4 ms·
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
by 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 agoPutting 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 agoI 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 agoNo, 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 agoAllow 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.