3 ms·

Here's the worldwide data: http://www.who.int/entity/bulletin/volumes/90/8/BLT-11-097378-F2.jpg http://www.who.int/entity/bulletin/volumes/90/8/BLT-11-09737...

Here's the worldwide data: http://www.who.int/entity/bulletin/volumes/90/8/BLT-11-097378-F2.jpg http://www.who.int/entity/bulletin/volumes/90/8/BLT-11-09737... and artile: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/8/11-097378/en/ http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/8/11-097378/en/ Short version: low income is worse for everyone, but (not surprisingly) more worse for men than women. For high income, men and women have almost achieved parity.

mpweiher 11y ago
That's interesting. The article talks about "shortfall", not about absolute lifespan. What is the baseline for that shortfall? It almost looks like it might be the gender-segregated data for "high income", which would explain why those have (a) no shortfall at all and (b) no gender disparity. Reading the article, it does look like the "shortfall" is gendered, being based on gender-specific maxima.