Sam Pizzigati writes on inequality for the Institute for Policy Studies. His latest book is The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970. At Other
Words, he writes—The richest Americans now live 10-15 years longer than the poorest:
The life-expectancy gap between rich and poor in the United States is actually accelerating.
Since 2001, American men among the nation’s most affluent 5 percent have seen their lifespans increase by more than two years. American women in that bracket have registered an almost three-year extension to their life expectancy.
Meanwhile, the poorest 5 percent of Americans have seen essentially no gains at all.
Now a three-year gain in average lifespan might not, at first glance, seem earth-shakingly significant. But consider this: If doctors could by some miracle suddenly cure all cancer, federal health officials tell us, the average overall American life expectancy would increase by just three years.
In other words, as MIT’s Michael Stepner puts it, the changes in life expectancy we’ve witnessed over the last 15 years rank as “the equivalent of the richest Americans winning the war on cancer.” [...]
All these stats come from a study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This new research combines IRS tax records with Social Security Administration mortality data to paint a deeply unnerving picture of 21st-century life and death.
That poor Americans “have 10 or 15 fewer years of life,” notes Stepner, a co-author of the study, “really demonstrates the level of inequality we’ve had in the United States.”
So what do we do about this inequality?
Stepner and his colleagues belong to the “practical politics” camp. They see inequality as too entrenched to take head-on. Better, they advise, to spend money on social services for the poor and promote healthy behaviors like not smoking and eating wisely. Poor Americans, they note, live longer in unequal places — like New York City — that take this approach.
But other analysts are pushing back on this perspective. Focusing on the unhealthy behaviors of the poor, they argue, lets the rich — and their political pals — off the hook. [...]
Deeply unequal societies, researchers have documented over the past four decades, generate far more of these stresses than more equal societies. And this greater stress affects everyone, the affluent included. [...]
Amid all this stress, people will naturally seek relief. The affluent can afford to get this relief from behaviors that support their health. They can go to spas and country clubs. And if they should veer off onto some health-threatening path, they can always afford a stint in a luxury rehab center.
Poor people don’t have those options. So the gap between how long they live and how long the rich live continues to widen. If we want to change that dynamic, we have only one choice: We have to confront, not accept, inequality.
This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
HIGH IMPACT STORIES • TOP COMMENTS
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2007—"Partial Truth Abortion":
|
Many people hate the term "framing." I understand at least one of their fears: framing can turn into an excuse to substitute marketing for principles. In other words, instead of a technique to get a right-on message across, framing can dilute the message, contaminate and weaken the principle. In order to be more persuasive, what we're trying to be more persuasive about gets partially junked. It's a reasonable worry.
Other people, of course, argue that framing is merely a euphemism for marketing, which is a euphemism for manipulation, and no way in hell should progressive politics be marketed because to do so means selling out to the perniciously unprogressive idea that people should be manipulated into accepting any point of view.
Who can argue that we shouldn't manipulate people? Manipulation implies lying, and nothing could be less progressive than that.
However, framing or marketing, or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't have to be manipulative. In this world of blurbs and rapid-fire images, it seems to me we progressives are compelled to find not only the right message but the right way to deliver our message, or we might as well stick to our echo chambers. Sometimes that means quick and dirty. The Freeway Blogger knows this. As does any good political consultant.
Rightwingers have beaten us silly for decades with terms like "Tax and spend" Democrats. "Weak on defense" Democrats. And it seems to have taken us an interminably long time to learn how to effectively return fire. Last election cycle, we did this with great effect by means of "rubber-stamp Republicans."
|
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show, the new $20 bill was the early hot topic. Greg Dworkin wrapped up New York previewed the next primaries. Politics: part rules, part policy, part sociology, part psychology. Who’s trying to reform that New York party-switching deadline? Which reform is “progressive?”
On iTunes | On Stitcher | Support the show: Patreon; PayPal; PayPal Subscription
