Clearly, electing Louie Gohmert is detrimental to your health.
1
Can you plot the graph showing longevity vs income, with the y-axis at the origin?
While I've lived in New York for most of my adult life, I grew up and still have relatives in areas of the upper Midwest coded as average and below average in the accompanying graph. There is no question that the collapse of the manufacturing and family-owned farming economy is a large factor, but I have to admit that I'm not convinced it accounts for everything, or accounts for it in a straightforward manner.
I witnessed aunts, uncles, and cousins heading down the road to ill health, substance abuse, and under-/unemployment back in the 1970s when most of them had good jobs and/or the opportunity to get the training and education for a stable life. What got in their way more than anything was a pervasive negativity about everything.
My several cousins who "got away" did so despite being actively undermined by their parents, grandparents, and siblings. I remember getting into an argument with one cousin who was mercilessly picking on his younger sister for learning a musical instrument at school. This wasn't good-natured ribbing. Soon after, she quit. Quitting was, in fact, the name of the game. Low expectations ruled. Someone who held down a part-time job at a supermarket was praised, while someone who tried to go to college was nitpicked to death.
This is a hard thing to write because I have a great deal more sympathy than this probably conveys. It is complicated. But at the end of the day, people who have given up will live unhealthier and die younger.
I witnessed aunts, uncles, and cousins heading down the road to ill health, substance abuse, and under-/unemployment back in the 1970s when most of them had good jobs and/or the opportunity to get the training and education for a stable life. What got in their way more than anything was a pervasive negativity about everything.
My several cousins who "got away" did so despite being actively undermined by their parents, grandparents, and siblings. I remember getting into an argument with one cousin who was mercilessly picking on his younger sister for learning a musical instrument at school. This wasn't good-natured ribbing. Soon after, she quit. Quitting was, in fact, the name of the game. Low expectations ruled. Someone who held down a part-time job at a supermarket was praised, while someone who tried to go to college was nitpicked to death.
This is a hard thing to write because I have a great deal more sympathy than this probably conveys. It is complicated. But at the end of the day, people who have given up will live unhealthier and die younger.
3
If you are gonna be poor and old in New York, it helps to have gotten a rent-controlled/stabilized apartment early in a newly upscale neighborhood, enough cash left over to get the stuff you need and some of the stuff you want. Even at 82, you live on the top floor of a six-floor walk-up, you can still walk to cheap restaurants, drug stores and hospitals. Even if you never made more than 30K a year all your spotty working life and you lucked-out with your last employer forcing you into a 401k program that makes a big difference between poverty and abject poverty. On the other hand, owing to poor life choices including 2-pack-a-day smoking for 50 years, alcoholism, drug use and a toxic diet. you are not in the best shape to navigate your golden years with lung-cancer, heart-failure, bad-breath, half blind and mostly deaf, but, what the hell, still alive and mostly enjoying it.
3
In a nutshell; the rich live longer because they simply make better choices.
They smoke less, are more disciplined, are less fat, engage in less risky social activities, consume fewer recreational/therapeutic drugs, are more likely to marry & for longer periods of time, do not have children out of wedlock, attend better schools, do not drop out of school, do not engage in criminal acts, show up for work on time, tend to hold & keep their jobs for longer periods of time, have higher IQs, are better communicators, are more literate, do not automatically and always see themselves as societal victims, are far better at handling money, and lastly, are much more trustworthy with family, friends, and business associates.
Class dismissed
They smoke less, are more disciplined, are less fat, engage in less risky social activities, consume fewer recreational/therapeutic drugs, are more likely to marry & for longer periods of time, do not have children out of wedlock, attend better schools, do not drop out of school, do not engage in criminal acts, show up for work on time, tend to hold & keep their jobs for longer periods of time, have higher IQs, are better communicators, are more literate, do not automatically and always see themselves as societal victims, are far better at handling money, and lastly, are much more trustworthy with family, friends, and business associates.
Class dismissed
3
Frankly, I was expecting a more dramatic difference.
2
As the economist Paul Krugman has explained, in today's U.S., a person's life chances are determined more by their family's resources and social class than anything else. Thus, if you're born into a poor family in the U.S., your chances of becoming well-off are about nil, but if you're born into a fortunate family with parents who are educated and have good jobs, you'll likely have a much better future. There is nothing whatsoever about this in the article.
4
100 years from now, people will study (if there still are public schools by then) this in high school "Civics" class. It will be one of the examples of "Late stage capitalism, before it's collapse."
I only hope they are speaking English and not strictly Scandinavian languages.
I only hope they are speaking English and not strictly Scandinavian languages.
3
People in 100 years won't be studying unless there are public schools? I'm very confused. Do people live longer in communist and socialist countries? Do they want to live longer?
I figure if you average in the millions that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Che killed, the life expectancy in non-capitalist countries in the 20th century was about 15 years old. Was Ruwanda a bastion of capitalism? I must re-read my public school history books.
I figure if you average in the millions that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Che killed, the life expectancy in non-capitalist countries in the 20th century was about 15 years old. Was Ruwanda a bastion of capitalism? I must re-read my public school history books.
2
Yes, this is what they were saying in Russia in 1917, the year of the Revolution. I could give you a couple of links to what they are saying now but they are in Russian and it did not become the universal language. Nor did socialism become the universal system. Nor will it, in a hundred years, or any time.
"I only hope they are speaking English and not strictly Scandinavian languages."
The chances are that they will be speaking either English, Chinese or Arabic.
The chances are that they will be speaking either English, Chinese or Arabic.
1
The bottom line of this piece is the same factors that contribute to longer life expectancy for wealthy people work for lower income people. Diet and life style. It's not the place it is the culture of the place.
Being poor is stressful. The wealthy experience stress as well, but that is something they chose.
Interesting that this map roughly correlates to Red (R) states versus Blue (D) states.
5
I would be interested to know how our longevity gaps between rich and poor people compare with those of other first-world nations that have universal health care.
4
The economic inequality in this country is worse than any other developed country. We have destroyed our social safety net. We have destroyed education and allowed corporations especially banks take over. The bottom fell out for millions of Americans with nothing to get them back on their feet. Research is great but it is not a policy.
I have lived long enough to see good times and bad. This has been the worst and mostly thanks to policies Republicans have sprinkled on the corporations so that they rule this country. There is no place for generosity and helping in a corporate mission statement. They have one big obligation - profits and only profits. A spokesman for Obama stated that we have almost full employment which is a lie. But it is better than a few years ago. Unmentioned is the fact that so many of these jobs are low level service jobs which do not replace the middle management salaries that were lost.
Just look at our presidential candidate. Three Republican nuts and Hillary who is not known for her good policies. She is the center of the status quo and no matter what she says the status quo is where she will stay because that is where the money she loves so much is. Bernie is the only one who makes sense to me. The media keeps saying we can't afford him. Really - but we can afford continuous war???? and corporate welfare and very bad journalism for the most part. Even the NYT has slipped more than a few steps in the last few years.
I have lived long enough to see good times and bad. This has been the worst and mostly thanks to policies Republicans have sprinkled on the corporations so that they rule this country. There is no place for generosity and helping in a corporate mission statement. They have one big obligation - profits and only profits. A spokesman for Obama stated that we have almost full employment which is a lie. But it is better than a few years ago. Unmentioned is the fact that so many of these jobs are low level service jobs which do not replace the middle management salaries that were lost.
Just look at our presidential candidate. Three Republican nuts and Hillary who is not known for her good policies. She is the center of the status quo and no matter what she says the status quo is where she will stay because that is where the money she loves so much is. Bernie is the only one who makes sense to me. The media keeps saying we can't afford him. Really - but we can afford continuous war???? and corporate welfare and very bad journalism for the most part. Even the NYT has slipped more than a few steps in the last few years.
6
The argument that we must raise the minimum age to draw Social Security Benefits is based on the statement: "People are living longer." I guess the working poor aren't actual people - at least to those who influence and write legislation.
3
They are still living longer compared to when Social Security was created. Age 80 , one of the lower averages for women, is quite a lot of years on Social Security.
Don't let your children NOT get a college degree. America is changing quickly towards a Mexico-like structure with a very wealthy 1% and a large poor, desperate population. Only educated people will be able to climb into the middle class. As a parent, it is your duty to learn how to pay for your child's college education and make sure your child is aware that they have opportunity. Don't let your kids grow up to be poor like you.
4
It is generally accepted that an IQ of at least 110 is necessary to do college level work. That means that as many as 60+% of all high-school students can not do college level work unless the courses are dumbed down to meet their IQ.
If a college degree becomes the new equivalent of a high school diploma, then a Masters or Doctorate will be the new equivalent of a college degree.
If a college degree becomes the new equivalent of a high school diploma, then a Masters or Doctorate will be the new equivalent of a college degree.
4
Then the question becomes one of expectations. If you are not smart enough to earn a college education then accept your fate. It is very difficult to earn a living using your body instead of your brain. We thrive on intellect now, not brawn. Don't expect to own a home, buy new cars or have a good retirement if you earn your living with your body.
Two points. One, the economy is not a given It is the result of concious decisions about priorities. It exists for the people, not the other way around. Demanding that people should adapt their lives to the economy gets it all backwards. Two, the infrastructure is so dilapidated - lead in the water, bridges falling down - that it's rebuilding will become a matter of national security. The jobs for the next twenty to thirty years are going to be mostly manual labor to rebuild this infrastucture, so the post secondary education industry going to have to revert to what it's original purpose of educating those with higher academic skills. A college degree will mean less ten years from now than it does today.
Environmental factors must be considered in trying to equate the supposed
relationship between income and longevity. Whether it be the carcinogenic
effect of the reduction of the ozone layer or the higher incidence of cancer in affluent
counties of northern California because of excessive use of fertilizers to
make make big lawns greener, the hand of man can be instrumental
in reducing life spans. Some citizens of Beverly Hills contend that the
presence of an oil well on the high school campus has increased the
risk of cancer in the neighborhood. In poorer areas living nearby factories or refineries has the obvious effect of reducing life spans. The graph the NYT has published may omit other life reducing variables. What about increased
drug use and suicide rates among the white middle class?
Citizens of Beverly Hills
relationship between income and longevity. Whether it be the carcinogenic
effect of the reduction of the ozone layer or the higher incidence of cancer in affluent
counties of northern California because of excessive use of fertilizers to
make make big lawns greener, the hand of man can be instrumental
in reducing life spans. Some citizens of Beverly Hills contend that the
presence of an oil well on the high school campus has increased the
risk of cancer in the neighborhood. In poorer areas living nearby factories or refineries has the obvious effect of reducing life spans. The graph the NYT has published may omit other life reducing variables. What about increased
drug use and suicide rates among the white middle class?
Citizens of Beverly Hills
Why are raw data using actual race and ethnicity not also presented? I understand it is useful to "adjust" for these differences; but so is showing the basic info.
Probably bc they are trying to focus on the impact of income on health.
Does the availability of public transport lead to improvement in life expectancy by at least a few years? Somebody living all their life in NY would have been pulled over by cops a lot less than somebody living in Gary, Indiana. Fewer parking tickets, less money to be spent on gas, insurance, less stress overall. And also, less likely to be involved in car accidents thereby avoiding premature deaths.
4
Again look at the top of the article. The numbers are cooked by race.
3
The bottom line is that we're all gonna die.
4
In looking at the map of my state...it appears that the HUGE differences in color on the map from one section to another are on the longevity magnitude of one year or less.
That's correct. I see THREE shades on the map in my county that mean the difference between 79.2, 79.7, and 80.0 years. Jesus. Just crossing the street can mean the difference between living and dying. Using a cell phone in your car can mean the difference between living and dying. Heck, even OWNING a car can mean the difference between living and dying.
This is junk science at its worst.
That's correct. I see THREE shades on the map in my county that mean the difference between 79.2, 79.7, and 80.0 years. Jesus. Just crossing the street can mean the difference between living and dying. Using a cell phone in your car can mean the difference between living and dying. Heck, even OWNING a car can mean the difference between living and dying.
This is junk science at its worst.
3
Why do some people make more then others.
I would suggest that the longer a person works at a job their wages will increase because they are better workers.
A healthy person will generally live longer and will get the increase income that results from the above.
Therefore it's not that wealth determines health but it's the health that can determines wealth.
I would suggest that the longer a person works at a job their wages will increase because they are better workers.
A healthy person will generally live longer and will get the increase income that results from the above.
Therefore it's not that wealth determines health but it's the health that can determines wealth.
1
Have you have heard about the "Roseto Effect"? Maybe our society is going toward a different direction...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect
1
(Hello NYT, i corrected my comment. Sorry for the troubles :) It is not an answer, but a stand alone comment)
More than 80% of diseases are manmade. That means that if you eat healthy (plantbased) and do sports and sleep well, that you will not get those diseases. When you do live healthy there still is a (much smaller) change that you get sick, but that is like the bad lottery (genetics + mistakes in hospitals! + side-effects meds) .
How to be healthy and live long:
1) plantbased foods, knowledge about foods, lots of water
2) sports + sleep
3) good examples: friends/healthy advertisements/healthy restaurants/shops (big taxes on unhealthy food!)
4) healthcare closeby and free
5) meditate/tai-chi + (intellectual and craft) hobbys + friends/pets/family + being in nature/have plants
I recommend the book "How Not To Die" - by Dr. Michael Greger. "Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease" (NYT Bestseller). I wished every american would get that book from the government. It would save tons of money in healthcare!
Dr. Michael Greger also has a free non-profit site NutritionFacts.org, with hunderds of free videos. There is also a book about living healthy vegan on four dollars a day. So there are possibilities for the poor - but they have to know about it! The solutions are right in front of us - act and spread the word!
More than 80% of diseases are manmade. That means that if you eat healthy (plantbased) and do sports and sleep well, that you will not get those diseases. When you do live healthy there still is a (much smaller) change that you get sick, but that is like the bad lottery (genetics + mistakes in hospitals! + side-effects meds) .
How to be healthy and live long:
1) plantbased foods, knowledge about foods, lots of water
2) sports + sleep
3) good examples: friends/healthy advertisements/healthy restaurants/shops (big taxes on unhealthy food!)
4) healthcare closeby and free
5) meditate/tai-chi + (intellectual and craft) hobbys + friends/pets/family + being in nature/have plants
I recommend the book "How Not To Die" - by Dr. Michael Greger. "Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease" (NYT Bestseller). I wished every american would get that book from the government. It would save tons of money in healthcare!
Dr. Michael Greger also has a free non-profit site NutritionFacts.org, with hunderds of free videos. There is also a book about living healthy vegan on four dollars a day. So there are possibilities for the poor - but they have to know about it! The solutions are right in front of us - act and spread the word!
2
Totally misses the point of the article.
Not surprising to see that poor people on the West Coast and in the Northeast live longer than those elsewhere in the country, specifically in the "red states." That's not a knee-jerk liberal response to the article; it's a fact-based interpretation of the data reported here. If you're poor and have few economic opportunities to improve your lot in life, as well as less access to decent health care, there's less incentive to stay healthy than in states that provide these opportunities and offer some hope for the future.
4
Junk science.
Until one can experiment on humans, no correlation between income level or geospatial location can be made to health or longevity.
There is no multivariate study on earth that can take into account all the factors that relate to health and longevity.
What factors may play a role? Genetics, exercise level, dietary habits, smoking alcohol, access to healthcare, willingness to avail oneself of any positive or negative factor.
How does the the lifespan of the unmarried, Buddhist, vegan, tai chi practitioner with no income compare to the third marriage, agnostic, filet mignon, scotch drinking, Wall Street trader? Well the Buddhist lives in the mild climes of CA whilst the agnostic lives in harsh climate of Boston. Jeesh! The stress of marriage alone could account for the earlier death of the agnostic.
This is junk science.
Until one can experiment on humans, no correlation between income level or geospatial location can be made to health or longevity.
There is no multivariate study on earth that can take into account all the factors that relate to health and longevity.
What factors may play a role? Genetics, exercise level, dietary habits, smoking alcohol, access to healthcare, willingness to avail oneself of any positive or negative factor.
How does the the lifespan of the unmarried, Buddhist, vegan, tai chi practitioner with no income compare to the third marriage, agnostic, filet mignon, scotch drinking, Wall Street trader? Well the Buddhist lives in the mild climes of CA whilst the agnostic lives in harsh climate of Boston. Jeesh! The stress of marriage alone could account for the earlier death of the agnostic.
This is junk science.
1
"This is junk science."
Whereas your delightful tale about a fictional vegan Buddhist in California and an equally fictional steak-and-martini-loving stockbroker in NYC (from when? 1972?) is the height of scientific rigor?
Whereas your delightful tale about a fictional vegan Buddhist in California and an equally fictional steak-and-martini-loving stockbroker in NYC (from when? 1972?) is the height of scientific rigor?
5
I do have to say this is a step up because they didn't look at racial google searches...
Clem: If you don't see the difference between my anecdotal offering and actual data...this article was written specifically for you.
I recognize factors other than "wealth" that affect longevity. This "study" does not make it clear that it has taken any of that into account.
I recognize factors other than "wealth" that affect longevity. This "study" does not make it clear that it has taken any of that into account.
Interesting map and pattern. If one lives on an Indian reservation, or in a heavy GOP leaning county, you have lower life expectancy.
8
"The affluent seem to live in healthier ways. They...smoke less..."
not true in all countries, including some other rich countries and countries becoming richer. one good thing about the US is that it practically leads the world in anti-smoking and anti-second hand smoke campaigns (with the probable exception of australia).
also, not smoking not only extends one's lifespan, it improves the quality of life (health) no matter how long one lives. à votre santé!
not true in all countries, including some other rich countries and countries becoming richer. one good thing about the US is that it practically leads the world in anti-smoking and anti-second hand smoke campaigns (with the probable exception of australia).
also, not smoking not only extends one's lifespan, it improves the quality of life (health) no matter how long one lives. à votre santé!
2
There is less here than meets the eye. So many factors may be at play, that what you end up with is more of a Rorschach blot correlation than substantive and, thus, useful causation.
For example:
It may be that healthier people are better able to hold better jobs with better income.
It may be that healthier (as well as wealthier) older people are better able to move to a better, less stressful locations, thus increasing their already advantaged health.
It may be that some areas attract less healthy poorer people because of more generous support for health care.
It may be that some areas suffer from a dearth of medical care because med school graduates don't want to live there.
It may be that some areas with historically economically good but unhealthy employment opportunities (e.g. mining etc.) whose economies have crashed are simply left with the unhealthy, aged cohort of a previous, prosperous time.
There are many more "It may be...." The data presented in this study is interesting and valuable, but we should avoid the tendency to read into it more than is there. We should avoid reading into it that which we wish were the case, fear is the case or, especially, that which confirms our political and social agendas.
For example:
It may be that healthier people are better able to hold better jobs with better income.
It may be that healthier (as well as wealthier) older people are better able to move to a better, less stressful locations, thus increasing their already advantaged health.
It may be that some areas attract less healthy poorer people because of more generous support for health care.
It may be that some areas suffer from a dearth of medical care because med school graduates don't want to live there.
It may be that some areas with historically economically good but unhealthy employment opportunities (e.g. mining etc.) whose economies have crashed are simply left with the unhealthy, aged cohort of a previous, prosperous time.
There are many more "It may be...." The data presented in this study is interesting and valuable, but we should avoid the tendency to read into it more than is there. We should avoid reading into it that which we wish were the case, fear is the case or, especially, that which confirms our political and social agendas.
2
In reading the research article in question, the first crucial caveat is that what was measured was correlation, not causation. Just because two measures 'run together' doesn't mean one causes the other. In fact, analysis did not find that the usual problems associated with poverty were correlated to life expectancy, such as violence, unemployment, and being uninsured.
A second caveat when interpreting correlations is that it can 'go both ways'. In this case, the likelihood that having poorer health can lead to lower income.
Those cautions aside, what was tied to reduced life expectancy were personal behaviors such as smoking, obesity and amount of exercise. In the case of reduced life expectancy among lower income Americans, these data suggest that addressing smoking, obesity and exercise rates are the most powerful levers to adjust. Further it is important to focus on variables that are ‘modifiable’, rather than more remote predictors of improved life expectancy such as a higher local percentage of immigrants.
These findings present a challenge to both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, that the solution need not entail global income equalization or the like, and on the other hand some predictors of improved life expectancy do suggest a role for local governmental investment or policy, these include higher local government expenditures, a higher percentage of college graduates in a locality and higher median home values.
A second caveat when interpreting correlations is that it can 'go both ways'. In this case, the likelihood that having poorer health can lead to lower income.
Those cautions aside, what was tied to reduced life expectancy were personal behaviors such as smoking, obesity and amount of exercise. In the case of reduced life expectancy among lower income Americans, these data suggest that addressing smoking, obesity and exercise rates are the most powerful levers to adjust. Further it is important to focus on variables that are ‘modifiable’, rather than more remote predictors of improved life expectancy such as a higher local percentage of immigrants.
These findings present a challenge to both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, that the solution need not entail global income equalization or the like, and on the other hand some predictors of improved life expectancy do suggest a role for local governmental investment or policy, these include higher local government expenditures, a higher percentage of college graduates in a locality and higher median home values.
3
In addition to Bill's comment my whole issue is even with the data itself, consider the following: lets say you spent the majority of you life in the upper class and live in one of these wealthy areas and then lose a job or take a lower paying job later but dont know want to move because your house (and real wealth) is now >$1mil. Should you be considered "poor" in these studies? I dont know what that affect is nor do I think the data is wrong, just saying that policymakers may take these conclusion with a grain of salt.
Maybe an interesting environment and feelings of self-worth have an effect.
6
It is confounding that some of the same people who live in poverty and at risk of early death are supporting Donald Trump. They are counting on a candidate who will do absolutely nothing to remedy their conditions - more likely the opposite.
4
The famous slogan, "The United States has the best healthcare system in the world" needs this qualifier : if you can afford it!
The US needs Medicare for All. NOW!
The cost? I don't know. What I do know is that budgets are moral documents and represent society's priorities. To listen to the candidates for president, Bernie is the only one who describes health care as a fundamental right. Hillary and Trump make vague claims about helping the uninsured. Kasich expanded Medicaid, but who knows what he'd do as president. No surprise that Cruz heartlessly sees no federal role in health care. In Congress, McConnell and Ryan would repeal the ACA, cut Medicaid and turn Medicare into a voucher program.
There are few times when we the people get to vote on life and death. In 2002 and 2004 the American people gave the Senate to the Republicans and re-elected W., respectively. SO, the needless, wasteful war in Iraq continued. Now this article shows huge swaths of Red State America where people vote Republican, cannot get health care or Medicaid, and they are dying because of it.
The US needs Medicare for All. NOW!
The cost? I don't know. What I do know is that budgets are moral documents and represent society's priorities. To listen to the candidates for president, Bernie is the only one who describes health care as a fundamental right. Hillary and Trump make vague claims about helping the uninsured. Kasich expanded Medicaid, but who knows what he'd do as president. No surprise that Cruz heartlessly sees no federal role in health care. In Congress, McConnell and Ryan would repeal the ACA, cut Medicaid and turn Medicare into a voucher program.
There are few times when we the people get to vote on life and death. In 2002 and 2004 the American people gave the Senate to the Republicans and re-elected W., respectively. SO, the needless, wasteful war in Iraq continued. Now this article shows huge swaths of Red State America where people vote Republican, cannot get health care or Medicaid, and they are dying because of it.
7
Its interesting that the study used income and not wealth as the basis for determining the relationship. It could be that health impacts income rather than income impacting health. Wealth though would seem largely immune from current health condition, so I would expect wealth to give a more accurate causal relationship between being "Rich" and "Living a Long Live".
4
You have a very good point. However, there is plenty of data supporting income, but very little for wealth (at least that I can think of).
1
My grandparents lived at a time when the income from one 9-5 job at the main employer in town was enough for a family to live on. No college degree required. They lived modestly but well after his retirement, with a pension and a car and home that they owned.
Corporations used to provide these benefits, and a living wage. One salary supported a family. A kid could go to state college and pay tuition with a summer job, maybe some scholarships. Cars and homes were generally owned.
Now, two adults working full-time is the new normal. And we're still falling behind. We live in a subscriber society, where we lease cars, take on mortgages, pay for college with debt, and rent everything, including music. And once we stop paying all the monthly fees--we lose our access. And what we do own has constant and ever-increasing costs associated with it.
In a rental society-- I think the term is serfdom-- once people stop working, the expenses continue, and in some cases escalate (i.e., medical care). God forbid you don't have enough money stored away, or the market tanks your 401k. It's a disaster in the making, for our country and our elderly. Life expectancy now does not reflect the future we're creating.
Corporations used to provide these benefits, and a living wage. One salary supported a family. A kid could go to state college and pay tuition with a summer job, maybe some scholarships. Cars and homes were generally owned.
Now, two adults working full-time is the new normal. And we're still falling behind. We live in a subscriber society, where we lease cars, take on mortgages, pay for college with debt, and rent everything, including music. And once we stop paying all the monthly fees--we lose our access. And what we do own has constant and ever-increasing costs associated with it.
In a rental society-- I think the term is serfdom-- once people stop working, the expenses continue, and in some cases escalate (i.e., medical care). God forbid you don't have enough money stored away, or the market tanks your 401k. It's a disaster in the making, for our country and our elderly. Life expectancy now does not reflect the future we're creating.
17
This is not about geography. It is about social policies in place that provide medical care to the poor. Notice that the populations with the worst outcomes are located in regions dominated by Tea Party politics (you know, the people who hate Big Government?). Now, even when urban areas within Tea Party-dominated states (e.g., Birmingham, Charlotte, etc.) attempt to legislate to deal with their own problems, the state legislators are stepping in to override local efforts at self-governance.
22
You missed where they cooked the numbers depending on race which would make areas that have larger percentage of black populations look better. I would love to see the map if they used the actual data.
--------------------
--------------------
4
You can’t take it with you.
2
I just read that hospital error is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. I wonder how much the likelihood of this happening is affected by being poor versus being rich, living in a city versus a rural location.
4
Dear Poor People,
Sorry to hear about that. Would love to chat more but have to run to a fundraiser with my Congressman-- we're discussing tax cuts today.
Best of luck.
The Top 1%
Sorry to hear about that. Would love to chat more but have to run to a fundraiser with my Congressman-- we're discussing tax cuts today.
Best of luck.
The Top 1%
7
Unbelieveably thorough and presumably expensive study on the painfully obvious.
Not much of a surprise that the red areas are all in red states, is it?
4
Zip codes as indicia of poor health and poor health outcomes is not anything new. For example, a 2008 PBS program, "Unnatural Causes: Is inequality making us sick?" discussed this notion in much depth. (see , Episode 5, "Place Matters" at www.unnaturalcauses.org). However, these disparities in health are not solely attributable to income, but to what are know as "social determinants of health". Many commenter discuss these social determinants: access to healthy food; access to health care; access to places to exercise (including safe neighborhoods simply for walking); access to language services, when the person is has less proficiency in English (in order to understand health care providers and written health care instructions); and life in environmentally damaged areas ( an excellent example is Flint, but there are many other examples.) Thus, I am uncertain how this study is in any way groundbreaking....in fact, it seems a bit reductionist, or perhaps retrogressive, in that it looks at the issue based solely on income, without reference to the complexities of the situation.
5
San Jose CA has one of the largest segment of homeless people in the country. If you are poor and homeless, do it in a nice climate.
1
How does this map compare to one that for life expectancy for all income groups and one for life expectancy for high income groups? Would the three maps look the same? It looks to me like areas where healthy life styes would be expected to be more common have longer life expediencies.
2
"Income" is very likely a proxy for access to quality health care. Of course, the cost of health care can also impoverish one. Such was the case before Medicare where the elderly were the very poorest and unhealthiest age group. And, now of course that has changed. Just another excellent reason to have "Medicare for All." I'm on it and it's absolutely saving my life and my limited retirement income as well.
2
The third world, brought right to your door, by the makers of... The article contradicts itself. On the one hand, it argues that medical intervention is insignificant when it comes to longevity, and that behavior and education are much more important. Then it states that wealth buys higher quality medical care which allows people to live longer. Medicine for profit is the buying and selling of human life. It is akin to slavery.
Or its a proxy for behavior patterns. The behaviors and habits that tend to make you poor also tend to make you unhealthy.
3
@Decima--exactly. The converse is that the behaviors that keep you healthy tend to be the same behaviors that increase your chances of being at least middle class.
Well. it's easy to see how those behaviors and patterns are developed in middle class people who have access to decent education and plentiful food. How are they developed in poor people who have neither? Besides, both of these replies avoid the moral issue that was the point of my post.
Raj Chetty has figured out how to tackle hot-button issues to advance his career at Harvard and then at Stanford :) The statistically-clueless and politically-partisan readership jump at the some of the correlations from this data analysis as further proof of their belief system. At the same time, Chetty seeks academic cred by pointing to interesting subplots (poor in different regions having different life spans) without offering any persuasive proof to explain the anomalies. He get a lot of free press -- may also have books to peddle.
Th fact is that these obvious correlations related to wealth vs. life span have dozens of interwoven causalities with positive and negative feedback factors. Any one with a semblance of common sense knows that the poor have different reasons for being poor (e.g., being in lower-middle economic class in a rich urban region) with variable degrees of education and commitment to healthy life styles. So a significant variation in life span is expected. But any quantitative conclusions or predictions based on such observations would be extremely suspect.
Th fact is that these obvious correlations related to wealth vs. life span have dozens of interwoven causalities with positive and negative feedback factors. Any one with a semblance of common sense knows that the poor have different reasons for being poor (e.g., being in lower-middle economic class in a rich urban region) with variable degrees of education and commitment to healthy life styles. So a significant variation in life span is expected. But any quantitative conclusions or predictions based on such observations would be extremely suspect.
5
Well said.
Sadly, there is money to be made by saying a whole lot of nothing.
Sadly, there is money to be made by saying a whole lot of nothing.
2
I know NYTimes likes to perpetuate the victim complex among people making bad choices, but people are not victims to their geography. You say "Geography matters" for life expectancy, but personal choices and lifestyle/culture matter more than anything else. Many of our problems would be mitigated if people took responsibility for their personal choices, rather than feeling a victim of geography, or their school teachers, or some other issue. Smoking, poor diet, not exercising, illegal activities- these definitely affect life expectancy more than geography, but addressing those issues would involve telling the poor they are responsible for the negative impacts of their personal choices, not a likely NYTimes article topic! The victim mindset perpetuates the underlying problems. The victim mindset makes people feel powerless.
21
Obviously you are not one of the disabled or elderly that are trying to get health care or nutrition while poor. Depression also factors in...I can always tell when folks have money and lack of empathy. Try getting extra food from some pantry and see how you like it.
6
Admiral Ackbar, if your suggestion is true, why is the "victim mentality" much worse in Texas than it is in New York or California? Why do poor people in a large swath of the South on average take less "responsibility for their personal choices" than those in Oakland or Chicago or Boston?
But then the question is: Are people in some locations more inclined to be irresponsible victims? Wonder what would explain that...
Tobacco and heavy alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, and a lack of access to healthcare are common among the poorer members of our society, hence they typically have shorter lives. It's also not surprising to see people living longer lives in NYC and California, that's where a huge proportion of the nation's wealth is located, and we ought to expect more people who live in those areas to live longer, not only because there are more wealthy people there, but because those wealthy people have apparently much less of a problem with paying for things like healthcare for the poor than their compatriots in other parts of the country. Thank the limousine liberals, maybe?
5
At least in the NY area it appears that a much lower smoking rate among the poor was a big influence on longevity. Medicaid spend appears to be lower to average.
3
the 10 percent difference between 76 and 83 is negligible.
if you want to live longer, turn of the tv + pda's, put down the cigarettes, booze, and all of those meds, with their innumerable side effects.
get some real exercise, and change your diet...put down processed + bar code food. try going organic and or vegetarian.
if you want to live longer, turn of the tv + pda's, put down the cigarettes, booze, and all of those meds, with their innumerable side effects.
get some real exercise, and change your diet...put down processed + bar code food. try going organic and or vegetarian.
4
The rich also pay more in taxes, so: The more money you pay in taxes, the longer you live.
2
Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
Not much has changed since the Psalmist penned those words several thousand years ago. However, we do know that longevity is influenced by how well nourished our grandmothers were when they were pregnant with our mothers and how healthy our mothers were when pregnant with us. This is the driver behind WIC, ensuring that pregnant women have access to nutrition. If we could go back and compare the nutrition and lifestyle of the mothers and maternal grandmothers of today's poor senior citizens versus rich seniors, it would be quite illuminating.
Not much has changed since the Psalmist penned those words several thousand years ago. However, we do know that longevity is influenced by how well nourished our grandmothers were when they were pregnant with our mothers and how healthy our mothers were when pregnant with us. This is the driver behind WIC, ensuring that pregnant women have access to nutrition. If we could go back and compare the nutrition and lifestyle of the mothers and maternal grandmothers of today's poor senior citizens versus rich seniors, it would be quite illuminating.
1
I thought the point of this article was the damning gender gap showing that one gender consistently outlives the other by years. Years of unearned, privileged life and it's just being ignored?
2
Whose fault is that? Men generally don't take care of themselves like women do, and if women have been mostly at home, well, that's religion and the patriarchy trying to keep them there.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
4
Nope. Just your biased point of view showing. The title was self-explanatory.
It's ignored because it disadvantages men. This is the New York Times.
I can tell you the two factors why the life expectancy of poor people is so high in New York City: 1. A well funded Medicaid program. 2. Teaching hospitals that accept Medicaid. Go into any major Manhattan teaching hospital and you will find the richest paints with private insurance sitting next to the poorest.
Yes, Medicaid is expensive and yes, teaching hospital are expensive. In some cases, you get what you pay for.
Yes, Medicaid is expensive and yes, teaching hospital are expensive. In some cases, you get what you pay for.
6
It appears to me that the message is that if you are rich, you can live pretty much anywhere, while if you're poor, it'd behoove you to escape your red state and get to a blue state asap.
6
A blue state like Michigan or Illinois?
1
A man cannot survive by bread alone, but it takes median income and right geography too.
2
This also means that the rich are getting 15 more years of Social Security and Medicare than the rest of us. The 1% always complain that they are funding our benefits when the truth is we are funding theirs and they don't need them!
7
Where in this article did it say the rich live 15 years more.
You are not funding their benefits
The rich have paid more than you do and if anything they are your benefits.
The social security they collect if they live longer is more than made up by what they pay in taxes.
You are not funding their benefits
The rich have paid more than you do and if anything they are your benefits.
The social security they collect if they live longer is more than made up by what they pay in taxes.
Would love to see data that shows major teaching hospital/medical center locations with this information.
I didn't expect Cleveland area to do so well, but given the Cleveland Clinic is in their backyard, all I can say is location, location, location. Not just real estate but access to healthcare because health is wealth.
I didn't expect Cleveland area to do so well, but given the Cleveland Clinic is in their backyard, all I can say is location, location, location. Not just real estate but access to healthcare because health is wealth.
2
Shortevity in Rich countries is mainly due to the ignorance of their population. Strangely enough being rich does not mean also well educated. Even here in Chicago in average income neighborhoods, supermarkets are full of canned, packaged and junk food which are highly advertised. In many poor countries people do not eat such garbage and exercise more doing menial work which makes them healthier. The onslaught of the food and pharmaceutical companies on the population can be only fought with a good education, nothing else.
2
Wow. Look at the difference between California and Texas, in particular because Texans love crowing about how much better they are than California. Are there two more different states in the union than California and Texas in issues such as approaches to healthcare, social programs, women's issues, education, etc.?
But of course any Texans looking at this map would probably complain about the "well-known liberal bias of facts."
But of course any Texans looking at this map would probably complain about the "well-known liberal bias of facts."
13
I have lived in Ca. and NM for most of my life. In Ca. I pay the same amount in local taxes that I pay in Ca. The home in Ca. has sidewalks, surrounding service amenities, while the home in NM has no sidewalks, surrounding service amenities, and is a food desert of high crime and poverty. NM : Republican.
Ca. Democrat.
Ca. Democrat.
4
Although I am probably way to the left politically of the commenter Joe, I agree with what he says: "The reasons people live longer are the same reasons people get rich - self control, holding off immediate gratification for long term goals, etc."
This trait is not taught in the home where parents are dysfunctional (alcoholic, rage-oholic, neglectful, narcissistic) - which is the type of home many of us are from. I wish self-control, and why it's important, and how it helps us, would be taught in schools. I know I would have benefited. We don't all get to be born into "good homes."
This trait is not taught in the home where parents are dysfunctional (alcoholic, rage-oholic, neglectful, narcissistic) - which is the type of home many of us are from. I wish self-control, and why it's important, and how it helps us, would be taught in schools. I know I would have benefited. We don't all get to be born into "good homes."
9
The income versus life expectancy graph is damning no matter how we try to soften our interpretations. Income appears to be the major determinant for how long you live, for both men and women and no matter where you live. While it is appropriate to ask ourselves how we can best ameliorate the situation, the existence of this insuperable correlation, is an embarrassment and all the justification needed for efforts such as the Affordable Care Act. Bottom line: To live longer you need to have more money. Not acceptable.
8
No, the most important "determinant" of health status are personal lifestyle decisions,( smoking, abuse of ETOH, drugs, obesity, lack of exercise) The medical community has been telling us these factors are the primary "causes"( insofar as scientists will attribute cause to anything) of sickness and death for over 50 years. Poverty is one of many "correlations" of poor health. The article attempts to confuse the reader into thinking "correlation", in this case poverty and geographical location, is the same as "causation". The article appears to promote a political agenda which "proves"
poverty is the "cause" of all evils, including poor health. The truth is many explanations can be given for why we imperfect human beings may choose unhealthy behaviors. In Addition, the role of heredity (genes) is increasingly recognized as cause of many disorders. Mental health effects on physical health are increasingly recognized and researched. Sickness and the suffering which accompanies, are serious realities and articles like this one are dishonest and disrespectful, promoting confusion of a fundamental scientific distinction between Causation and Correlation. The reader will note that "lifestyle choices" can be modified for greatest effect on health, while geography only loosely "correlates" (definition: goes along with or accompanies) Do schools still teach rules of logic, and how to evaluate a research project
poverty is the "cause" of all evils, including poor health. The truth is many explanations can be given for why we imperfect human beings may choose unhealthy behaviors. In Addition, the role of heredity (genes) is increasingly recognized as cause of many disorders. Mental health effects on physical health are increasingly recognized and researched. Sickness and the suffering which accompanies, are serious realities and articles like this one are dishonest and disrespectful, promoting confusion of a fundamental scientific distinction between Causation and Correlation. The reader will note that "lifestyle choices" can be modified for greatest effect on health, while geography only loosely "correlates" (definition: goes along with or accompanies) Do schools still teach rules of logic, and how to evaluate a research project
I am a trained scientist/engineer and am more than passingly familiar with "correlation" versus "causation" and in fact used very knowingly and specifically the word "correlation" in my comments. If you look at this correlation strictly from a probability and statistics viewpoint, it is very troubling because virtually all of the other causative explanations you cite are also "sub-correlatable" with income. For example, I am sure that you would not argue with the fact that poverty and geographical location are correlated with income in this still segregated country. Methinks that you are too smart to be fooled by this article...but have convinced yourself that income inequality is not the evil which it so apparently is. I stand by my statement...make more money to live longer. Unacceptable.
It's been shown through numerous studies that eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet is not only the best way to attain health (in addition to not smoking) but it is the cheapest. Yet no where in this study does it show a correlation between diet and longevity.
2
Because this wasn't about diet. It was about income.
4
Be this as it may, it is proven that healthy eating does prevent serious health issues in the future by preventing such traits like obesity and thus leading to even more serious health issues like heart disease of which many Americans die from every year. I guess that it's not shown because it is a no "brainer" but I could be wrong?
“However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are. It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults even in paradise. Love your life, poor as it is. You may perhaps have some pleasant, thrilling, glorious hours, even in a poorhouse. The setting sun is reflected from the windows of the almshouse as brightly as from the rich man's abode; the snow melts before its door as early in the spring. I do not see but a quiet mind may live as contentedly there, and have as cheering thoughts, as in a palace.”
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden
2
Beautiful. But if you've got a toothache or some other malady and can't get it fixed it's tough to see the beauty in simplicity. Health care should not be about Big Business. That's the issue, not how you look at life. Health care like education should be available to all regardless of social status. But we are the greatest nation in the world - just ask the Grand Zero Party.
2
"Life expectancy of 40-year-olds with household incomes below $28,000,
adjusted for race* "
The lowest age shown is 76. That's life expectancy anyway Check the obits any day in any paper. It is ironic that you show in your chart where the POOR live the longest i.e. Santa Barbara 79.4 for men, 84 for women. If that is "LIVING" on your stated less than $28K a year, you can't imagine what that must be like. California is nearly THE most costliest state to live in, and I can't imagine trying to see a future at 40 year olds knowing that I would live another 36 years in penury. You say for the poor "geography matters", but I can't quite figure out how living in SB which is really expensive to live in matters to the poor that live to be 79.43 years old. That would be nearly 40 years of very difficult living.
There is something WRONG with this article.
adjusted for race* "
The lowest age shown is 76. That's life expectancy anyway Check the obits any day in any paper. It is ironic that you show in your chart where the POOR live the longest i.e. Santa Barbara 79.4 for men, 84 for women. If that is "LIVING" on your stated less than $28K a year, you can't imagine what that must be like. California is nearly THE most costliest state to live in, and I can't imagine trying to see a future at 40 year olds knowing that I would live another 36 years in penury. You say for the poor "geography matters", but I can't quite figure out how living in SB which is really expensive to live in matters to the poor that live to be 79.43 years old. That would be nearly 40 years of very difficult living.
There is something WRONG with this article.
4
"I can't quite figure out how living in SB which is really expensive to live in matters to the poor that live to be 79.43 years old. That would be nearly 40 years of very difficult living."
You forgot about those who are already wealthy and don't rely on an "income" to live. There may be many people in SB who don't have an income per se but live quite comfortably on family money or already made their millions.
You forgot about those who are already wealthy and don't rely on an "income" to live. There may be many people in SB who don't have an income per se but live quite comfortably on family money or already made their millions.
youre 80, poor, struggling
how much longer do you want to-live ?
youre 80, and wealthy
how much longer do you want to live ?
how much longer do you want to-live ?
youre 80, and wealthy
how much longer do you want to live ?
4
"(Because people of different races have different life expectancies regardless of income, the researchers statistically adjusted these local numbers to simulate a world in which all places matched the racial composition of the country as a whole. These numbers are after these race adjustments.)"
Because this "adjustment" is so key to the entire study, it would have been helpful to explain it more. And what the study authors did may not be sufficient to isolate income as the factor. Why? Because new immigrants are known to be healthier than second and subsequent generation immigrants. The fact that many of the less healthy locales appear to be places where low income folks are predominantly Black suggests racial differences have not been adequately excluded. And LA may be healthier because of a reported one in three residents being an illegal "immigrant".
Because this "adjustment" is so key to the entire study, it would have been helpful to explain it more. And what the study authors did may not be sufficient to isolate income as the factor. Why? Because new immigrants are known to be healthier than second and subsequent generation immigrants. The fact that many of the less healthy locales appear to be places where low income folks are predominantly Black suggests racial differences have not been adequately excluded. And LA may be healthier because of a reported one in three residents being an illegal "immigrant".
Is this not painfully obvious? This headline could have been in The Onion
4
poll th patrons at your local macdonalds regarding their salary
now do th same for nobus, or trader vics
which is higher ?
i see few ferarris at th macdonalds drive in window
now do th same for nobus, or trader vics
which is higher ?
i see few ferarris at th macdonalds drive in window
1
I'm sure the GOP has a "fix" here. That will make things much worse! Worse for the poor. But wealth for the rich!
2
Oh they are already on it as they vilify Obamacare and for the 70 + time try to repeal it with Nocare.
1
As to NYC what about the effect the Health & Hospital Corporation (public hospitals)? Did it occur to these researchers to look at that effect?
There are hospitals in all the boroughs, and no one gets turned away This has been the case for generations. So everyone who needs hospital care can get it and get it free.
Don't you think this would have a profound impact on the health of poor NYers?
There are hospitals in all the boroughs, and no one gets turned away This has been the case for generations. So everyone who needs hospital care can get it and get it free.
Don't you think this would have a profound impact on the health of poor NYers?
4
Evidently not
Not sure the goal should be to live longer, but rather to live a higher percentage of your years in a healthier more productive way. We can keep people who are chronically ill and horribly debilitated alive for years, but those are years of misery. Fixing the disparity in wealth would go a long way to changing the health of the poor. (see The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Pickett and Wilkinson)
22
>>>>
What evidence has Man brought forward that shows living longer is better than dying younger? Answer: zero. Have you been inside an elderly care unit? Do you realize that there are more suicides than homicides per year in this country?
As Seneca said of death: "A punishment to some, to some a gift, and to many a favor."
This quest of quantity or quality as to life is very modern and specifically more American than anything else.
What evidence has Man brought forward that shows living longer is better than dying younger? Answer: zero. Have you been inside an elderly care unit? Do you realize that there are more suicides than homicides per year in this country?
As Seneca said of death: "A punishment to some, to some a gift, and to many a favor."
This quest of quantity or quality as to life is very modern and specifically more American than anything else.
5
"In a study conducted by Kaiser Permanente and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers looked at varying categories of childhood physical and emotional abuse and neglect, as well as measures of household dysfunction like domestic violence, parental mental illness, substance-abuse and divorce. The results of this study, called the ACE Study, had two major findings. First, the study illustrated how incredibly common it is for children to have adverse childhood experiences. Over 67% of the study population had at least one adverse childhood experience. The researchers found a strong relationship between adverse childhood experiences and health issues. The more adverse childhood experiences a child has, the higher their risk of developing chronic health issues such as COPD, heart disease, depression and cancer. "
Read more: http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2016/03/how-adverse-childhood-exper...
Read more: http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2016/03/how-adverse-childhood-exper...
2
And how many of those abused children can afford a Kaiser health plan? Poverty is perhaps the greatest adverse childhood experience. This is another way for a medical insurer to say, "it's not our fault"
1
It's disheartning to see so many comments based on self-rightousness. It is very ugly and used to be something that many would be ashamed to do especially in public. And to those who hold those positions what is the solution? You cannot march people into the sea. You can yell and scream obscenities until you are hoarse. It changes nothing. So I am waiting for your suggestions...
3
There is a big problem with these analyses that I do not think you need to be a social scientist or statistician to understand.
The authors know that sick people earn less. They "mitigate" this problem by calculating death rates for earning two years before.
But chronic disease can make you less likely to work, and less efficient at work for many years before death. Depression (or even just a bad attitude) can affect the quality of both your work and your personal care.
These caveats are there to some extent in both the JAMA and NYT articles, but most readers will just look at the charts of death rates by income and assume that income inequality is cutting 15 years off the life of the poor.
I do not doubt that income affects life expectancy, but I do not think this is a good measure of the size of the effect.
The authors know that sick people earn less. They "mitigate" this problem by calculating death rates for earning two years before.
But chronic disease can make you less likely to work, and less efficient at work for many years before death. Depression (or even just a bad attitude) can affect the quality of both your work and your personal care.
These caveats are there to some extent in both the JAMA and NYT articles, but most readers will just look at the charts of death rates by income and assume that income inequality is cutting 15 years off the life of the poor.
I do not doubt that income affects life expectancy, but I do not think this is a good measure of the size of the effect.
4
Nice choice of colors by the graphic designer. Your map gives a whole new meaning (and gravitas) to the concept of Blue State, Red State...
2
When graphic designers get in on bashing the right, you know that the Times' game is transparent. Actually, I have always thought red stood for passion, and blue for depression. Appropriate, no?
I remember a ninety two year old patient who told me the story of how he bombed the Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi during the Battle of Midway. He had almost no money but was as happy as a lark. At the time of his discharge, he walked out of the hospital without even using a cane. My conversation with him has always remained a treasured memory. "Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be", wrote Robert Browning. While that might not be completely true, each one of us, rich or poor, deserves to enjoy the wonderful gift of a sentient life for as long as possible.
4
No where in this article do I see that they controlled for mental health conditions. I wonder if they did so whether the differences would have been the same, i.e. is being poor more likely to also be associated with mental health issues and therefore that is the reason for lower lifespan rather than just income?
9
Still remember when average life expectancy was around 70 years. We are living longer but also growing old poorer. Social security will not be enough for most of us, and saving for old age in today's economic environment is unrealistic. Our old will need extra help from social programs to survive. How to pay for them? Yes, higher taxes for those who can afford them, the wealthy. Nothing new, rich Scandinavians do it, they get it, help yourself by helping others.
7
As a senior citizen, I'm always wondering what money is needed for at this age, other than healthcare. Waste it because you've got it, appears to be the main answer. No, I'll have no interest in supporting the wastefulness of others who are past their prime. I can do that myself, if I so choose.
Increased stress levels, while beneficial in the short term, can have serious negative physical effects in the long term. Individuals with chronic stress have as increased risk of hypertension, heart attack, and stroke. I can't even begin to imagine the stress someone at or below the poverty level must feel.
I wonder if poor individuals are able to live longer in certain parts of the country because their communities have amenities that help to reduce stress, such as: walkability, warm/sunny climate, and access to nature.
I wonder if poor individuals are able to live longer in certain parts of the country because their communities have amenities that help to reduce stress, such as: walkability, warm/sunny climate, and access to nature.
6
Geography really matters if we compare ourselves, rich and poor together, to life expectancies of other democraticly and economically advanced nations.
We look terrible, in comparison, because the state of health among our poor and middle-aged, is pulling down our overall life expectancy - and with it burdening us with huge medical costs as a society. Not to speak of other costs.
Geography. The US falls down on so many metrics!
We look terrible, in comparison, because the state of health among our poor and middle-aged, is pulling down our overall life expectancy - and with it burdening us with huge medical costs as a society. Not to speak of other costs.
Geography. The US falls down on so many metrics!
4
" if we compare ourselves, rich and poor together, to life expectancies of other democraticly and economically advanced nations."
But one must remember that we are paying a disproportionate share of the defense budgets of these "economically advanced nations". If we did not do so, they would undoubtedly be speaking Russian today.
But one must remember that we are paying a disproportionate share of the defense budgets of these "economically advanced nations". If we did not do so, they would undoubtedly be speaking Russian today.
3
While averages can tell us quite a bit, they also hide quite a bit of detail. If life "expectancy" is 80 years, for example, there may be individuals who die before their first birthday and others that live over 100 years. It would be interesting to see what drives differences in lifespan between individuals.
Of course we know some of the answers. Smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse and other behavioral factors are the primary drivers of poor health and early death, much more so than factors over which individuals have no control. Behavioral changes may require a much more interventionist government than many people would like but it may be the only solution.
Of course we know some of the answers. Smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse and other behavioral factors are the primary drivers of poor health and early death, much more so than factors over which individuals have no control. Behavioral changes may require a much more interventionist government than many people would like but it may be the only solution.
3
This includes a starting point of 40-years-old, not infancy, so most early death has been eliminated by definition. I would assume the age gaps would be much greater in a study starting from infancy.
The difference aren't so great but $28,000 is higher than most state's full-time minimum wage. California's new $15/hr minimum wage would be $31,200 a year if working full time at 40hr a week. And I assume $28,000 doesn't include food stamps, SSI, free school meals that's available to poor families.
The lesson here is to do what rich people do and to act Asian, which coincidentally is also the most well off race. Step one, stop playing football and stop going to positive body image meeting. When's the last time you see a rich people or Asian doing that?
The lesson here is to do what rich people do and to act Asian, which coincidentally is also the most well off race. Step one, stop playing football and stop going to positive body image meeting. When's the last time you see a rich people or Asian doing that?
6
I really wish the people who study these patterns would consider an element which seems absolutely crucial to me: stress.
Being poor is a continuously stressful condition. It is a permanent, exhausting, demoralizing struggle. Let's call stress what it really is: fear -- or, a sense of helplessness. This is about the worst condition known to any animal. Everything about the life of someone who is hopelessly poor produces this sense of helplessness.
I can't believe this is not an awful exacerbation of any other 'unhealthy' conditions, such as bad diet or not enough access to medical care.
Moreover: re the 'bad diet' of poverty: Obviously, people in general tend to indulge in rich food, junk food, alcohol and drugs more when they are stressed than when they are happy.
Yet no one seems to have traced the connection between the terrible stress of hopeless (i.e., 21st century) poverty to the craving for sugar and fat, though their ability to raise serotonin levels is well-known.
In short, misery craves pleasure. It craves it far more than well-being craves it: that's how the brain works. Therefore, forbidding the purchase of candy etc with food stamps is just another arbitrary and utterly useless cruelty. An apple won't raise your morale and increase your will power the way a candy bar can. People under stress need that.
To improve health, reduce hopelessness first of all. Unfortunately, the prosperous seem to like their poor as helpless and hopeless as possible.
Being poor is a continuously stressful condition. It is a permanent, exhausting, demoralizing struggle. Let's call stress what it really is: fear -- or, a sense of helplessness. This is about the worst condition known to any animal. Everything about the life of someone who is hopelessly poor produces this sense of helplessness.
I can't believe this is not an awful exacerbation of any other 'unhealthy' conditions, such as bad diet or not enough access to medical care.
Moreover: re the 'bad diet' of poverty: Obviously, people in general tend to indulge in rich food, junk food, alcohol and drugs more when they are stressed than when they are happy.
Yet no one seems to have traced the connection between the terrible stress of hopeless (i.e., 21st century) poverty to the craving for sugar and fat, though their ability to raise serotonin levels is well-known.
In short, misery craves pleasure. It craves it far more than well-being craves it: that's how the brain works. Therefore, forbidding the purchase of candy etc with food stamps is just another arbitrary and utterly useless cruelty. An apple won't raise your morale and increase your will power the way a candy bar can. People under stress need that.
To improve health, reduce hopelessness first of all. Unfortunately, the prosperous seem to like their poor as helpless and hopeless as possible.
15
Aside from individual behaviors, the physiological effects of stress, mediated for example through hormones like cortisol, can themselves lead to acute and chronic health issues.
It's charlatanism because they falsely blame lifestyle for diseases caused by infection. CMV causes as much cardiovascular disease as smoking supposedly does, and poorer people are more likely to be infected.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/3/787.long
CVD is the largest cause of death. Poorer people have higher rates of infection by other pathogens as well. That's why studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection are all rigged to make the preferences of the privileged look good.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/3/787.long
CVD is the largest cause of death. Poorer people have higher rates of infection by other pathogens as well. That's why studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection are all rigged to make the preferences of the privileged look good.
2
Not Mark...
As a social scientist I was aware of this decades ago. But it takes a bunch of male researchers from an elite university to somehow convince people this is true. The research itself is lagging behind. Poor countries know the correlation between poverty, health and life expectancy. Much of it due to lack of food or lack of nutritious food or lack of preventative care or lack of adequate and appropriate health care. Mostly due to all of this. Prevention has been completely neglected by the greedy health care system and short-term -profit -centered doctors. If you say this people get defensive and they attack you. Stupid is as stupid gets. In the US there are differences. Poverty does not lead to lack of food, but lack of healthy fresh food...and mental ill health that leads to depression, addiction, isolation, etc. This is now emerging in poor countries where people brought up on survival, but nothing else, are showing with all kinds of crisis and dysfuntionality once they attain mobility or economic security. But there are no systems of care because everybody is busy surviking or making money. Notice....there is only stats for the rich and the poor. There is no middle class. If you say anything they mock. Mocking the poor, mocking the disabled (maybe shooting them as San Bernardino guys did), mocking smart women, mocking feminists and mocking the needy is what cruel enslaved macho minds do.
As a social scientist I was aware of this decades ago. But it takes a bunch of male researchers from an elite university to somehow convince people this is true. The research itself is lagging behind. Poor countries know the correlation between poverty, health and life expectancy. Much of it due to lack of food or lack of nutritious food or lack of preventative care or lack of adequate and appropriate health care. Mostly due to all of this. Prevention has been completely neglected by the greedy health care system and short-term -profit -centered doctors. If you say this people get defensive and they attack you. Stupid is as stupid gets. In the US there are differences. Poverty does not lead to lack of food, but lack of healthy fresh food...and mental ill health that leads to depression, addiction, isolation, etc. This is now emerging in poor countries where people brought up on survival, but nothing else, are showing with all kinds of crisis and dysfuntionality once they attain mobility or economic security. But there are no systems of care because everybody is busy surviking or making money. Notice....there is only stats for the rich and the poor. There is no middle class. If you say anything they mock. Mocking the poor, mocking the disabled (maybe shooting them as San Bernardino guys did), mocking smart women, mocking feminists and mocking the needy is what cruel enslaved macho minds do.
9
What a surprise!
1
Yes, but....thanks to all the welfare programs in place providing food, rent subsidies and child support payments based on the number of children the poor and unmarried women have, they are reproducing at a rate unequaled in history. Not a healthy tradeoff for any society where traditionally the birth rate for those unable or unfit to provide for themselves was the lowest of any social strata.
8
Ah!--so the you're in favor of sex education, birth control, and abortion. Good for you.
2
Exactly. We must start offering incentives to young women who choose NOT to produce children, and encourage them to hold off till age 25 or above. Producing kids into disadvantaged, ignorant circumstances is not a societal benefit.
2
Yep, those darn poor and unmarried women, reproducing all by themselves!
6
Am I the only one who reacted that the disparity isn't that great? 77 years vs 81 years?
Maybe it's because $28K isn't a low enough bar. What about people under $10K? No transportation to jobs, no hope for a better future, bad teeth, poor health. Those are the ones who are dying by 50.
Maybe it's because $28K isn't a low enough bar. What about people under $10K? No transportation to jobs, no hope for a better future, bad teeth, poor health. Those are the ones who are dying by 50.
13
This data only starts with those who make it to 40. Many of those you refer to have in fact been eliminated from this study by definition.
1
The fourth result of the study suggests that "geographic differences in life expectancy for individuals in the lowest income quartile were significantly correlated with health behaviors such as smoking, but were not significantly correlated with access to medical care, physical environmental factors, income inequality, or labor market conditions." But the authors focused on labor market conditions as a sign of the strength of the local economy, and used things like unemployment rates, changes in population, and changes in the size of the labor force as markers for economic health. But labor market conditions might also include occupational safety, or the relative risk that workers experience in particular sectors. Mineral extraction, agriculture, construction and industrial processing incur greater risks -- some fatal, others debilitating and thus income reducing -- than retail sales, finance and education, and these sectors tend to be concentrated in geographical areas that look suspiciously like the ones shown in the map. Add to that the fact that many of these areas include red states that have gutted occupational safety regulations and social and medical services (like expansion of Medicaid) and you have a recipe for decreased life expectancy in lower incomes.
1
What is missing and never talked about is why anyone would WANT to live longer when they can't earn enough to make better than a barely-surviving living. The last thing I want is to be struggling for the rest of my life just to pay the ridiculous costs of living in New York, the only state I seem to be able to work, while my earnings never increase, and in fact, have decreased, if you factor in inflation.
While I am not dirt poor or living in the kind of poverty all too rampant around the world, I do not have any idea how I will survive if I can't work until I die. I cannot save here. America is not kind to its elderly, and since reasonable housing has gone the way of the dinosaur in New York - rents are now in the $1,100-$1,400 a month range where I live in Orange County, which is a 5 hour commute daily for me, I don't want to even think about how I'm going to be able to live once I'm dumped for someone younger at work.
I believe there are plenty of middle-aged, barely surviving people who, like me, don't want to live to be old if it means constant financial struggle. Saving is impossible on what I earn beyond an emergency fund. The rich just continue to have more of their huge slice of the pie. So maybe those poorer people who don't live so long, don't have it so bad at all. They get to rest sooner and rest forever.
While I am not dirt poor or living in the kind of poverty all too rampant around the world, I do not have any idea how I will survive if I can't work until I die. I cannot save here. America is not kind to its elderly, and since reasonable housing has gone the way of the dinosaur in New York - rents are now in the $1,100-$1,400 a month range where I live in Orange County, which is a 5 hour commute daily for me, I don't want to even think about how I'm going to be able to live once I'm dumped for someone younger at work.
I believe there are plenty of middle-aged, barely surviving people who, like me, don't want to live to be old if it means constant financial struggle. Saving is impossible on what I earn beyond an emergency fund. The rich just continue to have more of their huge slice of the pie. So maybe those poorer people who don't live so long, don't have it so bad at all. They get to rest sooner and rest forever.
68
New York City is definitely tough today for the poor and middle age folks, when you're struggling to pay rent (if you don't own) and save for retirement. But it's better being elderly here than anywhere else. Apartment living is easier for older folks than maintaining houses and walking up and down stairs (in an elevator building of course.) You can also walk around as we sidewalks, you don't have to rely on cars as we have great public transportation, and you can get your groceries delivered to you. Healthcare and Medicare seems to be great for old people here. The only negative thing about NYC is the winter, but other than Florida or Hawaii, I rather be here than anywhere else.
1
That's a pretty good picture of the GOP health plan: Work, then Die.
2
@MAW,
Your argument is poor people should be happy to die early?
Sounds like an aristocrat (or plutocrat).
Your argument is poor people should be happy to die early?
Sounds like an aristocrat (or plutocrat).
One big division between the rich and poor, no matter where you live, is access to healthcare. Implementing single payer healthcare for everyone would go miles to lesson this gap.
12
It's about living and spreading happiness, not stubbornly existing longest. Here, there's no material rich advantage. My 2 cents.
1
Why is most of Florida covered on the interactive map? This makes our area inaccessible to those who are actually interested, including students. This is more than just God's Waiting Room. In our small Florida county there are over 60 public schools serving elementary through high school students.
3
Too many people for too few jobs lowing income everywhere in the west. Climate change destroying the earth faster than we are slowing down the change, reducing arable land fostering wars for land and water. The rich will just be the last humans standing after every one everywhere is driven into the ground. Humanity is too stupid and too selfish to succeed as a species.
10
The map shows my region as one of the oldest ages, (81). This measure is highly skewed due to the fact that about 50% of the residents are well off retirees. A really shocking amount of the population is drug addled. Serious alcohol consumption and suicide is twice the state average. Many heavy smokers.
I don't think this is a true representation of the poor here. The wealthy, highly educated and healthy are mostly the recent retirees. The rest are similar to the population in Appalachia. 1st world or 3rd world. So goes our nation.
I don't think this is a true representation of the poor here. The wealthy, highly educated and healthy are mostly the recent retirees. The rest are similar to the population in Appalachia. 1st world or 3rd world. So goes our nation.
2
Every time I see an article like this I'm reminded of the movie, "As Good As It Gets" with Jack Nicholson as a wealthy psychotic writer and Helen Hunt as his favorite food server with a very sick little boy. She could not get decent care for her son because of her economic status and he, because he wanted to date her, had HIS doctor contact her. The doctor figured out her son's problem within weeks and gave the correct treatment for the boy to live a normal life. She had his personal phone number 24/7. The psychotic writer finally got the girl. This really rings true for me today. I have very good insurance coverage, but can't seem to find a doctor who can AND WILL figure out what is wrong with my body as my health deteriorates. To many providers the wealthy DESERVE decent health care - the rest of us are simply billing digits.
13
I forgot to mention that they psychotic writer picked up the tab for the boy's care so money was no object and the doctor's wife was the writer's publisher. VERY important parts of the equation.
2
Wait. You get your medical news via a movie?
Also you keep using the term "psychotic writer." He wasn't psychotic. The term is neurotic. He was a misogynist racist with obsessive compulsion disorder, but psychosis is distinguished by visual and auditory hallucinations and profound delusions.
Also the woman and her child had an HMO. The HMO I worked for (about 10 years) was the first HMO-- Kaiser. And it was superb. Kaiser in Honolulu had its choice of the best MDs, RNs, and support techs. Mainly because doctors were in on profit sharing and didn't have to pay malpractice insurance which can run to $250,000 a year for some specialties.
The movie writers used an HMO for comedy AND a way that Nicholson's character could help Hunt and her child.
We now have the ACA for this waitress' character and this child should have been on Medicaid with such a disabling disease. I know of no one who would NOT have had an asthma specialist for this child.
Try to steer clear of movies being your source. Instead I suggest two things:
1) "Bitter Pill" a Time essay in the February, 2015 magazine. Superb insight into how charges are determined in medicine.
2) "Sick" by Tom Leveen. An award winning book that delves into the origin of how health care was developed in this country.
The ACA now insures 16 million more people than were insured before. Health care is already better and hopefully WILL get better if congress ever feels it is necessary to help its constituents.
Also you keep using the term "psychotic writer." He wasn't psychotic. The term is neurotic. He was a misogynist racist with obsessive compulsion disorder, but psychosis is distinguished by visual and auditory hallucinations and profound delusions.
Also the woman and her child had an HMO. The HMO I worked for (about 10 years) was the first HMO-- Kaiser. And it was superb. Kaiser in Honolulu had its choice of the best MDs, RNs, and support techs. Mainly because doctors were in on profit sharing and didn't have to pay malpractice insurance which can run to $250,000 a year for some specialties.
The movie writers used an HMO for comedy AND a way that Nicholson's character could help Hunt and her child.
We now have the ACA for this waitress' character and this child should have been on Medicaid with such a disabling disease. I know of no one who would NOT have had an asthma specialist for this child.
Try to steer clear of movies being your source. Instead I suggest two things:
1) "Bitter Pill" a Time essay in the February, 2015 magazine. Superb insight into how charges are determined in medicine.
2) "Sick" by Tom Leveen. An award winning book that delves into the origin of how health care was developed in this country.
The ACA now insures 16 million more people than were insured before. Health care is already better and hopefully WILL get better if congress ever feels it is necessary to help its constituents.
7
Could the correlation between wealth and longevity means, at least in part, that habits, background and behaviors that make people wealthy also contribute to health? Estimates vary, but something like 40 percent to 60 percent of wealthy people do not come from privileged backgrounds. So things like motivation, deferred gratification, social skills, critical thinking skills, and education may also play a role. The continued improvement in longevity among wealthier people may indicate that they tend to stay better informed on the latest science on staying healthy and tend to set goals and act on them.
The geographic disparities in longevity among poorer people may be partly due to local cultural influences on how people behave.
I know this is heresy for folks who assume that if we just leveled out wealth disparity all would be well. But if we're trying to understand how to make people healthier, we need to acknowledge that personal choices matter.
The geographic disparities in longevity among poorer people may be partly due to local cultural influences on how people behave.
I know this is heresy for folks who assume that if we just leveled out wealth disparity all would be well. But if we're trying to understand how to make people healthier, we need to acknowledge that personal choices matter.
7
Rich and poor is a relative concept. Rich of many countries -Africa,Asia etc. may not be the same when measured against many western countries. It is the discipline,environment and the positive mental activity that can be the sole cause of longevity.
Just another glaring example of "American Exceptionalism"!
Someone has probably already mentioned this, but in some areas the extremely heavy traffic may improve longevity. Really bad traffic causes people to sell their cars. At any rate, I'd guess that part of the reason people in Manhattan live so long is that they walk a lot (good exercise) and do not crash their nonexistent cars into other people's.
4
The dark blue area in Colorado just happens to contain a high concentration of retirement communities, assisted-living and otherwise. In other words, people move to this area from other parts of the country in the twilight of their life to enjoy the equivalent of Motel 6 living arrangements with an all-you-can-eat buffet thrown in and medical assistance just down the hall. This applies to the blue areas of California as well.
4
Firstly, the arithmetic mean is not a suitable descriptive for a skewed distribution such as life expectancy - there should minimally be error bars on these plots, and journalists should be trained in rudimentary statistics so that they can explain these important nuances of the data to the public. Second, why are we still so fixated on 'age at time of death' as some kind of indicator of a better life? Our ability to live longer is only increasing the prevalence of age related diseases that we are so far unable to cure, and increasing the economic burden on younger generations to care for us. It's quite insane to treat inevitable natural death at age 75+ years as though it were some kind of problem!
7
With a few exceptions, this is a map of industrial and agricultural pollution and lead exposure. Low incomes force people to live in more highly toxic environments and being politically powerless means that the cycle of poverty, illness and lack of opportunities persists much more than it has to. When you hear the expression "smaller government, less regulation" think "more cancer, more disease, more corruption, more poverty, greater inequality". Do we really want this to be the America our children will inherit?
17
These are telling stories, of how our ever expanding consumption of the earth appears to benefit different people, but we really need to focus like a laser on how it works against EVERY common interest. There's a deep pattern to it as well, that some rare economists noticed and have constantly been dismissed for pointing out, that using wealth to multiply wealth has a naturally very self-destructive consequence if carried as far as we are carrying it...
It's both very sobering and ... opens the door to actually beginning to understand what we're doing to spoil our great gift of our inventive genius. http://synapse9.com/signals/2016/02/24/did-keynes-boulding-both-really-s...
It's both very sobering and ... opens the door to actually beginning to understand what we're doing to spoil our great gift of our inventive genius. http://synapse9.com/signals/2016/02/24/did-keynes-boulding-both-really-s...
5
From what I see here in rural Virginia, there is no amount of government intervention that can counter the destruction people are doing to their own bodies through smoking and poor diets. Our Walmart is filled with obese people riding around in carts. And every single doctor's waiting room smells like stale cigarettes. The rampant drug use (prescription and illegal) doesn't help either. Frankly, it is a miracle of modern medicine that these folks can get to age 79--the average life expectancy in our area, according to your map.
34
Living longer is not always a good thing. If you've got money our health-care system will keep you alive until it runs out, and that, my friend, is no way to live.
9
It is more about quality of life going in to you senior years not necessarily always about extending it.
1
The study and map "adjusts" for race because life expectancy varies by race regardless of income. But the story focuses (by way of another paper) on white mortality. Which means a study about place and income becomes about whites. Must be because we are all post-racial now. Wack.
As a former resident of both Illinois and Indiana I am a little shocked and deeply ashamed of how poorly both states do on this map. I am glad that I now live in a state that has much better numbers, but still plenty of room for improvement. This map should really be a wake up call for all of us. The cuts to programs that aid the poor over the past few decades have been significant and too many states ares till refusing to extend Medicaid coverage. We reap what we sow.
2
Quite a comprehensive and thorough breakdown, with excellent graphics on top of it . . . to tell us something we all already painfully know. The technology that collected and represented this data is truly awesome - now create some that can do something to address the issues, not just embellish and display them! Or is that not sexy enough for today's engineers to waste their precious and valuable time on?
2
The reasons people live longer are the same reasons people get rich - self control, holding off immediate gratification for long term goals, etc. I know the NYT finds some kind of "inequality" in everything it sees, but this is a fail.
10
Self control? Really? Do the trust fund kids have any kind of 'self-control'? Because those are the majority of the well off that are invading cities such as New York and San Francisco. How can you have long term goals if you can't even afford to get to work every day? How cruel.
6
If your life is miserable, why would you want to live longer?
4
Now I know why they call them red states - they're the ones on the "how long do the poor live" maps where the poor don't live long. Imagine that!
1
There is less here than meets the eye. So many factors may be at play, that what you end up with is more of a Rorschach blot correlation than substantive and, thus, useful causation.
For example:
It may be that healthier people are better able to hold better jobs with better income.
It may be that healthier (as well as wealthier) older people are better able to move to a better, less stressful locations, thus increasing their already advantaged health.
It may be that some areas attract less healthy poorer people because of more generous support for health care.
It may be that some areas suffer from a dearth of medical care because med school graduates don't want to live there.
It may be that some areas with historically economically good but unhealthy employment opportunities (e.g. mining etc.) whose economies have crashed are simply left with the unhealthy, aged cohort of a previous, prosperous time.
There are many more "It may be...." The data presented in this study is interesting and valuable, but we should avoid the tendency to read into it more than is there. We should avoid reading into it that which we wish were the case, fear is the case or, especially, that which confirms our political and social agendas.
For example:
It may be that healthier people are better able to hold better jobs with better income.
It may be that healthier (as well as wealthier) older people are better able to move to a better, less stressful locations, thus increasing their already advantaged health.
It may be that some areas attract less healthy poorer people because of more generous support for health care.
It may be that some areas suffer from a dearth of medical care because med school graduates don't want to live there.
It may be that some areas with historically economically good but unhealthy employment opportunities (e.g. mining etc.) whose economies have crashed are simply left with the unhealthy, aged cohort of a previous, prosperous time.
There are many more "It may be...." The data presented in this study is interesting and valuable, but we should avoid the tendency to read into it more than is there. We should avoid reading into it that which we wish were the case, fear is the case or, especially, that which confirms our political and social agendas.
9
Ther authors try to escape the veredict of their own article: "May be is not income inequality after all" or "May be income inequality is due to the fact some people are healthier and can work harder".
Mixing cause and effect is a fornm of diversionism.
Decades ago, as my family slowly dripped out of Cuba, one of my aunts married a rich Peruvian of Spanish descent. She wrote I can't remember if from Lima or Paris: "One hundred families own all Peru and they are determined to keep it that way"
Yes Mr. Authors: Income matters and in 99% of cases determines where you live, how you live, and how long you live.
Mixing cause and effect is a fornm of diversionism.
Decades ago, as my family slowly dripped out of Cuba, one of my aunts married a rich Peruvian of Spanish descent. She wrote I can't remember if from Lima or Paris: "One hundred families own all Peru and they are determined to keep it that way"
Yes Mr. Authors: Income matters and in 99% of cases determines where you live, how you live, and how long you live.
5
How is it that Newark gets into the top ten for both men and women and Gary, Indiana, gets into the bottom ten for both women. You'd think these two cities are similar: both are smaller cities, largely African-American for decades, just outside two of our largest cities, New York and Chicago, albeit across the state line. Both experienced the loss of factory jobs, which led to more poverty.
It would be fascinating to compare cities that are similar in many ways yet which diverge on the life expectancy of the poor.
It would be fascinating to compare cities that are similar in many ways yet which diverge on the life expectancy of the poor.
4
How about air and water pollution?
2
The Republicans want to raise the retirement age because Americans on average are living longer. Statistics really do lie if you manipulate them to favor your own interests!
Poor folks aren't actually living any longer than their parents did but the well-off are living LOTS longer (and staying healthier) which has caused the statistical average lifespan to increase.
That means raising the retirement age will be devastating for the poorest Americans. However there is a silver lining - it will save the richest folks big bucks.
Go Republicans!
Poor folks aren't actually living any longer than their parents did but the well-off are living LOTS longer (and staying healthier) which has caused the statistical average lifespan to increase.
That means raising the retirement age will be devastating for the poorest Americans. However there is a silver lining - it will save the richest folks big bucks.
Go Republicans!
5
A disgrace.
I don't know why so many commenters try to equate these results with political affiliation. Look at Alabama and Mississippi, two of the most hardened GOP-supporting states in the country. Their results look pretty good, don't they? Much better than I would have predicted. Quite like prosperous Eastern Seaboard states in fact. And I know Alabama pretty well. Some of the lighter-colored areas on the map are in the poorest, blackest parts of the state. That one yellow section in the southwest corner of the state is the area that suffered the recent TB outbreak covered so extensively by the Times. So what in the world are they doing right there? Surprisingly, the only dark orange sections in Alabama are in northern, predominantly white counties.
3
Your analysis is based on income, but your sidebar 'Where the Poor Live Longer: How Your Area Compares' suggests another cause for variation in life expectancy among the poor: proximity to health care. We all know how dangerous center cities are supposed to be due to crime, smog, and stresses, yet your map shows that from NY to LA to Miami the poor are living more than a year longer there than in nearby rural areas.
Why? Here's a simple answer. The poor tend to be transportation challenged, and live on average much further from hospitals and health care providers generally. Given that the health care system can contribute to longevity, lack of access limits its benefit. One form of this is health care coverage, but another is simply how long it takes to get to health care and what that transportation costs.
How long from when you dial 911 until the ambulance delivers your family member with a heart attack or an OD to the ER? Do you have a car or a friend who will take you? What does gas and hospital parking cost? Most of us consider that minor expenses, but for people on <$28K/yr these items are budget busters.
To model this, simplify. Just consider the average distance, preferably by road, to the nearest hospital or trauma care. Ambulance records would be a great info source here. Why else do the poor of the Big Apple live longer those in nearby Dutchess, Suffolk and Fairfield?
Why? Here's a simple answer. The poor tend to be transportation challenged, and live on average much further from hospitals and health care providers generally. Given that the health care system can contribute to longevity, lack of access limits its benefit. One form of this is health care coverage, but another is simply how long it takes to get to health care and what that transportation costs.
How long from when you dial 911 until the ambulance delivers your family member with a heart attack or an OD to the ER? Do you have a car or a friend who will take you? What does gas and hospital parking cost? Most of us consider that minor expenses, but for people on <$28K/yr these items are budget busters.
To model this, simplify. Just consider the average distance, preferably by road, to the nearest hospital or trauma care. Ambulance records would be a great info source here. Why else do the poor of the Big Apple live longer those in nearby Dutchess, Suffolk and Fairfield?
28
This is a good point. Also: obesity levels are lower probably because walking in urban areas is a factor of life.
2
You're right that lack of public transportation keeps folks away from hospitals but more important it keeps people away from jobs. With jobs you can get health insurance through work (shrinking rapidly) or making enough to buy insurance through the ACA. Working people have healthier habits--some forced on them by employers. (No smoking, losing wt)More money means buying better food.
But no public transportation also means that the people don't have access to healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. Food stamps can be doubled by going to a farmer's market. Bodegas and gas station foodmarts are easier to walk to than grocery stores with fresh produce, lean meats and fish.
Public transportation can get you to YMCAs that have superb gyms and pools. They get you to weekend festivals where you can walk, go to book fairs, get new information at Get Healthy symposiums.
When I lived in Honolulu we had the BEST bus system in the USA including handi-van service. I never drove. Obama made a campaign promise to increase public transportation and build high speed trains. But then the GOP decided they weren't going to do ANYTHING that Obama wanted.
I talked with poor rural folks here in NW Georgia about public transportation as it does NOT exist except in metro Atlanta. They all said it would be a blessing....However, I was told by the white folk that extending the metro service (MARTA) would bring blacks to THEIR neighborhoods. The bigotry and racism is unbelievable here.
But no public transportation also means that the people don't have access to healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. Food stamps can be doubled by going to a farmer's market. Bodegas and gas station foodmarts are easier to walk to than grocery stores with fresh produce, lean meats and fish.
Public transportation can get you to YMCAs that have superb gyms and pools. They get you to weekend festivals where you can walk, go to book fairs, get new information at Get Healthy symposiums.
When I lived in Honolulu we had the BEST bus system in the USA including handi-van service. I never drove. Obama made a campaign promise to increase public transportation and build high speed trains. But then the GOP decided they weren't going to do ANYTHING that Obama wanted.
I talked with poor rural folks here in NW Georgia about public transportation as it does NOT exist except in metro Atlanta. They all said it would be a blessing....However, I was told by the white folk that extending the metro service (MARTA) would bring blacks to THEIR neighborhoods. The bigotry and racism is unbelievable here.
37
Note that Honolulu has one of the shortest life expectancies for women. So much for public transit as solving the problem.
I just came back from Italy. On my lunch break in Rome I went a couple of times to a small neighborhood restaurant. Next table to me was a very old man. He showed up every day at the same time, impeccably dressed, wearing a suit and a tie. The waiters knew him, brought him his glass of white wine and tortellini. I heard one address him as Professore. He was always alone but never projected the aura of abject loneliness. He watched Rome, drank his wine, read his book. We smiled at each other but I was too self-conscious about my Italian to strike a conversation. And then I came back and was greeted by the sight of a morbidly obese guy dressed in a ratty t-shirt shambling through SFO and munching on potato chips. He was probably 30 years younger than the Professore and looked ready to keel over. I was reminded of Primo Levi's observation in "Survival in Auschwitz": people who cared about their appearance and their dignity survived better than those who were reduced to their animal instincts. Poverty is often also the poverty of the spirit. The moral: if you want to live long, dress well, don't get fat, live in a great city. And most importantly: find a reason to live that is beyond physical existence.
31
Maybe so, but I find it interesting that Professore had a place to go to every day, where he was respected and people brought him food and drink they knew he would like. I also suspect the food he ate was not wood chips, refined grains and sugar.
This is only the beginning. There will come a time when people will have access to different kinds of life-extending technologies based on how much money they can spend. The poorest will be living on a planet devastated by global warming, perhaps dying in their twenties or thirties. The richest will be almost immortal, living in huge space stations, or on Mars, or perhaps in starships on their way to Earth-like planets around stars light years away.
There will also come a time when genetic enhancements will allow those who can pay for them to not only live longer but also be much smarter than those without such enhancements.
1
Access to high quality health care is the first cut. That of course tends to fall along the rich - poor line. Another set of factors that also tends to fall along the rich - poor line are personal health decisions. Smoking(vape), drinking, poor diet, drug use, and particularly in cities, gang involvement, all dramatically effect the life expectancy of those involved.
Personally, I think lack of education about the serious effects of smoking, drinking and drug use are a factor in the poor having these problems at a much higher rate than the more well off. In addition the lack of effective role models for healthy behavior plays a very large role. It is almost impossible to educate someone in a healthy lifestyle when all around him/her they see their parents, and the 'cool kids' smoking, drinking , using drugs and involved in gangs. Particularly when that lifestyle is glorified in popular music, TV and movies.
The results of these decisions are concentrated among the poor and some ethnic groups. As the authors point out, one can be poor and be healthy, but it requires a lifestyle change. That is particularly hard when one is in a group that has chosen the opposite.
Personally, I think lack of education about the serious effects of smoking, drinking and drug use are a factor in the poor having these problems at a much higher rate than the more well off. In addition the lack of effective role models for healthy behavior plays a very large role. It is almost impossible to educate someone in a healthy lifestyle when all around him/her they see their parents, and the 'cool kids' smoking, drinking , using drugs and involved in gangs. Particularly when that lifestyle is glorified in popular music, TV and movies.
The results of these decisions are concentrated among the poor and some ethnic groups. As the authors point out, one can be poor and be healthy, but it requires a lifestyle change. That is particularly hard when one is in a group that has chosen the opposite.
4
"one can be poor and be healthy, but it requires a lifestyle change. That is particularly hard when one is in a group that has chosen the opposite."
As the old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink".
As the old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink".
1
I'm really not surprised or upset to these results. Did anyone really doubt that cities with good services and wealthy people would have longer lifetimes? Or did anyone think for a moment that if you're rich, live in Miami that you'd not have a better, longer life?
We all know (but maybe some will not admit) that poverty is devastating. We can also see that minorities and low wage earners are clustered in certain geographic areas and we should not be surprised that they are also "red" states. Race, age, and income have always mattered. Southern conservative states do very poorly in long life expectations.
What is not accounted for is crime, drugs and accessibility to health care. And how many of the those with shortened lives died from violent or accidental death and from untreated health care issues? How many die from drugs or inability to afford drugs for health care? How many are suicides? How many are registered to vote and do vote?
Is anyone surprised that rich white people live longer and have better health? How many suffered from black lung or asbestos? Or cotton lung? How many cancer deaths resulted?
Also, what is the education level of the people who live shorter lives? How many finished high school, college or have advanced degrees? I bet that would be equally revealing? I guarantee that there is a direct correlation between education, poverty and shortened lives. Probably a cause and effect relationship too.
The point is we have known all of this.
We all know (but maybe some will not admit) that poverty is devastating. We can also see that minorities and low wage earners are clustered in certain geographic areas and we should not be surprised that they are also "red" states. Race, age, and income have always mattered. Southern conservative states do very poorly in long life expectations.
What is not accounted for is crime, drugs and accessibility to health care. And how many of the those with shortened lives died from violent or accidental death and from untreated health care issues? How many die from drugs or inability to afford drugs for health care? How many are suicides? How many are registered to vote and do vote?
Is anyone surprised that rich white people live longer and have better health? How many suffered from black lung or asbestos? Or cotton lung? How many cancer deaths resulted?
Also, what is the education level of the people who live shorter lives? How many finished high school, college or have advanced degrees? I bet that would be equally revealing? I guarantee that there is a direct correlation between education, poverty and shortened lives. Probably a cause and effect relationship too.
The point is we have known all of this.
6
What is the relationship of the early availability of birth control and abortion services?
Poor women who are permanently entrenched in poverty because they became pregnant in their teens or 20s and were forced into parenthood when they should have been focusing on themselves, their education, job prospects etc. are at a huge disadvantage. I seem lower-income women with big broods - the women are in their 30s and look older than me (I'm 52 but childfree) and have poor hygiene, bad teeth, etc because all of their resources from shortly past their own childhood have been directed to keeping their offspring alive.
We need birth control clinics in every middle and high school. Huge social ills could be ameliorated in a generation or two if this common-sense, healthy and effective approach (see Colorado) were not roadblocked at every turn by inhumane religious radicals.
Poor women who are permanently entrenched in poverty because they became pregnant in their teens or 20s and were forced into parenthood when they should have been focusing on themselves, their education, job prospects etc. are at a huge disadvantage. I seem lower-income women with big broods - the women are in their 30s and look older than me (I'm 52 but childfree) and have poor hygiene, bad teeth, etc because all of their resources from shortly past their own childhood have been directed to keeping their offspring alive.
We need birth control clinics in every middle and high school. Huge social ills could be ameliorated in a generation or two if this common-sense, healthy and effective approach (see Colorado) were not roadblocked at every turn by inhumane religious radicals.
17
You are 100% correct Ebbie! Also critically important is how many people who live shortened live have had their jobs, livelihoods and dignity stripped from them by trade policy that shipped industry and manufacturing overseas. How many people were reduced not only to living in poverty, but in great despair? Millions lost everything. Their health deteriorated and their lives were shortened because Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. And Hillary too believed that was an accomplishment to brag about.
The rich live longer and are healthier while the poor have to work ever harder and never get to live the lives they should have.
Lives are shortened because neighborhoods have violent crime, drug abuse, little or no health care services, no child care services and of course, no jobs. The poor cannot escape poverty and they're doomed to lives of desperation and deprivation.
In Florida the white gated communities flourish. High rise luxury condominiums are everywhere. Yet outside the gated enclaves is poverty that can't be imagined. The poor live less productive, shortened and less healthy lives because there is no hope for a future.
And we know all this! We truly know it! When will both the Republican and Democratic parties both acknowledge that their policies have created this endless poverty and destruction of so many American lives? We need a comprehensive job and trade policy to restore people's lives and rebuild our communities and cities. Poverty is not cured by importing.
The rich live longer and are healthier while the poor have to work ever harder and never get to live the lives they should have.
Lives are shortened because neighborhoods have violent crime, drug abuse, little or no health care services, no child care services and of course, no jobs. The poor cannot escape poverty and they're doomed to lives of desperation and deprivation.
In Florida the white gated communities flourish. High rise luxury condominiums are everywhere. Yet outside the gated enclaves is poverty that can't be imagined. The poor live less productive, shortened and less healthy lives because there is no hope for a future.
And we know all this! We truly know it! When will both the Republican and Democratic parties both acknowledge that their policies have created this endless poverty and destruction of so many American lives? We need a comprehensive job and trade policy to restore people's lives and rebuild our communities and cities. Poverty is not cured by importing.
1
Yes, and for women cultural pressures to marry, have children soon and putting up with abusive men can have devastating effect on self care and general health. That in turn affects their children's mental and physical health.
It takes a village to raise a healthy child, and take care of pregnant women, sick adults and anyone who is disabled (temporarily or permanently). If traditional well connected and caring villages, which were in some ways large extended families, cannot do it, or do not exist, then well developed and well managed modern institutions have to do it. But do you see that? Conservative male fools work against this all over the world. Once women stop cooking and stop taking care of these arrogant patriarchal men these conservative fools will learn. Take away their big money and comfort space....maybe then they will learn. You see this stupidity, arrogance with ignorance and aggression, in the Middle East as well. Misogynistic male psychology contributes a great deal to inequality, disparity and ill health, including mental health. This is a global issue.
It takes a village to raise a healthy child, and take care of pregnant women, sick adults and anyone who is disabled (temporarily or permanently). If traditional well connected and caring villages, which were in some ways large extended families, cannot do it, or do not exist, then well developed and well managed modern institutions have to do it. But do you see that? Conservative male fools work against this all over the world. Once women stop cooking and stop taking care of these arrogant patriarchal men these conservative fools will learn. Take away their big money and comfort space....maybe then they will learn. You see this stupidity, arrogance with ignorance and aggression, in the Middle East as well. Misogynistic male psychology contributes a great deal to inequality, disparity and ill health, including mental health. This is a global issue.
1
Montana is a low income state, but always does well in health surveys. Without question the lifestyle is healthier. It costs little to hike in nearby mountains and lots of people do. Missoula's public bus service is free, so everyone can get to the grocery store and farmers markets. Any poor person who wants one can get a good bike because of local support.
However, I think the statistics might be skewed. Young organic farmers don't have much income, but live healthy lives. I see houses and mobile homes where low income is apparent with a garden and a few chickens running around. I also wonder how the income of the local ski hipsters is counted. Their income is low, but many get family help.
However, I think the statistics might be skewed. Young organic farmers don't have much income, but live healthy lives. I see houses and mobile homes where low income is apparent with a garden and a few chickens running around. I also wonder how the income of the local ski hipsters is counted. Their income is low, but many get family help.
9
What is missing is race...if you're poor and white and rural you are off the radar to most of those who seem to care. Your not in the focus of urban activist who use the word urban itself to mean non-white whose focus is on working class people being gentrified out of neighborhoods or more recently on police interaction with certain types of people. Your not in the focus of national groups who seek to fight inequity, again their focus is on non-white poor and chiefly not white rural poor. Popular culture calls these poor white rural people "privileged," uses them as foils in critical oriented social theories and ignores or blames them for their own circumstances. They have no champion, no party to fight for them, no one at the Oscars to speak for them, no one in the White House who cares for them. They are the invisible majority. Until we change or at least challenge the social theories that have justified their hardship we will get more of the same.
13
I absolutely agree. As a former rural educator I've seen firsthand how incredibly hard it can be for people to access any kind of medical care. It's not at all uncommon to have to drive 100 miles round-trip just to see a general practitioner, and even further to get to a specialist. I also agree that the cultural attitude towards poor white rural citizens MUST change. Many of these people live with conditions that would not for one minute be tolerated by the NAACP or similar non-white support/activist groups.
6
Far, far more WHITE Americans are poor than any other group.
Most people on welfare and food stamps are WHITE.
You'd never know this from reading the lefty media, which regularly assumes that poverty is entirely black and/or hispanic. This is provably false.
Most people on welfare and food stamps are WHITE.
You'd never know this from reading the lefty media, which regularly assumes that poverty is entirely black and/or hispanic. This is provably false.
1
I'm a 71 year old white guy living on a meager social security retirement in San Francisco. Being on Medicare and Medi-Cal, I have access to wonderful healthcare, and my hip replacement and basal cell surgeries have all been taken care of. Generally, I don't have enough money to buy meat, fish or poultry but I have access to Trader Joe's and some amazing farmer's markets. My Medicare plan offerers free gym memberships and I am actually going to make it to 24 Hour Fitness soon. ;) I even get free in home support services from the government and am able to keep my $500 a month rent controlled apartment neat and clean. My 2¢ is there is a lot to be grateful for in America if one doesn't have a lot of resources, and, of course, my New York Times subscription is only $3.15 a week. :)
19
You have a $500 rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco -- where the average rent is $3700 a month (for a small one-bedroom unit)???
Do you realize if you sublet that apartment, you'd make $3000 a month extra and could be living the high life in another, less costly part of the country?
If you'd had the presence of mind and practicality to buy a little house or condo in your working years.....today you'd be a multi-millionaire.
Just sayin'.
Do you realize if you sublet that apartment, you'd make $3000 a month extra and could be living the high life in another, less costly part of the country?
If you'd had the presence of mind and practicality to buy a little house or condo in your working years.....today you'd be a multi-millionaire.
Just sayin'.
1
Just think, given your situation and as Bernie Sanders as preached all along, how much better off would the country be if everyone had access to medicare?
1
I've lived in a great building in downtown San Francisco for 36 years. In 1980, my rent here was $250 a month and the building was owned by a little old lady with a kind soul and never even charged me a deposit fee. Even now, my landlords are are group of SFPD brothers who take great care of all the tenants. I'm just not the type of artistic gay guy (I'm a photographer) to have bought property. My only chance of making real money was when Robert Mapplethorpe offered all Drummer Magazine employees a chance to buy a portfolio of prints from his show at the Fraenkel Gallery @ $100 each (11 prints). Those pictures are now worth like $50,000 each. God bless us all, everyone. :)
I wonder if the poor in Santa Barbara are really poor, and, if you are really poor and hopeless in the midwest or south, is it rational to want to live into your 80s, or would you rather seize the few available pleasures (junk food, alcohol, drugs, smoking) and be done with it? And if we are concerned about this at all, why would we try to extend public health measures to miserable areas without addressing poverty?
Don't get me wrong, I think the study is interesting and worthwhile in its own right, but I wonder about the analysis and conclusions.
Don't get me wrong, I think the study is interesting and worthwhile in its own right, but I wonder about the analysis and conclusions.
5
Statistics can be terribly misleading. You talk about life expectancy after 40 and list those place where it is longest. But, if the mortality rate before 40 is high in those place, they might be the worst places for the poor to live.
3
Unless capitalism is abolished in favor of Bernie Sanders' type socialism which redistributes private wealth evenly among every man, woman and child worldwide, there will always be a disparity in life expectancy between the more wealthy and the less wealthy. We did not need a big research study (probably paid for by U,S. taxpayers) to state the obvious. And by the way, nobody is stopping Sanders, deBlasio, or any of the other loud mouth socialists who always want to spend other people's money from contributing their personal wealth to ease the hard lives of poor people.
5
Paul - Exactly where will the governement "aquire" all the capital necessary to redistribute equal wealth among every person? Would you work 18 hours a day to build a business just to have all your hard work provide nothing for you and your family? Of course not, the only alternative for Bernie is ramp up the money printing presses; i.e, massive inflation, crash & burn. Its all absurd, the utopian dream that equal outcomes are possible.
1
The authors of the study wanted to see more of the independent effect of geography on life expectancy, so they adjusted away differences race, the odds of dying by age and in income (and excluded people with no income). African Americans, those with no income and the young and the old have much higher death rates. So, much of the actual differences have been adjusted out of the results. Nonetheless, viewing the map makes pretty clear that Red States have higher death rates as they tend to appear more red, orange and yellow that Blue States.
The following statement in the article may explain that: "What improves health in a community? It includes wide access to social, educational and economic opportunity.”
The following statement in the article may explain that: "What improves health in a community? It includes wide access to social, educational and economic opportunity.”
1
I suggest that those in African countries have a better chance at living longer, healthier lives because their food is simple, Organic and unadulterated.
Poor Americans die faster and sicker because they do not have access to quality food. Every bit of processed food they buy is simply a food substitute; an adulterated, poisoned mix devised by huge corporations whose sole objective is to make a profit.
Better medical care here in the US is not going to solve the problem.
Poor Americans die faster and sicker because they do not have access to quality food. Every bit of processed food they buy is simply a food substitute; an adulterated, poisoned mix devised by huge corporations whose sole objective is to make a profit.
Better medical care here in the US is not going to solve the problem.
5
(Not Mark) You are simply wrong. There is much to decry about food in this country, but processed food is still food. It is not poison. I weep for the science education in this country.
1
Sorry Mark....processed food is not food. It does not feed the body with the micronutrients found in unprocessed food. Read the labels. All processed food contains a stew of chemicals, with "BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) to retard spoilage". Never eat anything you can't pronounce.
Many believe that there is a "life force" in real food that is lost when it is processed. I liken that to comparing a living person to an Egyptian mummy. They're both people, but one has had a much longer shelf life.
Many believe that there is a "life force" in real food that is lost when it is processed. I liken that to comparing a living person to an Egyptian mummy. They're both people, but one has had a much longer shelf life.
The Presidents Bush knew their history - the period of England's greatness was when it was governed by a hereditary wealthy class that did not pay taxes. They, and subsequent Republican congresses, are attempting to give the United States the benefits of such a system. (I'm one of those with a high income and essentially no income tax, although I certainly don't make the top one percent..) To the extremely wealthy, it is a benefit if the rest of the country falls to a third world economy; it makes hiring service personnel much less expensive.
6
I presume your comment was intended as sarcasm. As any person familiar with British history knows, the empire period of British history may have been one of great wealth and comfort for the upper classes. But the majority of people in Britain, particularly city dwellers, lived in abject poverty and misery.
1
That's the plan. I believe there is a small, international cabal of the very rich who choose to run the planet as a king would his kingdom...for his own benefit and for those of his court. Let the serfs struggle and die on their own.
This is the history of civilizations and certain religions since the beginning of time....the top dog eats cake.
This is the history of civilizations and certain religions since the beginning of time....the top dog eats cake.
1
"adults with the lowest incomes die on average as young as people in much poorer nations like Rwanda, and their life spans are getting shorter."
A person dying in their 20's will drag down the average by a large amount.
This is more about the poor getting murdered or drug overdose death than anything else discussed here.
A person dying in their 20's will drag down the average by a large amount.
This is more about the poor getting murdered or drug overdose death than anything else discussed here.
3
Not true. These statistics looked at life expectancy for those who made it to 40. It therefore would not include anyone who died in their 20's.
4
Watching my aged parents fade away even within the cozy embrace of prosperity has me weighing the pragmatic expediency of the Aubrey McClendon retirement planning portfolio. Splendor imparts no sheen onto the wretched.
Thanks for the reference to Aubrey McClendon. In the absence of a life of crime, however, the wealthy can have a relatively comfortable end. My wife (much older than I am) simply set aside $3 million, which is allowing her to be cared for in our home with all necessary help and equipment. If every poor woman in Nowheresville, Oklahoma, simply had the foresight to do that, they no doubt would live longer. It's just like the poor people whose welfare has been cut by the Republicans - if they had simply set aside enough stock to have $65,000 or so in tax-free dividends every year, they could get along without the welfare.
I suppose I should apologize for being such a cynic, but I just did my federal taxes and was absolutely horrified at how little I had to pay and the absurdity of some of the tax exemptions and deductions that are available only to those poor, starving, long-suffering members of the middle class who make over $275,000 a year.
I suppose I should apologize for being such a cynic, but I just did my federal taxes and was absolutely horrified at how little I had to pay and the absurdity of some of the tax exemptions and deductions that are available only to those poor, starving, long-suffering members of the middle class who make over $275,000 a year.
14
Please, I live in San Antonio. There are no poor that are starving. Quite the opposite. It is a scourge as many suffer the ill effects of it, diabetics is rampant here.
1
When the poor are obese it is because their bodies are starving for nutrition...they can't stop eating because indeed they are starving to death. Empty, nutrition-free calories found in processed food do nothing to stop the craving but they do add to the fat load. Something out of a box, cereal or mac n' cheese, is only a symbol for something that was once a nutritious meal. Read the label. Most of the ingredients came out of a 55 gallon drum.
4
Proper health care, high quality early childhood programs, high quality education with professionally trained teachers, and access birth control are the necessary means to a healthy society.
7
Would be nice to see this information overlaid on a map of republican vs. democratic governed areas.
7
That's it - make everything partisan
5
I think that is pretty clear without an overlay. Red States v. Blue States are pretty much the same.
Of Course, the bosses always wanted a disposable workforce.
Of Course, the bosses always wanted a disposable workforce.
"Better they should die, and so decrease the surplus population." I can't help but think of Ebenezer Scrooge when I look at the Republican midwest and south, with their hatred of healthcare, love of guns (which I'm sure also have some impact on lifespan) and insistence that women go back to having back-alley abortions, which will eliminate those unwanted fetuses and their mothers with one fell swoop. They're also most likely to grumble about the poor taking advantage of government benefits, while those of us in the blue states support the grumblers with our taxes.
13
Several years ago I went to Ellis Island. There was a display about families that emigrated from all over the world. I was looking at one about a family from Italy. They were trying to decide whether to come to America. The mother said "at least in America we will eat". So they came. Now, as somebody points out, in latter stage capitalism the idea is to kill off the surplus. Americans need to consider that many of their relatives came to the United States because of food. So we can do better with food, and with medical care, and with a whole host of issues.
1
"But to the question readers may want to know most – why are life expectancies for the poor in the Chicago area in line with those elsewhere in the U.S.? – the researchers do not offer a definitive answer. "
I am someone who likes to look at data and try to find potential confounding variables. Chicago's poor neighborhoods are plagued by gang violence. By comparing life expectancy for men at age 40 the researchers are selecting men who have survived their teens and twenties. This may skew the data and create a picture that's far rosier than reality.
I am someone who likes to look at data and try to find potential confounding variables. Chicago's poor neighborhoods are plagued by gang violence. By comparing life expectancy for men at age 40 the researchers are selecting men who have survived their teens and twenties. This may skew the data and create a picture that's far rosier than reality.
10
The method raises a few questions for me:
1. Race: Although I no longer believe in race (thanks for *ethnicity*, courtesy of Kenneth Prewitt) the authors do a reverse -switcheroo. Many studies show disparate ethnic outcomes (higher vs., lower mortality rates) and invariably hold poverty as being determined/caused by ethnicity. Here instead the authors "correct" for differing lifespans among various ethnicities - as though it is genetic rather than environmental.
2, To what extent is "where they lived vs. where they die" a factor? I see Port St. Lucie FL among the high survivalists but it's population is mostly Yankees who moved there in the last 10-20 years of retirement life, hauling their retirement savings incomes with them (and driving slowly, very slowly). Many parts of the Sun Belt have the same god's waiting room demography.
3. Occupation factors: There were no statistics correcting for disparate benefits and claims for Worker's Compensation - a benefit largely available to urban workers but much reduced in rural and poor regions (although Social Security Disability may take up the slack in income, if not longevity).
It may simply be impossible to parse all the variables but these seem to need some consideration.
1. Race: Although I no longer believe in race (thanks for *ethnicity*, courtesy of Kenneth Prewitt) the authors do a reverse -switcheroo. Many studies show disparate ethnic outcomes (higher vs., lower mortality rates) and invariably hold poverty as being determined/caused by ethnicity. Here instead the authors "correct" for differing lifespans among various ethnicities - as though it is genetic rather than environmental.
2, To what extent is "where they lived vs. where they die" a factor? I see Port St. Lucie FL among the high survivalists but it's population is mostly Yankees who moved there in the last 10-20 years of retirement life, hauling their retirement savings incomes with them (and driving slowly, very slowly). Many parts of the Sun Belt have the same god's waiting room demography.
3. Occupation factors: There were no statistics correcting for disparate benefits and claims for Worker's Compensation - a benefit largely available to urban workers but much reduced in rural and poor regions (although Social Security Disability may take up the slack in income, if not longevity).
It may simply be impossible to parse all the variables but these seem to need some consideration.
5
Union members and professional people with health care benefits, do benefit from having that care. This article is a good argument for allowing social security to be enhanced for the poor who will be less likely to collect a reasonable return on their investment. One way to do it would be to enhance Social Security for all and then require income eligibility after age 80.
4
Interesting to see the comments from people rushing to reassure themselves that the difference is all about the poor smoking and eating carbs, doing drugs, getting teen pregnant, and making poor choices. They sound so relieved. I mean, sure, the poor in America live like the poor in Rwanda, but who cares, if it's not you. Just reassure yourself - I'm good; I'm a good person; I'm smart; I make good choices. I'll live to 100!
Just, you know, don't lose your job after 45 and with it your access to good preventive care and kale salads, or get unlucky and live someplace where there's lead and Teflon in the water, or wise off to a stranger in an open carry state.....
Just, you know, don't lose your job after 45 and with it your access to good preventive care and kale salads, or get unlucky and live someplace where there's lead and Teflon in the water, or wise off to a stranger in an open carry state.....
146
Yes, people want to reassure themselves that they are the 'smart' ones. I take issue with the open carry comment. I do believe Chicago has very strict gun laws, but it seems to me you stand a better chance of being shot than in an open carry state.
Good-quality medical care may not be accessible to the poor, but walking, running, and push-ups are free, a diet of brown rice, whole grain bread, peanut butter, canned beans, bananas and apples, frozen or canned vegetables, and eggs is accessible even to the poorest, abstaining from smoking and drinking saves money and time, and most people would have enough time to raise their kids and get adequate sleep if they stopped watching hours of television every day. "Food deserts" and inaccessibility of organic kale salads is not the problem. It's less about money per se, and more about the knowledge and, above all, the motivation to live well. Unfortunately, human worth is largely measured by material wealth in our society, so it's easy to lose one's self-respect, and motivation to live well along with it, when one is poor and has no expectation of escaping poverty.
1
Only if you live on the south and west sides
I thought things were bad in Tennessee, but look at Indiana...
Is it just being poor, or does education also play a role? Food education in particular seems like a serious issue, and access to healthy food may be a factor in some areas.
Looking at what is popular in the shopping carts in rural Tennessee, even with healthy options in the same store (sometimes cheaper as well), it's easy to understand the obesity problem.
Sometimes the adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink" seems to apply in force. Too many of the people in the worst shape that I've seen are firm believers in the "government is out to get us". That's tough to fix.
Is it just being poor, or does education also play a role? Food education in particular seems like a serious issue, and access to healthy food may be a factor in some areas.
Looking at what is popular in the shopping carts in rural Tennessee, even with healthy options in the same store (sometimes cheaper as well), it's easy to understand the obesity problem.
Sometimes the adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink" seems to apply in force. Too many of the people in the worst shape that I've seen are firm believers in the "government is out to get us". That's tough to fix.
8
Here's the solution: Have the rich pay to move the poor to places where they will live longer. Problem solved!
3
Good idea, but do you think Japan will take them?
9
When will we have national health care?
73
We are trying to ramp it up, not tear it down.
1
How will that help exactly? I believe we ought to have it, but that has little to do with this article. I've lived in European countries with national healthcare. The poor there still make bad lifestyle choices.
1
All poor? That is a pretty generalized, disingenuous statement.
And how long did the poor people live 40 years ago? Maybe to 50 or 60? Back then 75 would have been good for anyone since men averaged about 67 years and women averaged about 74.
6
It's the despair.
Please add this single question to your surveys: "If you lived another 20 years; how much do you think you would enjoy the last 10 years of your life? Please rate, 1 to 10."
I can give you the answer; based on long observation. The Rich will answer: "oh, 9-10, for sure!" And the Poor will answer "Maybe 3. If I'm lucky." Everything else plugs in to that expectation; how soon one seeks medical care, how carefully you take your medication, how hard you try to follow the doctor's instructions - and how much you just tune out with drugs and alcohol. This also explains the regional variations; living among neighbors in despair - is depressing, and will pull you down; living among people competing for who has the most fun - pulls you in to that competition.
We like to focus on parameters we might be able to adjust, like better access to medical support. Not that we actually do anything. We hate hearing about despair; it makes us feel helpless - and depressed. Let's not go there. I hear there's a new Marvel movie coming out soon. Good drug, that.
Please add this single question to your surveys: "If you lived another 20 years; how much do you think you would enjoy the last 10 years of your life? Please rate, 1 to 10."
I can give you the answer; based on long observation. The Rich will answer: "oh, 9-10, for sure!" And the Poor will answer "Maybe 3. If I'm lucky." Everything else plugs in to that expectation; how soon one seeks medical care, how carefully you take your medication, how hard you try to follow the doctor's instructions - and how much you just tune out with drugs and alcohol. This also explains the regional variations; living among neighbors in despair - is depressing, and will pull you down; living among people competing for who has the most fun - pulls you in to that competition.
We like to focus on parameters we might be able to adjust, like better access to medical support. Not that we actually do anything. We hate hearing about despair; it makes us feel helpless - and depressed. Let's not go there. I hear there's a new Marvel movie coming out soon. Good drug, that.
9
This effectively looks like a political map of the red states versus blue states. Should anyone be surprised that poor people are worse off in conservative southern states? There is probably also a direct correlation with those states whose Republican governors rejected the additional Obamacare Medicaid funding simply to make a political point at the expense of their own poor constituents.
60
No -- those governors rejected a lousy plan that dumped 10% of the cost of expanded Medicaid back on themselves. This is not some trivial cost, it is hundreds of millions of dollars.
Medicaid is one of the largest line items in the entire National budget.
Medicaid is one of the largest line items in the entire National budget.
Life on this planet could very well turn out to be a zero-sum game. If so, Rwanda's loss is Kuwait's gain and ours. The 1% go through their lives the way they do at the expense of the 99%. To keep Trump in the lifestyle he is accustomed to, thousands of Bengladeshis must go without the basic necessities of life.
Is "free will" the ultimate theological hoax?
Is "free will" the ultimate theological hoax?
7
Looks like living near a big city (New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, SF, Seattle) is a major predictor of longer life. Perhaps we can dispense with the nonsense about how we would all be better off if we tried to emulate a simple rural lifestyle (growing your own food, eschewing high-tech medicine) and begin to study how the benefits of urban life can be brought to more people.
26
City life = walking life. It makes all the difference in the world to be able to walk (and in some cases no choice but) to work, school, the cleaners, the grocery, the liquor store, the library, the movies, the bookstores. Ah, city life in a walkable neighborhood.... how I miss it.
No mention of air and water quality or food deserts? Why not?
6
(Not Mark) There is no such thing as a 'food desert'.
Mark, there are large areas in cites that don't have easy access to supermarkets that carry fresh produce
1
So what do we do about this? As far as I am concerned, unless people, rich or poor, have saved enough money to sustain themselves through retirement, to the fullest extent of their longevity, then why worry about it?
5
The nanny state tactics of the last ten years have virtually no impact on mortality. Reducing trans fat and big gulps MAY have an impact on mortality but the results will take decades, not years, to emerge.
4
Living here in Georgia in the Atlanta and rural area over the past few years the difference in lifestyle between wealthy and poor is startling.
Nearly EVERY poor person smoked...starting around age 10. Parents smoked in house, so did kids. Food selection was terrible. Most rural folks didn't have cars..that worked and no public transportation in rural areas, so most ate delivered pizza, wings, and fast food places were plentiful. And fresh fruit and vegetables ARE expensive and not convenient. I never saw people walking, biking, exercising. Most adults were on disability--usually lung disease including cancer or heart disease from smoking. Men and women in their forties looked seventy from cigarettes. Most were diabetic due to obesity. They then stayed in their houses and watched TV all day. Most men had been laborers, so had arthritic injuries which kept them from walking or exercising...besides it wasn't part of their culture. Obesity wasn't seen as a problem..to them. It's hard to explain long term effects of obesity, smoking, lack of exercise. And cigarettes aren't taxed heavily in the South. The tobacco lobby is big and tobacco growers make sure that taxes aren't added. There are very few older people, most died in late fifties or sixties.
In Atlanta the white people DID see obesity as a problem and I never saw richer people smoking. Stopping smoking inside was GREAT. Smokers were made to go to isolated areas of parking garages...that stopped some.
Nearly EVERY poor person smoked...starting around age 10. Parents smoked in house, so did kids. Food selection was terrible. Most rural folks didn't have cars..that worked and no public transportation in rural areas, so most ate delivered pizza, wings, and fast food places were plentiful. And fresh fruit and vegetables ARE expensive and not convenient. I never saw people walking, biking, exercising. Most adults were on disability--usually lung disease including cancer or heart disease from smoking. Men and women in their forties looked seventy from cigarettes. Most were diabetic due to obesity. They then stayed in their houses and watched TV all day. Most men had been laborers, so had arthritic injuries which kept them from walking or exercising...besides it wasn't part of their culture. Obesity wasn't seen as a problem..to them. It's hard to explain long term effects of obesity, smoking, lack of exercise. And cigarettes aren't taxed heavily in the South. The tobacco lobby is big and tobacco growers make sure that taxes aren't added. There are very few older people, most died in late fifties or sixties.
In Atlanta the white people DID see obesity as a problem and I never saw richer people smoking. Stopping smoking inside was GREAT. Smokers were made to go to isolated areas of parking garages...that stopped some.
29
The weather probably plays a factor too. Having lived in various parts of the country, hot, muggy weather, like they have in the South, makes it hard to exercise outdoors. It's harder than hot but dry weather and even cold, snowy weather (for example, in Alaska, I saw people skiing regularly in public parks and biking on icy roads). Richer people can afford to exercise in temperature-controlled environments regardless of the weather. Consequently, efforts to have temperature-controlled public facilities -- like the malls with walking programs or community centers -- would probably help poor communities.
Another thought is lack of exercise does not mean lack of physical activity. It may be that a poor diet trumps any activity participated in but some people may not be exercising because they already work a physical job. Thus, when they come home, they don't want to "exercise." "Exericise" is only done separately for those of us in positions where we do primarily sedentary work.
Third thought -- a lot of places simply aren't built for walking. In my affluent but suburban neighborhood, the walk score from my house is 92 out of 100, meaning I can get to most places (stores, libraries, post office, markets, etc.) simply by taking a short, pleasant walk. Most places in the US aren't planned so people can simply walk to places they need to. That daily walking helps with controlling obesity.
Another thought is lack of exercise does not mean lack of physical activity. It may be that a poor diet trumps any activity participated in but some people may not be exercising because they already work a physical job. Thus, when they come home, they don't want to "exercise." "Exericise" is only done separately for those of us in positions where we do primarily sedentary work.
Third thought -- a lot of places simply aren't built for walking. In my affluent but suburban neighborhood, the walk score from my house is 92 out of 100, meaning I can get to most places (stores, libraries, post office, markets, etc.) simply by taking a short, pleasant walk. Most places in the US aren't planned so people can simply walk to places they need to. That daily walking helps with controlling obesity.
I want to note the shocking fact that Honolulu beat out Detroit for lower life span, but then state that I don't think that Congress, supply side economics (or honey badger) cares about these early deaths. What will this country be in 20 or 50 years?!
2
Some of the comparisons make no sense. For example: I've lived in Florida, and there is nothing special about Miami that would make for longer lifespans....excepting that it is a big retirement destination for Northerners. Did anyone even account for that? It has no more hospitals or amenities than any other big Florida city, yet has longer lifespans than the rest?
And why does the Salt Lake City area -- nearly all Mormon -- not reflect their clean living habits and generally longer lifespans?
And why does the Salt Lake City area -- nearly all Mormon -- not reflect their clean living habits and generally longer lifespans?
1
This is what the data says. I'm wondering about rural upstate NY. Plotting death trends up there, lots of very young deaths (mid 50s). Are Native American, rural poor, Amish deaths counted. Or somehow do they slip under the radar? They take care of "their own." Somehow the numbers just don't add up sometimes.
2
And this is news? Why doesn't the Times do a story on the rates of poverty, illiteracy, maternal mortality, infant mortality, etc. between the wonderful Southern states and the rest of the country? Let's see how each region stacks up.
7
Conclusion of the article comes as such a surprise. It seems you are better off being wealthy.
21
Everyone says that they would like a long life, because the alternative is much worse [death]. New York City has changed its lifestyle around after a few decades. Back then, everyone smoked at their jobs or at bars. There were no farmers markets, Trader Joe's or Wholefoods, which provided New Yorkers with a much better quality of food. The city's parks were for the homeless, but now people can go and have activities there. Many New Yorkers had very poor health habits back then. The local government worked to change policies that made us sick. I even quit smoking, because cigarettes are too darn expensive. Add to the fact that New York is mostly a pedestrian city, you start to have a huge urban area that resembles healthy European and Asian cities. Numerous folks didn't like it, but these new health policies trickled down to the poor as well.
If we can have good health trickle down to the poor, why can't we have good education, good jobs and good opportunity trickle down to the poor? Number one; it is difficult to horde good health policies, like tax cuts. Number two; it is also hard to segregate an entire population from exercise, like good public schools. Number three; you don't need gentrification to have access to healthier food.
This article may prove that good government policy could lead to great public goods. America is a Garden of Eden. If we all decided to turn off the hate and animosity, this country could be a paradise for all.
If we can have good health trickle down to the poor, why can't we have good education, good jobs and good opportunity trickle down to the poor? Number one; it is difficult to horde good health policies, like tax cuts. Number two; it is also hard to segregate an entire population from exercise, like good public schools. Number three; you don't need gentrification to have access to healthier food.
This article may prove that good government policy could lead to great public goods. America is a Garden of Eden. If we all decided to turn off the hate and animosity, this country could be a paradise for all.
13
"If we can have good health trickle down to the poor, why can't we have good education, good jobs and good opportunity trickle down to the poor? "
People who have a culture of not valuing education and beating up those who do for "acting white" will never value a good education. Here in NJ, due to special state funding many of the poor, black, inner city schools actually spend more money per student than the most affluent suburbs but their test scores and graduation rates are still the lowest in the state.
People who have a culture of not valuing education and beating up those who do for "acting white" will never value a good education. Here in NJ, due to special state funding many of the poor, black, inner city schools actually spend more money per student than the most affluent suburbs but their test scores and graduation rates are still the lowest in the state.
4
If these stats are not cherry picked -- hmmm, in the dominant news publication in NYC, it shows that NYC residents live the longest! hence must be superior in every way! -- then all it shows is that NYC managed to get rid of almost all poor and working class people, and is today made up of almost entirely all rich, white people. Big whoop.
1
Concerned Citizen, the curve that the NYT illustrates actually have the poor on the x-axis. Therefore, rich people don't occupy the left side of that axis. Also, they said that the study didn't omit racial factors while making there statistical calculations (reading is fundamental).
Mr. Charles W., your ancient Nixonian notion of race shows that you are thoroughly backwards. If all you can do is blame children for the faults of your state, then New Jersey doesn't have a prayer to ever prosper.
With all of the corruption in New Jersey's urban public schools (probably urban charter schools too), those poor inner city, and also rural school children are short changed by those cheating, hateful, and careless adults that run the school system. Even though with so much money going to those schools, the books are out of date, the computers are from the 1990s and the buildings are falling apart into a leaded abyss. In my Labor Statistics class, we discovered that the smartest thing that a pupil in one of those schools could ever do is to drop out, because their futures have already been discounted by the likes of you, and staying enrolled is a waste of time.
Now the affluent suburbs may spend less per pupil, but those schools seemed to always have the best computers, the best programs, the latest books, more sports and there is no "war on drugs" on their doorsteps (even though those kids do much more drugs than inner city students). They have more money.
Mr. Charles W., your ancient Nixonian notion of race shows that you are thoroughly backwards. If all you can do is blame children for the faults of your state, then New Jersey doesn't have a prayer to ever prosper.
With all of the corruption in New Jersey's urban public schools (probably urban charter schools too), those poor inner city, and also rural school children are short changed by those cheating, hateful, and careless adults that run the school system. Even though with so much money going to those schools, the books are out of date, the computers are from the 1990s and the buildings are falling apart into a leaded abyss. In my Labor Statistics class, we discovered that the smartest thing that a pupil in one of those schools could ever do is to drop out, because their futures have already been discounted by the likes of you, and staying enrolled is a waste of time.
Now the affluent suburbs may spend less per pupil, but those schools seemed to always have the best computers, the best programs, the latest books, more sports and there is no "war on drugs" on their doorsteps (even though those kids do much more drugs than inner city students). They have more money.
Is this not part of the plan to tax the life out of the poor so they stay poor, pay their taxes and die when the psychopathic greedy want them to and hopefully big pharma and the medical industry will get the last of their money after the EPA, FDA and governance have poisoned the life out of them.
4
"New York has a high rate of social spending for low-income residents and has been aggressive in regulating trans fats and smoking."
It is clear that public spending and government regulations can help people live longer and healthier. It follows that those who favor such guvmint intervention the least - basically the red states - and the underfunded urban pockets in the blue states have the lowest life expectancy.
These results should show the hollowness of the GOP's only-tax-cutting and slahing-public-funding strategies to be, literally, deadly.
It is clear that public spending and government regulations can help people live longer and healthier. It follows that those who favor such guvmint intervention the least - basically the red states - and the underfunded urban pockets in the blue states have the lowest life expectancy.
These results should show the hollowness of the GOP's only-tax-cutting and slahing-public-funding strategies to be, literally, deadly.
32
So this study seems to show that areas where government and the private health sector work together life expectancies among the poor and middle class can improve. The argument that government involvement in health care is unnecessary is bogus. People need to work together and take responsibility for themselves and their community for better health outcomes and this requires awareness and monetary investment to happen. Places where social coordination and people live as islands to themselves are places where longevity is poorest. This belies the republican stand that government as a strong component in our society has no place in helping people.
14
Interesting article about wealth versus longevity. But gender versus longevity is rarely discussed, and if it is, it's pretty much a shrug of the shoulders. Imagine the outrage if women lived, on average, five years less than men. But the fact that the situation is reversed gets virtually no attention. All kinds of talk by candidates about women getting paid less, no talk about men dying sooner.
7
Sadly, men die sooner in part because many refuse to take care of themselves. They think it's sissy to eat a balanced diet. They measure their manhood by the hot wings and beer they can put away. They're more reluctant to go to a doctor. Women in their fifties might turn to gentler exercise such as yoga, whereas once men are done with competitive sports, or sports that make them feel like an athlete such as running, they seem more likely to head for the recliner.
I've seen some reports that the gender gap in health is closing as women become more workplace-oriented. Stress is a factor in health, and the workplace is much more stressful than it used to be. Physically safer (though physical risks at least produce adrenaline), but constantly draining. Women might deal with stress by taking a bubble bath or drinking chamomile tea or getting together with a friend to talk about stuff. I'm not sure men allow themselves enough healthy or harmless outlets for stress. They seem somewhat more likely to resort to passive leisure (the recliner, watching a screen) or the erasure of self-disappointment through alcohol or drugs.
My understanding is that the obesity epidemic may affect men's health more than women's. Some women gain more fat around the hips and thighs than the belly, but men almost always gain abdominal fat, which carries more life-threatening health risks.
Your point is a good one, and the Times has offered some coverage of the topic.
I've seen some reports that the gender gap in health is closing as women become more workplace-oriented. Stress is a factor in health, and the workplace is much more stressful than it used to be. Physically safer (though physical risks at least produce adrenaline), but constantly draining. Women might deal with stress by taking a bubble bath or drinking chamomile tea or getting together with a friend to talk about stuff. I'm not sure men allow themselves enough healthy or harmless outlets for stress. They seem somewhat more likely to resort to passive leisure (the recliner, watching a screen) or the erasure of self-disappointment through alcohol or drugs.
My understanding is that the obesity epidemic may affect men's health more than women's. Some women gain more fat around the hips and thighs than the belly, but men almost always gain abdominal fat, which carries more life-threatening health risks.
Your point is a good one, and the Times has offered some coverage of the topic.
2
On average, men have more physically stressful and dangerous jobs, take more risks and maintain a tougher exterior than women do, and it's expected of them.
Women love to complain about how men don't go to the doctor, don't ask for directions etc etc, but those same women will expect those men to know how to lead them out of danger and give up their lives for their women and children. Don't believe me? Go watch Titanic again. How would that story have played if the "hero" cried about being hurt, was totally confused as to where he was and constantly asked others for help?
Men live shorter lives on average because they wear themselves out in service to their families. Maybe a little respect is in order, instead of ridiculing them for their un-womanlike behavior as C Wolfe does.
Women love to complain about how men don't go to the doctor, don't ask for directions etc etc, but those same women will expect those men to know how to lead them out of danger and give up their lives for their women and children. Don't believe me? Go watch Titanic again. How would that story have played if the "hero" cried about being hurt, was totally confused as to where he was and constantly asked others for help?
Men live shorter lives on average because they wear themselves out in service to their families. Maybe a little respect is in order, instead of ridiculing them for their un-womanlike behavior as C Wolfe does.
1
It's not surprising that the rich live longer. Take a room full of wealthy people, and you'll see very few that are obese or smoke. Maybe some of the men have a belly when they get older, but they're 20-30 lbs overweight not 50+ and they exercise regularly. Few use illegal drugs past their twenties. Few binge drink regularly past their twenties. It's lifestyle choices, not healthcare.
17
Yes and no. When you walk into that room you describe, you are seeing the ones that are still living. The dead ones are not in that room. So not the complete picture at all.
I mention this because I am mostly surrounded by NYC wealth and I see how those big gutted older men start dying off rather quickly in their 50s. Most of them dont ever make it to 80. Their thin wives however remarry :)
I mention this because I am mostly surrounded by NYC wealth and I see how those big gutted older men start dying off rather quickly in their 50s. Most of them dont ever make it to 80. Their thin wives however remarry :)
10
And then there's the guy running for the Republican nomination.
2
I would also expect, unlike the less fortunate, they still have access to the best medical care and a doctor whom upon being able to have regular checkups and nip any potential problems in the bud, would naturally increase their lifespan. Those that do not have that access would probably rarely go to a doctor, let alone have a checkup, whereby, their issues would not be addressed until they ended up in the emergency room where their health problems would be well along the way to being quite serious.
Dallas has Parkland County Hosptial which provides excellent care and social services for the uninsured - a key driver to longer life spans for the poor in this area.
3
Interesting that the South and West Texas areas where the boom and now bust generated billions but shares life expectancy with a place like Rwanda.
These are also the very areas where Gov Abbott is cutting the Planned Parenthood services for lower income women. My ancient mother is from the Corpus area- GOP representatives are busy fighting against healthcare and making it hard for their citizens to vote.
I am beginning to think Abbott is too stupid to care that the people directly effected by terrible governance are disappearing- literally. In the meantime, lots of South Texans cross the border (irony alert!) to go to the dental and medical clinics in Mexico for reasonably priced care.
These are also the very areas where Gov Abbott is cutting the Planned Parenthood services for lower income women. My ancient mother is from the Corpus area- GOP representatives are busy fighting against healthcare and making it hard for their citizens to vote.
I am beginning to think Abbott is too stupid to care that the people directly effected by terrible governance are disappearing- literally. In the meantime, lots of South Texans cross the border (irony alert!) to go to the dental and medical clinics in Mexico for reasonably priced care.
12
Check out medical tourism statistics, it is astounding. Many in the U.S. are in denial about this, however, every year, by the tens of thousands, Americans travel elsewhere in the world for medical/dental care because they either cannot get it or afford it closer to home. It is sad to see that Republicans like Abbot and those of his ilk, look at those whom are less fortunate as having some sort of character defect or are all naturally lazy and are not worthy of being human. Pretty sad in a country that one can now safely categorize as being in the world of DOG EAT DOG!
1
Life expectancy at age 40 is the number of years of expected life beyond that age. For life expectancy at age 40 to be 80 years would mean thousands still alive at age 120. Expected life and expected life span are equal only at birth.
7
The most obvious truth of the American health-care system is that we spend an enormous, escalating, some would say insane amount of money on futile high-tech procedures and meds in our final years, months, weeks, days, and even hours of life. That is not good. It's also obvious that the poor among us spend an enormous percentage of income on behaviors that cause morbidity. That is not good. So it's supposed to be a shock that the poor die sooner and the affluent hang in there longer? The geography part of it is a complex statistical mine field that obscures the fundamentals.
5
So, one of the conclusions of this article is that if a person is poor and has lousy healthcare, then that person has to find a geographical locale that offers better health services? The other conclusion, that money buys longer life, is almost too shameful to publish. These are fairly interesting conclusions for a nation that has been moving steadily to the political right and distributes healthcare according to wealth.
12
This could be mistaken for a climate map. Higher altitudes and cooler climate = greater longevity. Even in the southeast, look along the Appalachian ridge. I wonder if people in hotter climates are more sedentary, or perhaps they are not more sedentary, but the heat takes a toll. Just a broad observation.
5
I am certain that dietary choices are massive in affecting lifespan and well-being. In grad school I researched one issue - breastfeeding vs. artificial. . . breastfed children develop higher IQs. But throughout the lifespan, choices of Kool-Aid, white bread, too many refined carb foods, etc. are ultimately deadly. Of course, these foods are more harmful to people with certain genetic tendencies (such as for Type 2 diabetes) Many people don't seem to know this -- people at various wealth/income/SES levels, but especially at lower levels.
8
Actually Z, the latest studies show that eating less and steadfastly keeping your weight down is much more important than whether you eat organic or not. Stay away from those potato chips.....
9
The breastfeeding-confers-higher-IQ argument has been debunked, if I am not mistaken.
The dietary fact that is really shocking is how many foods one would never suspect would have added sugar yet contain it. An example of this is canned kidney beans. That this is allowed makes avoiding excess sugar all the more difficult. Another problem is that unhealthy convenience foods are much less expensive than healthier foods.
The dietary fact that is really shocking is how many foods one would never suspect would have added sugar yet contain it. An example of this is canned kidney beans. That this is allowed makes avoiding excess sugar all the more difficult. Another problem is that unhealthy convenience foods are much less expensive than healthier foods.
6
Yes, and Whole Foods is wonderful but only the rich can afford to shop there. There's no profit in helping the poor eat better or, for that matter, to live longer. And, you know, profit is key, right?
2
The hard truth is that for all of the medical wonders available to the wealthy they are still dying (on average) at 85-87. We all want to believe we can live to 100, but statistically that is a fantasy.
There is an end of the road for the typical human body at 85-ish. Plan for death at 85 and dont stress about it.
38
My parents are 88 and living on their own. They've done well and get great care, on top of Medicare+. They've earned it and paid for it.
3
I am thrilled for your parents good health BUT please know that all it takes is one fall and a broken hip to change *everything* for elderly. Or one bout of pneumonia that sends them to a hospital. Ask your parents' Dr. and she/he will tell you about elderly illness and subsequent high mortality rates. It is depressing to think about but you you shouldnt take your parents current good health for granted.
5
@K Henderson: well, you're just a little ray of sunshine today!
It's true that most people live to no more than 80-85 -- even if they have good genes and healthy lifestyles, and yes, even if they are slim.
I've clocked a LOT of time in nursing homes and Assisted Living centers in the last several years. I've gotten to know many residents, including my family members who ended up there. People who think they want to live to 100 need to visit one of these places. It's where most very elderly folks end up (over 85).
People who think they want to live to 100 are imagining being Betty White -- lively, attractive, still working (if they wish), mentally sharp. That's like winning the Powerball Lotto. (All kudos to Ms. White, of course, but she's an exception.) Most of us will NOT end up like Betty.
After 85, fully 50% of those who make it that far end up with dementia. That is not a very nice way to end your life -- 5 years or more of sitting in a wheelchair, in a nursing facility, in an adult diaper.....not knowing who you are or recognizing your family. And no, it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin, or eat healthy or not. (K, most of the elderly I see in nursing homes are plump to chubby old LADIES -- women outnumber men 5 to 1.)
Anything you get after 85 -- if you have your health and your mental wits -- is pure gravy. Please enjoy it. But be aware nothing is guaranteed -- we are all different -- wealth will not protect you from dementia or misery or pain.
It's true that most people live to no more than 80-85 -- even if they have good genes and healthy lifestyles, and yes, even if they are slim.
I've clocked a LOT of time in nursing homes and Assisted Living centers in the last several years. I've gotten to know many residents, including my family members who ended up there. People who think they want to live to 100 need to visit one of these places. It's where most very elderly folks end up (over 85).
People who think they want to live to 100 are imagining being Betty White -- lively, attractive, still working (if they wish), mentally sharp. That's like winning the Powerball Lotto. (All kudos to Ms. White, of course, but she's an exception.) Most of us will NOT end up like Betty.
After 85, fully 50% of those who make it that far end up with dementia. That is not a very nice way to end your life -- 5 years or more of sitting in a wheelchair, in a nursing facility, in an adult diaper.....not knowing who you are or recognizing your family. And no, it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin, or eat healthy or not. (K, most of the elderly I see in nursing homes are plump to chubby old LADIES -- women outnumber men 5 to 1.)
Anything you get after 85 -- if you have your health and your mental wits -- is pure gravy. Please enjoy it. But be aware nothing is guaranteed -- we are all different -- wealth will not protect you from dementia or misery or pain.
2
As an urban school teacher, I interact with hundreds of low-income families every year. It doesn't surprise me that poor people don't live as long.
In my school, there are 2 kinds of poor parents. One group is assertive, observant and aspirational. They are only low-income because they don't speak English and/or are illegal (which limits their job prospects). Their behaviors are middle class; they will not be among the poor who die sooner.
The other group--the majority at my particular school--have substance abuse issues, were teen parents multiple times over, did not graduate HS, etc.
My point is that yes, poor people who are poor because of their behaviors and choices probably do die sooner. It's far more complex than how much money someone has in the bank.
In my school, there are 2 kinds of poor parents. One group is assertive, observant and aspirational. They are only low-income because they don't speak English and/or are illegal (which limits their job prospects). Their behaviors are middle class; they will not be among the poor who die sooner.
The other group--the majority at my particular school--have substance abuse issues, were teen parents multiple times over, did not graduate HS, etc.
My point is that yes, poor people who are poor because of their behaviors and choices probably do die sooner. It's far more complex than how much money someone has in the bank.
157
Not having money or not having enough alters the kind of behaviors that people can and do choose. The psychology of long term poverty (thanks to subtle and not so subtle economic racism) is deadly -- literally deadly. Lacking a way out of a fixed economic state leads one to self-medicate for the psychic pain and/or to adopt behaviors that seem counterproductive when viewed from a middle class or aspirational perspective (like too much drinking, cigarette smoking, recreational drugs etc.). The multi valent problems of those who aren't rich are too numerous to list and we all have been told innumerable times about them. As a society we no longer even have a pretense of wanting to solve them. We find these people "expendable" and our laws say as much.
1
Thank you for the objective, big-picture comment. I see the same thing in another urban setting, in part as tutor. The enormous impact of culture - which liberals have sworn to pretend-around - is a sober sight to see.
1
I think hope and optimism for the future have a big impact on longevity. People living in poverty or those with shrinking wealth due to unemployment or falling job prospects that lose hope for the future are less likely to care about their health and seek the short-term comforts of food, smoking, alcohol or drugs to escape the bleakness of their existence. A healthy lifestyle is a sign of optimism for the future.
Healthcare plays a big role, too. So many conditions could be treated or alleviated with prompt medical care but many do not have the means for adequate healthcare. It's a national shame that healthcare costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America. Compare the longevity of America's poor to the longevity of other Western countries with universal healthcare to see the difference it makes.
With the shrinking middle class and growing public perception evidenced in this election campaign that the system is rigged against the poor and middle class, you can see that hope for the future is diminished for many Americans. The death of hope often precedes physical death.
Healthcare plays a big role, too. So many conditions could be treated or alleviated with prompt medical care but many do not have the means for adequate healthcare. It's a national shame that healthcare costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America. Compare the longevity of America's poor to the longevity of other Western countries with universal healthcare to see the difference it makes.
With the shrinking middle class and growing public perception evidenced in this election campaign that the system is rigged against the poor and middle class, you can see that hope for the future is diminished for many Americans. The death of hope often precedes physical death.
47
Regardless of how much money one has in the bank, poor decision making is the taproot to good health and a good life. Duh. No one makes anyone dropout of (free public) high school. No one makes anyone become addicted to cigarettes, alcohol and drugs as youth. No one makes male youth join gangs and proceed to rampage through their neighborhoods, creating generation after generation of rapists and killers...and victims. The key to a better and healthier life is a better and healthier environment that begins in utero. (See: Ghost from the Nursery: Tracing the Roots of Violence) Poor choices made to procreate as teenagers will rarely end well for anyone. No population can sustain itself with 72% and 53% illegitmacy rates; there's not enough tax monies and buffet of freebies to make up for mostly low income male youth everywhere failing to take responsibility for their decisions to become violent, to subjugate young females into semi-literacy, poverty and servitiude by breeding like rabbits.
10
The causes of death in rich and poor need to be considered (I haven't read the JAMA article yet).
A life table graphic would display when the differences in mortality are greatest. Is it spread evenly from 40 to 80, more earlier (40s and 50s) or mostly near the end of life (70s and beyond).
What are the relative percentages dying due to violence and accident vs diseases associated with lifestyle vs delayed care of treatable diseases?
I can imagine some folks reading this and declaring that this shows that the poor don't take care of themselves, others seeing this as proof that the rich are living longer at the expense of the poor and yet others looking at this and attributing these differences to Darwinian differences in fitness to survive.
Of course, the main point is that there is a large difference and a rapid decline at the low end of incomes.
Death is an ultimate outcome; these differences demand a close look and should push us to take action to address them as an emergency.
Stephen Rinsler, MD
A life table graphic would display when the differences in mortality are greatest. Is it spread evenly from 40 to 80, more earlier (40s and 50s) or mostly near the end of life (70s and beyond).
What are the relative percentages dying due to violence and accident vs diseases associated with lifestyle vs delayed care of treatable diseases?
I can imagine some folks reading this and declaring that this shows that the poor don't take care of themselves, others seeing this as proof that the rich are living longer at the expense of the poor and yet others looking at this and attributing these differences to Darwinian differences in fitness to survive.
Of course, the main point is that there is a large difference and a rapid decline at the low end of incomes.
Death is an ultimate outcome; these differences demand a close look and should push us to take action to address them as an emergency.
Stephen Rinsler, MD
20
Excellent comment. We need to remember that "lifestyle" factors may be a result of poverty, such as living in food deserts resulting in access to mainly fast food, living near toxic wate and industrial pollution, inner cities or housing near airports or heavily traveled roads pollute the air resulting in respiratory diseases. Finally, there are the effects of chronic stress from poverty itself.
We do very poorly by our most vulnerable people. Universal health care is needed. It would even out the discrepancies over the country, many of which are a direct result of state policy decisions.
We do very poorly by our most vulnerable people. Universal health care is needed. It would even out the discrepancies over the country, many of which are a direct result of state policy decisions.
38
Nora01, I really like your first paragraph, in which you point out the many deleterious environmental aspects of poverty. And that reminds me of the story I heard about TB, that much of it was due to squalid living conditions of the poor, and that when these were alleviated (such as by improving housing and sanitation), TB began to decline -- before we even knew what caused it, and how to treat it. And though I totally agree with your comment about health care, I think we also need to care about the living conditions of those who make $28,000 or less. That is an important part of "health care." Indeed, for all of us.
12
Free and widely available birth control is needed, as is the imperative to not drop out of high school as 60% of low income male teens do. Stopping the cycle of teen pregnancy and lifelong poverty that goes with is a no brainer.
12
So much for Republican "exceptionalism." Unless they mean how exceptionally horrible life must be in the Republican stronghold of the racist southern and rural midwestern states. These very same Republican areas refuse to extend Medicaid to their poor (at little or no cost to the state), cheer at the Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare, and jeer at Michele Obama's efforts to improve diets and exercise habits of their children. Sad and irrational and very Republican.
193
The burning question is: why do people who earn 30K or less vote Republican? As the map illustrates, it literally kills.
2
I did not realize that Gary, IN, Detroit MI were Republican strongholds...
Any health professional can tell you that lifestyle choice is the lead cause of preventable early death. Access to health care does not prevent folks from drinking, smoking, eating too much sugar. The causal relationship between income and lifestyle choice is debatable. Interesting to note that places like NYC, Newark, Los Angeles with significant populations of urban poor, they live the longest.
Any health professional can tell you that lifestyle choice is the lead cause of preventable early death. Access to health care does not prevent folks from drinking, smoking, eating too much sugar. The causal relationship between income and lifestyle choice is debatable. Interesting to note that places like NYC, Newark, Los Angeles with significant populations of urban poor, they live the longest.
6
So much for NY Times readers intelligence when Detroit, MI is called a Republican stronghold.
2
I am not clear on why everyone wants to live so long. It really confers no advantage on either society or the individual.
You can live well enough until you're 80 or 85, but after that you're just hanging around. You can really do much or enjoy yourself, and the resources you consume have to come from the working-age people, who should be spending their money on their children, the next generation of productive workers.
As a young retiree, I can still do a few things. But I don't look forward to living forever and all the pain that comes with it, without any of the pleasures of life.
You can live well enough until you're 80 or 85, but after that you're just hanging around. You can really do much or enjoy yourself, and the resources you consume have to come from the working-age people, who should be spending their money on their children, the next generation of productive workers.
As a young retiree, I can still do a few things. But I don't look forward to living forever and all the pain that comes with it, without any of the pleasures of life.
96
Well, Jonathan, your blanket statement doesn't hold. I'm the first to decry life-saving measures for people who have no quality of life -- my mother's best friend, my aunt, an uncle in a nursing home, others, suffering from dementia or in terminal states. They never wanted a vegetative existence, but their physicians ignored directives or their nearest relatives wanted to do "their best" for them, and so the antibiotics, the feeding tubes, the invasive procedures.
On the other hand, I've known a few people who have lived to 101, who swept their front porches and attended ballets, or are still living independently into their high 90s, who do their own laundry, go to shopping malls, and have a good quality of life.
Much better than the alternative, which in my family means dying of cancer anywhere between 48 and 75 -- including several non-smokers.
On the other hand, I've known a few people who have lived to 101, who swept their front porches and attended ballets, or are still living independently into their high 90s, who do their own laundry, go to shopping malls, and have a good quality of life.
Much better than the alternative, which in my family means dying of cancer anywhere between 48 and 75 -- including several non-smokers.
30
B, we all can recall someone we knew who was in his/her 90s who was "doing great at 90s." They are a **rarity** however. Just go to one of the larger nursing homes and see how many are 90 (few) and how many of those are mobile (few). I find that when people say "90 is great for some" they are really saying "I want to be 90 and be alive like that." It is wishful thinking statistically.
15
You make a very good, but uncomfortable point. Oddly, at that age, wealth can sustain life through better individualized care, nutrition, resources that access more medical treatment options and, perhaps most importantly, the willingness of, and ability to pay for, family to take additional caregiver steps. If you want to get rid of an old relative, a short time in a mediocre nursing home, or waiting a few hours to get them to an emergency room, will do the trick.
As you point out, society offers few fulfilling life choices to the very elderly and largely looks at them as "objects' needing care who have "lived their useful lives." Absent mental incapacity through stroke, dementia or Alzheimer's disease it is not true that people that age cannot "enjoy" life, but there are few options out there that recognize and cater to that issue.
As you point out, society offers few fulfilling life choices to the very elderly and largely looks at them as "objects' needing care who have "lived their useful lives." Absent mental incapacity through stroke, dementia or Alzheimer's disease it is not true that people that age cannot "enjoy" life, but there are few options out there that recognize and cater to that issue.
16
It must be terribly uncomfortable for the Times to learn that income inequality is a much smaller factor in longevity than numerous other issues. Nonetheless, rather than explore if the whole concept is really valid, the Times basically glosses over that question with the conclusory statement: "But the fact that some places have increased the life span of their poorest residents suggests that improving public health doesn’t require first fixing the broader, multidecade problem of income inequality."
One has to question the value of the "science" uncovered when such bias is evident in the researchers.
One has to question the value of the "science" uncovered when such bias is evident in the researchers.
28
A good point M: the article seems to be saying that proximity and access to good health care is one of the most important factors in longevity but it dances around that point too.
6
The phrasing of this was poor. At first, it caught me off-guard, but when I reread, it seemed clearer that they are articulating the importance of meeting people where they are - working at the zip code level to address the particular concerns of neighborhoods, rather than simply relying on sweeping policy changes that generalize the needs of multiple groups of people.
Sweeping changes and policies are necessary, certainly, but grassroots, neighborhood-level initiatives may be more effective for some public health concerns, especially those targeted at changing behaviors.
Sweeping changes and policies are necessary, certainly, but grassroots, neighborhood-level initiatives may be more effective for some public health concerns, especially those targeted at changing behaviors.
2
It would be interesting to see this data juxtaposed with political and economic data such as the party affiliation of local elected elected officials and the local tax structures.
56
The map seems to indicte partisan politics is not the issue any more than one's bank account. The factors seem to be the infusion of tax monie by the non-poor into programs for the poor. That's nice but a dicey pyramid scheme unless the poor stop the cycle of bad decision making that keeps their relatives poor for generations and in constant need of multiple welfare programs.
Birmingham, Alabama (majority black in a highy GOP state) poor live longer and better than the poor in Tampa, Florida, as do the heavily GOP and immigerant south Floridians.
Birmingham, Alabama (majority black in a highy GOP state) poor live longer and better than the poor in Tampa, Florida, as do the heavily GOP and immigerant south Floridians.
2
94% of the African-American population in the US voted Democratic in 2012; the life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is 4 years less than that of whites.
Conclusion: the Democratic Party is good at using the Black vote to gain power, but not so good at actually working to improve the lot of the Black population.
Conclusion: the Democratic Party is good at using the Black vote to gain power, but not so good at actually working to improve the lot of the Black population.
6
Look at the map. The poorest states are in the most heavily Republican areas. This also means that these states are collecting the most federal government support except when they refuse it for medical care. And yet, these are the same Republicans who want to shake free of federal money or any governmental money. Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin hurtling down on lessening government are in the process of devolution from government to anarchy with a stop at bad roads, bad schools, bad services of all kinds.
1
In this piece, to be considered poor you needed to have a household income of $28k or lower. Check the stats: 28% of American households make less than $28000 a year. With regards to public health and well-being, this means that over a quarter of American households are effectively living in the third world. And--given the rapacious labor market, stagnant wages, and our stupid capitalist health care system--it's likely that 2/3 of the country could join them at any point.
Late stage capital is a global project to kill off "undesirable" people. This is not some planned conspiracy, but the very way in which our depersonalized economic system functions. True freedom is the ability to imagine and advocate for other ways to organize socioeconomic relations.
Late stage capital is a global project to kill off "undesirable" people. This is not some planned conspiracy, but the very way in which our depersonalized economic system functions. True freedom is the ability to imagine and advocate for other ways to organize socioeconomic relations.
81
If they make $28,000 a year, does the study show if these poor people get Medicaid, food stamps, HUD housing,r reduced electric and gas bills and free cell phones? Do most third world countries offer the same benefits?
2
Or as Scrooge would say, reduce the surplus population.
3
But what is also startling from this map is that in the whole California Coast, and in particular the Bay Area, which has one of the highest cost of living in the Nation, the folks living on 30K or less have above average or very high life expectancy compared to the rest of the Nation. On the other hand, in the South, where cost of living is much lower, the folks belonging to that cohort are dropping dead. What gives? A reasonable hypothesis would be a mix of health culture of the area (which spills over to even the less educated or lower earners) and access to public resources that allows them to have better health even if they don't have as much income. Something to think about.
5
Good genes plus wealth usually lead to a long life. Hideously ugly but very rich old men can easily marry a sequence of beautiful, money-smart young women. Just think of Rupert Murdoch.
The offspring of such pairings get to inherit a cut of their father's riches and a slice of their mother's genes. It was the same thing at one time in the UK when impoverished but well-bred aristos married beautiful American heiresses, themselves the daughters of railroad, shipping or oil tycoons and beautiful Hollywood film stars.
Beauty follows money as the moth is drawn to the flame, while the poor huddle to the poor. As the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.
The offspring of such pairings get to inherit a cut of their father's riches and a slice of their mother's genes. It was the same thing at one time in the UK when impoverished but well-bred aristos married beautiful American heiresses, themselves the daughters of railroad, shipping or oil tycoons and beautiful Hollywood film stars.
Beauty follows money as the moth is drawn to the flame, while the poor huddle to the poor. As the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.
38
Nice to hear that I am "hideously ugly" although not rich!
Your comment is a real crock. Genetics vs lifestyle....which is stronger? Coming from Hawai'i I saw great variations in longevity. Asians especially first and second generation lived into the 100s. They walked everywhere, ate mostly vegetables--used meat/fish as a condiment--a few ounces two times a week usually in stir-fry. Nothing deep fried except for occasional tempura. And not a lot of people smoked. I would see older Asians and now Caucasians of European descent doing Tai-Chi daily in the parks. These "whiter" groups stayed out of the sun. Most Asian women carried umbrellas not for rain but to protect them from the sun. Public transportation was superb on the main island, the county of Honolulu. Take a bus then walk everywhere else.
But then the Polynesian population--Hawai'ians, Samoans, Tongans no longer fished with nets and ate native foods such as taro, breadfruit, fresh fruits, and locally caught fish--yellow fin tuna--which was lower in fat than cold water fish. Instead because of overall poverty they ate fast foods and the new local foods called "mixed plate." Loco moku--three scoops of rice, a fried egg over a large hamburger patty and all covered with brown gravy. Or plates that combined beef stew, deep fried meat or fish, six to eight cups of white rice a day, greasy short ribs, spaghetti, macaroni/potato salad ALL on one plate. Their life expectancy was in the fifties maybe sixties.
Your comment is a real crock. Genetics vs lifestyle....which is stronger? Coming from Hawai'i I saw great variations in longevity. Asians especially first and second generation lived into the 100s. They walked everywhere, ate mostly vegetables--used meat/fish as a condiment--a few ounces two times a week usually in stir-fry. Nothing deep fried except for occasional tempura. And not a lot of people smoked. I would see older Asians and now Caucasians of European descent doing Tai-Chi daily in the parks. These "whiter" groups stayed out of the sun. Most Asian women carried umbrellas not for rain but to protect them from the sun. Public transportation was superb on the main island, the county of Honolulu. Take a bus then walk everywhere else.
But then the Polynesian population--Hawai'ians, Samoans, Tongans no longer fished with nets and ate native foods such as taro, breadfruit, fresh fruits, and locally caught fish--yellow fin tuna--which was lower in fat than cold water fish. Instead because of overall poverty they ate fast foods and the new local foods called "mixed plate." Loco moku--three scoops of rice, a fried egg over a large hamburger patty and all covered with brown gravy. Or plates that combined beef stew, deep fried meat or fish, six to eight cups of white rice a day, greasy short ribs, spaghetti, macaroni/potato salad ALL on one plate. Their life expectancy was in the fifties maybe sixties.
29
C, your comment is so full of very broad generalizations I dont know where to start.
2
Add to that a much more enriched environment and much less poisonous (think Flint). I would advise to read "Brave New World". We are in it, even if in a much more haphazard way.
3
As a resident of the Pittsfield area in Massachusetts, it is a bit confounding (though heartening) to observe that we have a relatively high life expectancy for our low-income residents, while according to this article, our indices on most measures are not good: unemployment is a bit higher, incomes lower, medicare spending lower, etc. etc. What we do have is a very high insured rate...the metric which is dismissed as irrelevant here. I wonder whether the data is missing something: Massachusetts has been doing a better job insuring its low-income residents for much longer than the rest of the nation, thanks to Romneycare. Maybe it takes a decade or so for the advantages of access to health care to show up in mortality statistics? Worth a thought...
100
Susan, That is actually a mistake about Pittsfield:
If you scale the map in and then out, it extends "Pittsfield MA" well into Vermont. So that is clearly wrong. Furthermore, the 81.3 for "Berkshires" (which includes Pittsfield but also includes the far more wealthy areas around Pittsfield, makes more sense.
Interesting that rural New England in general, which has been one of the centers of the opioid crisis, still seems to be doing reasonably well by this metric. While I'm sure Romneycare is part of the equation in MA, there must be some other factors at work in the region.
2
I think you are on to something there.
2
For comparison:
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/12/21/cities-with-the-shortest-...