100 years ago the difference in life expectancy between the wealthy and the working class was narrower. With the much larger body of knowledge today around hea

100 years ago the difference in life expectancy between the wealthy and the working class was narrower. With the much larger body of knowledge today around health & wellness combined with the fast growing anti-aging sector, the wealthy can afford lifestyle & healthcare options previously unavailable. Here’s a Machiavellian question: What does the National balance sheet look like if intervention leads to life expectancy of the poor matching that of the wealthy? Is it a net positive or a net negative? If it’s net negative, then will anything be done to change it or will it be conveniently ignored? As price drops and efficacy grows for anti-aging lifestyle & active treatment options, surely it’s going to start having non negligible impact on the national balance sheet. I wonder what contribution the relative physicality of employment( occupational health & safety risk) has on this result? And can that be comparative physiological wear and tear be substantively changed?