There are many diseases that have been basically eradicated from rich countries because they are easy to cure with modern medicine, but they persist in poor nations for the lack of money for basic treatments. For example, I’ll be taking students to Guatemala next semester and the CDC recommends getting the typhoid vaccine for travelers to rural parts of Guatemala. It is really cheap to treat typhoid with antibiotics and prevent it with sanitation, and that is why typhoid was basically eradicated in the USA decades ago, but it keeps getting reintroduced every year by travelers who pick it up in poor countries.
If every country were rich, Typhoid would probably be eradicated already because it only lives in human hosts. As would cholera, leprosy, hookworm, dracunculiasis and many other parasites and diseases that middle-class people can easily afford to cure. In a world where everyone has a middle-class income, many infectious diseases would have been eradicated by the ordinary efforts of middle-class individuals to avoid the disease. These diseases have only survived due to reservoirs of poverty where they have found refuge. Without poverty there would be no need for a decades-long Global Polio Eradication campaign. Middle class people would have eradicated it on their own initiative.
Middle-class society eradicated the bedbug mostly through individual efforts. It disappeared from large swathes of the world for decades, but it survived in places of poverty where it became resistant to insecticides and now it has bounced back into the beds of hotels of every income level around the world. If everywhere had had a middle-class income during the insecticide era, the bedbug would be extinct today, and probably head lice too. Middle-class areas are so good at eliminating malaria, I’d bet that it would have been eradicated long ago too if everywhere were middle class. What other diseases would have been inadvertently eradicated by individual actions if everyone in the world had been middle class?
A property right is the right to exclude others’ access to something. It is the right to infringe on others’ freedom. These rights are socially determined and vary greatly across different societies. For example, do you think you should own the property right to your own genetic information or do you think your employer owns it? A new bill, HR 1313, would give your employer a partial property right over your genetic code. Employees who violate that right would have to pay an annual fine sort of like the fine you would pay for trespassing on someone else’s lawn. Right now you own your own genetic information and if an employer would want to see it, they would have to pay you to transfer some of the intellectual property rights. Employers would love to know the genetic code of their employees because it could help them determine who to get rid of. Employers want the most productive people and anyone who is at a heightened genetic risk of a major disease would not only reduce productivity by missing work, but by bringing down morale too. Furthermore, because of America’s unique employer-centric health insurance system, employers have to pay higher insurance costs if their employees are sicker than average and that gives them an extra incentive to do genetic screening.
The fact that this is even being discussed–let alone voted on–shows how far political power has moved away from the median worker towards the owners of capital as inequality has risen. Gattaca, here we come. Julia Belluz has more details.
Raj Chetty et al. published a study of the correlation of class and life expectancy that got a lot of press, but I hadn’t actually looked at the original publication until this week. Here is the correlation between life expectancy and class:
Richer people live longer. And the gap between the life expectancy has been growing. It is visible even in just a 13 year time period:
MELI helps track both life expectancy and income and it would help track this kind of change.
Interest in median income is much bigger in the US compared with the rest of the world according to Google Search Trends.
Perhaps the US is more interested in median income because, as Brian Nolan, Max Roser, and Stefan Thewissen say, “the USA a clear outlier… the USA is quite distinctive in its combination of a striking GDP-median divergence and very little growth in the median” compared with all the other OECD nations.
But median income still isn’t nearly as popular as GDP in overall Google searches in the US:
One of the big problems with our official median income statistics is that the government only estimates the median income of households and we care about the welfare of people, not households. Household size has dropped which has tended to make median household income undercount the welfare of individuals because fewer people are dividing up household income. The graph below shows how the approximate average number of people per household has been declining:
If we divide median household income by the average number of people per household, we can get the approximate median income per person in the US.
This isn’t the best way to calculate this because it will have some aggregation errors due to using the average household size rather than dividing up each household’s income, but it is better than using the raw median household income data. The other things this doesn’t include are government taxes and transfers, the value of private benefits like employer-provided health insurance, and the imputed rent from owner-occupied housing.
Adjusting for household size doesn’t actually change much in the data since 1990 because the average household size has been very stable, but it would have been useful in the 1950s and 60s. In the available FRED data, there is less than a 2% difference between the two.
In any case, as with median household income it is a better indicator of economic welfare than real mean GDP:
Last December, the Census Bureau released official maps showing median income growth by county since the Great Recession began in 2007.
Too bad we don’t have data for 2016 yet. It might be interesting to use it to analyze voting patterns in the election. I don’t know why the high prairie has fared so well, but there is some correlation between oil and gas drilling and rising median income:
The Equality of Opportunity Project has a new data set about the earnings of college graduates and the incomes of their parents which I used for the following table. I selected the schools that my 18-year old has visited (underlined below) as well as a few others for comparison. Bluffton University looks pretty good by the ratio of the median income of our graduates divided by the median income of the families that paid for their education. We do better than any of the other schools my son has visited and much better than any of the Ivy League schools except Cornell which only does slightly better than Bluffton at producing median upward mobility.
||Median family income of parents
||Median income of graduates at age 34
||Vaughn College Of Aeronautics And Technology
||City College Of New York – CUNY
||Eastern Mennonite University
||The School of Paul Mitchell, Costa Mesa, CA
According to the researchers, median income at age 34 is a good predictor of later lifetime income, so this gives a fair comparison of how our average graduates are getting paid. The schools whose graduates earn the most are technical schools that graduate pharmacists and engineers. They earn considerably more than the median Ivy League graduates.
This table doesn’t give a perfect measure of upward mobility for several reasons, but in particular, it only looks at the median income of graduates and some schools have terribly low graduation rates, particularly the for-profit schools. For example, the median income of graduates of the University of Phoenix look pretty good in this data set, but their graduation rate was only 10% at their Detroit campus which had a student loan default rate of 26.4%. Their default rate was over two and a half times greater than their graduation rate! In contrast, Bluffton’s student loan default rate has been very low at 6% (average over 2011-2013, the most recent years available), particularly when Bluffton’s modest family income is taken into account.
The area that Bluffton really excels at is what my parents used to joke is “the MRS degree.” The New York Times ranked Bluffton 8th in the nation out of 578 selective private colleges by our marriage rate.
The lowest marriage rate at any selective private college was at Philander Smith College where only 16% of graduates were married in 2014. That might seem to suggest that there are more philanderers at Philander Smith.
See the NYT for more.