Wow. The video, "The BBs of Wealth" sends the message of wealth inequality with the auditory symbol of BBs falling into a can. The wealthiest 1% of the population has an average of over 10 million dollars in net worth, the bottom half of the population, around 50 million households, have an average of 5 thousand dollars. That's $10,000,000 (1%) compared to $5,000 (50%).
This video relates to the entire textbook. Inequalities caused by socio-economic status are the reason that social determinants of health exist. We have learned that SES relates to mortality and morbidity. Disease and quality of life are impacted by SES. One part of the BB video is provocative. If wealth was distributed, each household would have roughly a quarter of a million dollars. That's $250,000. I'd venture to say that figure is higher the household income of almost all of the students in this course. If wealth inequality didn't exist, what would that mean for the social determinants of health that we've learned about? How would the higher rates of death and disease be impacted? We know that the outcomes would be positive, because we've …show more content…
We've established that wealth inequality has negative health consequences. This takes place along the course of life, from before a person is conceived (via the parent's health), in utero, during childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. We are constantly bombarded with the consequences of SES inequality; in our education, jobs, homes, community.... The policy suggestions that reduce income inequality make politicians cringe. Ideas that reduce income inequality are often argued as contradicting the current economic structure of the United States, where the ideal outcome is working hard to get rich, but the reality is that upward mobility is next to impossible, and most often it is the case that the rich get richer and the poor, if they are lucky, don't end up in a worse
This video relates to the entire textbook. Inequalities caused by socio-economic status are the reason that social determinants of health exist. We have learned that SES relates to mortality and morbidity. Disease and quality of life are impacted by SES. One part of the BB video is provocative. If wealth was distributed, each household would have roughly a quarter of a million dollars. That's $250,000. I'd venture to say that figure is higher the household income of almost all of the students in this course. If wealth inequality didn't exist, what would that mean for the social determinants of health that we've learned about? How would the higher rates of death and disease be impacted? We know that the outcomes would be positive, because we've …show more content…
We've established that wealth inequality has negative health consequences. This takes place along the course of life, from before a person is conceived (via the parent's health), in utero, during childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. We are constantly bombarded with the consequences of SES inequality; in our education, jobs, homes, community.... The policy suggestions that reduce income inequality make politicians cringe. Ideas that reduce income inequality are often argued as contradicting the current economic structure of the United States, where the ideal outcome is working hard to get rich, but the reality is that upward mobility is next to impossible, and most often it is the case that the rich get richer and the poor, if they are lucky, don't end up in a worse