In tends to comply with the recommended daily

In Gidden’s (2007) view there is perhaps an element of individual choice, freely chosen by the lower socio-economic groups. Here Gidden’s goes on to suggest that the “lower social classes tend to engage in unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, poor diet and consuming high levels of alcohol”. Early evidence of unhealthy habits being related to the lower class can be derived from the standardised death rates of men aged 15-64 is considerably higher for those in the unskilled workforce Berridge (2004). This can be attributed to the unskilled workforce’s close association to low education attainment, a limited skill set, and so, therefore, resulting in a limited household income Nelson et al (2005). Thus, Gidden’s rightfully argues how our individual behaviours are encompassed within our socio-economic class context. Furthermore, on the other side of the spectrum, the main causation of death to the higher socio-economic classes being cancers and other external cause of injury or poisoning White et al (2003) echoes Giddens previous statement of the higher classes living longer healthier lives, likely due to living long enough to develop cancerous cells or have a fatal accident White et al (2003). Considering the aforementioned, years of collective research suggests that socioeconomic status highly influences people’s health and health choices on an individual level, and collectively e.g at home, whereby health choices are affected by primary reinforcements of a family Hodder Education (2013).The link between socioeconomic status and health was identified many years ago. Thompson et al (1993) and Drewnowski (2004) elaborate on how a high education attainment strongly associates with healthy lifestyle choices. This is because the nominator tends to comply with the recommended daily intakes advised by dieticians more so than the denominator (Thompson and Margetts 1999). Compelling research from Pincus (1994) suggests that mortality rates for diabetes, emphysema and bronchitis were found to be three times more likely if the individual had fewer than 12 years of formal education. Further from Pincus’ research suggests that the more prevalent diseases for those with 12 or more years in education were cancerous, allergenic or natural disasters. Overall this strengthens Berridge (2004) argument as it correlated with the motion that those in lower socio-economic groups, who are large associations with low education attainment are on average “living longer, however experiencing more ill health” (Giddens, 2007) such as back pain and bronchitis (Wilkinson, 2004). Thompson and Margetts (1999) also agree in stating that the higher socio-economic group is closely associated with a high educational attainment are “living longer healthier lives”, however, are being exposed to more radiation and natural disasters- due to a longer life expectancy. An increase in income is accompanied by a higher level of good health (Emerson and Graham, 2006). Benzeval and Bond (2014) expand on this and state that there are more complexities such as what we are exposed to during our life course- as subjective as they are. For example, employment is a crucial element of a stable income for a family to rely on later in adult life. This would be influenced by education attainment Thomas and Margetts (1999). This, in turn, is affected by health experienced during childhood and the crucial primary influence of your parents as their income will later affect the child’ s spending and earning capacity Benzeval and Bond (2014). Further, Benzeval and Bond’s findings imply that income affects health more so than other socio-economic factors mentioned throughout this essay. This is due to the materialistic key necessities that it brings. A steady income can buy a healthy diet, the avoidance of poor neighbourhoods that are noisy or polluted, access to health-promoting services such as a gym Brenzeval and Bonds (2014). In an agreement from Emerson and Graham (2006) findings during the cross-section survey of household income in Britain entails similarities. Results from Emerson and Graham’s (2006) analysis controlling for characteristics of a child, socioeconomic status of parents and household income found that; low levels of equalised household income had been strongly correlated with poorer health (averaging to 13 out of 22 indicators that were investigated). Moreover, that low levels of equalised household income increased the chances of poorer health for 9 out of 22 of the signals examined. This is useful in arguing that household income is crucially important in considering many health outcomes for children.Inequality can be a result of living in socioeconomic depravation Preston (1975). Income can cause inequality as there is a lack of a sustainable family income, for the child to thrive on, this can effectively hinder an individual from progressing through education due to a lack of funding. Both income and inequality are determinants of mortality, in turn, they affect the health of an individual. Evidence for associations between income- a segment of a socioeconomic situation, and inequality throughout the UK, Brazil and the United States Kaplan (1996). Kaplan most amendable finding being over time educational outcomes worsen as income inequality in the increases. Further, from this, more associations were made between income inequality impacting mortality trends in Kapan’s meta-analysis based on the US Piketty (2006). These trends lateralise relative investments into a society that suggest cautious planning should go into the making of the economic policies at which we are governed by. As they influence income inequality and wealth distribution Piketty (2006). Therefore, Kapan 1996 also provides information that suggests income and wealth inequality impacts on the overall health of a country. This is especially important in considering how inequalities in society are created & perpetuated. Preston 1975 examine the changing relationship between income and mortality. These findings imply that in an inegalitarian country, whereby inequality is encouraged, the average life expectancy was expected to be five to ten years lower than a more egalitarian counterpart. Income inequality causes the unequal distribution of goods and in turn causes social inequality, many researchers such as Wilkinson, Rayner (1996) argue that income effects our health through our perception of ourselves without the social hierarchy. Empirical evidence suggests a link between social cohesion inequality and health. As social cohesion decreases inequality around the world increases Rayner 1996). Negative perceptions would, in turn, produce negative emotions such as hostility, depression, regret, self-loathing due to what socioeconomic category the individual is placed in. Psychosocial risk factors such as these are what is thought to be causing and perpetuating social inequality throughout the world. This is because they create challenges faces by workers health and the overall health and efficiently of the organisation as psychosocial risk facts are the main causation of early retirement, work stress, anxiety, low productivity and an overall health impairment WHO (2018). In agreement with Rayner 1996, Inequalities in society are perpetuate through gender and stereotypes. Specifically class stereotypes Asner (2005). From Preston’s (1975) viewpoint, inequality can be a result of living in socioeconomic deprivation). Through this income can cause inequality through a lack of a sustainable income. Because of this, the child may not thrive, in turn this can effectively hinder an individual from progressing through education due to a lack of funding Kaplan (1996). Both income and inequality are determinants of mortality as they affect the health of an individual. Evidence for associations between income- a segment of a socioeconomic situation, and inequality throughout the UK, Brazil and the United States Kaplan (1996). Kaplan most amendable finding being that, over time educational outcomes worsen as income inequality in the increases. Further, from this, more associations were made between income inequality impacting mortality trends in Kapan’s meta-analysis based on the US Piketty (2006). These trends lateralise relative investments into a society that suggest more thought should go into the economic policies at which we are ruled by, that influence income inequality and wealth distribution. Therefore, Kapan 1996 also provides information that suggests income and wealth inequality impacts on the overall health of a country. This is especially important in considering how inequalities in society are created & perpetuated. Preston 1975 examines the changing relationship between income and mortality. These findings imply that in an inegalitarian country, whereby inequality is encouraged, the average life expectancy was expected to be five to ten years lower than a more egalitarian counterpart. Highly implying that Income inequality causes the unequal distribution of goods and in turn causes social inequality. Social psychologists such as Rayner (1996) argue that income effects our health through our perception of ourselves without the social hierarchy. Empirical evidence suggests a link between social cohesion inequality and health. As social cohesion decreases inequality around the world increases Rayner 1996). Negative perceptions would, in turn, produce negative emotions such as hostility, depression, regret, self-loathing due to what socioeconomic category the individual is placed in. Psychosocial risk factors such as these are what is thought to be causing and perpetuating social inequality throughout the world. This is because they create challenges faces by workers health and the overall health and efficiently of the organisation as psychosocial risk facts are the main causation of early retirement, work stress, anxiety, low productivity and an overall health impairment WHO (2018). Therefore, agreements can be made with Kaplan’s findings: income inequality and wealth distribution can affect the overall productivity of an organisation, and this may be applicable to a country. In agreement with Rayner 1996, Inequalities in society are perpetuate through gender and stereotypes. Specifically, lower and upper-class stereotypes Asner (2005). Here we disprove early arguments of the element of free choice Giddens (2007) proposed to be chosen by the lower socioeconomic groups in society.

Author:

x

Hi!
I'm Eileen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out