Seriously?

It’s a huge logical leap to say that subjective testing leads to a change in a physiological variable, which is “thought” to be linked to a probabalistic (not determinstic) event (death by heart failure) which clearly has many other more significant factors at play.

Then using this specific cause of death as a generalisation for life expectancy, you make another huge logical leap and tell me that inequality kills?

What total and utter tripe.

By the same logical leaps I could argue almost anything.

I see Tyler is duty troll today.

“unequal societies are almost always unhealthy societies”

What equal societies were used for comparison purpose?

I have to say that it feels as if the study above is being made out to be a bigger deal than it is. Although at the same time inequality obviously kills. Poverty is associated with shorter life expectancy even in developed countries.

Tyler
Suggest reading the paper. Yes CHD is rarer than the ‘stress-related impaired cardiac autonomic control’ induced by the intervention and ‘predictions’ are always fraught (the proverbial granny who smoked til she was 90, never a day’s sickness etc etc) but the authors do not overstate their case; ‘Our findings provide evidence of a link between perceived unfairness and heart rate variability. The latter is an indicator of stress-related impaired cardiac autonomic control, which has been shown to predict coronary heart diseases in the long run. Establishing a causal link between unfair pay and heart rate variability therefore uncovers a mechanism of how perceptions of unfairness can adversely affect cardiovascular health’. So the paper on its own does not prove inequality kills – we have that evidence in spades from elsewhere (eg from Marmot; ‘Fair Society, Healthy Lives’ and the preceding WHO ‘Closing the gap in a generation’ report), but it does offer insight into the physiological mechanisms of the widely observed phenomenon.

The key thing is to pay workers enough so that they are not thinking about money and then give them autonomy over their work tasks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

That is how the new economy IT type firms operate and why they have grown and yet still retain the loyalty of their workers. I am pretty sure that autonomous workers would have a lower HRV if they were tested.

@2. Yes, quite right. No argument or political debate needed any more. It’s science innit. Case closed, we have to have a Labour Government. I don’t know why Cameron doesn’t just resign out of shame and beg Labour to take its rightful place in power.

Inequality is fairness. The rich our our betters. Tyler is a God.

I see Tyler is duty troll today.

Was Tim Worstall given time off?

Sunny I see you have time to make smart remarks but not enough to answer direct questions on other threads.

As Chris’s final paragraph makes clear, the class of people with a grievance is not co-terminous with the class of the poor. There are plenty of people – particularly in the third world – who are are dirt poor and perceive inequality but are not aggrieved by it; and there are numerous people in the UK who have a deep sense of grievance but have riches beyond the dreams of avarice (at least compared to a third world peasant). In part, the lesson here is that negative emotions can kill you, so don’t let your sense of injustice make you aggrieved.

@ 2 and 8:

That’s just defining ‘troll’ as ‘someone who disagrees with me’.

“That’s just defining ‘troll’ as ‘someone who disagrees with me’.”

Agreed. Tyler raised genuine points, and apparently the response to that is to shout “troll” then run away.

This reminds me of something I heard about years ago, about a study that was done into why senior Whitehall officials have longer life expectancy that ones who didn’t make it far up the career ladder. Had something to do with heart function then, too.

@12

Tyler’s points could have been answered had he even bothered to read the abstract linked to.

He’s a troll.

Doesn’t this assume that inequality = unfair? This is not neccessarily the case. Most people would think it reasonable that someone who works longer hours or has a more stressful job or works unsocial hours deserves more rewards leading to inequality.

A fanciful post indeed. First, it is now widely known that Wilkinson and Pickett’s work has been discredited by many working in the same field (Ken Judge being an early critic). Low income can affect health of course, but inequality, by itself, cannot affect much at all. How could the fact that my neighbours earn 10% more than myself make me ill exactly? And even if this gnawed away at my soul, why would this be their fault? Or society’s fault? Several years ago, a colleague at work complained of another earning more than him. The other person was working many hours overtime. I recommended that if the situation bothered him that much, why did he not do the same amount of overtime himself, to which he replied: I can’t be bothered. The circumstances vexed him, yet there was no injustice of any kind. Indeed, there is always the distinctive possibility that more justice would lead to more inequality – a notion that the left will refuse to entertain. For what is it that truly bothers us? The existence of the (relatively) poor, or the existence of the rich? If the left truly cared as to the fate of the poor, they would have heeded Alexis De Tocqueville’s remarks from 1833, and viewed the welfare system as the enemy of the poor, thereby becoming conservatives in an instant. In other words, only a conservative can truly care about the poor. It is impossible for a left-winger to do so.

What it shows me is that societies in which elites are protected and meritocracy does not reign are unhealthy and inefficient. That’s not quite the same thing.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

15
When ‘equality’ is discussed in an academic document it usually refers to equality of opportunity not of outcome.
Although I think you are being somewhat naive if you are suggesting that people who work the hardest or do unsocial hours receive the highest rewards.

This study isn’t even wrong. The experiment has nothing to do with the hypothesis and, if it has any explanatory power at all, only tells us that those pushing this crap are lacking in either brains or honesty.

It may or may not be be that inequality has has negative effects of the sort described but this is on the same level as “immigrants cause house price collapse!!!!!”.

Hmm, I see that many have gone the typical lefty route and shouted “troll” as soon as someone disagrees with their firmly held belief. It’s the same Pavlovian response which leads many to shout racist every time immigration is discussed.

As for the article, I was merely trying to point out that it is patently ridiculous to suggest that a specific defined “inequality” tested in this manner, then linked to lifespan, CANNOT be extrapolated to more general “inequality” bias to lifespan. if nothing else, there are simply too many factors and variables to consider, and this study’s results are simply coincidental to the real world – not contributory.

((If nothing else, the results shouldn’t be that surprising. Working harder in more stressful environments tends to reduce your lifespan, lowering HRV. There was a study of city traders in NYC a few years ago, and they displayed similar results, but you couldn’t exactly accuse them of being poorly paid.))

@18

I suspect the OP is referring to inequality of outcome, but he doesn’t make this clear.

Also nowhere in my post did I say that those working longest or unsocial hours will automatically receive more rewards.

@Tyler

Of course some inequalities lead to longer lifespans. You are likely to live longer, statistically, than an intelligent person because you are so fucking stupid. Unless you walk under a bus while trying to remember whether it’s breath in or breath out this time.

@ Chaise

““unequal societies are almost always unhealthy societies”

What equal societies were used for comparison purpose?”

There are no perfectly equal societies (of course), but there are societies that are more equal and societies that are more unequal.

What the Spirit Level authors usually did was to compare both more and less equal countries, and more and less equal U.S. states.

A summary of the evidence on health is here:

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/physical-health

(Agree with Fungus @ 15 that the OP seems to be conflating inequality and unfairness. What if the ‘worker’ feels an equal 50-50 split is nonetheless unfair because he’s doing the lion’s share of the work?)

This study was carried out amongst fewer than 80 HEALTHY university students.
Why did a stressor (pay issue) produce lower variability heart rate – presumably because of a TRANSIENT effect on the vagus nerve amongst the otherwise healthy students?

Other studies report, “A single 4 mg dose of nicotine decreases heart rate variability in healthy non-smokers” while it seems there are “changes in heart rate variability after adenotonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea”.

Meanwhile there seems to be an “association between anxiety disorders and heart rate variability” plus an “association between major depressive disorder and heart rate variability”.

Hell, there is even “stress and heart rate variability in surgeons during a 24-Hour shift” as well as “heritability of ambulatory heart rate variability”.

According to Decker at al [2000] “Low heart rate variability (HRV) is associated with a higher risk of death in patients with heart disease and in elderly subjects and with a higher incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population”.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/102/11/1239

The key trigger to lower variability (of HR) seems to be a stressor of some sort (and maybe a genetic component) – so how on earth do we unravel the frequency and intensity of such experiences, or more importantly, the SIGNIFICANCE of these events given that different individuals will respond in entirely different ways to similar stressors?

This may be is a very interesting paper but it is hardly PROOF not least because stressors (such as the type experienced by surgeons) are universal and the poor old heart cannot distinguish between vagal stimulation from low pay or vagal stimulation from a hectic operating schedule?

@ 23 G.O.

“What the Spirit Level authors usually did was to compare both more and less equal countries, and more and less equal U.S. states. ”

OK, fair enough.

Thre’s a logical leap here which isn’t justified.

“They found that “workers” who felt they were unfairly paid”

OK, unfairness.

“inequality really is bad for health.”

Inequality.

Unfairness and inequality are not the same thing. In order to make that connection it is necessary to prove that people perceive inequality as being unfair. For only then do we get the connection between inequality and the heart problems/health outcomes.

Damned if I can find it right now but there was a survey of what Brits do consider to be fair or unfair a few weeks back. And inequality per se was not considered to be unfair. Inequality of opportunity, yes, but not inequality of outcome.

Which (if I’ve remembered the survey I can’t find correctly) means that inequality purely as inequality doesn’t cause ill health through the mechanism proposed.

@ 22 Cherub

Poor little lefty doesn’t like it when he’s obviously wrong? Retorts with ad hominem attacks?

Thanks for proving my point. You so called progressives (and I do wonder, given how spiteful “progressives” seem to be) are so predictable.

@ 23 G.O.

I would be a little careful with the spirit level. They were widely criticised as they had a tendancy to remove data points which didn’t fit in with their hypothesis. Effectively fudging some of the data to fit the result they wanted.

@ 24 A+E

I agree entirely with you on this one. It’s interesting, but all it proves is that percieved unfairness might decrease HRV. It’s an unwarranted logical leap, with no proof from this study, that inequality then decreases lifespans.

Just as an aside – inequality and unfairness clearly might well affect lifespan and health outcomes. It’s just that this new study doesn’t prove anything of the sort.

@ Tyler

“I would be a little careful with the spirit level. They were widely criticised as they had a tendancy to remove data points which didn’t fit in with their hypothesis.”

If I recall correctly, the criticisms you’re talking about came from a couple of sources outside of the peer-reviewed literature and the Spirit Level authors’ responses were quite persuasive. But maybe I’m out of date.

(I know ‘appeals to authority’ don’t automatically shut down criticism, but generally speaking, if you’re not in a position to assess evidence/arguments yourself due to a lack of expertise, it makes sense to give more weight to /aguments that have been reviewed by experts in the field and deemed suitable for publication in journals with rigorous academic standards and a reputation to uphold.)

@ 28 G.O.

I’d have a quick look at this site;

http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

Long/short is that the spirit level has been roundly criticised by scientists and economists at both the right and left wing ends of the political spectrum. It’s just not very good science (not testing for causality, removing data points which don’t fit etc), apart from some other less salubrious things the authors have done.

Or a quicker parsing of whats been said about the spirit level on wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

@ 29

“removing data points which don’t fit ”

Christ. That’s not science, that’s liesmithing.

“Christ. That’s not science, that’s liesmithing.”

Quite, One of their contentions is that inequality causes long working hours. They show this with a chart.

But despite the fact that Japan is in all of their other charts, Japan isn’t in this one.

For Japan has low income inequality (what they are using as one measure) but very high working hours.

Odd that they leave Japan out of that one, isn’t it?

@ 31 Chaise

Quite – one big point of contention is that they were rather selective about which countries they used in different data sets. Adding those countries back in changed their regression analysis in most cases – several people have done it using OECD data.

I’m sure the Snowden blog I link to above will be derided by some on the Left but he does provide a good description of where he and others have found where the spirit level goes wrong. The wiki page also briefly mentions many of the criticisms of the book.

@31 Chaise

You really need to do more research than looking at a few righty websites before reaching such a conclusion. It’s quite normal to remove data points or ignore them if they are statistically invalid. In doing so you would need to explain the statistical test used.

I found The Spirit Level interesting but flawed in that they used a bit too much simplification for me. Much disagreement from their peers is along such lines. They were even cited by well-know lefty David Cameron at one point.

Of course the right-wing zealots cannot have evidence against the purity of their mission so the usual bunch of mad geography teachers and so on made loads of websites suggesting conspiracies etc.

Pffft, all criticism of the Spirit Level have been addressed and debunked by the authors. Funnily enough most of the criticisms come from people with vested interests (right-wing think tanks who hate the idea of inequality, mostly).

@ 34 Cherub

“You really need to do more research than looking at a few righty websites before reaching such a conclusion. It’s quite normal to remove data points or ignore them if they are statistically invalid.”

Um, removing data points because they don’t support the conclusion you want to get isn’t statistical good practice, it’s cheating. If the claims made by Tim and Tyler are accurate, then the Spirit Level doesn’t care about whether or not it gets accurate answers. If the claims aren’t correct, I’m reacting to a lie and my comment can be withdrawn.

(further to my comment @35, interested parties should go here for the authors’ response to critics.)

Go on, Chaise, from what you know, on the balance of probabilities alone, are Tyler and Timmy likely to be anywhere near telling the truth about this?

“Go on, Chaise, from what you know, on the balance of probabilities alone, are Tyler and Timmy likely to be anywhere near telling the truth about this?”

Ever so slightly hurt by that.

I know I have different opinions on how to get to our shared mutual desire (you know, that greener, richer, world thing) but I was unaware that I had a reputation as a liar…..

@38

“Go on, Chaise, from what you know, on the balance of probabilities alone, are Tyler and Timmy likely to be anywhere near telling the truth about this?”

A classic ad hominem!

Let’s debate the issues, not the people…

@ 38 Cherub

“Go on, Chaise, from what you know, on the balance of probabilities alone, are Tyler and Timmy likely to be anywhere near telling the truth about this?”

Tim does actually seem to know what he’s talking about a lot of the time (I’m not saying he’s right, but I don’t think he’s ignorant) and I don’t have enough experience of Tyler to judge. TBH, there seems to be a trend where Tyler makes a reasonable point but is immediately shouted down as a troll. I genuinely don’t know whether that’s based on his past behaviour or whether its just commenters getting cliquey and defensive about the OP.

34. Cherub – “It’s quite normal to remove data points or ignore them if they are statistically invalid. In doing so you would need to explain the statistical test used.”

Sure but you need to justify removing them. Given the woeful lack of statistical sophistication found in the Spirit Level (that is, less than I would expect from a Second Year psychology student) how do you know they had a good reason to do so? Take Tim Worstall’s point about Japanese working hours. Can you please explain what is statistically invalid about considering Japan too? Where have they explained the test?

“Of course the right-wing zealots cannot have evidence against the purity of their mission so the usual bunch of mad geography teachers and so on made loads of websites suggesting conspiracies etc.”

I see. Mad geography teachers? Would this include Peter Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Sussex University? Who claimed:

only one of the correlations in the book – that between infant mortality and income inequality – stood up to scrutiny, and that the rest were either false or ambiguous.[28]

35. Mr S. Pill – “Pffft, all criticism of the Spirit Level have been addressed and debunked by the authors.”

Not very well though.

“Funnily enough most of the criticisms come from people with vested interests (right-wing think tanks who hate the idea of inequality, mostly).”

Funny enough most of the praise comes from people with vested interests too (it would be uncharitable to say they were all Stalinists at left wing think tanks who hate the idea of freedom, mostly).

Well, yes, I find the idea of failed geography teachers amusing. If you can’t teach colouring in, get some Koch funding and off you go…

I did say that I found problems with The Spirit Level, though I’m not an expert. There has been widespread discussion about the book by others in the field, and from what I last read the biggest issue they took was that the book oversimplified.

There is always a risk of confirmation bias in one’s reaction to books such as this. However the research referred to in the OP goes some small way towards a mechanism by which some of the issues raised in the book may arise. As always, science is slow, incremental and hopefully self-correcting.