Demographers looking back — years from now — on America’s annual mortality rates are going to find an asterisk on the years 2020 and 2021. The text behind that asterisk is going to give the reason why so many more Americans died in those particular years than the years right before.
The explanation, of course, will be the Covid-19 pandemic.
But those demographers of the future, to really understand American mortality in the early decades of the 21st century, are going to need another asterisk. They’re going to need an explanation why Americans of that era, before the pandemic hit, were living significantly shorter lives than their peers elsewhere in the developed world.
How much shorter? A just-published study from a global team of 27 social scientists from 13 different developed nations offers up some numbers that will take most Americans completely by surprise.
Back in 1990, the new data detail, White Americans showed the same 76-year average life-spans as the general populations of England, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Spain, with Black Americans trailing behind by seven years. By 2018, Black Americans had nearly halved the life-span gap with their White American counterparts. But those same White Americans had fallen well behind the Europeans. Their life-spans — right before the pandemic — trailed the European average by about the same three years that U.S. Blacks trailed U.S. Whites.
“White Americans have increasingly lost ground compared to Europeans,” the new international mortality study concludes, “with substantial gaps in mortality rates opening between Europeans and White Americans.”
“The comparisons with Europe,” the National Bureau of Economic Research study continues, “suggest that mortality rates of both Black and White Americans could fall much further across all ages and across richer and poorer areas.”
So what’s stopping those U.S. mortality rates from falling that “much further”? Certainly not money. The United States now spends twice as much, per capita, on health care as the average European nation.
How much money different nations spend on health care, in other words, simply does not automatically predict their health outcomes. How nations distribute their money, on the other hand, appears to tell us a great deal.
The United States has, over more than four decades now, chosen to let wealth concentrate intensely in the pockets of a few. The United States has become significantly more unequal, a much more economically stratified society. Europe has not followed suit. Until relatively recently, Europe has been able to maintain most of the landmark egalitarian gains of the mid-20th century.
The United States, by contrast, has let those gains lapse. So why should the resulting inequality translate into poorer health outcomes? Epidemiologists — the scientists who study the health of populations — have been discussing and debating that question for the past quarter-century, ever since the mid-1990s when the prestigious British Medical Journalinformed readers that “studies have related income inequality to infant mortality, life expectancy, height, and morbidity, with a consistent finding that the less equitable the income distribution in a country, the less favorable the health outcome.” The studies, the journal added, “seem to show that inequality per se is bad for national health, whatever the absolute material standards of living within a country.”
In one recent review of the literature, the British Equality Trust points to “status anxiety” as the “most plausible explanation for income inequality’s apparent effect on health and social problems.”
“In more unequal societies, the data indicate, status anxiety increases not just among the poor, but across all income deciles,” note Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of the widely influential 2009 book, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. “We all worry more about whether others see us as capable and successful — or as a failure.”
Threats to self-esteem and social status, the pair add, “turn out to be particularly strong sources of stress.” And stress kills.
“For decades, U.S. politicians on the right have resisted calls for income redistribution and universal insurance under the theory that inequality was a fair price to pay for freedom,” writes the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson in a thoughtful reflection on the new international life-expectancy data. “But now we know that the price of inequality is paid in early death — for Americans of all races, ages, and income levels.”
Greater equality may well be the best medicine any doctor can ever prescribe.
Sam Pizzigati, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, has written widely on income and wealth concentration, with op-eds and articles in publications ranging from the New York Times to Le Monde Diplomatique. He co-edits Inequality.org Among his books: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970 (Seven Stories Press). His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). A veteran labor movement journalist, Pizzigati spent 20 years directing publishing at America’s largest union, the 3.2 million-member National Education Association.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
The Wind Cries Freedom, the new book from Z co-founder Michael Albert, is a sweeping oral history of a future American revolution.
Through thirty interconnected chapters, it draws out the strategies, failures, turning points, and hard-won wisdom of a movement that called itself the Revolutionary Participatory Society. These are not the polished memoirs of politicians: they are the unfiltered accounts of people who organized in neighborhoods, hospitals, universities, stadiums, courthouses, and places of worship, and kept a shared vision alive through cynicism and exhaustion.
The result is speculative political fiction that reads like history: messy, human, and quietly hopeful in the way that only real experience and long thought can produce.
Get your copy and peruse more features on the book’s website below.
“Read it, argue with it, but don’t look away. The future it recalls is one we must still fight to deserve.”
Yanis Varoufakis
“The most unusual and intriguing combination of prophecy, manifesto, and movement building manual that I have ever encountered.”
Bill Fletcher Junior
“This work fills a huge gap in our social movement literature.”
Cynthia Peters
This is your article this month.
We’re glad you keep coming back. If Z’s work has informed, challenged, or inspired you, that’s no accident: there are no paywalls, no ads, and no billionaire owners here, and there never will be. Independent media survives because readers choose to support it.
Billionaires fund their own media. We fund ours. Help us reach 1,000 sustaining donors:
Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.
Sound is muted by default. Tap 🔊 for the full experience
CRITICAL ACTION
Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.
If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.
Independent media is not disappearing because the ideas are weak.
It is disappearing because platforms reward speed, outrage, and algorithmic visibility over thoughtful analysis.
More than 100,000 people read Z every month, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. It takes fewer than 1 in 100 of them to fund all of it: 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone, and build what comes next.