3 ms·

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 causat

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
The y axis on the chart starts at 10, not zero... It shows a rise of perhaps 40% over the last twenty years. This looks to be similar to the range of total variation since 1950, though the trajectory of the curve is worrisome. And yeah, the rates pre-1950 were much, much higher.
- catigula 1y ago
  I'm not interested in partisan political discussions. I don't agree that Trump or anyone else can, or is even attempting to address core problems, and also think falling for that premise is silly.

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

The y axis on the chart starts at 10, not zero... It shows a rise of perhaps 40% over the last twenty years. This looks to be similar to the range of total variation since 1950, though the trajectory of the curve is worrisome. And yeah, the rates pre-1950 were much, much higher.

catigula 1y ago
I'm not interested in partisan political discussions. I don't agree that Trump or anyone else can, or is even attempting to address core problems, and also think falling for that premise is silly.