From Alaskan bush villages to center-city Manhattan, local-scale philanthropy unfolds every day in nearly all American communities. At first glance this modest, unsplashy, omnipresent giving may seem mundane. Yet such microphilanthropy leaves deep imprints in almost every corner of American life, due to its sheer density and the intimate ways in which it is delivered.
This is different from the patterns in any other country. Per capita, Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans. Even our cousins the Canadians give to charity at substantially lower rates, and at half the total volume of an American household.
Come And Give Me Blues Mp3 Download
Download Zip 🔥 https://urllio.com/2yGb8C 🔥
But what lies beneath our high national average? Do subgroups of the U.S. population vary in their giving, and if so, how much? What exactly do we know about who gives in America, and what motivates them?
There have been several attempts to compare the charitable giving of different U.S. states and regions. The most straightforward measures match the itemized charitable donations of local taxpayers to their incomes (both pulled from official IRS figures). The Fraser Institute and the Catalogue for Philanthropy have each used variations of this method to reveal what fraction of their annual resources residents are giving away to philanthropic causes, versus consuming or saving for themselves.
There are about the same number of people in urban, high-education San Francisco County as there are in the rural, religious state of South Dakota, economist Arthur Brooks once noted. And families in these two regions give almost exactly the same amount to charity every year. Yet because the average family income is about $45,000 in South Dakota compared to $81,000 in San Francisco, the typical South Dakota household is actually giving away 75 percent more of its income every year than a San Fran counterpart.
Some other results emerging from statistical regression of the PSID data: All other things being equal, the self-employed give less to charity. So do people who have moved residences more than the norm. Residents of rural areas and small towns, on the other hand, donate at higher levels.
Surprisingly, people who volunteer at secular organizations are a bit undergiving, in regressions of the PSID statistics. Meanwhile, persons who volunteer at religious organizations are dramatically bigger donors of money.
Religious practice is the behavioral variable most consistently associated with generous giving. Charitable effort correlates strongly with the frequency with which a person attends religious services. Evangelical Protestants and Mormons in particular are strong givers. Compared to Protestant affiliation, both Catholic affiliation and Jewish affiliation reduce the scope of average giving, when other influences are held constant.
Sociologist Robert Putnam has chronicled the many pro-social and philanthropic overflow effects of religious practice. Not only is half of all American personal philanthropy and half of all volunteering directly religious in character, but nearly half of all associational membership in the U.S. is church-related. Religious practice links us in webs of mutual knowledge, responsibility, and support like no other influence.
Indeed, faith is as important as basic financial success in increasing giving. And religious conviction is often what separates one sub-group from another when it comes to charitable practice. For instance, African Americans, who are generally more religious than whites, are consequently 18 percent bigger givers when households of the same income, region, education, and so forth are compared.
The other factor accounting for the high level of donations among low-income Americans is that a significant minority of them are religious tithers who powerfully push up the group average through sacrificial giving. If you look at what fraction of each group gives, various studies show that the rate of donation among low-income persons is actually half or less of what it is for the rest of the population. Only about a third of low-income individuals give any money at all in a year. But those who are givers tend to be extremely generous, with a third or half of them giving at least 5 percent of their income. These sacrificial givers motivated heavily by religion are found much more among what might be called the working class (households making $25,000-$45,000 in current dollars) than among the truly poor.
High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $394,000 or more in 2015) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.
At the top of the income spectrum, charitable giving bumps upward both in dollars and as a fraction of income. The fullest study of wealthy donors is done every two years by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. The chart on the opposite page averages findings from three of its recent reports.
Physical separation and economic stratification corrode social cooperation and generosity. In towns, villages, and cities where Americans of differing fortunes live in more traditional combinations, though, generosity flourishes. And for many Americans, the resulting giving seems to be deeply connected to satisfaction in life.
History of anxiety or mood disorders. Those with bipolar disorders, depression or anxiety are 30% to 35% more likely to have postpartum depression. Likewise, mothers who have had depression symptoms after previous pregnancies are apt to have them again.
If symptoms are severe or last for more than two weeks, a new mom should be concerned about a postpartum mood disorder, such as postpartum depression. Women who had anxiety or depression before giving birth are at higher risk.
Empower yourself to make effective health decisions. Attend A Woman's Journey, a conference held throughout the year at locations in Maryland and Florida, where Johns Hopkins physicians discuss the latest health news for women.
While postpartum depression is relatively common, postpartum psychosis is an extremely rare disorder, affecting just 0.1 percent of new mothers. That number rises to 30 percent in mothers who have bipolar disorder. Symptoms of postpartum psychosis include:
The gold-standard treatment for postpartum psychosis includes both lithium (a mood stabilizer) and an antipsychotic medication. With these medications, it is important for a doctor to monitor the baby to ensure that breastfeeding is safe.
The most important things to know about postpartum mood disorders are that they are highly treatable and not something a new mother needs to feel ashamed about. Even in the most severe cases of postpartum psychosis, one recent study showed that 98 percent of patients got better with treatment.
Standeven notes that a body of scientific literature on the treatment of women shows they respond differently to medication than do male animals (and humans), who have historically comprised most drug study subjects.
In addition, she says, when it comes to medicating mental health conditions such as depression, pregnancy, perimenopause and other hormonal changes can make some treatment and dosages less effective.
The first medication solely for the treatment of postpartum depression is a drug called brexanolone. It is given as an infusion in a clinic or hospital over the course of two or three days with careful observation since it can cause sudden loss of consciousness in some people. The FDA approved brexanolone in 2019.
Osborne says not enough studies exist that look at preventing postpartum mood disorders, although they are becoming more common. For example, one study showed that mothers who learned soothing and sleep-promoting methods for their babies had lower rates of postpartum depression. Another study showed that taking an antidepressant right away in the postpartum period could help prevent mood episodes in women with a history of postpartum depression.
Not many scientists have studied the differences between blue and gray eyes. This is probably because it is likely that the genetics of the two are very similar. But as you will read later on they are not exactly the same.
Although we do not know the exact genes that cause gray vs. blue eyes, we do know a lot about what makes different eye colors. When people talk about eye color, they are talking about the color of the part of the eye called the iris. The color comes from dye-like molecules called pigments.
This might seem weird at first since melanin is dark brown or black. How can this one color pigment be responsible for many colors including blue, brown, and gray? It has to do with HOW MUCH and WHERE the melanin is made in the eye.
For example, both brown and blue eyes have lots of melanin in the back layer. The difference is that brown eyes also have a lot of melanin in the front layer and blue eyes do not. So brown eyes are dark because lots of melanin in the front layer absorbs any light hitting the iris.
In blue eyes, though, light can pass right through the clear front of the iris and reflect off the melanin in the back of the eye. But the light doesn't reflect back through a completely empty stroma. The collagen in the stroma gets in the way of the light on its way back to the front of the eye. When the light hits the collagen it bends and looks blue.
It is just like the sky. The sky is dark in space but when we look at it from Earth during the day, it looks blue not black. This is because light from the sun hits particles in the atmosphere and reflects blue. This effect is called Rayleigh scattering.
Now imagine a sky on a rainy day. It looks gray right? That is because the light from the sun is reflecting on large drops of water. When the light hits the water drops, it looks gray or white because the larger particles scatter all of the wavelengths of light equally. This kind of scattering is called Mie scattering. 152ee80cbc
download key for internet cafe simulator 2