I re-read the article looking for holes in the theory. I have a few thoughts.
Here is his central thesis: "We’ve learned that the stresses associated with poverty have the potential to change our biology in ways we hadn’t imagined. It can
reduce the surface area of your brain, shorten your telomeres and lifespan, increase
your chances of obesity, and make you more likely to
take outsized risks."
I think, in general that the statement is correct. But do you think the stresses of poverty are greater now than they were in the past? Do you think the stresses of being poor in 2017 are worse than they were in 1900? Do we have to deal with the stresses of smallpox or unclean drinking water like we did in the past? Is it really just as stressful now as in years past when a family living in a sod house on the prairie had to wonder if they would eat if a drought ruined their crops and cattle? Or the stresses of living in a crime and disease infested tenement building in a New York City slum?
How did so many people get out of poverty in days past and create the great middle class we have enjoyed in the post-war years if the stresses of poverty created conditions that made us less able to make good decisions?
Someone mentioned the social safety net. There was no federal or even state social safety nets before the early part of the 20th century.
Stats. Haven't we as a society made enormous strides in alleviating the stresses of poverty that he mentioned with our social programs? Shouldn't the trillions in spending have reduced the stress and therefore reduced the inability to escape from it?