Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Income inequality again
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Lance
May 9, 2012, 4:55:21 AM5/9/12
to
Income inequality leads to more US deaths, study finds
May 8th, 2012 in Health
A new study provides the best evidence to date that higher levels of
income inequality in the United States actually lead to more deaths in
the country over a period of years.
The findings suggest that income inequality at any one point doesn't
work instantaneously - it begins increasing mortality rates 5 years
later, and its influence peaks after 7 years, before fading after 12
years.
"This finding is striking and it supports the argument that income
inequality is a public health concern," said Hui Zheng, author of the
study and assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
The study appears online in the journal Social Science and Medicine
and will be published in a future print edition.
Many other studies have examined the impact of income inequality on
mortality and have come up with mixed results, according to Zheng. But
he thinks that this study overcomes problems in previous research by
using a different data structure and statistical model (called a
discrete-time hazard model).
Zheng used data from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey from
1986 to 2004 with mortality follow-up data from 1986-2006. His final
sample included more than 700,000 people aged 30 and up.
The study measured income inequality using three different methods,
including the most commonly used metric - the Gini coefficient,
calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau. All three methods resulted in
similar findings.
The Gini coefficient ranges in value from 0 (indicating complete
equality, with everyone earning the same income) to 1 (complete
inequality, with one person earning all income).
The Gini coefficient has been steadily rising in the United States in
recent decades, from .403 in 1980 to .469 in 2010.
In this study, Zheng found that a 0.01 rise in the Gini coefficient
increases the cumulative odds of death by 122 percent in the following
12 years. This is after taking into account a wide variety of factors
that may also influence mortality, including a person's age, gender,
race, marital status, education, work status and family income.
"Income inequality has a substantial effect on mortality," he said.
But if income inequality does indeed affect mortality rates, why have
other studies found mixed results? Zheng reviewed 79 previous studies
to look for the reasons. The 11 best studies looked at income
inequality at a particular point in time to see how it affected
mortality rates at a specified time later.
"But current mortality isn't just affected by income inequality at one
time, say 10 years ago. It is also affected by income inequality 9
years ago, and 11 years ago, and the current level of inequality, and
so on," he said.
In this study, Zheng was able to look at deaths in a particular year
and control for income inequality for each of up to 21 years preceding
the death.
"For the first time, we can clearly capture the long-term effect of
income inequality on health," he said. "Previous studies are likely to
miss the effect if the mortality follow-up period is too short for
income inequality to exert its impact or too long for income
inequality to maintain its influence."
Other scholars have hypothesized why income inequality may lead to
higher death rates. One reason may be that, in countries with rising
income inequality, the interests of the wealthy tend to diverge from
the rest of society. The wealthiest people may push government for
more services for themselves, rather than invest in public goods like
education or affordable medical services - services that can affect
health for the majority of people.
In addition, inequality reduces social cohesion and trust, which
studies suggest is important to individual health.
Finally, inequality may create a culture of upward comparison, where
many people see the lifestyles of the rich and feel they can't live up
to expectations. That can lead to negative views of themselves,
frustration and depression, which have been linked to sickness and
mortality.
"None of these negative factors caused by income inequality will have
an immediate effect on chronic illness and mortality," Zheng said.
"But over time they take a toll on health, which can eventually lead
to sickness and death. That's why this study found that it takes 5
years for the effects of income inequality to appear."
These results also support findings from a 2009 study by Zheng that
examined how income inequality affected Americans' self-rated health.
That study found that the dramatic increase in income inequality from
1972 to 2004 increased the odds of worse self-rated health by 9.4
percent. That study only looked at the instantaneous impact on self-
rated health. The impact should be even larger if it had taken into
account the long term impact, he said.
"The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
Provided by The Ohio State University
"Income inequality leads to more US deaths, study finds." May 8th,
2012. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-income-inequality-deaths.html
May 8th, 2012 in Health
A new study provides the best evidence to date that higher levels of
income inequality in the United States actually lead to more deaths in
the country over a period of years.
The findings suggest that income inequality at any one point doesn't
work instantaneously - it begins increasing mortality rates 5 years
later, and its influence peaks after 7 years, before fading after 12
years.
"This finding is striking and it supports the argument that income
inequality is a public health concern," said Hui Zheng, author of the
study and assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University.
The study appears online in the journal Social Science and Medicine
and will be published in a future print edition.
Many other studies have examined the impact of income inequality on
mortality and have come up with mixed results, according to Zheng. But
he thinks that this study overcomes problems in previous research by
using a different data structure and statistical model (called a
discrete-time hazard model).
Zheng used data from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey from
1986 to 2004 with mortality follow-up data from 1986-2006. His final
sample included more than 700,000 people aged 30 and up.
The study measured income inequality using three different methods,
including the most commonly used metric - the Gini coefficient,
calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau. All three methods resulted in
similar findings.
The Gini coefficient ranges in value from 0 (indicating complete
equality, with everyone earning the same income) to 1 (complete
inequality, with one person earning all income).
The Gini coefficient has been steadily rising in the United States in
recent decades, from .403 in 1980 to .469 in 2010.
In this study, Zheng found that a 0.01 rise in the Gini coefficient
increases the cumulative odds of death by 122 percent in the following
12 years. This is after taking into account a wide variety of factors
that may also influence mortality, including a person's age, gender,
race, marital status, education, work status and family income.
"Income inequality has a substantial effect on mortality," he said.
But if income inequality does indeed affect mortality rates, why have
other studies found mixed results? Zheng reviewed 79 previous studies
to look for the reasons. The 11 best studies looked at income
inequality at a particular point in time to see how it affected
mortality rates at a specified time later.
"But current mortality isn't just affected by income inequality at one
time, say 10 years ago. It is also affected by income inequality 9
years ago, and 11 years ago, and the current level of inequality, and
so on," he said.
In this study, Zheng was able to look at deaths in a particular year
and control for income inequality for each of up to 21 years preceding
the death.
"For the first time, we can clearly capture the long-term effect of
income inequality on health," he said. "Previous studies are likely to
miss the effect if the mortality follow-up period is too short for
income inequality to exert its impact or too long for income
inequality to maintain its influence."
Other scholars have hypothesized why income inequality may lead to
higher death rates. One reason may be that, in countries with rising
income inequality, the interests of the wealthy tend to diverge from
the rest of society. The wealthiest people may push government for
more services for themselves, rather than invest in public goods like
education or affordable medical services - services that can affect
health for the majority of people.
In addition, inequality reduces social cohesion and trust, which
studies suggest is important to individual health.
Finally, inequality may create a culture of upward comparison, where
many people see the lifestyles of the rich and feel they can't live up
to expectations. That can lead to negative views of themselves,
frustration and depression, which have been linked to sickness and
mortality.
"None of these negative factors caused by income inequality will have
an immediate effect on chronic illness and mortality," Zheng said.
"But over time they take a toll on health, which can eventually lead
to sickness and death. That's why this study found that it takes 5
years for the effects of income inequality to appear."
These results also support findings from a 2009 study by Zheng that
examined how income inequality affected Americans' self-rated health.
That study found that the dramatic increase in income inequality from
1972 to 2004 increased the odds of worse self-rated health by 9.4
percent. That study only looked at the instantaneous impact on self-
rated health. The impact should be even larger if it had taken into
account the long term impact, he said.
"The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
Provided by The Ohio State University
"Income inequality leads to more US deaths, study finds." May 8th,
2012. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-income-inequality-deaths.html
Dave Smith
May 9, 2012, 5:50:48 PM5/9/12
to
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
May 10, 2012, 5:49:50 AM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 10:55 am, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
>
If I'm understanding this correctly, the increased mortality is across
>
>
> "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
>
the board - so income inequality kills more wealthy people as well as
more poor people. Is that right?
Lance
May 10, 2012, 8:10:42 AM5/10/12
to
or do they just say "X number of people died in NY today"?
It seems to me that both because the mortality statistics are not
divided by the wealth of the dead and because the wealth of people in
relation to proportion of population is likely to be diamond shaped in
the USA (very few really rich, a few rich the majority middle income,
and only a few (but more than the really rich) at the bread line) that
the majority of deaths will be those of poor people.
Lance
Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
May 10, 2012, 8:14:49 AM5/10/12
to
It's an interesting study, Lance... mostly just confirming what we
could already infer from earlier studies like those of Wilkinson and
Pickett or from PR Sarkar's earlier "principle of social equality"
versus "principle of selfish pleaure" dichotomy. What seems to be
missing in this study is any indication as to the distribution of the
higher mortality rate. Are the wealthy (the privileged economic class)
also at greater jeopardy from a higher income disparity? Or is it only
the underprivileged who suffer? Logically, it should be both, but I
suspect that Zheng's study would have either ignored this factor or
assumed that only the relatively poor are affected.
could already infer from earlier studies like those of Wilkinson and
Pickett or from PR Sarkar's earlier "principle of social equality"
versus "principle of selfish pleaure" dichotomy. What seems to be
missing in this study is any indication as to the distribution of the
higher mortality rate. Are the wealthy (the privileged economic class)
also at greater jeopardy from a higher income disparity? Or is it only
the underprivileged who suffer? Logically, it should be both, but I
suspect that Zheng's study would have either ignored this factor or
assumed that only the relatively poor are affected.
Peter Brooks
May 10, 2012, 10:22:51 AM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 2:10 pm, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 11:49 am, Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 10:55 am, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> > > term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
>
> > If I'm understanding this correctly, the increased mortality is across
> > the board - so income inequality kills more wealthy people as well as
> > more poor people. Is that right?
>
> Do they separate mortality statistics into wealthy dead and poor dead
> or do they just say "X number of people died in NY today"?
>
They may not have income on the death certificate, even in the US, but
> On May 10, 11:49 am, Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 10:55 am, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> > > term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
>
> > If I'm understanding this correctly, the increased mortality is across
> > the board - so income inequality kills more wealthy people as well as
> > more poor people. Is that right?
>
> Do they separate mortality statistics into wealthy dead and poor dead
> or do they just say "X number of people died in NY today"?
>
there may be proxies for wealth.
>
> It seems to me that both because the mortality statistics are not
> divided by the wealth of the dead and because the wealth of people in
> relation to proportion of population is likely to be diamond shaped in
> the USA (very few really rich, a few rich the majority middle income,
> and only a few (but more than the really rich) at the bread line) that
> the majority of deaths will be those of poor people.
>
Yes, but that isn't the question - the study seems to suggest that the
> It seems to me that both because the mortality statistics are not
> divided by the wealth of the dead and because the wealth of people in
> relation to proportion of population is likely to be diamond shaped in
> the USA (very few really rich, a few rich the majority middle income,
> and only a few (but more than the really rich) at the bread line) that
> the majority of deaths will be those of poor people.
>
proportionate increase in deaths is the same for everybody.
Lance
May 10, 2012, 6:52:40 PM5/10/12
to
that there is an increase in deaths with increasing inequality. I
don't think it could possibly say that the proportionate increase is
the same across all strata of wealth because the very classes of
people are changing in proportion as the study progresses. So in 2011
the top 0.1 percent of the population possessed 38.1 % of the wealth
and the top 1% possessed 56.8% of the wealth in the USA and the bottom
20% possessed 0.7% of the income in the USA (see
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/mind-blowing-charts-senates-income-inequity-hearing),
but these proportions are not the same proportions that existed at an
earlier time. So the classes of wealth possession are in flux over
time. Therefore I think even a simple model that just says that
increasing numbers of people are moving from middle income to low
income combined with an hypothesis that the lower your income the more
likely you are to die would show an increase in mortality over a time
period as people moved into a class with a higher death rate.
Lance
Dave Smith
May 10, 2012, 7:06:01 PM5/10/12
to
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:49:50 AM UTC+1, Peter Brooks wrote:
> > "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> > term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
> >
> If I'm understanding this correctly, the increased mortality is across
> the board - so income inequality kills more wealthy people as well as
> more poor people. Is that right?
My impression is that Zheng's study doesn't answer your question directly. However, Chapter 13 of 'The Spirit Level' argues that benefits of greater equality are spread widely across socio-economic groups. Here's one of the articles quoted as evidence in that chapter:
> > "The evidence is growing clearer that income inequality has a long-
> > term detrimental impact on individual health and mortality," he said.
> >
> If I'm understanding this correctly, the increased mortality is across
> the board - so income inequality kills more wealthy people as well as
> more poor people. Is that right?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376999/
(I've only glimpsed at it and I think it needs to be read carefully.)
Dave Smith
Jim Hawkins
May 13, 2012, 8:52:29 AM5/13/12
to
socially harmful effects of a large gap between rich and poor.
This study shows yet another one.
Jim Hawkins
Dave Smith
May 17, 2012, 5:04:22 AM5/17/12
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/05/inequality-leads-to-economic-collapse
Dave Smith
Lance
May 17, 2012, 8:23:59 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 11:04 am, Dave Smith <davidelliottsm...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/05/inequality-leads-to-ec...
>
> Dave Smith
Nice article. Thanks.
Lance
wrote:
>
> Dave Smith
Nice article. Thanks.
Lance
Peter Brooks
May 18, 2012, 1:45:08 AM5/18/12
to
Here's another angle, from TED:
http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-powerpoint-slides-that-wer.php?fb_ref=.T7VgIOsa4_U.like&fb_source=home_oneline
It's a pity that they cheat with the slide on tax rates - I'd have
hoped that even fairly mathematically challenged types would spot that
22 > 9, not less. It's a pity because it's the sort of thing that
tends to destroy the credibility of the whole, and it's an important
message.
http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-powerpoint-slides-that-wer.php?fb_ref=.T7VgIOsa4_U.like&fb_source=home_oneline
It's a pity that they cheat with the slide on tax rates - I'd have
hoped that even fairly mathematically challenged types would spot that
22 > 9, not less. It's a pity because it's the sort of thing that
tends to destroy the credibility of the whole, and it's an important
message.
Dave Smith
May 18, 2012, 6:20:25 AM5/18/12
to
Dave Smith
0 new messages