New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

The Great Depression Increased Life Expectancy

A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that the population life expectancy actually increased during the Great Depression. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Believe it or not, depression can be good for your health. Ok, not that kind of depression. An economic depression. According to work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, people actually got healthier during the Great Depression.

On September 1st, we ran a story about the health benefits of a good recession. And we received several incredulous responses. Some listeners firmly believe that people eat and drink and smoke more when their finances are bleak. Now along comes another study of life and death during the granddaddy of economic downturns. This time, researchers find that life expectancy actually increased during the years of the Great Depression. Yes, the rate of suicides also increased, but only accounted for two percent of deaths.

So what makes economic good times bad for us? Well, economic growth has been linked to work-related stress, less sleep, on-the-job accidents, traffic fatalities and more pollution. Plus, spending more time at work could mean spending less time caring for sick family members. So when the economy turns healthy again, living more like we’re still in lean times might make us all a bit healthier, as well.

—Karen Hopkin

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe