A sudden loss of wealth may be hazardous to health(latimes.com)
latimes.com
A sudden loss of wealth may be hazardous to health
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-suddenly-poor-death-20180403-story.html
80 comments
Also, people in ill health are more likely to retire early or scale down their career, causing wealth decrease.
When there are obvious mechanisms for reverse causation, while the mechanism for the claimed causation is speculative, be skeptical.
When there are obvious mechanisms for reverse causation, while the mechanism for the claimed causation is speculative, be skeptical.
It would be helpful, then, to do an equivalent study in a country with public healthcare.
Please don't use > to quote. It's broken for mobile users.
How is > broken to quote mobile users? What is obnoxious for mobile users is using code block quotes to quote non code.
If there were any sensible way to quote on HN, I'd surely use that instead. Could you suggest an alternative?
I think he actually means don't indent the quote, because it results in a truncated text box that you have to scroll awkwardly. The > quote markers are fine IMO.
If you don't indent, then HN does not respect single line breaks. > quote markers only work at the beginning of a line.
I've implemented another suggestion for how to avoid the need for them, though. Thanks!
I've implemented another suggestion for how to avoid the need for them, though. Thanks!
> If there were any sensible way to quote on HN, I'd surely use that instead. Could you suggest an alternative?
Surround the quote with asterisks, and prefix it with > to get the result above.
Surround the quote with asterisks, and prefix it with > to get the result above.
I never thought about using one greater-than sign to signal that it is a quote, and italics to denote the end of the quote. Thanks, updated.
I protect myself from this risk by not having any money.
I have bad news for you
> As bad as things were for those who experienced a "negative wealth shock," they were even worse for Americans who didn't have any wealth in the first place.
> As bad as things were for those who experienced a "negative wealth shock," they were even worse for Americans who didn't have any wealth in the first place.
Which doesn’t make sense to me. How can you lose something if you don’t have anything?
The study found that those who don't have anything in the first place had even worse health outcomes than those who experienced a sudden loss of wealth.
Not having anything means no money for quality food and basic health services, and possibly social/psychological issues.
Easily: an unexpected hospitalization, car problem, or some other expense.
No, not having money to begin with is hazardous to your health.
I suppose having zero money is better than having negative money (i.e. debt). I wonder how many have a negative net worth?
About 11% in the US, according to this dataset at least.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-brackets-wealth-brackets-one-per...
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-brackets-wealth-brackets-one-per...
Astute strategy :)
I love how its ranked 2nd on HN w/ only 25 points
25 points in less than 30 minutes - the rate at which it gets attention matters in the ranking AFAIK
Status is how most people find meaning in their lives. Without the ability to keep up with your peers, life becomes meaningless. Frustrated status accounts for far more deaths in this country than we want to admit.
Even if you're sanguine enough to accept a loss in status, having your spouse leave you and your kids hate you make it that much more difficult. Even if you don't actually commit suicide, you'll stop maintaining your health and before you know it, you're in an early grave.
Fixing this would mean telling Americans to stop caring about status, I don't see that happening for at least another hundred years.
Even if you're sanguine enough to accept a loss in status, having your spouse leave you and your kids hate you make it that much more difficult. Even if you don't actually commit suicide, you'll stop maintaining your health and before you know it, you're in an early grave.
Fixing this would mean telling Americans to stop caring about status, I don't see that happening for at least another hundred years.
I've heard anecdotally that negative health shocks can lead to terrible wealth loss as healthcare is very expensive.
Is relationship of the magnitude that could impact these results?
Is relationship of the magnitude that could impact these results?
I used to work with a homeless shelter and the director told me the #1 cause of homelessness was sudden massive healthcare bills. This can even extend to caring family members who foot the bill, leaving them financially at the edge, just before suffering some shock of their own.
Hmm... seems like if someone in your household is diagnosed with some terrible (expensive to treat) illness, you should just operate under the assumption that you will be declaring bankruptcy after all is said and done. And therefore:
- Do NOT touch IRAs or any other asset that might be protected during bankruptcy (i.e., don't liquidate everything in a futile attempt to keep up with the medical bills).
- Pay as little as you can get away with on those medical bills during treatment. Then sort it all out in bankruptcy court.
- Do NOT touch IRAs or any other asset that might be protected during bankruptcy (i.e., don't liquidate everything in a futile attempt to keep up with the medical bills).
- Pay as little as you can get away with on those medical bills during treatment. Then sort it all out in bankruptcy court.
> Pay as little as you can get away with on those medical bills during treatment. Then sort it all out in bankruptcy court.
That sounds like a good strategy anyway, since you can't ever be sure a procedure will fix a problem, even if it should, so future expenses are a fairly open question.
You don't have a lot of options if after your first medical solution you've paid everyone in full and are out of money but the problem isn't resolved, but frugal rationing of payments might mean you have quite a few tries before your funds are exhausted (even if you've left a trail of partially paid bills).
Unfortunately, I imagine the length of time involved means it's probably tricky to prevent past bills being reported as debt that might affect future actions.
That sounds like a good strategy anyway, since you can't ever be sure a procedure will fix a problem, even if it should, so future expenses are a fairly open question.
You don't have a lot of options if after your first medical solution you've paid everyone in full and are out of money but the problem isn't resolved, but frugal rationing of payments might mean you have quite a few tries before your funds are exhausted (even if you've left a trail of partially paid bills).
Unfortunately, I imagine the length of time involved means it's probably tricky to prevent past bills being reported as debt that might affect future actions.
Yea, this really depends on the illness but there is a lot of slack in the system.
It can take 2-3 months before you get a bill after medical treatment add another 60-90 days before it's very late and you have 6 months or so before your credit get's trashed assuming zero payment.
However, partial payments can push this out much further. Remember, companies don't want to sell you debt as they only get a fraction of it's total value so work with them. So, paying say 1% per month is often enough to avoid sending a very large bill to collections.
It can take 2-3 months before you get a bill after medical treatment add another 60-90 days before it's very late and you have 6 months or so before your credit get's trashed assuming zero payment.
However, partial payments can push this out much further. Remember, companies don't want to sell you debt as they only get a fraction of it's total value so work with them. So, paying say 1% per month is often enough to avoid sending a very large bill to collections.
You may be right, but those strategies are disincentivized not only by things like your credit score (which, I mean, by the time you're facing ruin, who cares, but it's understandable that someone would be worried about it) but also by a culture that often has moralizing assumptions about personal debt.
Negative health shocks can also lead to wealth loss because they can impact the ability to work and can require help of various kinds--even outside of actual healthcare costs that may be covered by insurance to various degrees.
This is discussed in the Limitations section of their article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2677445
> Third, despite adjusting for conditions that frequently precipitate wealth shocks, including marital disruption, unemployment, and a variety of health status and access to care indicators, residual confounding is likely.
They adjusted for it, but maybe not enough.
> Third, despite adjusting for conditions that frequently precipitate wealth shocks, including marital disruption, unemployment, and a variety of health status and access to care indicators, residual confounding is likely.
They adjusted for it, but maybe not enough.
Unless they controlled for it, this seems like the obvious primary cause of the observed effect. Especially since this was mostly a pre-ACA period where many more people were uninsured. I don't see any indication that they did control for this, so I'm not updating my beliefs very much about the health effects of losing your wealth via non-medical expense mechanisms.
Is it the loss of wealth causing the health hazards or is it just that being poor is not good for your health? In the last paragraph they say the group that never had wealth had the worst outcomes of all.
They discuss it in the article a bit, as I read it they said "Stress externalizes itself as health issues (high blood pressure, poor sleep, etc) and sudden loss of wealth causes stress in proportion to how risk averse you are."
Yeah I had this thought too. Also, it seems like the proportion you lose would be less important than what's left, which they don't say they factored in.
This moves beyond water being wet and into quantifying it's wetness. Good for whoever managed to turn it into a published paper.
(I'm not trying to detract from the paper, studying and quantifying the obvious is just as important as replication studies)
(I'm not trying to detract from the paper, studying and quantifying the obvious is just as important as replication studies)
is water wet though? or are only the things it comes into contact with wet?
I’m surprised that 1 in 4 people in the study lost more than 75% of their net worth at some point! I wonder if that was a housing crash or dotcom bubble or is just typical?
And that the median amount lost was 92% ($101K)... implying they went from about $109K net worth to $8K on median.
That would be pretty stressful for sure.
And that the median amount lost was 92% ($101K)... implying they went from about $109K net worth to $8K on median.
That would be pretty stressful for sure.
The volatility goes the other way too - Also 60% of Americans will be in the top 20% of income earners for at least two years during their lives, and almost 40% will spend at least two years in the top 10%.
Can you provide a source for this?
What you say is accurate, but income and wealth volatility are different things. Do you have any numbers about the percentage of Americans who will spend time in the top 20% or 10% of the wealth spectrum?
I'd venture to guess wealth volatility is far lower.
I'd venture to guess wealth volatility is far lower.
Most people that I know that went from nothing to somewhere between 1 and 5 million managed to lose most of it again. The ones who ended up with 5 million plus tended to have done ok or much better than just 'ok'.
I suspect that it has to do with whether or not the original windfall was due to luck or if there was an actual strategy behind it.
I suspect that it has to do with whether or not the original windfall was due to luck or if there was an actual strategy behind it.
I guess the difference is where you started as well? If you put in $100K and it tanks to $8k, that sure is a lot more stressful than having $8k go to $200k, and then back to $40k.
Divorce surely accounts for some of those.
If not centered one’ll quickly get psych issues. And if one doesn’t eat and sleep well they quickly fall off center. Best to know how to survive on basics and prioritize health, realize mind > matter.
For ex. I’ve learned to eat only Huel, oranges, dates, potatos, coffee, and a bag of chips or vegan cookie each day for the past 4-5mo. Grew up poor on frozen/fast food, moved to SF and became a foodie for a couple years, started using Blue Apron/Plated to learn cooking, later switched to Vegge option, and now have above diet. I am a foodie when I go out, but instead of 2x daily it’s more like quarterly. Wide spectrum, common denominator is addiction to vivid clean feeling from fresh food and 16/8 intermittent fasting.
I also find that sleeping on the floor is most comfortable now with low body fat (inspired by Korean friends in Uni), so I’ve put my bed against a wall ~3mo ago and doubled my 350sqft premium SF space.
The biggest hazard is emotional health. Friends and ex-colleagues use the time to point out the flaws that have led to and caused the event, in their view. Talking about it with others in general terms sounds like complaining and that’s why people don’t talk about it openly, much. And it is a waste of time, perhaps beyond once to get it off the chest. All one can do is look forward with a new plan in response to the change... lean into it.
Mind > matter, poverty can be illuminating with right priorities.
For ex. I’ve learned to eat only Huel, oranges, dates, potatos, coffee, and a bag of chips or vegan cookie each day for the past 4-5mo. Grew up poor on frozen/fast food, moved to SF and became a foodie for a couple years, started using Blue Apron/Plated to learn cooking, later switched to Vegge option, and now have above diet. I am a foodie when I go out, but instead of 2x daily it’s more like quarterly. Wide spectrum, common denominator is addiction to vivid clean feeling from fresh food and 16/8 intermittent fasting.
I also find that sleeping on the floor is most comfortable now with low body fat (inspired by Korean friends in Uni), so I’ve put my bed against a wall ~3mo ago and doubled my 350sqft premium SF space.
The biggest hazard is emotional health. Friends and ex-colleagues use the time to point out the flaws that have led to and caused the event, in their view. Talking about it with others in general terms sounds like complaining and that’s why people don’t talk about it openly, much. And it is a waste of time, perhaps beyond once to get it off the chest. All one can do is look forward with a new plan in response to the change... lean into it.
Mind > matter, poverty can be illuminating with right priorities.
I mean, great, but all the mindfulness in the world is not going to cure meningitis.
I'm currently living with daily fatigue I have never encountered in my life. This occurred after I had such a wealth shock early this year and I had symptoms of light depression for a week. I am not sure if the fatigue is directly connected to this but I keep all options open, including post-viral syndrome, epstein-barr, being stress out or this.
> This occurred after I had such a wealth shock early this year
You mean, you saw your altcoins go down 80%+ ?
You mean, you saw your altcoins go down 80%+ ?
Could well be your Thyroid, Its a very common disorder. Tell you doc and they'll run some blood tests.
Get these tested: Sensitive E2, TSH, T3, T4, DHEA, Testosterone, Free Testosterone, Prolactin.
All of those hormones cause fatigue when not regulated correctly.
You can get them tested at privatemdlabs.com and get the blood tests locally at any LabCorp.
(this is just a suggestion that ended up useful for me and I am not a doctor)
All of those hormones cause fatigue when not regulated correctly.
You can get them tested at privatemdlabs.com and get the blood tests locally at any LabCorp.
(this is just a suggestion that ended up useful for me and I am not a doctor)
Thanks!
There is a good chance it's still depression.
Seems legit, considering so many people view money as a need, rather than a strategy for meeting needs.
I currently am choosing to live in a way that minimizes the amount of money I make/spend, as well as property I own. I meet my needs through the supportive community I've found, by asking for what I need, work-trading, and signing up for government services.
My life is better than it's ever been, but I had to change my entire mindset. An old friend in the same community hasn't adopted my approach and hasn't worked on leaving behind the scarcity mindset. They worry about everything, including keeping their job. It leads them to act in ways that keep them employed, eating right, and socializing.
This kind of self-imposed stress we adopt over money isn't productive.
I currently am choosing to live in a way that minimizes the amount of money I make/spend, as well as property I own. I meet my needs through the supportive community I've found, by asking for what I need, work-trading, and signing up for government services.
My life is better than it's ever been, but I had to change my entire mindset. An old friend in the same community hasn't adopted my approach and hasn't worked on leaving behind the scarcity mindset. They worry about everything, including keeping their job. It leads them to act in ways that keep them employed, eating right, and socializing.
This kind of self-imposed stress we adopt over money isn't productive.
Losing your home, being unable to pay medical bills, and struggling to provide things for your family isn't "self-imposed stress."
Were I to choose to rely on money to meet my needs, I'd be imposing stress on myself.
Capitalism is a collective choice and very few people take responsibility for making it.
I lost my home. I learned to accept my situation. I was lucky enough to be able to move to a state where the state covers medical bills. I'm starting a family and there's such an abundance of things in the world that I tend to need only ask for them.
Learning to grieve & let go of the loss of a resource and how to ask for help are skills not often taught in modern society.
Yes, the events you note are hard and can be out of people's control.
How those people mentally respond to them is something they can control to a degree and develop resiliency for.
Capitalism is a collective choice and very few people take responsibility for making it.
I lost my home. I learned to accept my situation. I was lucky enough to be able to move to a state where the state covers medical bills. I'm starting a family and there's such an abundance of things in the world that I tend to need only ask for them.
Learning to grieve & let go of the loss of a resource and how to ask for help are skills not often taught in modern society.
Yes, the events you note are hard and can be out of people's control.
How those people mentally respond to them is something they can control to a degree and develop resiliency for.
How exactly does one not participate in capitalism while living in a capitalist society?
It's practically impossible to not participate completely, since the government doesn't recognize the freedom from money.
Minimizing one's participation can be done through making conscious choices. I choose to keep my income and expenses small. I rely on sharing what I have and asking others to give. I choose to believe there's enough resources in the world for everyone, though the distribution of the resources may lead to localized scarcity.
I'll also be testing the legal theory of the freedom from money. I practice a religion of my own design where that freedom naturally arises from foundational principles.
Minimizing one's participation can be done through making conscious choices. I choose to keep my income and expenses small. I rely on sharing what I have and asking others to give. I choose to believe there's enough resources in the world for everyone, though the distribution of the resources may lead to localized scarcity.
I'll also be testing the legal theory of the freedom from money. I practice a religion of my own design where that freedom naturally arises from foundational principles.
Ultimately even you admit it's impossible not to make the supposed choice you are talking about.
Just because it isn't 100% possible doesn't mean we can't minimize things now. We have a government that requires money to interact with it for now.
I can choose which direction I want to move toward and so can you.
Simply because I can't guarantee 100% extraction from capitalism at the moment doesn't mean I can't start moving away from it.
I can choose which direction I want to move toward and so can you.
Simply because I can't guarantee 100% extraction from capitalism at the moment doesn't mean I can't start moving away from it.
Loss of wealth can be a good thing thought. A close friend who once was overweight, stressed, and in the line to have a stroke gave up on his career to become a travel photographer; Mostly he does some small gigs, but nothing close to his past live, as he's used to say.
Me otherwise, had a really bad time when I lost my job last year. The mind goes first and then the body follows the same path.
Me otherwise, had a really bad time when I lost my job last year. The mind goes first and then the body follows the same path.
Your friend didn't lose his wealth, he willingly replaced it with a different life style.
I wonder what percent is correlation and causation. IE if you are losing your health, you might not realize how your cognitive ability is inhibited, and you might make many bad decisions.
Then, there is the positive feedback loop. You lose money, you start drinking, now your decisions are worse, you lose more money, you drink more, your decisions are worse.
How do we know this isn't just correlation with risk taking in general? Like someone who piles away cash is probably also less likely to own motorcycles etc... just saying.
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Good reminder to not look at my portfolio this year...
It's not that bad. As Dave Ramsey says, only those who jump off a roller coaster get hurt.
Well, not if the roller coaster collapses. Hopefully that doesn't happen anytime soon.
I don't have money. But I'am wealthy;
The cart seems to be before the horse here, in at least some cases. One of the most reliable ways to experience a negative wealth shock is to incur a big medical bill. E.g. if someone develops cancer, it's reasonably likely that they will experience a negative wealth shock and then die, but the loss of money did not cause the death.
The study itself[1] does mention medical debts as a considered liability, but (at least from my skim) I didn't find any other reference to this explanation.
[1]-https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2677445