Health is important with investing, not just wealth.

Eco_Miser

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105132#Comment_82105132

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?

GeoffTF

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

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82105092#Comment_82105092

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82104651#Comment_82104651

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)

GeoffTF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation