America, in two charts, social average is over

Forgive the formatting, and yes the axes are not square up (in fact it should look worse), here is the link.  And here is the source with explanation, p.48.

Comments

What a difference a college degree makes. How much is signaling? How much is genetic?

Isn't it clearer to look at the converse? These days, failing to have a college degree means a lot more than it used to.

This... a huge confounder

Howdy exceptional blog! Doees runninjg a blog similar
tto this require a great deal of work? I've bsolutely no understanding off
programming however I was hopinng tto start my own blog in thee near future.
Anyhow, if you have any suggestions or techniques for new
blog owners please share. I know this is off subect but I just had to ask.
Thanks a lot!

If you are left-wing, then it is all signaling because everyone is equal. If you are right-wing, then it is genetic because not everybody is equal.

And if you are neither, you immediately wonder whether income would work just as well, and show basically the same (if not precisely the same) results.

Genetics and signaling work together, they are not in conflict. Already smart and very stable people use college to signal that they are smart and very stable - and they remain so after college. On the other hand, if everyone is equal, college is performing a cultural miracle in improving people and we should expand access. The latter story is hard to square with the evil fraternity party culture that liberals despise.

+1

We live in a culture where drugs and alcohol are promoted 24/7 in every media. There is a certain percentage of humans who have little mental or physiological control of their urges and thus succumb to one of the many dangerous "bad habits" and many of these succumb to the harmful effects. Don't waste your time charting or concentrating on these losers because 95% of people are living better lives in spite of the effort to seduce them to take drugs or get drunk.

The loser 5% or lost to us and it is just a matter of time until they become a statistic. The real trick here is to not be taken in by them and to let them destroy their life and be done with it.

mebbe college 18-22 is the age when a lotta substance issues start manifesting themselves and probably are gonna be a factor for kids who
don't complete a b.a. degree

You're looking at the data backward. It's showing that addiction makes it really hard to get a college degree. Not sure why Tyler thinks this is news.

It is likely both.

You are much more likely to get addicted if you hang out with other addicts. Bundling people off to college means exposing them to a higher percentage of people who are intent on achieving difficult things and thus their peer group decreases the chance that they start using.

Once you start using, it becomes harder to stay academically eligible if you develop a substance use disorder. This again acts as a check on drug use.

This is not exactly news. This is, after all, one of the huge reasons that parents have been sacrificing years of income to send the kids to cloistered school districts with low crime and drug stats. The odds that your child will be involved in violence at school if your child avoids drugs and crime are actually quite low. Parents, however, realize that simply being around drug dealers, gangs, and the like increases the chances that you will have negative outcomes. So they go to places where these problems are lessened if they can afford it. College functions in a similar manner with the added benefit that the truly troublesome peers never attend and the ones who start getting that way all but invariably drop out.

Better question: How much of this is "opiate availability at given age" rather than "social change"?

The problem of aggregating suicide+drug+alcohol for some bizarre reason.

Generally its obvious all the Gen X curves (really 63 thorough 85, but 60 to 80 is close enough) would be identical, if done by year, for all cohorts. So I'd say yours is a good enough theory. Look at extracting raw suicide rates and alcohol related deaths, and if opiates are what remains....

Suicide rates by raw educational attainment (no ethnic control) - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379717302453

Age adjusted are highest in "High School" and then decreasing in order "Less than High School">"Some College">"College Degree+".

Over the period 2000-2014, "Some College" converges to "Less than High School".

Age unadjusted rates show higher increase in "High School" due to link of aging to suicide and correlation of "High School" only to age.

Raw education differences where HS>no HS, explained by "This pattern
may be explained partly by the fact that the population
with no high school degree includes a disproportionate
share of foreign-born residents, for whom low educational attainment is less of a marker".

No paywall version - https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper10778/PAA Submission_Final.pdf

In US, both White-Black and rural-urban suicide rate differences largely mediated by firearm ownership rate.

See Fig 3: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2679556/comparison-rates-firearm-nonfirearm-homicide-suicide-black-white-non-hispanic

So probably this is a case primarily of opioid related deaths, primarily due to rural physician overprescription, with some secondary spillover into suicide from the fact that opioid epidemic and links to unemployment etc. thus far affect rural populations more, and they have higher gun ownership rates. Guns make impulsive suicide much easier, so have strong relationship with rates.

Probably no major role for alcohol, nor for recreational drugs outside the prescription opioid -> recreation drug pathway.

Firearms makes no sense for anything dynamic. Suicide rates have been going up for both rural and urban areas (urban is up roughly 10% and rural is up roughly 20%; all comer males). If guns are driving the dynamic, this makes no sense. Household gun ownership has down in both and down more in the city. Household gun ownership has fallen relatively more in rural areas (started from a higher baseline), so guns as our explanation would make us suspect that rural and urban suicide rates should be converging. Also, there is the trouble that the female statistics belie such a simple narrative.

Opioid overprescription is a silly explanation at this point as well. We we peaked way back in 2010 and current prescription rates are near 2003 levels. This is actually lower as this counts medically assisted opioid addiction therapy in the total (e.g. methadone) and an awful lot of morphine equivalents are used for treatment.

As a treating physician, alcohol has a massive role. The relative risk for problematic alcohol use is about 3.2; all told heavy drinking makes you ~500% more likely to die from suicide. This is larger than the effect of firearms (around 2.6). If I had to pick, I would rather my patients at risk for suicide be denied alcohol (preferably with inpatient treatment and benzos as appropriate) than firearms. This not only reduces their likelihood of completing suicide more, it much more dramatically decreases their levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Roughly a quarter of my suicides have alcohol on board. I mean this is not rocket science alcohol is well known to disinhibit people and I would be shocked if it did not increase suicide rates.

For other recreational drugs the official hazard ratios are:
Cocaine: 1.35
Other stimulants: 2.1
Benzos: 3.8
Pot: 3.9
Sedatives: 11.4

Now the drug data is pretty messy. Almost certainly a lot of people are self-medicating and saying that the drugs caused their suicide is dicey. But from top-line numbers if drug use were as common in the US as gun ownership we would see a dramatic increase in suicide rates.

Whatever is going driving the increased suicides has to be something that was increasing throughout the whole period. I would submit the most likely explanation is culture. Prescription opioids stopped being easily prescribed, and in the states where they kill the most their prescription controls have gotten quite strong (e.g. 14 day limit per script, problematic docs immediately investigated). What makes a lot more since is that we destigmatized drug use by flogging opioids back in the 2000s and created an expectation of pain free living back with all that "pain is the fifth vital sign" crap. Now that culture has changed, people are going for heroin and getting fentanyl which actually kills them.

But no, gun-ownership has been steady or falling this whole time and the data show much higher risks for recreational drugs.

No, as should be clear from my comment (and obvious to anyone), I'm not suggesting that there are any greater availability of guns is driving trend, but that rural White groups will be more responsive to manifesting social changes -> suicide because they have guns (which, as should be clear, generally drive inter-state and ethnic differences in suicide rate).

I am saying it explains why changes are manifested in Whites, and not other groups, not using it as explanation for difference in "Whites then" vs "Whites now". (Perhaps if you had read that, you would have saved roughly half a page of text. Alas.).

The data series that Tyler is citing ends in about 2015 I think, since the last series is 1980s births, and it takes them up to age 35.

So discussion of 2019 prescription rates is not really relevant. The US may well have peaked back in 2010, and then changed since then, but 2010 is where most of the data series here ends, and any deaths attributable to prescribed opioid overdoses are not likely to immediately switch back.

I have no beef with the idea that opioid over-prescription has, mostly more recently than this data series, peaked, and that switching to heroin and fentanyl is the new trend.

Even back in 2010 we are still likely past the peak, given the lag for MAT scripts to new scripts. Going from 2005 - 2015 suggests that more than half of the data is past the peak.

Regardless, if we want to look at the chart above the 1980 cohort goes from 45 to 65 per 100 K from 2005 to 2010. From 2010 to 2015, death rate goes up to around 110. That is a much steeper climb when your preferred explanation is decreasing.

For the years post-peak in this data series, call it half, we see the majority of the suicide gains. Opioid deaths would have to have a really weird lag pattern for that to fit.

Much more likely is that as the screws tightened on opioid prescriptions circa 2010, we started seeing people swap to heroin. Heroin is much more intense and people are much more likely to OD and much more likely to suicide when first using it.

Most likely we are seeing a more fundamental change than just people taking pills. A cultural change towards more acceptance of drug use, particularly among less educated individuals outside the urban core, makes sense.

This also tracks with the cocaine numbers. Which are an epidemic of their own right currently, but are "only" clocking in something like a 3rd of the opiate deaths.

This would also track with problematic alcohol use which saw dramatic increases during this time frame and, as noted, has a truly horrific odds ratio.

Yes, the "prescription opioid -> recreational drug pathway" of switching, e.g. to heroin and fentanyl probably important as noted above (I only say that rec drugs and alcohol not important outside this pathway).

I only disagree with you that this is a deeper consequence of a cultural shift in attitudes towards drugs with no specific causality linked to opiate prescriptions by physicians. I think it's because US physicians fucked up and prescription opiate addicts switched; the incompetence of medical doctors and their inability to manage of the health of the population, not the inability of free individuals to make decisions.

Apologies if I was unclear. I believe that physician overprescription in the late 90s and 2000s directly lead to changes in culture regarding dependence, addiction, and acceptability of drug use. I do not believe that physicians or even heavy opioid use is the sole driver of these things but I do believe it was a major factor.

As far as alcohol and other recreational drugs. Sorry, but no. AUD has been increasing basically non-stop since around 2003. That correlates very highly with suicide whereas other drugs are less likely to hit the most dangerous suicide spot: disinhibited enough to attempt suicide, not so incapacitated or high that the drug makes them unable to attempt.

As far as other drugs, with all the normal caveats about correlation and causation, the odds ratios are pretty high and their use continues to climb. On the back half of their data window, cocaine use rose substantially, particularly out west, and will certainly be a statistically significant contributor to suicide. Marijuana use disorder is growing, largely because legalization has increased availability nationwide and people whose use are only economically constrained are using more intensely. Given marijuana's quite high hazard ratio for suicide, I would be shocked if we did not see a dose dependent response from abuse.

Drugs, across the board, are correlated with increase risk of suicide. You could spin some yarn about how these are just tracking some X factor that leads to both suicide and drug use ... but the associations are pretty robust across jurisdictions, cultures, and a lot of confounders.

Certainly we also see synergy. Alcohol + Cigarettes's odds ratios are an order of magnitude worse for suicide than Alcohol alone. Alcohol + Cigs + drugs goes up further still.

I just don't see a way to square the numbers with suicide risk and drugs that does not show them being contributory.

1"Opioid overprescription is a silly explanation at this point as well. "
not necesarily- if opiods are still being over/prescribed to the subset of peeps/perps who are more prone to suicide

2 pot-3.9? the local meme zombies promised us it was harmless

1. Seems like an awfully weird prescribing pattern. Particularly as prescribing them to patients the ICD codes most associated with suicide make it more likely that your prescriber number will get flagged for review and possible sanction.

I mean, sure we will prescribe more opiates to these people, but virtually all of that is for MAT which shows much reduced suicide risk compared to not prescribing to addicts. I just don't see a reason this effect would be getting worse.

2. It still might be harmless, but the data is pretty weak (roughly comparable to believing that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer circa 1975-1985). It is possible that people prone to mental illness and suicide just use pot in an attempt to self medicate, but the numbers don't look that good for the no harm hypothesis.

I am sure that pot will be like every other vice industry. It will make most of its profits off those with concerning levels of use, the externalities in public health will swamp the profits, some very well connected businesses will reap massive windfalls, and everyone important will exercise self restraint or at least cover up their problems so we can continue to make vice easier for the elites to consume while those who suffer and die from it will have "brought in on themselves". It has been the same racket for decades with cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and prostitution wherever they have been fully legalized.

mebbe but
-the ratio flagging/sanction to weird prescribing pattern is still pretty low while opiates are available from many different sources
--suicide is hard to predict but is significant in the subset ofpeeps with chronic pain
- probably should be skeptical of meme zombies and sociolgists claim
about cannabis since most of their studies don't reproduce and they never actually took a pharmacology course
-

In most states now every opioid prescription is tracked at both the prescriber and the pharmacy level. The street price for opioids has increased substantially, or so the drug addicts and the cops tell me. If it were that easy to get illicit narcotics I don't see how you could get the prices to move. Particularly given the increased volumes of fentanyl being moved.

Again, it is not just one datum showing me that opioids are no longer the proximate problem, it is a lot of things. Maybe there are still a few pill mills running somehow, but the risk of losing your prescribing privileges has gone up substantially. Street prices, what patients report, national trends ... all of those are consistent with fewer deaths directly from prescription narcotics. I would need some strong evidence to suggest that the problem is still with prescription opioids these days.

What I have read, from some pretty impressive experts in toxicology and the like suggests that marijuana is around alcohol for general toxicity. This is not a good thing. Making marijuana more legal means we are increasing the body count, ceteris paribis. The numbers will be hard to attribute, but that was how it was for smoking too. By the time we have a rock solid case I hope the death toll is still somewhere in the thousands or low millions.

could be regional differences in pricing? in the big city to the south
a lotta poor people still seem to be able to afford (financially) the hard drugs. there may be some evidence that use may not be increasing but
is leveling off at a very high level. the pill counters around here use the term "prescription" narcotics for pills obtained both with and without a prescription so it is hard to tell exactly what is killing who (with the exception of fentanyl which is the big one).
and there are still a lotta pregnant women using cannabis on the advice of their" budtender"

"... so we can continue to make vice easier for the elites to consume while those who suffer and die from it will have "brought in on themselves" ..."

I think this applies broadly to the systematic undermining of social support for of many of the traditional virtues. Behaviors that are catastrophic for the middle and working class (drug and alcohol use and excess, out of wedlock births, divorce, financial imprudence, etc.) are often merely an inconvenience for those "elites" with enough financial and/or social capital.

Page 49 of the linked paper extracts the raw suicide rate chart. It doesn’t look that different from the combined suicide+drug+alcohol chart, except that the suicide rate trends down a bit as one gets older.

The direction doesn't, though the scaling does. Change across data series in suicide +10/100,000, overall change +70/100,000.

The full Fig 1.7 is worth looking at - https://imgur.com/a/SmhixnL

Note that with slight differences Drug+Alcohol Poisoning (mostly drug) and Suicide (poisoning more young, suicide more old), and some unsmoothed statistical variability both are governed such that the age at which subjects doesn't matter, only the year (e.g. 1980 births and 1975 births are about the same in 2010 or 2015).

That suggests that both cohorts are responding to an environmental change that is fairly insensitive to stage in life history.

On the other hand, liver mortality mostly unrolls based on life stage, with very slight differences between young and more affluent cohorts with more access to cheap alcohol and older cohorts with less.

aggregating substance abuse and suicide makes sense because they
are so often comorbid conditions

the sociological paradox of capitalism: there must be economic growth and transformation for there to be sociopolitical stability.

Pre-capitalist societies: there must be economic stasis for there to be sociopolitical growth and transformation

anyway, the non-meritocratic are playing the serf role.

Thank goodness that serfs are few and social life is marked by pervasive equalities.

But capitalism is still a sociological experiment, and you can see these adverse side effects:

the moderns have loosened the communal mechanisms of psychological belonging, and birthed an individualism that runs on endorphins of status skipping over .

To be loosened without status is to be a phantom: of otherwise sound mind and well body, but communally a ghost.

What is the endocrinology of a social primate that has been excluded?

We have created a society of wealthy serfs living a unique hell: we can put food at your door but we can’t tell you that you matter.

I think this has always been true. The whole reason humans have a biological reaction to being socially excluded is that social exclusion was a realistic and severe threat to people from the dawn of humankind. I doubt medieval serfs thought they mattered either.

my historical hypothesis wd be that the grueling poverty was worse but that communal sense of belonging was better

my biological hypothesis is that being low status is innately stressful, but having your status unsettled is more stressful. “This is a status opportunity” comes w anxiety in a way that “my status is settled” isn’t

just speculating

Evolution in action

Better to graduate with a degree in Feminist studies than to drink yourself to death.

If you say so. However this is the first evidence I've seen in decades that indicates a bachelor's degree *per se* has any value at all.

My first thought too

You need to get out of your bubble. College grads have better life outcomes across the board over non-grads. Without a degree, many middle class jobs would be unavailable to you.

Which makes no sense, because the majority of people with 12th-grade numeracy and literacy could do those jobs with a month or so of training. We're basically administering 4-year, $50,000 IQ tests.

"Can learn to do the job" is not the primary thing demonstrated by the degree, "Can show up on a regular basis for years" is the valuable part of the signal for employers of many BA degrees.

Yep; it’s a screen for top 60% of the IQ distribution + minimal conscientiousness + absence of extreme social disfunction.

That may not be the case for much longer. Given my conversations with recruiters and hiring managers "can show up on a regular basis" is frequently no longer the case for those with BAs.

Masters degrees will be the next to be diluted to uselessness.

I have found that school is a stronger signal than level of education. For my analytics team, Bachelors from a good engineering program tend to do better than masters from 2nd tier state schools. I’m convinced some of these programs are total shame as the applicants rarely pass muster in screens.

that's not actually how it works in the stem fields

You clearly aren't participating in today's job force. Lucky you.

You might live longer, but who wants a life of soy products, hate and a few cats?

Soy is quite tasty, hate can be an incredible life motivator, and cats are lovely animals. The most you'll get out of me is a nasty tweet. On the other hand dog loving, meat-eating white guys take their hatred and misery out on innocent people by shooting up Walmarts like a terrorist.

These people should have been more responsible or life will catch up to you.

This twitter post was from September 2017, and the Brookings research that the numbers are derived from was from March 2017. Why was it largely ignored at the time? It must have been, if it is news to "infovore" Tyler in August 2019.

mebbe it is not supposed to be news!
mebbe it is supposed information
mebbe in sept 2017 it was underrated
and today it is more properly rated

Tyler is trolling again: The axes aren't labeled, there's no legend, no indication of the sample, and there's no source cited. This is not a graph it's a picture.

page 48, you cuck

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf

Some positive recent news on drug overdose deaths is that they're at least beginning to tilt urban again - https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-08-cities-overdose-deaths-rural-areas.html

"The new CDC report looked at urban and rural overdose death rates for the nation overall. The researchers found both rates have been rising, but the urban rate shot up more dramatically after 2015 to surpass the rural rate."

""Most of the hot spots are in the urban areas," he said. The CDC found the urban rates are driven by deaths in men and deaths from heroin, fentanyl and cocaine."

"The epidemic was initially driven by opioid pain pills, which were often as widely available in the country as in the city. But then many drug users shifted to heroin and then to fentanyl, and the illegal drug distribution system for heroin and fentanyl is more developed in cities. Another possible explanation is increasing overdose deaths among blacks and Hispanics, including those concentrated in urban areas, he added. "Early on, this was seen as an epidemic affecting whites more than other groups," he said. "Increasingly, deaths in urban areas are starting to look brown and black."

Of course the wider context:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-opioid-prescriptions-rural-urban-americans.html - "As the United States battles an epidemic of opioid abuse, people living in rural areas have nearly two times the odds of being prescribed the painkillers when compared to their urban peers. That's the finding from a new study that suggests more must be done to curb opioid prescribing by doctors in rural America."

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-high-opioid-prescriptions-linked-poor.html - "The effects are really large," said Harris. "Prescription opioids may explain up to half of the decline in labor force participation since 2000."

American healthcare is probably not as bad as it is made out in the general instance, but in this case, American physicians have shown themselves to be complicit in manufacturing a crisis and significantly worsening the health and mortality of their patients.

Well, assuming you had the opportunity to read the entire article - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-clinic-of-last-resort/2019/06/22/2833c8a0-92cc-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html - you have an idea of the sort of thing that is not considered worth discussing in this comments section when comparing health care systems,.

Remember, what is important is the perception, not the reality. The reality is actually essentially unimaginable from a typical UK perspective, but this web site is not actually in the business of letting people form their own opinions using available information.

No, I didn't read any of the random WaPo article that you lobbed at me, prior, only the points from it that you chose to raise to me (or rather, less "points" but whatever set of things you tried to imply).

Btw, our discussion earlier seems to have disappeared, so if this latest pronouncement is in response to that, I may be missing some context.

Absolutely - let us see how long the quotes remain this time.

Without any commentary, just quotes from a mainstream media source. Though I do recommend you read the article, anecdotal though it is.

'He had been born with a cleft palate and two holes in the lower chamber of his heart that required annual monitoring, but he hadn’t seen a cardiologist since high school. He had an abscess in his mouth, arthritic knees and a damaged kidney, none of which were his priority now.

“She’s really sick,” he said, placing his hand on Lisa’s shoulder. “Can you help her?”'

'The paramedics drove her two miles to the hospital. A radiologist performed an ultrasound on her leg and an X-ray on her heart. A lab technician ran a series of blood and urine tests, which confirmed Lisa was severely lacking in potassium. A nurse gave her six potassium supplement pills and an injection for muscular pain, and within 90 minutes Lisa and Stevie were back in the front lobby.

“How much was that?” Lisa asked again, and this time a receptionist in billing estimated it would be about $3,000.

“Sorry,” Lisa said, because she already knew she could never afford to pay it. She had no savings and no bank account. She and Stevie had just used most of his monthly disability check to move out of a tent behind Food Lion and into a bedroom in a shared apartment. The cost of her care would become more bad debt for a struggling hospital. It would become another mark against her credit score, or a lien against the car or house she hoped to someday own.'

'What’s arrived in their place are sporadic free clinics such as the one in Cleveland, where a nonprofit agency called Remote Area Medical brought in a group of doctors, nurses and other volunteers for the weekend to transform the local high school into a makeshift hospital. There would be a triage station in the entryway, bloodwork in the science lab, kidney scans in the gym, dental extractions in the cafeteria, and chest X-rays in the parking lot — a range of medical care that would be available for only two days, until the clinic packed up and moved on to Hazard, Ky., and then Weatherford, Okla.'

There are certainly stories in the UK about rural gaps in healthcare access, yes. The UK is a smaller and denser country though, so the like of that specifically is not really possible.

Let me highlight a couple of things that would not apply in the UK, then, recognizing that much of the highlighted tale of the couple is not really applicable to the UK - 'He had been born with a cleft palate and two holes in the lower chamber of his heart that required annual monitoring, but he hadn’t seen a cardiologist since high school. He had an abscess in his mouth, arthritic knees and a damaged kidney, none of which were his priority now.

“She’s really sick,” he said, placing his hand on Lisa’s shoulder. “Can you help her?”'

Or this - 'The paramedics drove her two miles to the hospital. A radiologist performed an ultrasound on her leg and an X-ray on her heart. A lab technician ran a series of blood and urine tests, which confirmed Lisa was severely lacking in potassium. A nurse gave her six potassium supplement pills and an injection for muscular pain, and within 90 minutes Lisa and Stevie were back in the front lobby.

“How much was that?” Lisa asked again, and this time a receptionist in billing estimated it would be about $3,000.

“Sorry,” Lisa said, because she already knew she could never afford to pay it. She had no savings and no bank account. She and Stevie had just used most of his monthly disability check to move out of a tent behind Food Lion and into a bedroom in a shared apartment. The cost of her care would become more bad debt for a struggling hospital. It would become another mark against her credit score, or a lien against the car or house she hoped to someday own.'

But thankfully, the U.S. does not ration health care like countries in Europe. And here is a final bit of information, following that quoted paragraph from the earlier comment - 'What’s arrived in their place are sporadic free clinics such as the one in Cleveland, where a nonprofit agency called Remote Area Medical brought in a group of doctors, nurses and other volunteers for the weekend to transform the local high school into a makeshift hospital. There would be a triage station in the entryway, bloodwork in the science lab, kidney scans in the gym, dental extractions in the cafeteria, and chest X-rays in the parking lot — a range of medical care that would be available for only two days, until the clinic packed up and moved on to Hazard, Ky., and then Weatherford, Okla.'

I'm sure the UK has charities doing this too, right?

It's quite possible someone in the UK may not see a doctor for a long term health problem for a long time, for whatever reason. Why do you believe it is not?

Still, yes, non-universal coverage is a problem. My point is more that that aside, US healthcare is probably pretty good for covered persons; more sympathetic to claims that uninsured individuals is a problem, not really too sympathetic to claims that the cost is too damn high for insured persons, for outcomes and given the wealth of the country.

The USA doesn't need to have a single payer system to have universal coverage though, so...

You talk about rationing of healthcare as if it is some kind of a joke for you to scoff at, but the UK system does work by limiting costs in cases where a treatment is deemed to give little impact relative to cost. I am a skeptic of high spending for little chance of successful, so this is not wholly a bad feature (I would feel differently in a given case if it were me or my relatives for sure), but it is real.

Where exactly is the chart on the right from? It's not the in the source paper.

1. If you're comparing people with certain educational attainments, you're manufacturing your data points out of segments of very different size. Baccalaureate granting institutions enrolled about 6% of each cohort ca. 1928, 25% or so ca. 1972, and 45% or so today. The non-U population relative to society as a whole is rather more impecunious today than it was 40-odd years ago, much less 90 years ago.

It's also more isolated. For several generations, the propensity to divorce has been more pronounced among working people than among the bourgeois stratum (FWER) and it's now the norm among wage-earning strata for the 1st child you bear or sire to be born out of wedlock. These men are less likely to be navigating situations where they get some respect (and their sons certainly are not getting it in school). There may also be frustrations incorporated into the work life of male wage-earners which were not as pronounced 50 years ago.

(I'm betting if you researched the biographies of middle-aged suicides you'll find a great many men who've been treated unconscionably by family court judges).

People always assume suicide rates are a good measure of social dysfunction, but is this really the case? The region of the world with the highest suicide rate is Europe, while hellholes like Venezuela and Syria rank near the bottom: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate. It seems intuitive that higher suicide rates would be a sign of worse societies, but then how does one explain the fact that there appears to be no correlation (or even a negative correlation) between suicide rate and how messed up a country is?

Drug and alcohol deaths are an even worse measure of dysfunction than suicide rates as they could also be a sign of increased prosperity that people can afford those things. People in many poor countries can’t even afford medically necessary opioids and suffer tremendous pain, so of course a side effect is they would have fewer drug deaths.

otoh
-the region of Europe with the highest suicide rates are almost all in the more dysfunctional eastern european countries not so much western europe (except Belgium where they get a lot of help from the government)
-in the last 2o years u.s. suicide rates for age 15-24
are up about 25- 30%
suicide rates are also going up in ages under 15!
that would indicate some social dysfunction.
.-also the poorer the country the poorer the quality of suicide rate statistics

"in the last 2o years u.s. suicide rates for age 15-24
are up about 25- 30% suicide rates are also going up in ages under 15!
that would indicate some social dysfunction."

But both the 10 to 14 year olds and 15 to 24 year olds suicide rate is returning to where they were in the 1980s and 1990s.

So the U.S. was becoming more socially functional from the late 1990s to 2010 and is now becoming more socially dysfunctional as it was in the 1980s and 1990s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

mebbe there are cyclical cultural cycles where it is romanticized,
there seem to be clusters of suicides in some schools

Nonsense.

Belgium is at 20.7 per 100K.
France is at 17.7
Switzerland is at 17.6
Finland is 15.9

In contrast:
Poland is 16.2
Slovakia is 12.8
Bulgaria is 11.5
Romania is 10.4
Montenegro is 10.3

The real divide in Europe for suicide is not East vs West, it is community vs isolation.

glittery echidnea excrement

lithuania 31.9
russia 31
belarus 26
ukraine 22
latvia 21
hungary 19
Slovenia 18

Plainly: our elites are untethered and disconnected from mainstream American life.

Otherwise, when our caring elites themselves help to kill Americans outright with unsupervised, unregulated dispensation of opioid concoctions across a span of entire years without interruption, our careless elites show themselves to be ENEMIES of the American people.

Our pathetic self-concerned elites have no overarching human truths to communicate and seem possessed of very few actual human concerns: their chosen fascination with numerals and numbers, equations and algorithms, and with their own career paths show us their actual commitments.

Our elites have long since become America's own "Floating Apex": no connection with the ground whatsoever, our DC-to-Boston Corridor is our very own Flying Island of Laputa, raining terror down upon us all.

It shows that university degrees are more and more about signaling and less about learning.

Maybe keeping young people off the streets from 18-22 keeps them alive. Errors you make during those years have long effects; you can get an addiction, an injury, a child, bad marriage.

If the LHS where loss rates in any loan portfolio the portfolio manager would have been fired and blacklisted.

What is cause and effect here? Does a college degree make one live longer, or is getting a college degree just a sign that this is a person who takes care of himself or herself and has some ambition for their life?
I am sure data would show that people who make their bed in the morning live longer.

“We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative disadvantage over life, in the la- bor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education. “
From the summary

But on topic for a previous one:

Some lunatic just shot up a WalMart in El Paso. A few days ago 2 people got shot by a different lunatic at a Walmart in Mississippi.

Any guesses on the race of the shooters?

About 180 people are assaulted or killed with guns each week in this country. Any guess on the racial makeup of the shooters?

if you are counting fatal and non fatal shootings in the u.s.
its a lot more than 180/wk

We're not talking about gang on gang violence (which sucks but it's a different animal). We're talking about domestic terrorism. From Oklahoma City to the mosque to the El Paso Walmart, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

When you heard the news, you knew what color that asshole was. Don't change the subject because you know you're complicit.

complicit- involved with others in an illegal activitiy or wrongdoing
So please re-educate us- exactly how is the above commenter complicit with the mass shootings you listed?

hey. hey clown sociologist where did you go?
can you make your case for complicity!

The plot on the right is not in the paper?

You have to wonder what lifetime income would do to this chart? Basically getting a degree gets you into the rich club (or at least the upper middle class). Everyone else just gets bored.

I thought about these charts after I heard about the shootings. We have a lot of troubled people in this country. I wonder what, if anything, we will try to do to help them.

Will we even try?

Comments for this post are closed