Myth: Income inequality is not the cause of this nation's social problems.



Fact: Studies by Harvard and Berkeley prove the correlation, and strongly suggest causation.







Summary



Poverty is correlated to higher mortality rates for all ages. Harvard and Berkeley conducted two studies that also found that income inequality, as opposed to absolute standard of living, is responsible for higher death rates, as well as numerous other social problems like crime, welfare, and poor educational outcomes. Conservatives point out that correlation is not causation; it could be that people suffering from these health and social problems naturally earn lower incomes. But economic fluctuations and income inequality happen too rapidly, drastically and locally to be attributed to personality changes, which often occur in the same populations. It is much more reasonable to attribute these economic changes to changes in economic policy.







Argument



Health researchers have long known that the poor have higher death rates and greater health problems than the rich. (1) Countless studies have proven this; the following one yields a typical result. In 1986, researchers studied two groups of men between the ages of 25 and 64: those that made less than $9,000 a year, and those that made more than $25,000. They found that poor white men had 6.7 times the death rate of rich white men, and poor black men had 5.4 times the death rate of rich black men. (2) One can also see this correlation in the improving living standards and life expectancies all around the world in the last 200 years. Better science, technology, safety, public education and prosperity have made us all healthier.



But why, even in the same society, would health and life expectancy be linked to income class? Perhaps the most obvious answer is that the poor cannot afford the same health care, especially preventative health care. But in fact there are hundreds of reasons why the poor have higher rates of death, disease and injury. The poor live and work in more toxic environments; they have less adequate diets; they are exposed to greater dangers and risks (both human and non-human); they cannot afford the safety features or creature comforts that make living safer or easier; they suffer higher and more negative forms of stress in trying to make ends meet (or even survive); and they have less access to education about things that would prolong their lives.



That, at least, is the mainstream view -- many on the far right have a much different interpretation. Correlation is not causation, they point out. Poverty does not cause poor health; rather, poor health might cause poverty. That is, people in poor health would probably tend to be society's least productive, and therefore least-paid, workers. Or yet a third factor could cause both poor health and poverty. For example, the same lack of education that ill-informs the poor on health matters also locks them out of the best paying jobs. Or laziness, substance abuse and other moral shortcomings could have a depressing effect on both incomes and health.



Which view is correct? Again, consider the simultaneous rise in living standards and life expectancies all around the world in the last 200 years. It would be rather bizarre to attribute this to a sudden change in individual human morals, habits and work ethics. Why would this occur simultaneously and coincidentally in mostly the 10 billion people of the last two centuries? This sudden upward trend virtually demands a social explanation; it is not the result of isolated individual behavior. Intrinsic human nature has not changed for countless thousands of years. What has changed -- and changed dramatically, especially in the last two centuries -- is society and its institutions, ranging from scientific to economic to political systems. Thus, it is far more reasonable to attribute health and economic advances to social causes and social programs, not individual personality changes.



To better determine the arrow of causality, let's take a closer look at how income inequality is linked to health and other social problems.



The Harvard and Berkeley studies of income inequality



If it is true that poverty kills, then this should place income inequality in a completely different light. A society that allows high levels of inequality could be accused of killing its own citizens. Conservatives defend against this charge by pointing out that the living standards of the poor have been continually rising, so it shouldn't matter if the rich are growing even richer by comparison. After all, this is not a zero-sum economy. Even a poor person with a small slice of the pie will benefit if the entire pie grows. This introduces two important concepts to this debate: relative poverty (or the slice of the pie, as measured in percent) and absolute poverty (or the actual size of the slice itself, compared to nothing else).



However, it turns out that relative poverty matters a great deal after all.



In 1996, Harvard and Berkeley published separate studies that examined income inequality in all 50 states. (3) According to Bruce Kennedy, the lead researcher of the Harvard study, "The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well-off, as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor, appears to be related to mortality." (4) Both studies found that states with higher income inequality have all the following social problems:

Higher death rates for all age groups.

Higher rates of homicide.

Higher rates of violent crime.

Higher costs per person for police protection.

Higher rates of incarceration.

Higher rates of unemployment.

A higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps.

More high-school dropouts.

Less state funds spent per person on education.

Fewer books per person in the schools.

Poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills.

Higher infant mortality rates.

Higher heart disease.

Higher cancer rates.

A greater percentage of people without medical insurance.

A greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight.

A greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities.

A higher proportion of the population using tobacco.

A higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).

Higher costs per-person for medical care.