right. I think one major point is that it's useful to do regressions (like
Mike Reich) of "ecological" independent variables vs. a "ecological"
dependent variable for SMSAs or some other geographical units, whereas (if
I understand it correctly), Deaton's result is "ecological" independent
variables" vs. individual dependent variables.
At 11:30 AM 8/29/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes, but it would be a lot more compelling to document evidence on the
>proximal link to health status. The Deaton finding was kind of a big
>surprise, at least to him. I think some follow-up work on this could be
>important.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:33 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:16475] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Income Inequality and
>Healt h
>
>
>At 09:43 AM 08/29/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >But figuring out what the
> >specific mechanisms that effect health status is tricky. I can think of a
> >number of candidates the fall under the Reich-type of phenomena. A higher
> >prevalence of dirty industries with low occupational health and safety
> >standards enforcement, ditto for environmental air pollution, more stress
> >and violence in general because of aggravated social conflict, more tobacco
> >and alcohol use for the same reason, etc.
>
>the main mechanism of Reich's argument is political (including trade unions
>and the like). If there are wider gaps between black and white workers,
>it's harder to unite politically or to form effective trade unions (except
>narrow, craft-oriented, unions). This means that welfare-state programs and
>employer-supplied welfare programs (including health care) are weaker
>because of weaker working-class bargaining power.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
