21:20
One of the most powerful predictors of how long you'll live in America turns out not to be your genetics, your diet, or your healthcare. It's your bank account. A 40-year-old man living in poverty in the United States has a life expectancy roughly equivalent to a man living in Pakistan or Sudan. Now, that sentence deserves a moment because the United States is not Pakistan or Sudan. We're talking about the wealthiest country in human history, spending considerably more on healthcare per person than any other nation on Earth. And yet somewhere between that per capita figure and the actual lived experience of the poorest Americans,
something has gone very wrong. The gap in life expectancy between the richest 1% and the poorest 1% of American men is now 14.6 years, which is roughly the same as the difference in life expectancy between Japan, the country with the longest life expectancy, and Yemen. Except this isn't a comparison between two different countries with different climates, different histories, and different levels of development. This is the same country, sometimes the same city. Occasionally, statistically speaking, it could even be the same street. And if that were the whole story, it would already be bad enough. But the whole story is actually considerably worse because that 14.6
year gap has been widening. And at the very bottom of the income distribution, life expectancy has fallen at an alarming rate. Now, this is the kind of topic that tends to attract two very different kinds of responses. The moral one is obvious, but the second response which this channel is considerably better equipped to explore is the economic one. Because wealth doesn't just buy comfort, it buys time. And time is what makes wealth compound. As wealthy people live longer, they accumulate more. Warren Buffett made 99% of his wealth after the age of 50. And while nobody's questioning his investing skills, his real secret is time. At the bottom, the same logic runs in reverse. As poor people die earlier, they have
less to pass on. And that asymmetry, once it gets going, is almost impossibly hard to interrupt. So why does wealth determine how long you live? and why is it getting worse? What is the compounding economic advantage that extra years of life give to the wealthy? And what does that mean for everyone else? And finally, are the solutions that are actually on the table going to fix any of this? Or are we, as is something of a tradition in economics, finding increasingly sophisticated ways to describe a problem while barely solving it at all? There's so much that goes into your health. Diet, exercise, relationships, and in 2026, there are so many supplements and drugs that can help you
stay fit and healthy. But knowing what to actually take is easier said than done. That's why we partnered with Enhanced Games. Enhanced Games is an elite version of the Olympics aimed at getting the most out of all athletes by safely using performance-enhancing drugs, but doing it openly and safely. Their goal is to push the limits of the human body, but do it in a way that allows their team of scientists to study and monitor the results. But this isn't just for entertainment. The goal is to leverage this advanced research to create enhanced supplements that can help the average person improve performance, recover quicker, and most importantly, like we are talking about in this video, increase longevity. If
you want to learn more about enhanced, check out enhanced.com or click the link in our description. The obvious answer to why wealthy people live longer is, well, obvious. They have access to better food, better hospitals, safer neighborhoods, and work that doesn't destroy your body over 20 or 30 years. In the UK, the poorest fifth of the population would need to spend 50% of their disposable income just to meet the government's recommended healthy diet. So, poor nutrition isn't really a lifestyle choice. On top of that, wealthy people are considerably less likely to smoke, with tobacco use running at nearly three times the rate in low-income households compared to wealthy ones. And wealthy people generally have better options available
when life gets difficult than the coping mechanisms that tend to shorten it. Wealth even scramles the biological advantages you were born with. Women live longer than men. This is true almost everywhere on Earth. And the reasons are partly biological and partly because men in their 20s have historically made some genuinely spectacular decisions. But at the very bottom of the income distribution in the United States, women live around 6 years longer than men. At the very top, that gap shrinks to about one and a half. Because a lot of what kills men early, like dangerous jobs, chronic stress, and coping mechanisms, are things that money can directly fix. Another factor that
determines your lifespan is where you can afford to live. Property near industrial plants and busy roads is cheaper, which is why lower income families are more likely to end up there, breathing measurably worse air, and facing higher rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease as a result. When you map life expectancy across England by area, the difference between someone who lives in Kensington and Chelsea and West London and someone who lives in Blackpool on the Lanasher coast is roughly 10 years. And this number only measures how long you live, not how long you live well. If you look at healthy life expectancy, which tells the number of years you can expect to live in good health rather than simply live,
a woman in Richmond upon temps is expected to live nearly 20 more healthy years than a woman in Hartley. It's worth pausing here to remember that we are talking about England, a wealthy country with a fuller universal healthare system. And yet, women in the poorest parts of it have a lower life expectancy than women in Colombia. Finally, we don't have to forget that wealthy people have more time. Well, not more hours in the day, but more discretionary hours that aren't already committed to a second job, an unpredictable shift schedule, or a long commute. Lowincome workers are significantly more likely to have irregular working hours, which disrupts sleep and leaves little room to exercise or cook properly. Over a working life,
this compounds into, well, a shorter life. Now, add healthare on top of all of that. In countries with universal systems, everyone has access to a doctor regardless of income, and that does narrow the gap, but it doesn't eliminate it. In almost every universal healthcare country like the UK, Australia, France, or Canada, wealthy people top up with private insurance, and that buys shorter waiting lists, faster access to specialists, and earlier diagnosis, which are far more valuable than basic care. That means you can catch your cancer at stage one instead of stage three because you didn't spend 8 months waiting for a referral. That's great for people who can pay for it, but for the
rest, it creates a two-speed system. Anytime a doctor can earn more in private practice, the market pulls them in that direction, and the public system loses capacity. Private insurance redirects doctors towards people who can pay. So, even within a universal system, wealth determines who gets the best care and who waits. Things are pretty different in countries with private healthcare like the United States. If you can't afford insurance, you often get nothing at all, or you get the emergency room, which is the most expensive and least effective place to treat a condition that should have been caught 2 years earlier. That's one of the reasons why the wealth mortality gap
is measurably wider in America than across European countries with universal systems. Now, all those factors have influence over how long you live, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But if that were the whole story, two government workers who have job security, stable salaries, and access to the same national health system should die at roughly the same age. and they don't. In the late 1960s, a British epidemiologist named Michael Marmmet began following roughly 18,000 civil servants working in Whiteall, the heart of the British government. These weren't people living in poverty. They had stable employment, regular pay, and access to the NHS. They worked for the same employer and lived in the same
city. And yet, Marmmet found something that should have been impossible. People at the bottom of the office hierarchy were dying at three times the rate of those at the top. He called it the status syndrome. And when he dug into the cause, he traced it back to control. If a senior civil servant wanted to take a long lunch, nobody was watching. Or if they wanted to restructure their afternoon, they could. But the people at the bottom had none of that. Their days were managed, monitored, and dictated by others. And that chronic, unrelenting experience of having no agency over your own time turns out to be extraordinarily damaging to the human body. We tend to imagine stress as something dramatic,
like a CEO sweating over a billion dollar call. And while that kind of stress is real, as soon as the decision gets made, the pressure lifts and the body recovers. But the stress the Whiteall study pointed to doesn't go away. You might not even notice you're stressed or even call it stress at all. It just sits there, making blood pressure go up, weakening the immune system, and increasing the risk of heart disease and stroke quietly over years. So, strip away the epidemiology. And what Marmet had found was fairly simple. The more control you have over your working life, the longer that life turns out to be. And that matters for reasons beyond the obvious. Because extra years of life are also extra years for wealth
to grow. If wealth just bought you more time to enjoy pina coladas on a tropical beach, that would already be a pretty good deal. But the reason those extra years matter so much, especially if you already have money, comes down to compound interest. Each year of growth builds on the year before, which means the longer you stay alive and invested, the more disproportionate the reward gets. At a standard longr run market return of around 7% per year, money roughly doubles every 10 years. So for someone with significant assets, let's say $5 million, those extra 14 years of life by 14 more years of compound growth, which ends up being close to 13 million, but the financial benefits of
living longer are distributed very unevenly. Wealthy households tend to own appreciating assets like equities and businesses, which continue compounding over decades. Most middle-income retirees don't. Their financial security is usually tied up in some combination of home equity and pension entitlements, and neither compounds remotely like an investment portfolio. Since 1995, home prices in the US have risen by about 310%. But the S&P 500 is up over 2,300% in the same period. $100 invested in housing in 1970 would be worth $1,600 today. The same $100 in the S&P 500 would be worth $33,420.
Now, a lot of people watching this will feel like house prices have gone completely mad. And to be fair, they have. The average home in the United States sold for $371,000 in 2020. By mid2025, that same average home was $515,000, but in percentage terms, that is a 38% increase over 5 years. In the same period, the S&P 500 is up 86%. Also, for most retirees, the house isn't an investment. It's just the place to live, and you can't exactly cash out your kitchen. So, the longer you live, the faster you eat through whatever savings you actually have. And so every extra year of life is another year of depletion, not accumulation. Someone retiring today can expect to spend around 5 years longer in retirement than
their grandparents did, which means almost a third more retirement to actually pay for. But most people still build their retirement plan based on how long they watch the generation before them live and don't get around to fixing that calculation error until it's too late. That's why 64% of Americans say they are more afraid of running out of money in retirement than they are of dying. The hope, of course, is inheritance. But that depends entirely on which family you were born into. For the wealthy child, inheritance is almost beside the point because their parents don't wait to die to give money to their kids. In the UK, more than half the total value of financial gifts made to
adult children comes from the wealthiest fifth of families. So the wealthy child has already received the deposit, the school fees, and the interest free loan when the business needed cash. By the time the formal inheritance actually arrives, they are already financially established, which means the money goes straight into investments, which means it compounds and the family gets wealthier still. For the middle-income family, the inheritance arrives at around 61. That's the median age at which millennials are on course to receive theirs. By that point, they've already bought their home, already built their career, and already navigated the hard decades on their own. Sure, the money helps as it might pay down the
remaining mortgage or top up the pension, but it is far from being a lifecher. In the UK, the median inheritance is £11,000, which wouldn't even cover a deposit on a home in the cheapest corners of the country. Now, for a child from a lower-income family, chances are their parents die younger. So, the inheritance might arrive in their 30s when they are still trying to get onto the housing ladder and still carrying debt. That sounds like an advantage, but it means the money gets used, not saved. In fact, lower income heirs typically deplete whatever they receive within a decade, while wealthier heirs keep it largely intact. If the parent defies the odds and lives longer, the inheritance often arrives after the
key wealth-b buildinging years are already over, which means the money gets used for stability rather than invested for growth. And that's if there is an inheritance at all. Nearly half of millennials who haven't managed to buy a home have parents who rent, too, which means for a significant share of lower-income families, there isn't even £11,000 coming. So for most people with no meaningful inheritance and no investment portfolio, the one asset left to draw down is the pension. Now, you might think that at least the collective systems like state pensions and retirement schemes were built to balance some of this inequality out. Everyone contributes during their working life and everyone draws support in
retirement. The problem is that these systems were built around the assumption that people live roughly similar lengths of time after retiring. But in reality, some people now live more than a decade longer than others. If wealthier workers consistently live longer, they collect pension benefits for more years, which means the collective pot flows disproportionately toward the people who need it least. Across developed economies, three fewer years of life expectancy at retirement is enough to cut a low earner's total pension by 13% relative to a wealthier retiree. That is roughly equivalent to losing 2 years of pension payments entirely. In Germany and the United States, the shortfall is large enough to cancel out all the
redistribution the pension system was built to create. At the same time, lower-income workers who do survive into old age didn't pay as much into their own savings, and now those savings have to stretch across more years than they planned for. The result projected forward is that poverty rates among retirees could double when millennials retire, which means a larger share of a very large generation drawing heavily on public healthare, housing support, and pension top-ups, all of which are already under strain. It also means less consumer spending and slower growth for the overall economy. And that projection assumes the gap stays roughly where it is today. But it won't. The gap in
median lifespan between the wealthiest and poorest Americans is projected to grow from around 8 years for people currently in their 80s to roughly 15 years for people now in their early 60s. That's the difference between watching your grandchildren grow up and maybe not meeting them at all. The problem is all of that increase is concentrated at the top. The wealthiest Americans are on track to live around 8 additional years compared to their parents' generation. While at the bottom the gain is practically zero. In fact, the next generation of poorer women is expected to die younger than their mothers. And this was modeled before CO which disproportionately affected lower-income Americans which means even these
projections are probably optimistic. So at this point the obvious question is what are we actually doing to keep this cycle from getting worse? Well, one option is baby bonds which means that every child born gets a government funded investment account seated at birth and locked until adulthood when it can be used for approved wealthb buildinging purposes. The most prominent version debated in the United States would give every single newborn $1,000 at birth. That account then grows at a fixed interest rate managed by the Treasury until the child turns 18. Now, even with compound interest, $1,000 on its own won't get you very far. That's why lower-income families would in this
proposed legislature receive up to an additional $2,000 a year in topups, which means that by 18, that account could reach around $46,000. Enough to cover tuition at a public university, the seed money for a business, or a house deposit. Well, roughly a third of a house deposit if you're in New York. Projections suggest that under a national baby bonds program, the wealthiest families would go from being 14 times wealthier than the poorest families to roughly five times. And because wealth buys time, that also means low-income people would live longer. Some projections suggest the baby bonds proposal would extend
average lifespan by one year across the whole population and by 6 years for the people currently at the bottom. Connecticut has already run a version at the state level, giving $3,200 at birth to every child born to a mother on Medicaid. Since it launched in 2023, the program has enrolled over 33,000 babies, the oldest of whom are barely 3 years old now. We'll check back in 2041 and let you know how it's going. Trump accounts give every child born between 2025 and 2028 a $1,000 seed deposit, superficially similar to baby bonds. But there's a major difference. Traditional baby bond proposals scale contributions with poverty, meaning lower-income children receive larger annual top-ups
to help close the wealth gap over time. Trump accounts don't do that. Growth depends mostly on what families and employers are able to contribute themselves. Which means wealthy households with regular contributions and employer support could build accounts worth well over $100,000 by adulthood. While lower income households relying only on the seed deposit end up with very little at all. In other words, one system tries to reduce inequality while the other largely mirrors the inequality that already exists. Properly structured baby bonds are probably one of the strongest long-term tools governments have to interrupt the cycle of wealth and lifespan inequality. The problem is that they're a generational
solution. A child born today won't meaningfully benefit for decades, and that doesn't help governments facing pension and retirement crises right now, which is why most countries have settled on a much more immediate solution, raising the retirement age. France in 2023 raised it from 62 to 64. The proposal was so unpopular, it couldn't pass parliament, so the government invoked article 49.3, a constitutional mechanism that allows the law to pass without a vote. Within days, more than a million people took to the streets. Rubbish piled up across major cities and transport ground to a halt. And then in November 2025, the National Assembly voted 255 to 146 to suspend the whole
thing. Now, France has a long tradition of solving political disagreements by making it very difficult to get anywhere by train. But in this particular case, they had a point. They understood that the same age for everyone only makes sense if everyone ages the same way. In England, for example, only men living in the wealthiest 10% of areas have a healthy life expectancy that actually reaches the state pension age of 67. For everyone else, the government is asking you to keep working past the point your body can do it. While a senior manager at 64 still has their health, their cognitive function, and work that doesn't break the body, a construction worker, a nurse, or a warehouse operative don't have the luxury of being
productive at 64 in the same way. So, if you raise the age for everyone equally, you're actually hitting people in physically demanding lower income jobs. the hardest, which means they work longer in conditions that damage them, which means they collect for fewer years because they die earlier, which means the pension system ends up taking from the people with the shortest lives to extend benefits to the people with the longest ones. It's also bad economics. Keeping workers in physically demanding jobs past their physical prime generates more disability claims, more sick leave, and more healthare costs, which means the pension savings at one end of the system leak out at the other. The
smarter version of pension reform ties eligibility to job type or to health adjusted life expectancy by income bracket. So manual workers and people in physically demanding trades retire earlier while white collar workers who can sustain their productivity into their 70s retire later. France of all places already has a scheme called careers long careers where workers who entered the labor market at 16 or 18 can retire years before the standard age. Italy allows early retirement after roughly 42 years of contributions. Finland adjusts for career length and China has different retirement ages for physical and desk based work. Now none of the major economies have extended
this logic comprehensively and there is a reason for that. Defining which jobs count as arduous enough to qualify is a political nightmare. The moment you draw a threshold, every industry that falls just short of it starts lobbying to move it and you end up with a scheme that's either so broad it costs more than it saves or so tightly written it protects almost nobody. So most governments decide it is easier to just raise the age, apply it to everyone, and absorb whatever comes next. The problem is that what comes next doesn't look good at all. The World Economic Forum estimates there is already a $400 trillion gap between what people globally will need in retirement and what has been saved to
pay for it. That's roughly four times the size of the entire global economy, and it's growing. The good news is that none of this is a mystery. We know exactly what's happening and roughly what would fix it, and we made a whole video about it. You should be able to click on it on your screen now. Thank you to Enhanced Games for sponsoring this video. Check them out with the link in the description. Thanks for watching, mate. Bye.
