We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Health is important with investing, not just wealth.

124»

Comments

  • StewedApple
    StewedApple Posts: 107 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    And yet two pages ago you wrote:-

    "I believe that we are looking at the lottery of life here, rather than a simple causal relationship." questioning why your experience differed from others in the same postcode. The data was in a very long time ago there is a direct correlation between poverty and poor health outcomes.

  • LHW99
    LHW99 Posts: 5,863 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper

    Or is the correlation between poor health outcomes and poverty? ie if you (from genetics, or other) have poor health, does that make you more likely to be poor? It seems likely, so rather a chicken and egg situation.

  • GeoffTF
    GeoffTF Posts: 2,814 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 16 August at 10:29PM

    Absolutely. I stand by that. There is a statistical correlation between income and longevity, but correlation is not causation. Some people live less long as a result of being poor. Sometimes it is the other way around: unhealthy people are more likely to be poor. (Employers are more likely to employ healthy people than unhealthy people. Healthy workers are likely to be able to earn more than unhealthy ones.) There are other factors affecting longevity too: intelligence, education, genetics, and upbringing to name a few. Some people are poor and stay poor. Others get rich. Nonetheless, there is a lot that we do not understand.

  • StewedApple
    StewedApple Posts: 107 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    Nope, that's a completely different argument from the relationship between poverty and poor health outcomes - but thank you for playing.

  • Eco_Miser
    Eco_Miser Posts: 5,148 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper

    You are saying that "the correlation between poor health outcomes and poverty" is a completely different argument from the relationship between poverty and poor health outcomes?

    In what way?

    Eco Miser
    Saving money for well over half a century
  • GeoffTF
    GeoffTF Posts: 2,814 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 17 August at 8:52AM

    If you knew only one of these facts, what would you conclude about my life expectancy:

    • I have a high income and very high net asset value.
    • I have very low expenditure.
    • I live in the most deprived ward of a deprived postcode.
    • I live in a well maintained detached house in a quiet street with friendly neighbours and lots of green space.
    • I used to live in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea.
  • GeoffTF
    GeoffTF Posts: 2,814 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper

    What about Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE)? That is where high earners live like paupers and invest the money that they save to retire early, or only accept employment on their own terms. Are they shortening their lives by making themselves temporarily poor, or are they extending their lives by making themselves wealthy?

  • InvesterJones
    InvesterJones Posts: 1,858 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper

    Exactly, or indeed there could be a third factor (or more) that causes both poor health and poverty (for e.g. unemployment). It's very hard to tease out single factor causes, it's a complex picture which intervention studies try and address but every environment is different.

  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 11,664 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 17 August at 9:20AM

    No the science is clear and unequivocal - poor people live shorter lives and suffer poor health for longer.

    the science is incontrovertible

    There is a difficulty here that you are quoting data and calling it 'science'.

    The data is clear and generally unequivocal, but as GeoffTF pointed out correlation does not prove causation.

    The links between health outcomes an a whole range of factors - including wealth - is not fully understood, and therefore it is wrong to claim "the science is incontrovertible".

    If things are going to be called 'incontrovertible' then we need to be more precise about what is being described. For example, you use the word "poor", but much of the research is around "poverty". These two terms are not interchangeable. And to have any real meaning the discussion needs to move towards "relative poverty", and then define what "poverty" really means.

    I come at this from studying the effect of deprivation on road traffic accidents, and why certain demographics were over represented in casualty statistics. There were a lot of theories, but the science was absolutely not incontrovertible.

    (Edit for formatting)

This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 355.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 456K Spending & Discounts
  • 248.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.9K Life & Family
  • 263.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.