This past weekend, I listened to a program called Innovation Hub, produced by Public Radio Exchange and broadcast out of WGBH Boston. The program examines trends in education, science, technology and medicine, among others, usually interviewing the people that are effecting the change.
The episode I heard is called: Your State Helps Determine How Long You Live. The author of a recent study, Jennifer Karas Montez at Syracuse University, makes the case for how policies created at the state level rather than local or federal levels affect longevity.
Which got me thinking. Would any of this apply to Canada and our provinces?
First, a little background.
Ms. Montez correlated state policies to longevity. What got her thinking was, in 1959, the life span of residents in Connecticut and Oklahoma was 71 years. Today, a Connecticut resident can expect to live 81 years. But a resident of Oklahoma can expect to live only 76 years. She was curious how Oklahomans fell five years behind.
She determined that minimum wage, investments in education, immigration policy and paid leave all had an effect on longevity.
For example, Minnesota does well in life expectancy at 81. At the state level, they have invested in the education system, expanded their medicare plans to reach more people, and raised the minimum wage to $10.08 per hour.
In Mississippi, life expectancy is just under 75. The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. According to Ms. Montez, the level of investment at the state level in education and paid leave is well behind that of Minnesota.
But you say, “Well, of course, Minnesota is pretty homogeneously white. They don’t have many people of colour, who are usually adversely affected by disparities in access to education, employment and health services. That would skew the numbers”. Which is true. But people of colour, according to Ms. Montez, are better off in Minnesota than whites in Mississippi in terms of longevity.
She also argues one of the most important of policies is that of minimum wage. If you have a low minimum wage, people can’t afford to feed themselves properly. Their diet suffers, so they’re more likely to be taken ill and have a poorer outcome from illness. They’re less likely to take medications that are expensive. They’re more prone to obesity. They have children with lower birth weights. Taken in total, all are detrimental to lifespan and longevity.
Which brings me to Canada, and specifically, Ontario. As anyone who is currently working for minimum wage knows, one of the first acts of the Ford government was to kill the planned increase from $14 to $15 per hour. I know Ontario isn’t Mississippi. But over the long term, with the high cost of living in the province and the shortage of affordable housing, could we be far behind? There also seems to be a lack of investment in education at both K-12 and post secondary levels in the province.
I worry that a premier that only spent two months at a post secondary institution will not have any empathy for those with higher aspirations.
Ontario education spending has gone from $27 billion in 2017-2018 to $25.5 billion in 2020-2021. This doesn’t bode well in the long term.
As we slowly emerge from the pandemic, will social spending increase or decrease? Will education and health care be gutted? A few things for us to consider as our world gets back to normal. I'd rather be Connecticut than Mississippi.
I'll leave you with a Park Avenue taste of spring, taken in New York City a few years ago.
Great post, Paul! So what the data is basically telling us is this: treat human beings like they matter and they will live longer. Or, conversely, make the bottom line your top priority and let people die.