelty. Mobile devices exacerbate that issue by letting us succumb to all of those at any moment. That’s not a good thing. I’m constantly horrified that much of Microsoft’s advertising seems to presuppose that working twenty-four hours per day is mankind’s long-sought nirvana.

Perhaps we are beginning to see the solution to the puzzle around wearables: do we need another device?

For years, our mobile applications have been so rich and fully-featured that we can spend hours using them - and so we do. They’re already our preferred form of interaction with computing devices, the internet, and each other. And the truth is, we’ve been lying to ourselves about the freedom they bring.
If you’re like me, you probably hate when people phone you instead of texting or emailing. It’s intrusive, it demands an immediate response, and it ties you up for minutes at a time. I have better things to do! Let me deal with your needs once I’ve met my own.
But we treat all of our notifications like phone calls. A mention on Twitter becomes a check of your tweet stream, and a response, and a few favourites or retweets. An incoming email might mutate into checking the web site in the sender’s signature, or any embedded links in the message, and indeed writing a reply. An iMessage gets an immediate response even though you can defer it, complete with half a minute of fumbling around for the perfect emoji.
...
I’m making full use of the Watch, including all the much-touted stuff like fitness tracking, sending sketches and taps to other wearers, and controlling the music in my office from my wrist. But the revelation for me has been how this little gadget - so very clearly a 1.0 product - has changed my relationship with my other devices.
In the same way that the iPhone was the first phone to really start eating away at what we used computers for, the Watch is the first wearable that’s lessened the amount of time I spend with my phone. For much of my day, the iPhone has become a sort of server, sitting quietly in a pocket, facilitating my interactions with its little brother.