I have only begun to watch and must interject; I will probably have more to add later. At 0:48, Professor Wilkinson shows a chart of Life Expectancy vs Gross National Income per head. In the 18 seconds the chart appears, the audience has time to think “Those lucky Japanese! I should eat more rice” or “Wow, Norway is just as rich as USA” or “Hm, I didn’t know Israel was that poor.” The professor says This is a fair description of the chart. Almost all the countries shown have life expectancy between 78 and 80 years. I wonder if anyone in the audience thought “Hm, what about Bangladesh? Where is Nigeria?” When discussing bicycle helmet laws, or mandatory retirement age, or the effect of salt on diet, it is customary to talk about the “Western” nations, English-speaking North America and Western Europe, that have roughly similar values and developmental history. Why do we leave out the rest of the world? Because the rest of the world is relatively poor. Poverty makes life outcomes worse. It is ridiculous to talk about bike helmets when people are fighting malaria. Among wealthy nations, we debate whether the latest exercise fad can make us even healthier and live even longer. I can’t find a chart image similar to the one in this presentation, strangely. They all look like this chart of the Preston Curve: By focusing on the wealthy countries in the top right, Wilkinson conceals the obvious relationship between income and life expectancy. Gapminder has a colorful PDF chart. Maybe he will point this out a little later in the presentation? I feel like an impostor all the time. This guy is on TV, his book has appeared in ten languages, he studied at the London School of Economics. I publish in one language on Hubski.com while wearing pajamas in my bedroom. By any reasonable standard of authority, it is ridiculous that I would have anything to add to the conversation.
And you see the countries on the right, like Norway and the USA, are twice as rich as Israel, Greece, Portugal on the left. And it makes no difference to their life expectancy at all.
I feel like an impostor all the time. This guy is on TV, his book has appeared in ten languages, he studied at the London School of Economics. I publish in one language on Hubski.com while wearing pajamas in my bedroom. By any reasonable standard of authority, it is ridiculous that I would have anything to add to the conversation.
I'm going to add that quotation to my workshop materials which I am writing in one language in my pajames in a basement apartment in Vancouver. I should feel like an imposter, and probably will if I don't get this work finished today. Bartender, more coffee.
I also felt the charts went by way to fast and several times I stopped the video just to get a look at the chart. I understood better as he went on.I wonder if anyone in the audience thought “Hm, what about Bangladesh? Where is Nigeria?
He was comparing "advanced market economies" or something like that.
You're right, he was only looking at "rich" countries. That's why I find his presentation strange. If you want to understand how digital music downloads affect CD sales, you can safely ignore subsistence farmers who don't use electricity. But if you want to understand the relationship between income and health, why exclude countries with low income? That's half of the story. He says people who live in rich countries have good health on average, while ignoring people who live in poor countries. But when he looks within one country, he doesn't ignore the poor, and seems surprised to find that the rich in that country do better. In his words: In my words: If you look at only rich countries, you find that they all have good average health. In his words: In my words: If you look at all the people in England and Wales, you find that the rich ones have the best health, and the poor have worse health. It's not a surprise to find that low income is associated with lower health standards. If we want to improve health, we should fight poverty. "Inequality" gets the blame, and I don't understand this. If plants in the garden are thriving, and the plants in the closet are wilting, do we say "unequal access to sunlight" is the problem? Do the wealthy people "take away" the health of the poor people? Do they take away money from the poor people? I never get clear answers to these questions.He was comparing "advanced market economies" or something like that.
This shows you life expectancy against gross national income -- how rich countries are on average. And you see the countries on the right, like Norway and the USA, are twice as rich as Israel, Greece, Portugal on the left. And it makes no difference to their life expectancy at all. There's no suggestion of a relationship there.
But if we look within our societies, there are extraordinary social gradients in health running right across society. This, again, is life expectancy. These are small areas of England and Wales -- the poorest on the right, the richest on the left. A lot of difference between the poor and the rest of us. Even the people just below the top have less good health than the people at the top.
Not the people, per se, but the system. He does seem to be implying that the gap is what is causing all the problems and closing the gap -- by redistributing wealth or taxing the rich or just not allowing it -- results in better outcomes across all kinds of parameters. Maybe it also changes ways of thinking and ways of seeing and naming problems. That's what he seems to be saying, yes. Close the gap, not just fight poverty -- fight wealth as well. It's not just that some plants are in the closet, but the ones in the light need more shade. I'm not an economist, and my bottom line is I wish I knew more. I like Paul Graham very much, but haven't read his piece yet. Too much great stuff to read... I'm still working on the big bang article from Harpters last week.Do the wealthy people "take away" the health of the poor people? Do they take away money from the poor people? I never get clear answers to these questions.
I think we have a mental image of an anonymous "wealthy capitalist" who takes away from the system. The wealthy people whose names we know become wealthy by contributing. Bill Gates directed the creation of software that became extremely popular. People were happy to exchange their money for Windows. Madonna is worth almost a billion dollars. People were happy to exchange their money for her music. She did not have to extract anything from the system, and the music world is richer for her contributions. I mentioned folk hero Jacques Cousteau earlier. He made money inventing and selling scuba gear. That's fine, right? Would it become bad if he sold a lot more scuba gear, and made a lot more divers happy, and became a billionaire? Some wealthy people use legal leverage to dodge competition, or deceive customers into making decisions they will regret, but I don't think that's the norm. When the law gives unfair advantage, the law should be reformed. "Fight wealth as well" seems misguided. Poor people have a little wealth too, let's not fight them. Well-intended changes meant to close the gap can hurt everyone (e.g. by stifling innovation, as Paul Graham argues, adding "economic inequality per se is not bad"). Bill Gates already paid more in taxes than the rest of us combined, and what he has left he is spending in the fight against disease and poverty. He is not alone. If the "wealthy plants" need more shade they can take care of themselves. We do best by helping the poor become less poor, continuing the beneficial, positive trend that been continuing since the Industrial Revolution. I wanted to link to a chart of rising incomes here, but when I search for "global income history" all the links are about inequality. That's all anyone wants to talk about.