the reasons for this growing gap in life expectancy by income are not altogether clear. Some explanations clearly aren’t supported by facts. For example, although overall levels of tobacco use are down, the decline seems to have happened in much the same way across income levels, and thus can’t explain the life expectancy factors. Obesity levels are up over time, but they seem to be up more among those with higher incomes, so that pattern doesn’t explain a growing gap in life expectancy by income, either. One hypothesis recognizes that there is a correlation between education and health, and also between education and income, so perhaps factors related to education and health have become more important over time. For example, perhaps those with higher incomes are better at managing chronic diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes. But again, this is an open question. Other possible explanations are looking at how the nature of jobs and job stress may have changed over time for jobs of different income levels, or whether greater inequality in a society may create stresses that affect health.
Before you comment, note carefully the methods used to assess life expectancy.
My own view is that the distribution of conscientiousness has become more unequal over time, and this has implications for both income and life expectancy.
For a view the conscientiousness is the endogenous variable (rather than exogenous, as I think of it), see Elliot Berkman. Pointer from Mark Thoma. He has another post on a piece saying that educational inequality has widened. Again, I have the same diagnosis–that the distribution of ability has widened.
I wonder if it is the distribution of ability that has widened or if it is the rewards to ability that have changed. 30 years ago, when I began my career, there were a lot of mediocre people in high places (“empty suits” was the term used). You don’t see that much anymore. Our economy has become more efficient in terms of sorting people based on ability.
And why wouldn’t ability and life expectancy be correlated biologically?
I have to say, the idea that I can’t teach my kid self-control is not something I like to imagine, not at all. I have a very “Gattaca-like” feeling about it. I’m not arguing about whether or not it’s true, just the deep unease I feel at what the evidence seems to be saying. I’m picturing a sea of people who, through no fault of their own, simply don’t make the cut, and are doomed to what? Welfare? Dating websites with ConscientiousnessQ textboxes? It runs so counter to everything I stand for, or was raised to stand for. It “feels” so ugly.
Genes may predispose you to a certain quintile of future orientation, but you might still be able to push your child towards the top of that quintile, or counsel him in a life direction that makes the best of their natural endowments. People still have agency.
Drugs and schools may get better in the future. I wad a senior in engineering before I ever got a personality test from a school (as in, my 4 year personality test was almost over) and the prof was doing it almost as a goof.
I think that while, “teaching your son self-control,” may be difficult per se, “teaching your son coping mechanisms to deal with impulsiveness,” is easier and can have powerful effects at the margin. However, this is something I believe (not without some experience and empirical evidence) but cannot prove.
I give three reasons:
1) With more money, it is easier to make smarter long term decisions.
2) Rich have slightly more self control.
3) Rich and upper middle jobs are safer long term.
Rich and upper middle jobs are safer long term.
Yes but the homicide and accidents rates have been falling sharply.
Was it not Thorsten Veblen who opined:
“Wealth and beauty tend to concentrate.”
Looking for correlations is fun; but we need to examine the choices of factors we tend to correlate.
In any particular society, at any specific period, how is wealth acquired or accumulated; in what forms; requiring what human capacities?
What social conditions exist for the apportionment of wealth AS it is accumulated; and, after it is redeployed (to the extent it is) for production, determine distributions of the results? Are those conditions cyclical?
Maybe this is what is meant but while straying off topic and sounding sexist but not being sexist (although sounding something is being something to some circles these days), imagine if women were the sole judges of beauty. Weird looking anorexic females and old rich guys would be mimicked everywhere.
“although sounding something is being something to some circles these days.”
Usually when one says he/she sounds something but is not something, one is being something but trying to prevent people from pointing it out.
Except in this case…and anything liberals use to demagogue these days, which is almost anything they can get their hands on. To liberals even proving one isn’t sexist is being sexist by not recognizing how very sexist you are. That is why nobody thinking cares about them but we do care about those thinking. Care to show where I was actually sexist?
And this is despite the fact that Hispanics, who are mostly poor, live longer than the average USAer. This is a real mystery.
And BTW lets not forget this:
Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S.
I wonder if this could be due to the fact that prosperity is actually bad for some people maybe the same people who tend to be poor. For example some poor guy wins the lottery and kills himself with the drugs that he can now afford, were another guy just who wins the lottery just ups his standard of living a little. There was a story a while back about Cubans living longer after the USSR stopped sending them money. I have doubts about the story but it is plausible and would imply that some people live longer if they are too poor to feed the lusts much.
Or recently there was a story about people living longer if they keep working in old age. Perhaps blue collar workers need to quit working sooner.
Brilliant point.