3 ms·

I think you trying to transmute this to polemic weakens the points you've attempted to make. Obviously we disagree but the point I feel most compelled to push

I think you trying to transmute this to polemic weakens the points you've attempted to make. Obviously we disagree but the point I feel most compelled to push back against is your assertion that "living in the modern US is paradise in almost all quantifiable ways". This is such a problematic statement that clearly labors heavily under the burden of its own premise. A crude metric is quite telling: suicide has trended upwards in the past 20 years. I presume if the data went back further the picture would be more stark. Living in a time with gizmos and gadgets and economic plenty that is weakly distributed and calling that "paradise" is very insulting to people's lived experiences and part of the reason I think the economic message of the politics you represent alienates average folks. Based on your posts it seems like you've been a wealthy developer for decades and likely have employed, or employ, cheap labor. Kind of feels like a rugpull, Ross. Personally, I've managed many teams with cheap foreign developers, I'm just straight about it. Also, when do you think I was born? You think the US hadn't been built in 1982? Absurd claims all around.

sokoloff 1y ago
I looked for older suicide rate data and it doesn’t support what I think is your view above. At the turn of the previous century, suicide rates were markedly higher than today, even though today is worse than 20 years ago. https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-1900/ https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-19...
- catigula 1y ago
  I'm not sure what point you think is being made but your own chart shows suicide exploding during the exact timeline we're discussing. It's probably not causative, as that would be quite silly, but economic plenty for extremely wealthy people caused by a massive influx of cheap labor is clearly not a net boon on this metric. The US made its bones well before this insane population explosion we only very recently had. (Yes, we've had large amounts of immigration before. We also built infrastructure and were vastly less developed).
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    It shows it increasing after a notably low period. It’s increased back to a level similar to 1950, which are both dramatically lower than 1900-1940. What’s the “right” reference point? Was 2000 an anomaly while today’s rate is a mere reversion to the mean? Or a reversion to a measure which is still better than the 100-year mean?
    - catigula 1y ago
      Putting aside my concerns about the integrity of the data, the clearly "correct" reference point is the one it takes to falsify the parent comment's claim: that this extremely brief period of gizmos, gadgets, economic plenty and mass immigration is somehow an unparalleled land of milk and honey. You could directly correlate our literal exact debate as negative evidence of his assertion.
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        I assume then that you agree that the data I cited refutes your presumption here: > A crude metric is quite telling: suicide has trended upwards in the past 20 years. I presume if the data went back further the picture would be more stark.
        catigula 1y ago
        No, not really. 1. The data going back 70 years, which is 50 years more than 20, show that suicide has sharply risen. 2. The integrity of data much older than that is substantially in question.
        sokoloff 1y ago
        Allow me to literally quote from the article I linked: > After two decades of slowly rising, the US suicide rate has stabilized over the past few years. It is now at the same level as the 1950s.
  - sdenton4 1y ago
jpc0 1y ago
I think the situation is likely significantly more nuanced than either of your points of view allows. Suicide and basic needs being met is likely not highly correlated. On the other side suicide stats likely don’t include dependency related death, alcoholism can be a coping mechanism, if you didn’t commit suicide but instead murdered your liver and died early is that really a different statistic in your assessment? The only way you can measure is access to basic needs, housing, shelter, medical care, nutrition. A century ago those things were significantly lower for the average person vs now. Could the world be in a better situation? Very likely yes, but is could also be much worse. If you want to significantly change things then better, advocate for more social workers and to make sure the social welfare system works through them. They are in my experience very good at sussing out whether someone is a leech to society and is just looking for a handout of someone who is truly in need. Advocate for adequate housing, more suburbs doesn’t help low-middle class people, you need more dense housing close to infrastructure or workplaces.
- catigula 1y ago
  I respect your thoughts here because I think they come from a good place and that you want to help people. I just don't know how to express to you how philosophically naive I think the kind of utilitarian assertion you've made is. We can easily construct a thought experiment world that you and I would both agree is a living hellscape where all human needs were simultaneously being met. Most horror science fiction is predicated on those premises.
  - jpc0 1y ago
    I don’t disagree, the world is much much more nuanced than a black or white take can express. I just think we don’t need to debate this, things are better than a century ago but they are still not great. Quality of life isn’t solely based on basic needs alone, but for the vast majority of people those basic needs are now met when they weren’t before. That doesn’t mean we get to say, “That’s good enough let’s pack up” there’s still a lot of work to do.
    - catigula 1y ago

sokoloff 1y ago

I looked for older suicide rate data and it doesn’t support what I think is your view above. At the turn of the previous century, suicide rates were markedly higher than today, even though today is worse than 20 years ago. https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-1900/ https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-us-suicide-rates-since-19...

catigula 1y ago
I'm not sure what point you think is being made but your own chart shows suicide exploding during the exact timeline we're discussing. It's probably not causative, as that would be quite silly, but economic plenty for extremely wealthy people caused by a massive influx of cheap labor is clearly not a net boon on this metric. The US made its bones well before this insane population explosion we only very recently had. (Yes, we've had large amounts of immigration before. We also built infrastructure and were vastly less developed).
- sokoloff 1y ago
  It shows it increasing after a notably low period. It’s increased back to a level similar to 1950, which are both dramatically lower than 1900-1940. What’s the “right” reference point? Was 2000 an anomaly while today’s rate is a mere reversion to the mean? Or a reversion to a measure which is still better than the 100-year mean?
  - catigula 1y ago
    Putting aside my concerns about the integrity of the data, the clearly "correct" reference point is the one it takes to falsify the parent comment's claim: that this extremely brief period of gizmos, gadgets, economic plenty and mass immigration is somehow an unparalleled land of milk and honey. You could directly correlate our literal exact debate as negative evidence of his assertion.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      I assume then that you agree that the data I cited refutes your presumption here: > A crude metric is quite telling: suicide has trended upwards in the past 20 years. I presume if the data went back further the picture would be more stark.
      - catigula 1y ago
        No, not really. 1. The data going back 70 years, which is 50 years more than 20, show that suicide has sharply risen. 2. The integrity of data much older than that is substantially in question.
        sokoloff 1y ago
        Allow me to literally quote from the article I linked: > After two decades of slowly rising, the US suicide rate has stabilized over the past few years. It is now at the same level as the 1950s.
- sdenton4 1y ago

jpc0 1y ago

I think the situation is likely significantly more nuanced than either of your points of view allows. Suicide and basic needs being met is likely not highly correlated. On the other side suicide stats likely don’t include dependency related death, alcoholism can be a coping mechanism, if you didn’t commit suicide but instead murdered your liver and died early is that really a different statistic in your assessment? The only way you can measure is access to basic needs, housing, shelter, medical care, nutrition. A century ago those things were significantly lower for the average person vs now. Could the world be in a better situation? Very likely yes, but is could also be much worse. If you want to significantly change things then better, advocate for more social workers and to make sure the social welfare system works through them. They are in my experience very good at sussing out whether someone is a leech to society and is just looking for a handout of someone who is truly in need. Advocate for adequate housing, more suburbs doesn’t help low-middle class people, you need more dense housing close to infrastructure or workplaces.

catigula 1y ago
I respect your thoughts here because I think they come from a good place and that you want to help people. I just don't know how to express to you how philosophically naive I think the kind of utilitarian assertion you've made is. We can easily construct a thought experiment world that you and I would both agree is a living hellscape where all human needs were simultaneously being met. Most horror science fiction is predicated on those premises.
- jpc0 1y ago
  I don’t disagree, the world is much much more nuanced than a black or white take can express. I just think we don’t need to debate this, things are better than a century ago but they are still not great. Quality of life isn’t solely based on basic needs alone, but for the vast majority of people those basic needs are now met when they weren’t before. That doesn’t mean we get to say, “That’s good enough let’s pack up” there’s still a lot of work to do.
  - catigula 1y ago