Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Academy Awards

Oscar

An Oscar could be worth 4 years.

  • Hypothesizing that higher social status can extend a life, researchers report that actors who win an Academy Award can expect to live 3.9 years longer than those who lost. Their conclusions were based on data from 72 years of awards that included 235 Oscar winners, 527 non-winning nominees and a control group of 887 performers who were never nominated. (We should note that their statistical methods have been challenged.)

 

An Oscar could cost $900.

  • Weighing 8 1/2 pounds (yes, heavier than it appears) and 13 1/2 inches tall, Oscars have a 24-carat gold plated exterior. Mostly though, they are made of Britannium, an alloy composed of tin (93%), antimony (5%) and copper (2%) and cost $900.

 

Or, more than $2 million.

  • Currently, award winners are only permitted to sell their statuettes back to the Academy for a small amount but pre-1950 recipients have no constraints. The best picture Oscar that went to Gone With the Wind in 1939 was purchased by Michael Jackson for $2,125,743.

 

And always, an Oscar costs the time it takes to write an acceptance speech.

In an analysis of Oscar speeches since 1971, the Guardian’s movie blogger reported the frequency of words and phrases that winners expressed. Here are some examples that I particularly liked:

  • 15 thanked their high school teacher.
  • Meryl Streep said, “Holy mackerel.”
  • 181 wives were thanked but only 37 husbands
  • 125 moms were thanked but only 81 dads
  • Only 24 said, “I would like to thank my children.”
  • 73 said, “Wow.”

 

Sources and Resources: The 2001 Redelmeier/Singh study (gated except for first page) and this NY Times article on Dr. Redelmeier’s work explain how he concluded that Oscar winners live longer. By contrast, saying the Redelmeier/Singh study displayed “healthy performer survivor bias,” this paper disagrees. For more about the physical composition of the statuette, this article provides the details while the resale value is described here. And the Guardian blog on acceptance speeches was fun.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16022_4.10_000005989308XSmall

Did you know that Academy Award winners live longer than losers? Much more than a trivia fact, Academy Award winner longevity provided researchers with data about inequality.

As reported in the May 15, 2001 issue of The Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers gathered mortality statistics for 1649 people. They looked at all “actors and actresses ever nominated for a leading or supporting role…For each, another cast member of the same sex who was in the same film and was born in the same era was identified…” Their goal was to determine whether relative success correlated with a person’s lifespan. Their answer was, “Yes.” They concluded that winners had approximately 4 extra years of life and that “…movie stars who have won multiple Academy Awards have a survival advantage of 6.0 years over performers with multiple films but no victories.”

I know that you might have many questions. The researchers did also. But our key here is to think about whether inequality among all of us in the U.S. warrants remedial action from our government.

This takes me to a recent NY Times column from economist Robert Frank. Comparing 1976 and 2007, he tells us that the top 1% of earners moved from an 8.9% share of total income to 23.5%. Then, he also points out that counties with rising income inequality experience higher divorce rates, more bankruptcies, and longer commute time. His point? Because “…greater inequality causes real harm…” more income equality through higher taxes is a valid goal for our leaders.

During an Econtalk podcast, George Mason University economist Russ Roberts disagreed with Dr. Frank’s conclusions. Dr. Roberts said that economic growth was constrained by income redistribution and a “bigger pie” will help everyone.

The Economic Lesson

Taxes are all about income redistribution. If we promote equality, we will have more income redistribution through taxes, more fairness, and a common living standard. However, economic efficiency will suffer and our economic pie will grow more slowly. By contrast, economic competition leads to more efficiency, more entrepreneurial energy, more economic growth and a bigger pie. And, is it fairer to be able to keep more of what you earn?

You might want to look at economist Arthur Okun’s Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment