Home > Economics, Geeky > No wonder NeoCons hate the social sciences

No wonder NeoCons hate the social sciences

December 18, 2005

Selected quotes from December ‘05 Scientific American article, “Sick of poverty” (Robert Sapolsky), a review of studies that correlate SES, or Socio-Economic status, with ill health, control for epidemiological factors such as lifestyle, and develop a useful analysis:

“Of the Western nations, the U.S. has the steepest gradient; for example, one study showed that the poorest white males in America die about a decade earlier than the richest…

Our body’s response, though adaptive for an acute physical stressor, is pathogenic for prolonged psychosocial stress…

It is not a subtle statistical phenomenon.  When you compare the highest versus lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, the risk of some diseases varies 10-fold.

An extensive biomedical literature has established that individuals are more likely to activate a stress response and are more at risk for a stress-sensitive disease if they (a) feel as if they have minimal control over stressors, (b) feel as if they have no predictive information about the duration and intensity of the stressor, (c) have few outlets for the frustration caused by the stressor, (d) interpret the stressor as evidence of circumstances worsening, and (e) lack social support for the duress caused by the stressors…

…low control in the workplace accounts for about half of the SES gradient in cardiovascular disease…

…Adler’s work suggests that the objective state of being poor adversely affects health, at the core of that result is the subjective state of feeling poor

…Wilkenson has shown… that decreased income inequality predicts better health for both the poor and the wealthy…

…the more unequal the income is in a community, the more incentive the wealthy will have to oppose public expenditures benefiting the health of the community…

…Social capital refers to the broad levels of trust and efficacy in a community.  Do people generally trust one another and help one another out?  Do people feel an incentive to take care of commonly held resources (for example, to clean up graffiti in public parks)?  And do people feel that their organizations – such as unions or tenant associations – actually have an impact?  Most studies of social capital employ two simple measures, namely, ow many organizations people belong to and how people answer a question such as, “Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance?”

…the strongest route from income inequality to poor health is through the social capital measures

…As a culture, America has neglected its social safety nets while making it easier for the most successful to sit atop the phyramids of inequality.  Moreover, we have chosen to forgo the social capital that comes from small, stable communities in exchange for unprecedented opportunities for mobility and anonymity.  As a result, all measures of social epidemiology are worsening in the U.S.  Of Westernized nations, America has the greatest income inequality (40 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1 percent of the population) and the greatest discrepancy between expenditures on health care (number one in the world) and life expectancy (as of 2003, number 29).”

It’s a fascinating read, but not comfortable padding for the conservative couch.  No wonder the current crop hate science – it keeps leading to conclusions that their ideology doesn’t like.  The December issue of Scientific American should still be on the newsstands – or you could swing by the library – if you want to tackle it.

Categories: Economics, Geeky
  1. December 20, 2005 at 19:38 | #1

    “Of the Western nations, the U.S. has the steepest gradient; for example, one study showed that the poorest white males in America die about a decade earlier than the richest…

    I have not read this report but it does sound interesting. I would be interested to know if the researchers touched on the decisions made by the poor that caused their bad health. For example, drug and alcohol abuse are much more common among the poor than the wealthier people. This fact alone would account for an earlier death. And, of couse I doubt that there were any mention of why the people were poor-such as drug and alcohol abuse, refusal to get an education, poor work habits, and in some cases just down right being sorry human beings. This sounds more like another soak the rich and give it to the poor scheme but I am going to read the report.

  2. December 20, 2005 at 20:13 | #2

    I would be interested to know if the researchers touched on the decisions made by the poor that caused their bad health.

    Apparently they do account for the statistical impact of all the factors you mentioned and a few others, in an attempt to separate the effects of the SES gradient from those factors.

    I must admit I looked up a lot of words as I am pretty weak on statistics, and the math is just beyond me.  Took me a while to figure out what the hell “asymptotic” means and how it relates to the study, f’rinstance.  My brains are turning to mush these days and I wish I’d studied harder in school.

    My own bias is that “giving to the poor” doesn’t do them any good at all, but that improving the infrastructure of education, health-care, law-enforcement, etc. probably helps them a lot.  I really like Bill Cosby’s take on black culture, for instance.  But the health effects of SES disparity are apparently not limited to any racial group.

    This sounds more like another soak the rich and give it to the poor scheme but I am going to read the report.

    After you read it, come back and write about it!  Or put a post on your own blog and put a link here in the comments, whichever you want.

Comments are closed.