Deaths due to influenza and pneumonia also went down during recessionary years, possibly because people had less of the kind of close physical contact with each other that transmits the flu virus.
What about unemployment stress?
Although employment could lead to stresses and lifestyle differences that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, the staggering unemployment during the Depression would have probably introduced intense stress. "When we're talking about a garden-variety recession," U.N.C. Greensboro's Ruhm says, "stress related to employment is greater than unemployment [stress]. I would have thought, [however,] that this collapse would have created a huge level of stress."
In fact, the number of suicides did increase during years of economic contraction. Out of the half dozen different causes of death that the researchers analyzed, it was the only one that was responsible for more fatalities during recessionary than prosperous years. "The stress of being jobless," Tapia says, "could be leading people to suicide." For every 100,000 people, the number of suicides rose from about 13 in 1927 and 1928 to about 17 during the years of the Depression, and dropped down to 14 in 1933, when the economic situation improved. But it was still a minor cause of death compared with the number of cardiovascular-related deaths, about 400 for every 100,000 people.
As low as the unemployment rate got, the situation did not actually spiral into starvation. "My feeling is that, in spite of many people having economic stress, probably nutrition didn't go to levels low enough at the national level as to cause generalized undernutrition," Tapia says.
The role of relief spending
One of the factors that could have spared the nation from widespread malnutrition was relief spending, says Price Fishback, a professor of economics at the University of Arizona's Eller College of Management in Tucson, who researches the effects of relief spending on population health. During these 20 years, there were local programs, although the extent of aid varied from city to city and state to state. And, when it did step in, "the federal government kind of totally overwhelmed everything," Fishback says, boosting direct financial relief to the unemployed and offering work programs.
Federal relief does not explain the inverse relationship between life expectancy and economic health that Tapia found, however, because life expectancy was on the rise starting in 1929, and the economic programs under the umbrella of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal did not begin until 1933. It is hard to say the part that state and local relief may have played in preventing malnutrition because Tapia and Diez Roux did not look at regional statistics. Fishback says that more work should be done to explore the effect of relief spending during this period on health indicators at the national and local levels.
The fact that Tapia sees an inverse relationship between economic and population health for the Great Depression similar to what has been found for lesser recessions suggests that this relationship applies even in very severe economic times. "A few months ago, I was asked if recent [health] results would hold up if we have a really severe collapse," Ruhm says. "These results suggest that even if it had got much more severe than it did, we would have seen health improvements."
Some complicating factors for today
The many safety net reforms and laws passed since the Depression era suggest that the peaks and valleys on a life expectancy and mortality rate graph would not be as sharp. Not the least of which is our welfare program. Today, we have economic insulators in place, such as unemployment insurance, that did not exist during the Depression. "If we look at countries with stronger social safety nets, you tend to see these effects being more muted," Ruhm points out.
Even though government support has expanded, Tapia says that social support has slipped in recent history. For one, the average size of the U.S. household is smaller now than in the 1920s and '30s. Also, a 2006 study in American Sociological Review found that the average person now has a smaller number of people in whom they could confide than folks typically did 20 years ago. Greater isolation among U.S. citizens could make us more vulnerable to economic stresses, and thereby to greater peaks and valleys in health, Tapia says, citing a body of research showing that people who are integrated in their communities tend to enjoy a greater degree of protection against premature mortality.
It could be years before we will know exactly how the nation's health is being altered by the current recession, although not quite as long as it took to get a better idea of the relationship during the Depression. Usually social scientists and economists have to wait five to 10 years after the period they want to examine for all the statistical data to become available. But, based on the recurring pattern seen for recessions over the past century, we already have a pretty good idea. Our health will have improved, at least somewhat, as, alas, our financial statements grow more pallid.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add Comment"As low as the unemployment rate got, the situation did not actually spiral into starvation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethinks... "employment rate."
While I was a kid I remember people saying "Why is it that when the people are healthy and happy, the economy is always in the dumps?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was in the 1950s. Perhaps there was some truth in it.
Arbeit macht krank!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the average size of the U.S. household is smaller now than in the 1920s and '30s. Also, a 2006 study in American Sociological Review found that the average person now has a smaller number of people in whom they could confide than folks typically did 20 years ago."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis holds as much in Western Europe, where we have public housing programs which provide apartments to low-income individuals. Often there is one flat for a single elderly individual. This leads to the problem cited in the quote plus skyrocketing costs for the public. Two to four people should be the right number for publicly subsidized housing.
In the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Deaths due to influenza and pneumonia also went down during recessionary years, possibly because people had less of the kind of close physical contact with each other that transmits the flu virus."
Is not this questionable, or even more likely opposite of the stated? In hard times, the immune system is challenged, and when this is challenged it is actually mobilized. This mobilization has long lasting effects on the immunity in people, and so, the risk for severe consequences of exposure would be reduced.
Just a thought...
"When they have incomes allowing them to indulge, "people tend to drink more, [and] tend to be overweight and obese during periods of economic expansion," Tapia says. In addition, the jobs in the Depression era caused stress, demanding long hours with little vacation and, in some cases, were inherently hazardous."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshouldn't this be strike 3 for the author? sciam needs a rating system
Why, then, aren't the wealthy obese and unhealthy, and the poor slim and energetic? My personal observation, in others and in myself, is the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I am economically stressed, the quality of my food goes down and the time I have to exercise, etc., usually decreases because I have to work more. (Unless I'm unemployed, in which case I may have time, but my health is nonetheless even more stressed.) It's when I have regular hours and sufficient money for my bills that I have time to exercise and the funds to eat fresh, unprocessed, healthy food.