4 ms·

This article misses the elephant in the room (as if how we store fat has any bearing on it, what a joke); men work dangerous jobs. > A large majority of occupa

by jbob2000 8y ago

This article misses the elephant in the room (as if how we store fat has any bearing on it, what a joke); men work dangerous jobs. > A large majority of occupational deaths occur among men. In one U.S. study, 93% of deaths on the job involved men,[4] with a death rate approximately 11 times higher than women. The industries with the highest death rates are mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction, all of which employ more men than women.[5] Deaths of members in the military is currently above 90% men.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality

angersock 8y ago
No idea why you are being downvoted...this is true.
- notafraudster 8y ago
  I didn't downvote and I think the parent comment is worth exploring. But, the article presents evidence the phenomenon is global; that it is visible in non-accident disease burden (although of course some environmental diseases reflect the pattern of labour); and when the article does engage with potential biological causes it cites preliminary non-human animal data and evidence, and then offers fat distribution as an example of sexual dimorphism, not as the sole, primary, or even necessarily a cause of the mortality gap. So my guess is that anyone downvoting was downvoting the parent comment's flip tone and non-engagement with the article's thesis, not dismissing the possibility that labour markets impact lifespans.
  - jbob2000 8y ago
    I read the article and am engaging with it. They completely ignore labour; they've missed the forest for the trees. We spend most of our lives working and our labour is a part of our biology.
xenihn 8y ago
I would think getting more/better sleep would contribute too.
PunchTornado 8y ago
this is factual true, why is it downvoted?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Because it's irrelevant. Women live longer than men even if you just count people who died of "natural causes" (old age).
  - PunchTornado 8y ago
    It's not irrelevant, because counting for this variable reduces the gap. Of course it is not the only or the most important variable here. Do you expect to find one thing that answers for the whole gap? I'm sure you'll say no, but then why do you disregard proven, factual variables that may add up? I think most people downvote this because it is associated with men's rights movement and other groups.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Of course it is not the only or the most important variable here. Do you expect to find one thing that answers for the whole gap? I'm sure you'll say no, but then why do you disregard proven, factual variables that may add up? Because I think the Pareto principle applies here as well. It's not lots of smaller "variables that add up", it's one or two variables that make up for 80% of the difference.
anonytrary 8y ago
I was going to mention this, too, since it is potentially one of the bigger factors at play here. Some of the other comments suggest there may be a difference in aging-related lifespan when other factors (e.g. occupational fatality) are corrected for.
hk__2 8y ago
> This article misses the elephant in the room (as if how we store fat has any bearing on it, what a joke); men work dangerous jobs. I doubt it’s relevant. In 2011, there were ~5k fatal work injuries, i.e. 0.2% of the 2,5M deaths in the US that year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#/media/File:Selected_occupations_with_high_fatality_rate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#/media/F... https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states-1900-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states... Update: I’m not saying your job has no effect on your lifespan. It does, but mostly because of the (lack of) money you get from it rather than its dangerosity. Job-related deaths are probably too low to be the cause of the men/women lifespan difference.
- detaro 8y ago
  Life-shortening injuries aren't counted as fatalities, so few fatalities doesn't necessarily negate the argument.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  We're talking about life expectancy, not deaths. Workplace injuries and stress don't kill you, but they make you die faster.
  - sno0ks 8y ago
    Yes, musculoskeletal injury is very common in manual jobs. But whether it's opiates today or whiskey in the past, the means to combat pain from work related injuries must have a negative effect on lifespan.
simplicio 8y ago
Total occupational deaths in first world countries are pretty minuscule as a percentage of total deaths. Only ~4,500 in the entire US vs ~2.5 million total deaths. It seems unlikely that that that would account for much of the discrepancy, even if you assumed it was 100% men.
nickthemagicman 8y ago
Not to mention most homeless are men. For some reason it's majority men that work dangerous jobs and also become homeless. For some reason.
ricree 8y ago
I don't know. Even when we account for people who have made it past 65 and 75, there is still a several year gap. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf
- jbob2000 8y ago
  If I work in a coal mine, but don't die due to a cave-in, congrats! I get to live to 65. But my lungs are weak from years of breathing dust and fumes, and during a hot, humid summer, I suffocate and die. 10 years before my wife, who spent most of her years raising our children and volunteering at the church. This is a stupid made-up story, I know, but my point is that there are so many ways our jobs affect our health. Men do dangerous work, it doesn't have to kill us immediately, but it does take us early.

angersock 8y ago

No idea why you are being downvoted...this is true.

notafraudster 8y ago
I didn't downvote and I think the parent comment is worth exploring. But, the article presents evidence the phenomenon is global; that it is visible in non-accident disease burden (although of course some environmental diseases reflect the pattern of labour); and when the article does engage with potential biological causes it cites preliminary non-human animal data and evidence, and then offers fat distribution as an example of sexual dimorphism, not as the sole, primary, or even necessarily a cause of the mortality gap. So my guess is that anyone downvoting was downvoting the parent comment's flip tone and non-engagement with the article's thesis, not dismissing the possibility that labour markets impact lifespans.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  I read the article and am engaging with it. They completely ignore labour; they've missed the forest for the trees. We spend most of our lives working and our labour is a part of our biology.

xenihn 8y ago

I would think getting more/better sleep would contribute too.

PunchTornado 8y ago

this is factual true, why is it downvoted?

coldtea 8y ago
Because it's irrelevant. Women live longer than men even if you just count people who died of "natural causes" (old age).
- PunchTornado 8y ago
  It's not irrelevant, because counting for this variable reduces the gap. Of course it is not the only or the most important variable here. Do you expect to find one thing that answers for the whole gap? I'm sure you'll say no, but then why do you disregard proven, factual variables that may add up? I think most people downvote this because it is associated with men's rights movement and other groups.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Of course it is not the only or the most important variable here. Do you expect to find one thing that answers for the whole gap? I'm sure you'll say no, but then why do you disregard proven, factual variables that may add up? Because I think the Pareto principle applies here as well. It's not lots of smaller "variables that add up", it's one or two variables that make up for 80% of the difference.

anonytrary 8y ago

I was going to mention this, too, since it is potentially one of the bigger factors at play here. Some of the other comments suggest there may be a difference in aging-related lifespan when other factors (e.g. occupational fatality) are corrected for.

hk__2 8y ago

> This article misses the elephant in the room (as if how we store fat has any bearing on it, what a joke); men work dangerous jobs. I doubt it’s relevant. In 2011, there were ~5k fatal work injuries, i.e. 0.2% of the 2,5M deaths in the US that year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#/media/File:Selected_occupations_with_high_fatality_rate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#/media/F... https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states-1900-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states... Update: I’m not saying your job has no effect on your lifespan. It does, but mostly because of the (lack of) money you get from it rather than its dangerosity. Job-related deaths are probably too low to be the cause of the men/women lifespan difference.

detaro 8y ago
Life-shortening injuries aren't counted as fatalities, so few fatalities doesn't necessarily negate the argument.
Spooky23 8y ago
We're talking about life expectancy, not deaths. Workplace injuries and stress don't kill you, but they make you die faster.
- sno0ks 8y ago
  Yes, musculoskeletal injury is very common in manual jobs. But whether it's opiates today or whiskey in the past, the means to combat pain from work related injuries must have a negative effect on lifespan.

simplicio 8y ago

Total occupational deaths in first world countries are pretty minuscule as a percentage of total deaths. Only ~4,500 in the entire US vs ~2.5 million total deaths. It seems unlikely that that that would account for much of the discrepancy, even if you assumed it was 100% men.

nickthemagicman 8y ago

Not to mention most homeless are men. For some reason it's majority men that work dangerous jobs and also become homeless. For some reason.

ricree 8y ago

I don't know. Even when we account for people who have made it past 65 and 75, there is still a several year gap. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf

jbob2000 8y ago
If I work in a coal mine, but don't die due to a cave-in, congrats! I get to live to 65. But my lungs are weak from years of breathing dust and fumes, and during a hot, humid summer, I suffocate and die. 10 years before my wife, who spent most of her years raising our children and volunteering at the church. This is a stupid made-up story, I know, but my point is that there are so many ways our jobs affect our health. Men do dangerous work, it doesn't have to kill us immediately, but it does take us early.