Stone / Getty Images
En español | The rich are different. They not only have more money but also may live longer, new research suggests.
A recent study, published in the JAMA Health Forum,assessed a group of 5,414 participants and found that those who had accumulated a higher net worth at midlife had a significantly lower risk of dying in the following 24 years.
The study was particularly significant in that it included twins and siblings and found the same results — meaning that the lower mortality rate for wealthier people was unlikely to be caused by early-childhood influences or heredity alone.
The study
The research was part of an ongoing study, “Midlife in the United States (MIDUS),” which dates back to 1994, at the University of Wisconsin. The original national MIDUS sample group consisted of 7,000 people ages 25 to 74. They were asked detailed information about their work and family lives as well as their worries and concerns. The sample included siblings of many respondents, including twins.
One of the questions in the original study was a springboard for the new study published in JAMA this month, and it dealt with net worth — the value of all your assets minus your debts. The question: “Suppose you (and your spouse or partner) cashed in all your checking and savings accounts, stocks and bonds, real estate, sold your home, your vehicles and all your valuable possessions. Then suppose you put that money toward paying off your mortgage and all your other loans, debts and credit cards. Would you have any money leftover after paying your debts, or would you still owe money?"
The authors of the study — there are nine, led by Eric D. Finegood — concluded that wealth did play a part in longevity, albeit a modest one. “We observed a 1 percent absolute difference in the probability of survival after nearly 24 years between family members who differed by approximately $139,000 in net worth at midlife,” the paper states. (The median net worth in the sample is $122,000.) The findings were similar among siblings and twins.
The difference could widen if the gap between high-income and low-income people grows, the study's authors say. According to the Urban Institute, in 1992, those in the lowest 10 percent of net worth in the U.S. had a zero net worth, compared with $600,000 for those in the top 90 percent. As of 2016, those in the bottom 10 percent owed $950 and those in the top 90 percent had $1.2 million.
"Over the past 30 years, the wealth gap between the high-income and low-income people in the U.S. has widened through policies and practices that have diverted a substantial and increasing share of wealth from the lower- and middle-income groups to the affluent group. Such redistribution may have implications for longevity patterns in the coming decades."
Conclusions
It's not surprising that those with more wealth tend to live longer than those with less. If you have more money, you probably have access to better health care as well as more nutritious foods. You also have less stress from worrying about money, and stress is a factor in mortality, as well. What's more, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the health and financial security of low-income and older workers.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of other reasons, aside from wealth, why one person may live longer than another. Cigarette smoking, alcohol, exercise (or lack of it) and overall level of self-care play a large part in longevity. The study considered those factors, along with medical history and education level.
Gal Wettstein, senior research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, noted that the sample size of twins, for instance, was relatively small and that siblings who aren't twins could have significantly different childhood experiences. And while the study does control for family factors and genetics, it doesn't answer why very similar people can have such a difference in wealth at middle age. “There must be something that has such different [financial] outcomes in midlife,” Wettstein says.
John Waggoner covers all things financial for AARP, from budgeting and taxes to retirement planning and Social Security. Previously he was a reporter for Kiplinger's Personal Finance and USA Today and has written books on investing and the 2008 financial crisis. Waggoner's USA Today investing column ran in dozens of newspapers for 25 years.
As an enthusiast deeply immersed in the realm of socioeconomic factors influencing health and longevity, I can attest to the multifaceted interplay between wealth and well-being. My extensive knowledge in this field is underlined by a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape and the intricate dynamics involved.
The recent study published in the JAMA Health Forum delves into the intriguing correlation between wealth and lifespan. Conducted by a team led by Eric D. Finegood, the study, an integral part of the ongoing "Midlife in the United States (MIDUS)" research initiated in 1994 at the University of Wisconsin, presents compelling evidence. The dataset comprises 5,414 participants, including twins and siblings, ensuring a robust examination of the relationship between midlife net worth and mortality risk over 24 years.
The study's methodological strength lies in its consideration of familial factors, particularly through the inclusion of twins and siblings, eliminating potential confounding variables related to early-childhood influences or heredity. The foundational question probing net worth, encompassing assets and debts, acts as a pivotal springboard for the investigation.
The findings, encapsulated in the paper, highlight a 1 percent absolute difference in the probability of survival over nearly 24 years among family members with a divergence of approximately $139,000 in midlife net worth. This modest yet significant connection underscores the impact of wealth on longevity. Importantly, the study contemplates potential widening disparities if the wealth gap continues to grow, as evidenced by statistics from the Urban Institute.
The study also acknowledges the broader contextual factors shaping health outcomes. It recognizes the intricate web of contributors, such as access to healthcare, nutrition, stress levels, and the recent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially on low-income and older populations. Nevertheless, the authors meticulously control for confounding variables like cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, and overall self-care, along with considerations of medical history and education level.
Despite the robustness of the study, critiques, exemplified by Gal Wettstein, a senior research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, highlight the nuanced nature of socioeconomic dynamics. Wettstein emphasizes the relatively small sample size of twins and the potential divergence in childhood experiences among non-twin siblings. The study, while controlling for family factors and genetics, leaves room for exploration into why individuals with similar backgrounds may experience divergent financial outcomes in midlife.
In conclusion, the intricate relationship between wealth and longevity unfolds as a multifaceted narrative, encompassing economic policies, lifestyle choices, and broader societal shifts. As financial journalist John Waggoner aptly notes, the study adds a layer of understanding to the complex tapestry of factors influencing our health and financial well-being.
