Connect with us

Business

Even the wealthiest Americans are suffering from shorter lifespans than those in Europe. A new study cites 3 major reasons

Published

on



Americans are dying earlier than Europeans—and the rich are not exempt. 

In a new study published today, researchers at Brown University analyzed the survival rates and wealth of older adults in the U.S. and Europe over 12 years. They found that Americans’ survival rate was lower than their European counterparts across all wealth tiers. The wealthiest in Northern and Western Europe had a mortality rate roughly 35% lower than that of the wealthiest Americans.  

“Whatever is happening with mortality in the U.S. and these decreases that we see in life expectancy are not just things that are happening to the poorest Americans,” Irene Papanicolas, senior author of the study and a professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown School of Public Health, tells Fortune. “There’s something systemic that’s happening that affects every American.” 

In the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers used data from over 73,000 adults between the ages of 50 and 85 in the U.S. and 16 European countries. 

Despite socioeconomic privilege, the researchers found that the survival rate of the wealthiest bracket of Americans “was statistically equivalent to the poorest wealth quartile in North and Western Europe,” Papanicolas says. “So they’re not just doing worse than the richest quartile. They’re statistically equivalent to the poorest quartile in that region.”

Papanicolas hypothesizes that several of the European countries at play, like Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, are high spenders on health care, but they address the social determinants that exacerbate the health and wealth gap more adequately than the U.S.

Wealth still equals better health

Despite the discrepancy for the wealthiest in the U.S., across the board, the study underscores that wealth impacts health. The richest have better survival rates than the poorest, explained by the ability to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs, access to safer living situations, and education that provides health literacy, says Papanicolas. 

But the study found that America’s health gap between the richest and poorest was most stark. The poorest Americans had the lowest survival rates of all the study participants. 

“Greater inequity might just make a lot of what we need for a healthy life inaccessible to more and more people,” she says. “For a country that spends so much more, we really should be doing more.” The researchers conclude that a mixture of culture, policy, and environment can influence how much wealth impacts health, which seems most notable in the U.S. 

“Across all wealth quartiles [in Europe], people were more likely to have a college education as compared to the U.S. where that was much more concentrated across the most wealthy. Even things like smoking, we saw that there was less of a social gradient than we saw in the U.S,” Papanicolas says. “In a lot of the European countries, the top three quartiles were much more clustered together, so it didn’t really seem to make that much of a difference. The poorest do worse everywhere, but the majority of people had a much more similar trajectory in Europe [than in the U.S.].” (The authors note that the sample size in Europe cannot be generalized across all European countries). 

Papanicolas notes that the paper does not conclude definitive causes for the results but does extrapolate on the potential systemic issues afflicting the U.S. survival rates. 

“As we think of policies to address this, we really need to think, what are these factors that are so prevalent that they’re influencing everybody but that in other countries aren’t?” Papanicolas says. 

Here are three reasons for shorter U.S. lifespans:  

Avoidable causes of death

In the U.S., external deaths, such as from firearms, alcohol, and suicide, were higher compared to other wealthy countries. 

“This points to a weaker public health infrastructure that isn’t protecting people, as well as other high-income countries are from these deaths,” says Papanicolas. “I think we really need to think about how we bolster public health and protect people.”

High rates of cardiovascular death

High rates of heart disease, a significant risk factor for early mortality, also plague the U.S more dramatically than other high-income countries. 

“We need to think about diagnosis and treatment and making sure that everybody has access to affordable medications and is able to prevent the risk factors that can lead to deaths from heart disease,” Papanicolas says. 

A weaker social state 

Compared to the U.S., Papanicolas says European countries “invest in, potentially, a more robust social state that protects you from the stress of losing your job.”

“Your healthcare isn’t attached necessarily to your employment, and you have, maybe with more equal access to education, also more equal opportunities to become wealthy throughout the life course,” she says.

Another flag for a weaker social state: The U.S. dropped to its lowest rank on the annual World Happiness Report last month. “All of these play a role in the population, not only in the short term, but particularly in the long term,” Papanicolas says.

The study points to an urgent priority: a public health strategy with a goal of equal access to aging well, just as the Trump admin is dismantling health agencies charged with offering services to older adults, from mental health care to access to healthy food.

“Look to other countries and understand what they do, because it is possible to achieve a better survival with less,” says Papanicolas. “There’s also potentially a note of hope here that we can do better.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump administration dismantles office that sets federal poverty guidelines

Published

on


A massive crowd of New Yorkers from across the labor movement and allies march to demand the current administration to stop the federal cuts as right-wing politicians in Washington are moving forward with devastating proposals to cut two trillion dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, housing and food assistance and other vital programs.

Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Kashkari says all the Fed can do is keep inflation anchored

Published

on

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari signaled confidence that markets will remain orderly as investors sort through President Donald Trump’s shifting trade policies and said the central bank must stay focused on keeping inflation expectations anchored.

Speaking after a week that brought a sharp surge in 10-year Treasury yields, Kashkari said US trade and fiscal policy will determine where that number goes. 

“At the Fed, our job is to keep inflation under control so that rate isn’t even higher,” he said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Kashkari was among Fed policymakers who signaled last week that they’re prepared to hold the Fed’s policy rate steady to minimize the risk that Trump’s tariffs trigger a persistent rise in inflation, even if the labor market softens further.

In public comments and interviews, a number of officials have sent a clear signal they’re ruling out interest-rate cuts that would act as an insurance policy against any tariff-induced economic slowdown.

“I think investors in the US and around the world are trying to determine what is the new normal in America” and the Fed has “zero ability to affect that destination,” Kashkari told CBS.  

“All we can do is keep inflation expectations anchored and manage some of the ups and downs on that journey,” he said.

Asked whether markets are orderly, Kashkari replied, “They are,” adding that volatility is to be expected as market participants “grasp for where is all this going to settle.” 

“But markets are functioning, transactions are happening and so I anticipate that’s going to continue,” he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Just to break even after the recent selloff, stocks will need to have the sort of rally that only happens during bull markets

Published

on



  • All the major U.S. stock market indices would need to have strong ends of the year just to finish flat. While that’s not impossible for the S&P 500, the Nasdaq 100, and the Dow, it usually only happens in years when the market is on an upswing, not experiencing a downturn as it is now.

Since President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariff policy over a week ago and sent global markets into turmoil, the U.S. stock market has lost trillions in wealth. All the major indices such as the S&P 500, the Nasdaq 100, and Dow Jones Industrial Average are down for the year after markets reacted extremely negatively to Trump’s new trade policy. 

The major selloff induced by the new Trump policy reversed what was shaping up to be another good year in the markets. Investors and analysts had expected the U.S. stock market to continue to deliver solid returns, even if it did slow down from the record-setting pace of the previous two years. In fact, Trump’s election brought a new wave of market optimism, as initially stocks soared on the back of what many had viewed as a pro-business president. 

Now the opposite is true. Markets are sinking on the back of the uncertainty Trump injected into the U.S. economy since he returned to the White House. 

To make up for the losses they’ve incurred so far this year, the major U.S. stock indices—the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Dow—would all have to rally to an extent that isn’t unheard of, but has only ever happened in good years. 

However, a strong year in 2025 seems unlikely. Since the market crash caused by Trump’s tariff announcements, most major Wall Street banks have revised their annual forecasts for the economy to reflect the ongoing downturn. Some of those banks even called for a recession as the stock market slide coincided with cratering bond markets and a devaluing of the U.S. dollar. 

Through Friday, the S&P 500 is down 8.8%—a stark reversal from the rip-roaring gains of 2023 and 2024 that together accounted for the best two-year stretch since 1998. 

In order to turn around that loss and end the year flat, the S&P 500 would need to rise 9.4% from its closing price on April 11 to Dec. 31. In that case, investors won’t have lost any money, but they wouldn’t have gained a cent either. 

A similar or better growth rate from April 11 to the end of the year isn’t completely out of the ordinary for the S&P 500. In fact, it’s happened 22 times since the modern day version of the index was established in 1957. While that sounds like good news, investors shouldn’t be too quick to rejoice. The S&P 500 only grows 9.4% or more from April 11 onwards in bull years, not during down markets like 2025, according to data supplied by wealth manager AssetMark and Fortune’s calculations. The worst performing such year, 2016, had a total annual return of 12%. The best year, 1958, had a juicy 43.4% annual return. Across all 22 years that fit that criteria, the average annual return was 27%.  

In other words, the S&P 500 soars from April through December when the market is ripping, not when it’s limping toward a zero percent return. 

To be sure, there is a notable precedent for a market crisis early in the year turning into a year of major gains. In 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the S&P 500 had the best April 11-to-December performance on record, with gains of 34.6% over that time period. That led to an overall annual return of 18.4%. However, those market slumps were caused by different reasons. In 2020, markets reacted to the spread of a highly infectious disease for which there wasn’t yet a cure, while this time around they were responding to a trade policy intentionally implemented by an elected official. 

Potential recoveries for the Nasdaq and the Dow have the same dynamics as those of the S&P 500. They need to rise by a reasonable rate, but one that only happens when the stock market is flourishing, not when it’s trying to resuscitate itself. 

Analysts now expect 2025’s stock market performance to be worse than they forecasted at the start of the year. In December 2024, the Wall Street consensus for the S&P 500 had a median price target of 6,625, according to data from LSEG. That would have meant a 12.9% increase for 2025 based on where the S&P 500 opened on Jan. 2.   

Over the last week, a slew of banks lowered their forecasts for the S&P 500 far below the median from the start of the year. BMO revised its slightly bullish call of 6,700 to 6,100. Goldman Sachs cut its forecast twice this year, from 6,500 to 6,200 and then again to 5,700. The second Goldman revision would imply a loss of 2.8% this year. UBS and RBC also expect a loss for the year. 

In 2025, the Nasdaq is down 10.9%. The decline is a 180 from where the index started the year, topping 22,000 in February. The Nasdaq would need to rise 12.2% to end the year where it started at 20.975.62. It’s not a rarity to see a 12% rally from April to December. It’s happened 20 times since Nasdaq was established in 1985, according to AssetMark’s data and Fortune’s calculations. But again, it only happens in positive years. The worst year with at least a 12.2% run-up in our time frame, 1992, had an 8.9% annual return. The best return of the batch was 1999, which had a 102% return.  

The Dow, which was spared the worst of the crash, is down 5.1% in 2025. In order to finish the year without a loss, the Dow would need to rise 5.4% for the rest of the year. The Dow’s historical performance might offer investors a sliver of hope. Out of the 35 times since 1958 when it has grown at least 5.4% from April 11 to December, there was one year the index didn’t finish positive. In 1984, the Dow grew 7.1% over that span, while ending the year with a total loss of -3.7%. But for the most part, the 35 previous years that fit our criteria did coincide with strong growth. The average for the Dow in those years was 18.6%. The best year was 1975, which had a 38.2% return for the year.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.