Engels, if this were true—or rather, if there was a clear and established relationship between income inequality and status (and assuming status inequality negatively affects health)—then it would have shown up in the data. But it hasn’t. From Deaton’s paper:

Mellor and Milyo (2001) use data for the 48 continental states from five census years, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, and reproduce the strong hazardous effect of the gini coefficient on all cause mortality when only year dummies, the age composition of the state, and median income are included as controls….

The inclusion of controls for the average level of education in each state eliminates the significance of the gini coefficient and, once the authors include controls for the fractions of people in each state who are urbanized and who are black, the gini coefficient attracts a negative sign, though one that is not significantly different from zero…

If we recalculate the gini coefficients so as to measure only inequality among whites, the effects are further reduced, to 0.6 for men, and 0.4 for women, and only the former is (marginally) significantly different from zero. This result means that the effect of inequality on whites comes, not from the inequality of white incomes, but from the inequality between whites and blacks, raising the suspicion that the effect has more to do with race than with income inequality. This should suggest that there are serious inequalities worth attending to, such as racial inequalities, but income inequality isn’t really one of them, at least insofar as we are concerned only about health. There may of course be other reasons to reduce income inequality.

Bigmacattack – I know Marmot’s study was about status inequalities and I clearly said it was. The passage you quote does not say that “status can not be redistributed”. Is it too much to ask that you read these things?

[btw: Is it really worth arguing with someone who writes about adult literacy but cannot spell “expectancy” and thinks “criteria” is a singular noun?]

As it happens the nationmaster stats have Denmark and the US tied on life expectancy at birth for whole pop. at 77. Nearly all other developed OECD countries do better than the US both on gini and on life expectancy.

The study you link to is about the impact of status not income on health. And the summary of this study concludes that status cannot be re-distributed and instead reccomends more autonomy for those with less status.

I politley suggested you were not totally familiar with the study you claimed irrefutablely demonstrated that income inequality impacts health. No, actually worse, I have made the context perfectly clear –
‘Rather, I am arguing, that measuring the difference in impact of US inequality GINI 45 vs French inequality GINI 32.7, on each nation’s poorest citzens is going to be next to impossible. That is what I mean when I say vague and nebulous impact of income inequality.’

Given that, a suggestion that you are not familiar with the data, is polite. Perhaps ad hominem but polite.

First off, do they have lower incomes because they are less healthy or the other way around?

Second, even if they have poor health because they have low incomes, what is the causal mechanism? It seem obvious that it would be lack of access to health care, but that’s disputable. Health care access has a very small impact on mortality or disability rates across entire populations. This paper reviews a series of studies which find this surprising result.

You might say “it’s status inequalities.” I would probably agree and add it’s also poor nutrition and less exercise. But income inequality in itself has a tenuous connection to these things.

Deaton is disputing a more contentious claim, associated with Wilkinson, that there is a direct link between inequality and societal health outcomes, a contextual effect of inequality on the whole of society. If Deaton is right, his criticisms do not touch the first claim and they also do not settle the issue of whether there is a link (which could be indirect) between income inequality and societal health outcomes. There are other mechanisms through which this could arise, apart from the direct effect which Deaton disputes, for example, non-linearity of the relation at the individual level referred to above.

Bigmacattack –
The very brief summary the data Engels links to claims as much… which suggests to me that Engel’s familarity with ‘pretty sizable literature’ on the subject might not be all that great.

No, it doesn’t: maybe you should read it again. Do you have any arguments, or just vacuous ad hominem insults?

abb1 – Egalitarians do not have to choose between arguments for equality. Health inequalities are to me more obviously unfair than financial inequalities. Financial inequalities translate into health inequalities. This fact is important.

I would also like to point, again, that I am not aguing that inequality doesn’t matter.

Rather, I am arguing, that measuring the difference in impact of US inequality GINI 45 vs French inequality GINI 32.7, on each nation’s poorest citzens is going to be next to impossible. That is what I mean when I say vague and nebulous impact of income inequality.

Again, these nations do a very good job providing for their citizens, I definitely think they can do better, I do not think the US is all that much different in this regard.

Abb1,

Well what is the weather like in hell today? Do you know hell’s zipcode? If you do, we could check with Yahoo.

Oh, wow, who would’ve thunk? I’m in full agreement.

The very brief summary the data Engels links to claims as much –
‘The book argues that human hierarchies cannot be eliminated. But since their consequences for health vary vastly from place to place, the differences between those at the top and the bottom can be made smaller. It is possible to reduce the disparity in the lifespan of a boss and his workers. But how? Sir Michael suggests giving people greater autonomy and social cohesion rather than raising their pay or improving their access to medical services. In concrete terms, that might translate into fewer working hours or more flexible working. Those looking for a quick fix, however, will be sorry to find that job-title inflation—from, say, secretary to personal assistant—is unlikely to help.’

Which suggests to me that Engel’s familarity with
‘pretty sizable literature’ on the subject might not be all that great.

I think a much better argument for greater income equality is somehting like, an honest days pay for an honest days work.

Thanks for the lonk looks free. I hope have time to at least skim it.

Bigmacattack – Are you aware that there is a pretty sizable literature on just this issue and it pretty much refutes what you are saying? This argument does not have to proceed by unsupported assertions. The impact of status inequalities on life expectancy is well documented (by eg. Marmot).

Well, gee, Chris, if income levels are irrelavent, what exactly was the point of your post?

Denmark ranks 3rd in GINI and behind the US in life expetancy. I am pretty sure regression analysis of life expectancy and GINI amongst OEDC wouldn’t indicate a correlation.

Culture not GINI is what matters for that other criteria.

(Check out the adult literacy scores for the English speaking nations. You immediately think methodology or culture.)

The impact, if any, of income inequality on these other measures is vague and nebulous at best.

When comparing and contrasting the advanced capitalist nations what is striking is not the level of inequality, what is striking is how well they all provide for all their citizens.

Most ordinary people can see this without having to parse through this or that study.

Touché