New Scientist: For poor people, living in an affluent area can be a health hazard. That is the provocative conclusion of a study of the death records of more than 8000 people living in four US cities.
The ill effects of being poor or living in economically disadvantaged areas have been demonstrated before, but it is unusual to consider both factors in the same study. When Marilyn Winkleby and colleagues at Stanford University in California did so, they were surprised to find that death rates in four Californian cities were highest for poor people living in the richest neighbourhoods.
They offer two possible explanations: poor people living in rich areas may have to pay more for housing and other services, magnifying the effect of poverty; alternatively, their health may suffer from stress caused by continually being reminded that they are at the bottom of the economic pile. “I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive,” says team member Catherine Cubbin, now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Richard Wilkinson, who studies health inequalities at the University of Nottingham, UK, suspects that stress is largely to blame. With Kate Pickett of the University of York he has reviewed more than 150 studies and concluded that health is generally poorer in societies where differences in income are larger (Social Science & Medicine, vol 62, p 1768). “The basic picture seems to be that low social status is stigmatising,” Wilkinson says. [Source]
The ill effects of being poor or living in economically disadvantaged areas have been demonstrated before, but it is unusual to consider both factors in the same study. When Marilyn Winkleby and colleagues at Stanford University in California did so, they were surprised to find that death rates in four Californian cities were highest for poor people living in the richest neighbourhoods.
They offer two possible explanations: poor people living in rich areas may have to pay more for housing and other services, magnifying the effect of poverty; alternatively, their health may suffer from stress caused by continually being reminded that they are at the bottom of the economic pile. “I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive,” says team member Catherine Cubbin, now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Richard Wilkinson, who studies health inequalities at the University of Nottingham, UK, suspects that stress is largely to blame. With Kate Pickett of the University of York he has reviewed more than 150 studies and concluded that health is generally poorer in societies where differences in income are larger (Social Science & Medicine, vol 62, p 1768). “The basic picture seems to be that low social status is stigmatising,” Wilkinson says. [Source]
Mahalanobis - am 2006-11-02 15:09
visitor x (guest) meinte am 2. Nov, 16:44:
Growing up, I had the misfortune of always being one of the poorest kid in a relatively well-off area. This is because my parents always sought out the most run-down, cheap housing in upper middle class neighborhoods with a good school system.As I luckily took advantage of some of the better public education systems available in US, I must say being continually reminded of being at the bottom of the economic totem pole among my peers was extremely painful.
I would never put my own kids through what I went through. I although I went onto a good public college and later master's degrees from two of the best universities in the world and a fairly cushy job at a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, my brother dropped out of high school and suffers from acute depression. I strongly believe the stress of being a poor kid in a decent neighborhood definitely got to him.
Even for me, to this data I have insecurity of not being as well off as the next guy, and I probably would never have complete peace of mind and be totally comfortable with who I am.
ZF (guest) meinte am 2. Nov, 17:20:
This is hilarious
So with precisely zero evidence regarding the nature of (let alone the strength of) any causal connection, these ivory-tower wonks suddenly declare that all the things which they believed anyway because they fit their 'kindergarden version of Marx' picture of the outside world have been revealed by these results? How funny. The unseriousness of academic sociological research and researchers could hardly be made clearer.
Hedgehog (guest) antwortete am 2. Nov, 17:50:
Can you offer any "serious" alternative
explanation for the empirical regularity uncovered by those "ivory-tower" wonks? I could not find any constructive critique in the previous post (name calling somehow did not work its magic for me).
Mahalanobis antwortete am 2. Nov, 18:24:
I knew
a couple of our readers would go apeshit since this research could be used by some naive do-gooders to argue in favour of redistribution of income.
Steve Sailer (guest) meinte am 3. Nov, 06:21:
A guess as to an alternative explanation
Off the top of my head, I would guess that low income people living in high income neighborhoods are often downwardly mobile individuals who grew up in that rich neighborhood, but now have low incomes due to poor health, drugs, or alcohol. Not surprisingly, they would have higher death rates for the same reason that they have lower incomes.
furriskey (guest) antwortete am 3. Nov, 12:17:
What about the opposite?
Supposing you are a wealthy bastard who chooses to live in Oakland? Will your life expectancy increase? My bet would be no..
Anon (guest) antwortete am 10. Nov, 22:37:
Of course not, are you aware of the crime rate in Oakland?
