The data is from the University of Michigan’s Health and Retirement Study,
a survey that tracks the health and work-life of 26,000 Americans as
they age and retire. The data is especially valuable as it tracks the
same individuals every two years in what’s known as a longitudinal
study, to see how their lives unfold. (see here for link)
Now think about this in the context of social security reform:
When somebody in Washington proposes raising the
retirement age for Social Security or Medicare, he typically says
something like: "We can afford it, because we are living longer." Yes, We can afford it, when the We
in that sentence applies to an audience of white rich old men and women
who really are seeing their lifespans grow by leaps and bounds. But We
doesn't apply to the millions of poor women whose lifespans are
actually declining. Raising the Social Security retirement age
disproportionately reduces lifetime benefits for the very people Social
Security was invented to protect.
Very insightful post. I really appreciate work like this because it affirms a perspective that I think is really missing from the popular discourse, that the United States is not a single uniform whole but a group of completely distinct societies with a deep polarizing chasm between them. The two societies I speak of are the haves and the have nots. Any discussion about the "American" economy that doesn't recognize this dichotomy is not entirely fruitful because the experience and socioeconomic standards of each group is completely different. Per capita GDP, for example, is a commonly used yardstick for how rich a country is, but applying this yardstick to America yields a misleading view of the American economy because all the money is concentrated at the top, it doesn't reflect the wealth of the average American.
ReplyDeletehikaru is on point. gender, for me, in a discourse is a necessary discourse which is commonly disregarded in talking about income inequality. this is an eye-opening post
ReplyDeleteIt is important to remember that there is a positive correlation between income level and life expectancy. The heavy taxes imposed on the taxpayers to fund SS restricts economic growth aka personal income growth and reduces the life expectancy growth rate. The cost of SS is escalating which will increase the tax burden, leading to further restrictions in the life expectancy and economic growth.
ReplyDeleteHere is my concluding point: people in the low income levels would have a higher life expectancy in the future absence of SS because of less tax burdens and stronger economic growth compared to a future with SS in place and heavier tax burdens. It is important to think in the long-run. The tax burden of SS will only get worse in the future, so reforming or abolishing SS today will have little cost to the people compared to a future of a costly SS and weaker economic growth. It is like the debt crisis: solving it today will be less costly than solving it tomorrow.
To address Sam's concern about gender life expectancy gap, strong economic growth correlates with a reduction in gender inequality (life expectancy, wage rate, education, etc.). Eliminating the tax burden of SS will lead to stronger economic growth and help reduce the gender inequality.
With money comes better health, better living conditions, less stress, as well as countless other variables that contribute to people's lifespans. It's not fair. However, we are dealt the cards we get and it is up to us to play them in such a way that results in a lifestyle we are satisfied with. I'm going to work hard to get more money. This article is not surprising to me that more money has a relationship with a greater life span. More money has many positive side effects, as well as negative side effects. Money provides comfort, and in a sense provides more freedom as it expands life's possibilities.
ReplyDelete