" We now have strong evidence that a reliable and effective way to reduce the incidence of depression (and concomitant medical spending) in the U.S. is to reduce poverty and increase income levels generally."<p>No, we don't. We don't know if low income causes depression, if depression causes low income, or if something else causes both. All three may be true for different cases. You cannot make a statement like "money buys freedom from depression" willly-nilly. Think of all the possible ways in which depression could cause low income: you lose your job because you can't get out of bed, you're not motivated to work and you get fired, etc. Think of all the things that could cause both: e.g. a crippling accident that leaves you unable to do your job, and of course makes you depressed.<p>[The examples above are not hypothetical, I know those people in real life]<p>All we know is that depression and low income are correlated, but OP's conclusion is downright irresponsible.
Well. Some nitpicks: low income may not be causing depression, depression could be causing low income.
Secondly, just because low income is correlated with depression does not mean that there is not a genetic component. Germ-line genetic variations might also predict low income which causes depression OR predicts depression which causes low income. Implying that this somehow shows there is no genetic component is unwarranted.
There's a similar observation at the book the spirit level,by richard wilkinson who show the link between income inequality and bad results in numerous health and social attributes. And it really moves the political inequality debate to a more scientific field , which is nice.<p>One supposed reason for the link is that inequality(and low status) causes stress. Which hurts health, causes depression, etc.
Flagged as spam. This guy has submitted the same blog (but different posts) every day this year, and each and every single one of those posts was demonstrably and incredibly <i>wrong.</i><p>Why do people keep falling for this?
The same graph could be shown for AIDS instead of depression, and the same conclusion could be reached with the same line of logic.<p>My feeling is that the author doesn't consider depression a medical condition. I'm not sure if I disagree, but I just thought it would be worth bringing up the point since many people have different views on what "Depression" is.
Money might buy "freedom from depression," but I suspect it does so by buying antidepressants and therapy.<p>I think Robert Sapolsky is on to the best explanation of depression: it's a disease rooted in biology and genetics, similar to (and exacerbated by) chronic stress. (Here's a lecture that I'm sure has been posted here before: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc</a>). Reducing stress can alleviate the symptoms, but really effective treatments treat depression as a disease.
financial hardship probably causes depression, but low-income does not necessarily cause financial hardship unless you live beyond your means (or make below the poverty line).