Some things only money can buy -- better access to education, health care, and security, not to mention iPhones, BMWs and exotic vacations.
However there is one vitally important thing that money cannot buy. There is mounting science of how the wealthy are disadvantaged in one area that may mean more to them than anything else -- the fundamentals of their children's health.
An Economist cover story claimed that to be successful in America's new "meritocracy," one must increasingly come from the elite. Not long after, The New York Times' posted an article on exhausted super kids, and TIME magazine covered the shocking rise of the college mental health crisis in the pressure to be perfect. One thing all of these stories missed is that a disproportionate number of emotional, behavioural, and mental health problems are occurring in children of the upper class and upper middle class.
That is, wealth is now a risk factor.
Mental Health Symptoms:
In studies of upper class and upper middle class high school students across America, serious levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, loneliness, and somatic (physical) symptoms have been shown to occur at more than twice the rate in comparison to national averages.
A recent meta-analysis study from the University of Michigan examined 85 samples of American College students. They concluded that: "narcissistic exhibitionism scores among affluent boys at elite private schools were almost twice the average scores of a more diverse sample."
Upper class and upper middle class girls are more at risk:
Researchers found that links between peer admiration and external attractiveness (beauty) were almost twice as strong among affluent girls as compared to boys of all SES and girls of lower SES. Wealthy girls also were more likely to show "externalizing behaviors" of emotional upset such as acting out, rule-breaking, delinquency, and alcohol and drug use.
Substance use, abuse, and dependence problems:
A Columbia University study looked at three indicators of family socio-economic status (SES) -- income, wealth, and parental education. Their findings corroborated at least four previous studies (I guess it was hard to believe) that young adults with the highest family background SES were most prone to alcohol use, frequent episodic binge drinking, and marijuana use.
Crime, delinquency, and acting out:
When compared to low-income urban youth, affluent, suburban students were found to display high maladjustment including behaviours such as lying, cheating, theft (from parents and peers), destruction of property, and violence toward others. The main differentiating factor between low SES and high SES was in their protective factors such as parental, school, and community involvement, and access to therapists and healthy interventions allowing the high SES youth to change their trajectory away from a downward spiral.
And is getting worse...
Ask any private school or liberal arts college teacher, professor, or administrator and they may all tell you that these problems are all getting worse. In fact the same Columbia University study concluded that "The evidence suggests that the privileged young are much more vulnerable today than in previous generations."
Now all of this begs the question -- why?
Like much in life, the factors are complex but here are a few reasons.
A pressured lifestyle.
Many youth are pressured: The CASA's (2012) survey established that "[t]he number one source of stress for teens is academic pressure, including pressure to do well in school and to get into college," and among college students, reducing stress was the most common reason offered for drinking, drug use, and smoking."
But, the wealthy have the resources -- time and money to manifest this pressure into an unhealthy lifestyle of schedules, instructions, tutoring, coaching, and hovering over their children's performance placing added pressure on them. These over-parenting behaviours manifest themselves in an over-pressured lifestyle.
A pressured mind.
A pressured lifestyle is only part of the cause, the other part comes from the very core of the environment these children grow up in. An environment that directly or indirectly sends them the message that what you do on the outside is of utmost importance, perhaps even more important than who you are on the inside.
In the last 40 years there has been a fundamental shift in life values. In 1967, almost 90 per cent of college freshmen rated "developing a meaningful philosophy of life" as an essential life goal. In 2004, only 42 per cent of freshmen agreed with them. What replaced "developing a meaningful philosophy in life?" Ranking for "being well-off financially" and "attaining prestigious jobs" rose equivalently in importance over that same time frame.
The research shows that among the upper class and upper middle class, the first signs of problems emerge when these youth are around 12-13. This age is a developmental marker for when children start to ask themselves questions of meaning, identity, and purpose.
Tragically in the fast paced, performance-oriented, and hyper-competitive environments many of these children are growing up in, the answers to these life questions all seem to point to external accomplishment at the expense of internal meaning or purpose.
So if you are thinking "what's wrong with a little substance use, anxiety or narcissism as a teen? Once my kid gets in to their Ivy League and lands a prestigious job, all will be well."
Think again. Childhood sets the stage for life.
Personal, emotional, behavioural, and mental health issues in childhood and adolescence bring elevated risk for recurrent problems later in life. Childhood lays the foundation for all aspects of adult life. We know that an unhappy childhood is a risk factor for numerous psychological issues -- difficulty with relationships, self-insight, and coping with stress -- just to name a few. An unhappy childhood also predisposes individuals to physical health issues such as heart disease, inflammatory conditions, and accelerated cell aging.
The irony is great and tragic.
Like all parents, wealthy parents just want "the best" for their kids. However, regardless of what our society says, the best doesn't always mean more. Instead of having more, children of wealth end up with less.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
> Gini coefficient: 0.509 > Median household income: $42,085 > Poverty rate: 22.7% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 3.6% Before taxes and transfers, income in Bloomington is distributed less evenly than in all but nine other metropolitan areas. Income inequality does not necessarily contribute to a higher level of poverty, but like most cities with the widest income gaps, Bloomington has a high poverty rate with nearly 23% of its residents living in poverty. This is well above the national poverty rate of 15.8%. Despite the sizable income gap, the area’s wealthiest residents are not especially wealthy compared to the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest 20% of households report incomes of at least $90,484, versus the comparable national figure of $106,101. In contrast, Bloomington’s poorest 20% of households have incomes no greater than $14,175 compared to the national figure of $21,433. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.510 > Median household income: $40,639 > Poverty rate: 25.6% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 3.1% As in a handful of other cities with the widest income gaps, Greenville’s poverty rate of 25.6% is among the higher rates nationwide. Low incomes may be less financially burdensome in the area than in many other regions because the cost of goods and services is more than 10% less on average than their cost across the nation. As in most areas with the most uneven income distribution, households in the top 5% of the income spectrum account for nearly 26% of all income generated in Greenville. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.512 > Median household income: $46,946 > Poverty rate: 17.7% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 5.1% The Miami area has a high concentration of professional and scientific jobs, which tend to have higher salaries. This may explain why some Miami residents have extremely high incomes. More than 5% of the Miami metro area households earn at least $200,000 annually, while 8.7% earn less than $10,000. The wealthiest 20% of households earn 54.5% of all income generated in the area, one of the highest such shares. The poorest 20% of households, on the other hand, account for less than 3% of the area’s entire income. Goods and services cost 5% more than the average cost across the nation, and the high prices are likely more burdensome for the area’s lower-income residents. However, the region, with its easy access to beaches along Florida’s southeastern shore, is still a very desirable place to live. The metro’s population grew 4.4% from July 2010 through July 2013, twice the national population growth rate. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.512 > Median household income: $65,786 > Poverty rate: 14.6% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 10.0% The New York-Newark-Jersey City metro area’s median income of $65,786 is one of the few among areas with uneven income distribution to exceed the national median income of $52,250. Because of the extremely wealthy households the area’s average income is $35,697 higher than the median income at $101,482. The difference, which is the second largest compared to other metros, is the result of high income inequality. One in 10 households earns at least $200,000, twice the national share. While the metro’s poverty rate of 14.6% is slightly lower than the national rate, area residents are more likely to rely on food stamps than most Americans. This could be due in part to goods and services costing about 22.2% more than the national average price level, the second highest cost of living nationwide. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.512 > Median household income: $39,657 > Poverty rate: 28.4% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 3.0% The College Station-Bryan metro area is one of three Texas metros with the most unevenly distributed income. The wealthiest 20% of households earn at least $89,292. While this is lower than the comparable national income figure, it is also 6.4 times the highest income among the area’s poorest 20% of households — a larger disparity than in all but one other metro area. Like most metros with the highest income inequality, the College Station metro area’s poverty rate of 28.4% is well above the national poverty rate of 15.8%. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.513 > Median household income: $38,663 > Poverty rate: 20.9% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 3.1% With one of the lowest median household incomes in the country, over half of all of Jackson’s households earn less than $38,663 annually. Of these households, 6.25% earn less than $10,000, one of the highest such proportions of all metro areas in the United States. While 20% of households in Jackson earn a minimum of $81,290 annually, only 3.1% of households make over $200,000. Jackson’s high Gini coefficient is driven largely by a small share of households with extraordinarily high incomes. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.517 > Median household income: $38,658 > Poverty rate: 26.8% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 3.5% Few American cities have income distribution as skewed as Gainesville, Florida. The wealthiest 20% of households control 54% of the region’s annual income. On the other end of the income spectrum, the poorest 20% of households generate just 1.9% of the region’s total income, the smallest share by the bottom fifth of earners among metros reviewed. This means that the richest fifth of households earns about 29 times more in aggregate than the poorest fifth of Gainesville households. Nearly 15% of the region’s households earn less than $10,000 per year, well above the national share of households in extreme poverty. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.518 > Median household income: $38,298 > Poverty rate: 17.0% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 2.7% With only 83,306 residents, Grants Pass has the smallest population of the 20 cities with the highest income inequality. Workforce mobility can help reduce income inequality. But without it, uneven income distribution is difficult to overcome, as finding higher-paying jobs is more difficult in a weak job market, particularly for lower-income residents. At just over 11%, Grants Pass has the highest unemployment rate among the 20 cities with the highest income inequality. In Grants Pass, nearly 30% of all income goes to just 5% of area households, the highest such share in the nation. On the other end of the income spectrum, the lowest earning 20% of households take home just 3.2% of all income generated in the city. While the average cost of living was lower than the national price level, 24.3% of the city’s population still received food stamp benefits, among the highest percentages and perhaps a further illustration of uneven income distribution. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.531 > Median household income: $54,406 > Poverty rate: 12.8% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 9.2% The Naples metropolitan area is home to not only some of the highest concentrations of wealth in the country, but also to the second highest income inequality. Stretching down the southernmost portion of Florida’s Gulf Coast before the Everglades, much of the area is a resort community. The top 5% of earners in the region take home at a minimum of a quarter million dollars annually and control nearly 30% of all income generated in the area. Households with earnings in the top 20% of incomes make over 18 times more than the poorest 20% of households. Unlike most areas with high income inequality, Naples has a relatively low 12.8% poverty rate, 3 percentage points lower than the national poverty rate. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
> Gini coefficient: 0.551 > Median household income: $82,084 > Poverty rate: 9.6% > Pct. earning more than $200,000: 18.2% Income is less evenly distributed in Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk than in any other metro area. Households in the bottom 20% of the income spectrum earned at most $30,493 annually, which was actually one of the highest such figures nationwide. Taken together, those incomes are a fraction of the incomes among the wealthiest households, however, accounting for just 2.3% of income generated in the area. At the same time, the 20% of households with the highest incomes earn nearly 59% of all income generated, the highest such percentage nationwide. Many of these earnings likely come from the 18.2% of area households reporting incomes of at least $200,000, also the highest share in the country. As was the case in a few other cities on this list, relatively high proportions of the area’s workforce was employed by traditionally high-paying industries. The finance, insurance, and real estate, as well as the professional, scientific and management industries accounted for 11.5% and 17% of the workforce respectively — each some of the highest percentages nationwide. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Follow Dr. Shimi Kang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drshimikang