X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l83IoRux002547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:50:27 -0400 Received: from madman.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.134]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l83InmnJ009337 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:49:57 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY madman.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46DC5745.D4DFC.17252 ; 3 Sep 2007 14:49:42 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l83InBp2009210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:49:11 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l83InWux002523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:49:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l83InVco002520; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:49:31 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-712164092-1771897789-1188796296=:3721" Content-ID: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:49:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Michelle Sternthal cc: James W Mickens , Dave Morris , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu, Steven Reeves , reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu, reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: mind the gap This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---712164092-1771897789-1188796296=:3721 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: This is a big contribution to this debate. Thanks Michelle! Quick thought though: A life expectancy gap is bad and efforts to narrow it are laudable.=20 Unless the solution is to kill old people to harvest their organs to save= =20 people who are dying younger. I'm just pointing out that an income gap being bad doesn't mean that=20 forced redistribution is good (or even necessarily helps the poor in=20 absolute terms). --- \/ FROM Michelle Sternthal AT 07.09.01 10:11 (Saturday) \/ --- > I have remained silent for too long! I have to admit, that as a sociolog= ist,=20 > the notion that income inequality is good for society is anathema to our= =20 > discipline (which is probably one reason sociologists and economists have= a=20 > noted rivalry). > > But putting intellectual/philosophical disagreements aside, from a purely= =20 > rhetorical/debate perspective, I have been somewhat frustrated by the not= able=20 > absence of empirical evidence used to back up the arguments that income= =20 > equality is good for society or at least "fair." Since we are loyal=20 > positivists who embrace the scientific method, allow me to introduce som= e=20 > research on the matter. > > Since my area of interest, forgive me if I focus on the health effects of= =20 > income inequality. A question which has preoccupied health=20 > researchers/sociologists, and even health economists is whether, indeed, = the=20 > growing gap between the rich and poor is good for a society's health (let= 's=20 > use mortality, a nice objective indicator. Dying young is less good than= =20 > dying old, all else being equal). > =09There are reasons to believe that income inequality hurts everyone,=20 > even those not on the bottom. Let's assume two states have the same aver= age=20 > income-- $50,000. In one state, the distribution is pretty wide, so ther= e=20 > are people really poor and people really rich; in another, the distributi= on=20 > hovers around the $50,000 mark. Which state would we want to live in, fr= om a=20 > health perspective at least? Research suggests that it would SUCK to liv= e in=20 > the first for a couple of reasons. First off, in an unequal society, you= are=20 > much more likely to be in the bottom than on the top, and being poor is a= =20 > well-established cause of bad health. Second, David Marmot, an=20 > epidemiologist, has argued that simply being in a stratified society can = harm=20 > health. A twenty-five-year follow-up from the Whitehall study found that= the=20 > higher the position in the occupational hierarchy in Britain, the lower t= he=20 > mortality rate from all causes, from coronary heart disease, and from a r= ange=20 > of diseases not related to smoking Note that NONE of these men was poor= in=20 > any usual sense of that word. They were all in stable, office-based=20 > employment in and around Whitehall, London. (Marmot, "Inequalities in=20 > Health," New England Journal of Medicine (12 July 2001): 134=96136). Her= e,=20 > relative income deprivation mattered more than absolute. > > But even beyond that, it seems that a society with large income inequalit= y=20 > hurts those at the top. One of the more famous studies, by George Kaplan= of=20 > U. of Michigan and colleagues (1996) examined income inequality among the= 50=20 > states. Kaplan et al. showed that that income share held by the least=20 > well-off 50 percent of the population in each state was strongly correlat= ed=20 > with the state's mortality in 1990 (r=3D-.62, p<.0001), and that this=20 > association was not affected by median state income, was consistent acros= s=20 > age groups, and ALL income brackets. Moreover, areas with high income= =20 > inequality have not only high mortality but high crime rates, especially = of=20 > homicide. Such factors can affect everyone, not just the poorest ( M. Wi= lson=20 > and M. Daly, "Life Expectancy, Economic Inequality, Homicide, and=20 > Reproductive Timing in Chicago Neighbourhoods," British Medical Journal (= 26=20 > April 1997): 1271=961274). T > > But even assuming that the "utility" gained in terms of health for rich= =20 > people was unaffected by the distribution of income, it may still make=20 > "economic" sense to have a less unequal society. It may be more efficien= t=20 > and maximizing everyone's utility. Angus Deaton, a British health=20 > economist, has shown that there is a nonlinear increase in probability of= =20 > dying with decreasing income (Deaton, "Health Inequality and Economic=20 > Development",Working paper, Princeton University Research Program in=20 > Development Studies and Center for Health and Wellbeing, 2001). Meaning,= =20 > that if, at low levels of GNP, a small increase corresponds to a large=20 > increase in longevity, then taking some money from rich people will have = less=20 > effect on their mortality than giving the same money to the poor will aff= ect=20 > theirs. Therefore, other things being equal, a population with more=20 > egalitarian distribution of income will have better health than another w= ith=20 > the same average income but greater income inequality. > > > Here are some other articles attached for more discussion on the matter. > > --Michelle > --=20 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated until sometime after those creating it have left the organization." ---712164092-1771897789-1188796296=:3721--