Your Credit Rating Might Predict How Likely It Is You'll Have A Heart Attack

A new study has found that your credit rating may be able to predict how likely you are to have a heart attack or stroke.

The multi-decade study, which was published last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was performed by Duke University psychologists who looked at the cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes status and smoking habits of over 1,000 New Zealanders -- and then compared their findings to those people’s credit ratings.

The study found that people with lower credit scores were more likely to be at risk for cardiovascular disease. That, the study said, is because the same factors that account for better credit scores -- the researchers focused on self-control, educational attainment and cognitive abilities -- also account for better health.

“For example, being able to regulate your impulses lets you say no to that second helping of dessert as well as to buying something you can’t afford,” said Salomon Israel, one of the study’s authors and a postdoctoral fellow in psychology and neuroscience at Duke.

The study also found that those traits begin to develop in the first ten years of a person’s life. The researchers have been following the study participants' development since birth. "Despite the passage of nearly three decades, childhood factors were all significantly correlated with their corresponding adult measures," the study concluded.

In order to measure self-control, researchers relied on reports from study members’ teachers and parents, as well as self-reports from the members themselves, about qualities such as hyperactivity, inattention and lack of persistence. Educational attainment was defined by the level of schooling each participant had completed, while cognitive ability was measured by evaluating participants' IQs at various points throughout their lives.

Of course, the association between poor credit and poor heart health could be due to other factors, too. The study acknowledged, for example, that losing a job after getting sick could cause a person’s health to deteriorate and their credit score to drop. On the flip side, someone with more money might be both healthier and more financially stable because they can afford to pay their bills on time and access quality health care.

But the study concluded that self-restraint, educational level and cognitive ability were nonetheless more important than these other factors in explaining the link between a sound credit rating and a strong heart.

In the U.S., credit ratings are determined by a complex algorithm used by credit bureaus, which receive information about how punctually people pay their bills from places like utility companies, banks and mortgage providers. Then, the bureaus plug that information into an algorithm and come up with a three-digit number that lenders, landlords and others use to assess your financial reliability.

Having a less-than-perfect credit rating can have a host of consequences. Just a few dings on your score can mean you’ll be paying higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans and credit cards. Having a few more dings means you could be denied a job or a place to live.

But people shouldn’t be so quick to assume that a bad credit score is only because a person was impulsive, says Paul Bland, a consumer lawyer and the executive director of Public Justice, a public interest law firm that brings litigation against corporations on behalf of consumers.

“In the U.S., there are so many mistakes on credit reports that it seems dubious to make a strong association between these personality traits and your credit reports,” Bland told The Huffington Post.

Mistakes on credit reports affect millions of Americans: One out of every five people with a credit report on file had an error on their report, the Federal Trade Commission found in 2013.

Bland pointed out that even if a person is scrupulous and has a history of always paying bills on time, something like medical debt could still quickly ruin their credit. Because unexpected illnesses or accidents don’t discriminate in who they afflict, research has shown that unpaid medical debt is an imperfect predictor of creditworthiness. Partly as a result of such research, major credit score provider FICO said in August that it would start giving less weight to unpaid medical bills in determining credit ratings when that is the only negative in a person’s credit history.

So what does this all mean? For those who make indulgent purchases even when your paycheck doesn’t allow it, it can't hurt to get your blood pressure and cholesterol checked. But at the same time, just because you have a few dents on your credit report doesn’t mean you’re going to keel over the next time you have to shovel the driveway.

H/T Consumer Reports

Black Friday Is One Of The Busiest Days For Gun Purchases

BRIDGEPORT, W.Va. (AP) — More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system — 186,000 last year, a rate of 512 gun sales a day, as states fail to consistently provide thorough, real-time updates on criminal and mental histories to the FBI.

At no time of year is this problem more urgent. This Friday opens the busiest season for gun purchases, when requests for background checks speed up to nearly two a second, testing the limits of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

The stakes are high: In the U.S., there are already nine guns for every 10 people, and someone is killed with a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few weeks.

"We have a perfect storm coming," FBI manager Kimberly Del Greco told The Associated Press during a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the system.

Much of the responsibility for preventing criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns is shouldered by about 500 men and women who run the system from inside the FBI's criminal justice center, a gray office building with concrete walls and mirrored windows just outside Bridgeport, West Virginia.

By federal law, NICS researchers must race against the clock: They have until the end of the third business day following an attempted firearm purchase to determine whether or not a buyer is eligible.

"They won't proceed or deny a transaction unless they are ABSOLUTELY certain the information they have is correct and sufficient to sustain that decision," FBI spokesman Stephen G. Fischer told the AP.

In roughly two percent of the checks handled by the FBI, agents don't get this information in time. If three business days pass without a federal response, buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was completed.

Americans are buying more than twice as many guns a year now as they did when the background checks were first implemented in 1998. And that means more gun sales are effectively beating the system.

The federal government often takes the heat in debates over gun rights, but the FBI says states are largely to blame for this problem. They voluntarily submit records, which are often missing information about mental health rulings or criminal convictions, and aren't always rapidly updated to reflect restraining orders or other urgent reasons to deny a sale.

"We are stewards of the states' records," Del Greco said. "It's really critical that we have accurate information. Sometimes we just don't."

There are more than 48,000 gun retailers in the U.S., from Wal-Mart stores to local pawn shops. Store clerks can use the FBI's online E-Check System, which federal officials say is more efficient. But nearly half the checks are phoned in. Three call centers — in Kentucky, Texas, and Wheeling, W.Va. — take these calls from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. every day but Christmas.

NICS did about 58,000 checks on a typical day last year. That surged to 145,000 on Black Friday 2013. They're bringing in 100 more workers than usual for the post-Thanksgiving rush this year.

The call centers have no access to privileged information about buyers' backgrounds, and make no decisions. They just type in their name, address, birthdate, Social Security Number and other information into the system. On Black Fridays, the work can be grueling: One woman took a call that lasted four hours when a dealer phoned in the maximum 99 checks.

"Rules had to be stretched," recalled Sam Demarco, her supervisor. "We can't transfer calls. Someone had to sit in her seat for her while she went to the bathroom."

In the years since these background checks were required, about 71 percent have found no red flags and produced instant approvals.

But ten factors can disqualify gun purchasers: a felony conviction, an arrest warrant, a documented drug problem or mental illness, undocumented immigration status, a dishonorable military discharge, a renunciation of U.S. citizenship, a restraining order, a history of domestic violence, or an indictment for any crime punishable by longer than one year of prison time.

Any sign that one of these factors could be in a buyer's background produces a red-flag, which sends the check to the FBI researchers to approve, deny or investigate. They scour state records in the federal database, and often call local authorities for more information.

"It takes a lot of effort ... for an examiner to go out and look at court reports, look at judges' documents, try to find a final disposition so we can get back to a gun dealer on whether they can sell that gun or not," Del Greco said. "And we don't always get back to them."

These workers have considerable responsibility, but little independent authority. They must use skill and judgment, balancing the rights of gun owners and the need to keep would-be killers from getting firearms.

Researcher Valerie Sargo said outstanding warrants often come up when they examine a red flag, and that can help police make arrests.

"It makes you feel good that this person is not supposed to have a firearm and you kept it out of their hands," she said.

It also weighs on them when the red flags aren't resolved in time. Tacked to a cubicle wall, a sign reads: "Our policy is to ALWAYS blame the computer."

FBI contractors and employees oversaw more than 9 million checks in the first full year, when the NICS system was established as part of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1998. By last year, they oversaw more than 21 million. In all, only 1.25 percent of attempted purchases are denied. Denials can be appealed.

People can get guns without background checks in many states by buying weapons at gun shows or from individuals, a loophole the National Rifle Association does not want closed. But even the NRA agrees that the NICS system needs better data.

"Any database is only going to function as well as the information contained within," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Del Greco doesn't see the states' data improving soon, which only adds to the immense challenge of getting through huge numbers of requisite checks on Black Friday.

___

Associated Press Writer Matt Stroud can be reached through Twitter @mattstroud.

Solving The Tech Worker 'Shortage' Is Easy: Just Pay Them More

American tech CEOs love to complain that they can't find enough skilled workers, and they want the U.S. government to change its immigration policies to fix the problem. But it's a problem that doesn’t exist.

The real problem is not that there aren’t enough qualified workers to do tech jobs, but that tech companies simply don’t want to pay people enough money to do them, Bloomberg Businessweek’s Josh Eidelson pointed out on Monday, citing academic research.

Specifically, Eidelson quoted Rutgers professor of public policy Hal Salzman saying that tech companies looking for new hires “may not be able to find them at the price they want. But I’m not sure that qualifies as a shortage, any more than my not being able to find a half-priced TV.”

Salzman’s research found that 50 percent of computer-science college students don’t enter the tech industry after graduation. Thirty-two percent of the students Salzman surveyed said there weren't enough tech jobs available -- countering any idea of a worker shortage. Fifty-three percent of students said they “found better job opportunities outside of IT occupations." That suggests the relative pay of tech is the real problem.

Tech companies do pay well compared to the median U.S. income of $53,000. A few years ago, Business Insider reported that starting median salaries at big companies ranged from $55,000 to $87,000. But these companies are not competing to employ the median U.S. worker; by their own admission, they want highly skilled workers. Those 53 percent of tech grads who found better offers elsewhere suggest that tech companies pay less than some companies they are competing against for talent.

Add to this Salzman's finding that inflation-adjusted tech pay hasn't risen since 1999, and you don't get a picture of an industry that is, overall, offering best-in-class pay.

Even if there were in fact a shortage of tech workers, tech CEOs could fix it by simply paying workers more. It’s the same solution The New York Times’ Neil Irwin called for when the trucking industry bemoaned a lack of truckers: Pay them more, and they will come.

Instead of taking a free-market approach to attracting workers -– raising pay to increase the supply of workers -– the tech industry has focused on lobbying politicians to increase the number of temporary H1-B visas for high-skilled workers, to let a greater number of workers enter the country. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg created an entire organization, called FWD, to push for immigration reform that included more H1-B visas.

It's no accident that these H1-B workers are cheaper. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 80 percent of H1-B visa workers make less than Americans in similar jobs.

In arguing to bring in more of these workers, tech CEOs claim their industry is unique. Tech workers are nothing like truckers, they would say. Tech jobs are specialized and talent-based, with top performers that are vastly more productive than other employees.

But the same can be said of many white-collar occupations. Technology companies are not unicorns. Other industries deal with the same issues tech companies are constantly decrying, including global competition for talent and a sub-standard U.S. education system, and seem to do just fine.

For instance, look at finance. Wages are high enough that there are plenty of people willing to do complicated, skilled work for more than 80 hours a week.

As a result, no one ever talks about a banker shortage. Quite the opposite: There are semi-regular columns imploring young and impressionable college graduates to ignore the allure of high pay in the financial sector -- and instead try working in tech, maybe. And some of those grads do. But you will never hear a bank or hedge fund complain that they just can’t hire enough people.

FWD, the group founded by Zuckerberg, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did representatives from Apple, Google and Facebook.

What Your Work Lunch Really Says About You

You might not realize it, but your co-workers can tell a lot about you based on the lunch you eat. They see that air of superiority when you're eating your homemade organic kale chips. Or maybe you don't eat lunch until 5:00? They get that too: You're such a harder worker than everyone else.

Just so you're clear on how your co-workers perceive you, we've compiled the definitive list of office lunches and what they really say about you. Find your most common midday fare below, and then learn what your officemates are thinking when you unwrap the tin foil on that bi-weekly burrito.

After all, you are what you eat.

The "I Only Have $3 To My Name" Lunch

The meal: A single slice of pizza.
Alternatives: Instant oatmeal, hanging around outside a conference room to try to get free leftovers from a catered meeting.

The “I Have No Respect For Your Sense Of Smell" Lunch

The meal: Hard-boiled eggs and tuna salad.
Alternatives: Street meat, Italian-style deli sub.

The “I’m A Ridiculously Hard-Worker" Lunch

The meal: Vending machine Doritos, M&M's and Coke. Maybe a few almonds thrown in for a well-balanced meal.
Alternatives: No lunch at all, sending a tweet saying you wished Starbucks delivered.

The “Look How Together My Life Is” Lunch

The meal: Gourmet lunch made at home and packaged in glass containers.
Alternatives: Using the office kitchen to actually make something fresh.

The "I'm Definitely Not Like You" Lunch

The meal: Single roast turkey leg.
Alternatives: Lima beans, a can of anchovies.

The “Please Give Me A Raise” Lunch

The meal: Ham sandwich, probably for a number of days in a row.
Alternatives: No lunch at all, Chef Boyardee microwaveables.

The “Look How Basic I Am” Lunch

The meal: Chopped salad.
Alternatives: Kale salad, smoothie, non-fat frozen yogurt.

The "I'm On A Juice Cleanse, See?" Lunch

The meal: Kale, pineapple, ginger, lime, cucumber juice.
Alternatives: Ginger, pumpkin, celery root, agave juice. Almond milk.

The "I Was So Drunk Last Night" Lunch

The meal: Bagel sandwich and a Gatorade.
Alternatives: Pedialyte, hard-boiled egg.

The “I Am Getting Drunk Tonight” Lunch

The meal: Chipotle burrito.
Alternatives: Loaf of bread, fried chicken and french fries.

The “I Am Getting Drunk Now” Lunch

The meal: Three martinis during an inexplicably long break, followed by nap.
Alternatives: Desk whiskey, company-provided beer.

The “One Lunch Now, One Lunch Later” Lunch

The meal: Pad thai.
Alternatives: A full delivery pizza, Chinese takeout.

The “I Just Went Gluten Free But I'm Not Entirely Sure What That Means Yet" Lunch

The meal: Gluten free split pea soup.
Alternatives: Salad, sandwich with bread thrown away.

The “I Make More Money Than You” Lunch

The meal: Sushi platter.
Alternatives: Kobe beef cheeseburger with foie gras, Beluga caviar and champagne.

The “Fuck It” Lunch

The meal: McDonald's Quarter Pounder.
Alternatives: Taco Bell, bottle of Jack Daniel's.

The “I Just Got Fired” Lunch.

The meal: Taco Bell.
Alternatives: McDonald's, vodka.

The “I Am A Huge Asshole" Lunch

The meal: Stolen sandwich from the work fridge.
Alternatives: See above for the "The 'I Have No Respect For Your Sense Of Smell' Lunch." Pretty much anything while your desk neighbor is dieting.

The “Oh Crap, It’s Already 6:00” Lunch

The meal: Nothing. You missed lunch.
Alternatives: Expensing meal to company, falling asleep, taking a chill pill.

Here Is Where Homes Are Most Affordable For The Middle Class

If you're struggling to buy a home in San Francisco or New York, you may want to consider Dayton or Rochester.

Those are two of the U.S. cities where middle-class buyers are most likely to find an affordable home, according to a new report by the real-estate website Trulia.

In Trulia's map below, the bubbles represent the size of a metropolitan area's housing market. The colors represent the percentage of housing in that market that Trulia considers affordable to the middle class.

By Trulia's definition, a city is affordable if "the total monthly payment, including mortgage, insurance, and property taxes, is less than 31% of the metro area’s median household income." Thus, what's affordable varies from city to city.

In the U.S. as a whole, 59 percent of homes currently for sale are affordable to the middle class, down from 62 percent a year ago, according to the report.

"Homeownership is getting less affordable for the middle class," Trulia economist Jed Kolko said in an email. "Unless incomes increase substantially, homeownership will slip further beyond the reach of many households," he added in the report.

America's least-affordable markets are the coastal cities, while the most-affordable are clustered around the Great Lakes. Six of the ten least-affordable housing markets are in California, while three of the ten most affordable are in Ohio.

Here are the most-affordable markets:

And the least:

A Quarter Of Uninsured Say They Can't Afford To Buy Coverage

This story was originally published by Kaiser Health News.

Just days before the health law’s marketplaces reopened, nearly a quarter of uninsured said they expect to remain without coverage because they did not think it would be affordable, according to a poll released Friday.

That was by far the most common reason given by people who expect to stay uninsured next year, according to the latest tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) Forty-one percent of individuals without health insurance said they expected they would remain uninsured, while about half said they plan to get coverage in the coming months.

The law includes subsidies to reduce premium costs and cost-sharing assistance for those who qualify, although it was not clear if the uninsured knew that.

Despite heavy news coverage and marketing from insurers about the re-opening of enrollment, about 9 in 10 of the uninsured said they didn’t know when the health law’s open enrollment period began (Nov. 15). That was similar to the findings in last month’s Kaiser poll.

More than 8 in 10 of the uninsured said it is at least somewhat important to them to have health insurance, with 62 percent saying it’s very important. Seven in 10 said health insurance is something they need.

Other findings in Kaiser’s November poll include that most of the public reports their families have not been directly impacted by the health law, with more (24 percent) saying they have been hurt than helped (16 percent).

Forty-six percent of those surveyed hold an unfavorable view of the law and 37 percent view it favorably, a slight change from last month’s survey, where 43 percent of those questioned held an unfavorable view of the law and 36 percent a favorable one.

With the midterm elections giving Republicans control of the Senate and increasing the party’s majority in the House of Representatives, Americans were divided about whether the debate between the two parties over the health law would increase, the poll found. Forty-seven percent expected it, while 42 percent predicted it would stay at about the same level.

This KHN story can be republished for free (details).
There’s a variety of opinion about what Congress should do next with the health law. Twenty-nine percent of the public supports the law’s repeal, 17 percent favors scaling the law back, 20 percent wants the law to move ahead as is, while 22 percent chooses expanding the law.

Republicans are more likely to favor repeal (52 percent) or scaling it back (24 percent), while Democrats are more likely to favor moving ahead with the law in its current form (40 percent) or expansion (34 percent). Independents fall in between, but lean toward repeal or scaling back.

The poll was conducted from Nov. 5 through 13, using a telephone sample of 1,501 adults. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points for the full sample and +/- 9 percentage points for the uninsured.

maryagnesc@kff.org | @MaryAgnesCarey

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit national health policy news service.

Global Cost Of Obesity Rises To $2 Trillion A Year

LONDON (AP) — The global cost of obesity has risen to $2 trillion annually — nearly as much as smoking or the combined impact of armed violence, war and terrorism, according to a new report released Thursday.

The McKinsey Global Institute consulting firm's report focused on the economics of obesity, putting it among the top three social programs generated by human beings. It puts its impact at 2.8 percent of global gross domestic product.

"Obesity isn't just a health issue," one of the report's authors, Richard Dobbs, said in a podcast. "But it's a major economic and business challenge."

The company says 2.1 billion people — about 30 percent of the global population— are overweight or obese and that about 15 percent of health care costs in developed economies are driven by it.

In emerging markets, as countries get richer, the rate of obesity rises to the same level as that found in more developed countries. The report offers the stark prediction that nearly half the world's adult population will be overweight or obese by 2030 should present trends continue.

"We are on an unfortunate trajectory," Dobbs told The Associated Press. "We have to act."

The report's authors argue that efforts to deal with obesity have been piecemeal until now, and that a systemic response is needed.

McKinsey says there's no single or simple solution to the problem, but global disagreement on how to move forward is hurting progress. The analysis is meant to offer a starting point on the elements of a possible strategy.

"We see our work on a potential program to address obesity as the equivalent of the maps used by 16th-century navigators," McKinsey said in its report. "Some islands were missing and some continents misshapen in these maps, but they were still helpful to the sailors of that era."