How Social Isolation Is Killing Us (nymag.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from The New York Times: Social isolation is a growing epidemic (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source) -- one that's increasingly recognized as having dire physical, mental and emotional consequences. Since the 1980s, the percentage of American adults who say they're lonely has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent. About one-third of Americans older than 65 now live alone, and half of those over 85 do. People in poorer health -- especially those with mood disorders like anxiety and depression -- are more likely to feel lonely. Those without a college education are the least likely to have someone they can talk to about important personal matters. A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent. Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age. Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

Comments

Not everyone is the same

[burtosis]

There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone. Not everyone feels a deep seated need to talk about the weather or hear about trivial personal problems. Not everyone who lives alone degenerates into a curled up ball and mentally wastes away. But the day health risks are determined on an individual basis from a large pool of facts is far, far away. People like the security blanket statements that sum up a complicated condition into one handy catch phrase or statistic. Much like stereotypes, while statistically this study may be correct in general it certainly does not apply to everyone equally.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[Falconhell]

If you are lonely when you are alone, you are in bad company.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[ColdWetDog]

Extrovert vs. Introvert. This article does not account for differences in personality. It may only indicate that lonely extroverts die from lack of stimulation.

No, the article attempts to pull lots of separate studies together in one over arching thesis. While the result may well be valid for a population of humans, there are undoubtably subsets of people where the assumptions don't hold true. TFA doesn't really speak to this.

So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.

But ask yourself, are you really happy?

(If not, please send $49.99 in three easy payments to the address at the bottom of your screen - we're here to help.)

Re:Not everyone is the same

[hey!]

There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.

I think this is true. The trick is really knowing if this is really you.

Let me give an analogy. A few years ago I was driving home from Christmas dinner at my sister's house when suddenly I couldn't unclench my hands from the steering wheel. I went to the emergency room, they did a blood test and my blood sugar was over 600. "You're diabetic," the doctor said, and she gave me a shot of insulin. Suddenly, I felt better than I had in twenty years. The things is, I had been feeling like crap for years, but I didn't know it. I thought I felt normal, but that's because "normal" is how you feel every day.

After that experience I've come to doubt self-reports of well-being. I look at people who sincerely believe they are happy, but they don't look like happy to me. They seem miserable. Resentful. Sour-tempered. On a good day they might manage smug. Now maybe the problem is I don't have access to their rich inner lives, which they must keep bottled up like they're in a thermos. But it's just possible that they're deceived by the extraordinary human capacity to get used to feeling like crap.

You don't have to believe the notion that social connection leads to greater levels of human health and happiness -- although it seems at least plausible given that this is true for practically every other primate species. And even in you believe it is true for most people, that doesn't necessarily mean that applies to you. Maybe you're a special case.

But it seems to me rational to approach life as an experiment. You might think you are as happy as happy can be, but why take it for granted this is your best version of "normal"? And of course experiments force you to sharpen a lot of fuzzy concepts, like "social connection" or "isolation". I am an introvert. It doesn't mean I'm shy, or socially awkward, or misanthropic. It doesn't mean I don't need social connections. It just means I need different things from those connections than an extrovert would.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[Anne Thwacks]

the media has been constantly telling people, directly or indirectly, that they are a complete failure if they don't meet some arbitrary, ideal life.

If you listen to what the media are saying:
(b) you have not bought into their story: you are a complete failure from their perspective. or
(a) you have bought into their story: you are a complete failure in real life . or
(c) You don't listen to the media: you may or may not be a complete failure.

So: if you listen to the media, you are doomed if not, at least their is hope!

Re:Not everyone is the same

[GeekWithAKnife]

I'd also add that social isolation may indeed be a side effect of other conditions.

After all, people who are constantly miserable or sickly do not tend to make more friends over time...

Furthermore there is the modern twist. Many people with niche or unpopular opinions are getting more exposure through the internet than ever before. They are perhaps naturally shunned or isolated.

Worse yet are the people that are not on facebook missing all the opinions and interactions of those that are. Sometimes that means missing out on current events or the latest gossip and other times that means complete isolation from activities that originate and are organised there.

In addition, people can be vicious and force other to isolate themselves as a form of protection. These days bullies can pursue you online not just the school playground.

Finally, much like people may appear unhappy and claim they are happy so we can believe others to be happy because they appear so and in reality they are miserable yet put on a brave face.

Social isolation, I believe is many cases is a symptom, not a cause.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[Chrontius]

Protip:

Nonplussed has two meanings. I tripped on this last week.

nonplussed |nänplst| (also nonplused)
adjective
1 (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react: he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea.
2 North American informal (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[humptheElephant]

I like your comments on this. It would be interesting to break this down further to see how many interactions are needed per unit time for different personality types and the correlation with mental health. I read somewhere that very intelligent people need fewer interactions and friends, but that doesn't tell us how healthy they are. If one looks at politicians in light of this study, it appears that they are in dire need of friends and medications.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[buddyglass]

This is a mischaracterization of what "introverted" means. In the general sense it does not mean "happier alone". That might describe "extreme social introversion". Most introverts have a small circle of friends. Most introverts enjoy spending time with some subset of their small circle of friends in private, and on occasion. A regular D&D game, for instance. Most introverts eventually marry. It's not the case that most introverts desire no human contact and are quite happy to die alone and friendless.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[grumling]

So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.

But that's the thing, the OP isn't sitting here "by themselves," they are with all of our thoughts, including yours. Just because someone isn't staring at your face at the same moment in time doesn't mean they aren't interacting with you. Humans have been interacting over distance and time for thousands of years. Now that communication and artificial memory has become cheap, there are a lot more of us who can afford to engage.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[__aaclcg7560]

For several decades now, the media has been constantly telling people, directly or indirectly, that they are a complete failure if they don't meet some arbitrary, ideal life.

Turn off the television. I've done that 20+ years ago. I selectively watch TV content on Hulu and Netflix.

You aren't good looking enough. You aren't rich enough. Your house isn't nice enough. You clothes aren't nice enough. You don't have enough friends. You don't have the right friends.

The siren call of the American Dream. Give it up and left a modest lifestyle. If you try to keep up with the Joneses, you will never win. Ignore the Joneses, enjoy life.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[Nephandus]

Check a thesaurus. Asocial and Antisocial are synonyms now...according to those sainted extroverts and their self-flagellating converts.

Paywalled Sources

[Frosty Piss]

(Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source)

If there is an "alternate source", why use the pay-walled sources?

Re:Paywalled Sources

[Frosty Piss]

Only old lonely losers use the free source, you'll get depressed hanging out with them

I know... I've got to get with the program and be a more dedicated consumer...

Money

[rsilvergun]

what's isolating me is money. Every year my income is more or less static but my bills go up. I've had promotions, a few projects that brought in some extra cash; but they've mostly served to keep my head above water and clean up the mess from the 2008 economy crash.

Plus it's hard to stay in one place for any length of time. You gotta move to where the work is. And to be blunt, I live in the cheap tech worker apartments, and that means lots and lots of folks here on work visas. They're nice people, but they're not my people.

I'd be a hell of a lot less isolated if the economy would stabilize, but I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that...

Re:Money

[sydbarrett74]

roman_mir is Ayn Rand's Poltergeist, destined to plague /. for ever. Where's Steven Freeling when we need him?

Re:Money

[khallow]

Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.

Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.

What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.

Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.

Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.

The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.

I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.

The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.

That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.

Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.

What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.

Re:Money

[buddyglass]

I'd add three things here, which may not actually contradict anything you believe: 1. Almost all governments carry debt; the ones that are close to having no debt are among the least prosperous, and 2. If you're someone who disproportionately benefits from the debt-financed spending then for you to support higher inflation (in order to allow more debt-financed spending) may be entirely rational, and 3. it's hard to know who benefits most from debt-financed spending because it's hard to separate expenditures into "debt-financed" and "non-debt-financed".

One place to look to identify what an "acceptable" level of per debt GDP might be is the level below which the U.S. can maintain the highest possible sovereign debt rating from the various agencies. Countries currently rated AAA by Moody's, using the most recent free data I could find, along with their current per GDP central government debt (2013 data):

United States: 106.5%
Germany: 79.8%
Australia: 35.9%
Canada: 93.6%
Switzerland: 45.3%
Denmark: 59.3%
Luxembourg: 33.5%
Netherlands: 87.7%
Norway: 39.6%
New Zealand: 38.1%
Sweden: 48.3%
Singapore: 104.7% (had to get this from a different source)

It's clear that among AAA-rated sovereigns the U.S. is near the top debt-wise. To draw more in line with the other members of that group it would need to get its per GDP debt down to around 80% at most.

It also pays to look at countries that are highly developed but not AAA rated. This helps the debt level necessary to guarantee an AAA rating. The previous exercise helped to identify the level needed in order to preclude an AAA rating. Here are some highly developed non-AAA rated countries and their debt levels:

United Kingdom: 103.1%
France: 116.1%
Japan: 232.5%
Austria: 89.5%
Belgium: 105.4%
Finland: 70.1%
Iceland: 91.3%
South Korea: 39.0%

Given S. Korea, it looks like there's essentially no debt level that guarantees a AAA rating. However, if the U.S. were to get down below 70% (i.e. Finland) then it would be pretty close to guaranteed.

It's worth noting that, based on what he's promised so far, Trump looks to be no friend to debt/deficit hawks.

Cultural sickness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much to be sociable you need a large group of people.

In the past this was based either around your extended family, region, race, religion, or national heritage. This was not always a good thing either at the micro or macro level, but it did represent a support network for some (but not all) members of a societal group.

Nowadays much of this has been lost, due to globalization, electronics, hetereogenized neighborhoods (especially new builds as evidenced in the US.) Neighborhoods for better or worse are often no longer established families and friends. As people have spread out, that previous sense of community has slowly dissolved. While there just as many people available today, fewer of them are willing to interact with people outside of their social norms, and since those social norms are spread more thinly across the local region, it becomes less likely that a particular person has an immediate support network to overcome that isolation.

As a personal example: When I was a kid, there were a half dozen kids around my age all living with a block or so of me. While there was a concern of child predators and abductions, by and large people still let their kids go outside, and kids by and large still snuck off to go have fun with friends (my parents were however one of the 'shut in' types, up until I was around 10 or so, at which point I was allowed to bike to school (mostly because my mom had better things to do than actually bother to take me to school or pick me up on time.) In addition to this there was at least one empty field per block (1/4 to 1/2 mile square) which usually lead to a congregation point for the kids. Fast forward 10-20 years and all those fields have been fenced in or built over. Most parents are more concerned about the appearance of their children's safety in regards to allowing them out in the neighborhood, and kids by and large would rather play videogames/watch tv/on a computer than go outside and do stuff, whether hanging out with friends, terrorizing neighbors, or finding field replacements to hang out in.

Re:Cultural sickness.

[ZorinLynx]

>all those fields have been fenced in

It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.

Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.

Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(

Re:Cultural sickness.

[Ichijo]

Even worse, the kind of land use patterns that encourage social interaction have been outlawed in much of the USA. We are no longer allowed to build cities the way we used to.

Re:Cultural sickness.

[geekmux]

>all those fields have been fenced in

It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.

Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.

Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(

It's no better as an adult. Take a look at how much you spend every month on mandated expenses defined as "insurance".

Thank the fucking legal community for this liability arms race, where lawyers and insurance companies get obscenely rich off the paranoia that keeps humans from actually enjoying life.

It truly is one of the more disgusting facets of capitalism, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

Re:Cultural sickness.

[johannesg]

Don't underestimate the car. In the not too distant past, you would live close to work, and most likely not too far from where you were born, in a community you'd consider to be yours. Now you can live a vast distance from work. Your coworkers are people from other communities as well, so there is no bond there, and you don't spend enough time at home to build meaningful bonds in your local community either.

Re:Cultural sickness.

[djinn6]

I don't disagree with GP, and I think mixed-use zones are a great way to lower costs and reduce traffic. However, that article is nonsense:

1. Social Isolation: Rural areas have some of the most friendly and talkative people. Try going up to anyone in New York and ask how their day was. Just because there's 10 people in front of you, doesn't mean you're having social interactions. I personally have never felt more alone than in a crowded room with people partying and "having a great time".

2. Discrimination: Forcing people to drive to places is less discriminatory than forcing them to walk to places. In fact, the elderly are more likely to be able to drive long distances than to walk long distances, especially in bad weather. Now imagine they're also carrying 20 lbs. of groceries. Self driving cars will solve much of the problem anyways.

3. Expense: The article defeats its own point. Cars are expensive, but if 60% of people still own cars, how is that saving money? Car infrastructure can't go away either, since you still need to deliver things with trucks. Besides, without cars, you need to build taller and build more public transport. Both costs money. Just compare living costs in Tokyo with just about any suburb. Heck, just buying train tickets for a month there will cost more than renting a room in much of the US.

4. Small businesses: Simply having more small businesses is not necessarily a good thing. Big ones have economies of scale and work more efficiently. Once again, the article defeats its own point. Take a closer look at the chart: the richest countries are all at the bottom: US, Germany, Denmark. And the country with the most small businesses? Greece... not exactly a shining beacon of prosperity right now.

5. Health: Finally a good point. However, simply ending the corn subsidy can do far more.

Slashdot much?

[shanen]

I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals. My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.

Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

Could technology help solve these problems rather than make them worse? I think so, but it would require different economic models than are currently being used. In the worst-case example of Facebook, the primary metric driving their "success" has nothing to do with improving your social life or helping you find real friends (not to be confused with whatever Facebook means by their increasingly bizarre use of that word). Facebook just wants you to waste as much time as possible on their website.

Re:Slashdot much?

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals.

Mostly. But one of th emost amusing things to me at least, is that there is a sort of shaming going on - that if you are not someone with a lot of friends, that if you enjoy yourself some solitude, there is something wrong with you. That being a private person is bad. Somehow. "Gotta watch out for those quiet ons, you know!"

I have a lot of demands on my time. And people - including friends - are like a loud background noise that can be sressful after a while, and with no doubt tires me out. It really keeps me from processing problems.

My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.

Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

But at least for me, Slashdot is nothing like Facebook. Since I had to open a Facebook account for one of my duties, that place is seriously fucked up, from the oversharing idiots, and the fake news, and some of the drama llamas who never let the chance to turn a bad day into the end of the universe.

But Slashdot - I can do that without stressing my batteries.

Re:Slashdot much?

[arth1]

Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

That said, some people function better alone. And some need a social network. Our species does so well at least in part because we differ so much. What one person can't handle, another one can.

Re:Slashdot much?

[shanen]

Well, I think I mostly agree with you, but I also think the 'social quality' of Slashdot has declined substantially over the years. Not just limited to Slashdot, but when we first started this computer-supported social-networking stuff it was mostly as support for face-to-face social gatherings. In those days the hub nodes were called BBSes, and most of the major ones sponsored periodic gatherings or at least occasional parties. Getting fuzzy from so long ago, but I think there were weekly Lep Lunches and monthly meetings of the Dull Men's Club, and a variety of other meetings of various kinds... This was back in Austin in the '80s...

Don't know the demographics, but I suspect a majority of today's Slashdotters hadn't been born yet.

Re:Slashdot much?

[Applehu Akbar]

Recall also that BBSs were primarily local, for people interested in one activity in one city. Meatspace setups were considered an essential part of the process. Things began to change when Usenet was introduced: common interests, but no longer a common location.

Re:Slashdot much?

[Kjella]

I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

I think it quite quickly sorts into tiers anyway, because in the real world you're only one place at a time. If you hang out with group A of friends on the weekends, you're not hanging out with group B. Or for that matter how you balance friends/family/partner/self-time, obviously if you have a wife and kids you don't have the same time as when you were single but there's still a large degree of choice. I can feel it on something so trivial as when we're playing a four player online co-op game, who's first to be asked and who's just backup if the others are unavailable.

Everybody else you're really just an observer and not part of their lives. I don't want to undersell Facebook either because I understand the feeling of taking parts in your grandkids' lives without actually being physically present, but when it comes to creating real bonds of friendship and family you have to be there and really interact with them. Even when we're just alone together, like when my buddy and I go out flying our drones we each fly our own drone but it's a shared experience. If I did it and posted on my Facebook and he did it and posted on his Facebook it wouldn't be the same at all.

Re:Slashdot much?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

My sister has 1500 facebook friends

And how many actual, real-life friends does she have? That is, people she's actually met once or twice face to face? How many does she actually do stuff with on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis? Would she still be 'friends' with them if her internet connection went down for a few years?

Facebook friends aren't friends, they're just people who clicked on a link. It's like claiming that "I'm the Ruler Of The Entire Universe", as long as you count my chair as "the entire universe".

Personally I think Facebook has done more to separate and isolate people that it's done to bring them together. Oh sure, it can foster communication, but that's not the same thing by any means.

Re:Slashdot much?

[fustakrakich]

And how many actual, real-life friends does she have?

To steal from the old joke: Invite them all to her wedding with this notice, "She's in deep trouble and desperately needs your help". See how many show up...

hmm

[Ol Olsoc]

What about if you find being around other people stressful? I know plenty of people - myself included - who need to get away from others from time to time because being around other people just drains my batteries big time. It isn't shyness, I'm completely socialized, and not remotely awkward. But I find being around others stressful at times. I guess that you might describe it as how some people are afraid of public speaking. I can stand and deliver all day without a hitch, without a bit of nervousness - but after the evening's socialization, I need a day or two to recharge.

This benefits whom?

[flacco]

I'm trying to figure out what bullshit rip-off "service" sponsored this article.

Social isolation isn't a cause.

[Rod Beauvex]

It's an effect. People are poor now. They don't have the money to go out and do things.

If I have to fall back on inflation

[rsilvergun]

to make my debt affordable then something is very, very wrong with the economy.

You're right about the monetary system being used to balance things, but it's just a temporary patch on a broken system. People have come to expect (reasonable I'd say) improved quality of life. This generation is on track to the be first one American history to be worse off overall.

Alone vs being lonely

[JoeyRox]

I can certainly see how feeling lonely can lead to ill health effects. However feeling lonely and being alone are two different animals. One is a state of mind while the other is just a state of proximity.

Re:Except lonliness is easy to avoid...

[arth1]

An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island.

One man's Gilligan's Island is another man's Fantasy Island.

One of the best days of my life was when I was 18 and got keys to my first and completely empty condo. All I had the first day was a table lamp, a sleeping bag and a book. It was heaven.
Going to a cabin to get away from people is still wonderful.

Re:Because

[unixisc]

I am pretty lonely, but don't suffer from obesity or poor health. Yeah, I'd like it if I had somebody, but I do need financial stability before I can get there. After I got dumped by my wife after losing my job 8 years ago and unable to find another for a while, I don't have any illusions that if I marry, I'll be supported for better or worse, in sickness or in health, until death do us part. I made the mistake of assuming that once. Not again.

One additional symptom

[Trachman]

That is denial.

Denial that social isolation is harming. Look, even in this thread there are so many people who are saying that they are happy alone.

More importantly, many magazines for women are pushing never ending message (never supported scientifically), that older women, after divorce are just better off.

Increase in mortality by an average of 30% would normally be declared an epidemic health hazard, on par with smoking and obesity.

Another fascinating fact is that probably a fifth of adults in USA are (or were) on antidepressants. Other studies have shown that having a partner, or a friend, to whom you can talk to, drastically reduces depression risk.

Finally, the ultimate statistical fact. In USA average life expectancy is 79.3 years (source: wiki). Costa Rica has life expectancy of 79.6 yrs, and Albania has 77.8, while Costa Rica spends one tenth of US healthcare spendings and Albania spends one thirtieth of US healthcare spendings?

Perhaps there is something wrong with US? Also, it is so difficult not to be suspicious that many purely american phenomena are known to the number crunchers, yet are allowed to stay the way the are intentionally.

Re:One additional symptom

[rebelwarlock]

"Someone disagrees with my point of view. That means they're in denial."

Re:Because

[Anonymous Coward]

A BMW is not enough, you also need to be charming, muscular and have a huge penis. But more money can always make up for your lacking qualities.

Loneliness? No, lack of warning

[spiritplumber]

If you are alone and old, you keel over and die. If you are with someone and old, they can call 911.

Has society created a life worth living?

[geekmux]

There are many aspects we can look at that created this mess, but one that seems to be overlooked here is the concept that people don't want to grow old anymore. Sadly, many find they can't afford to. Think the average Millennial is looking forward to retirement when they can barely afford to make ends meet? What's the point of growing old when you're going to be forced to blow your entire retirement nest egg on some major health issue that will inevitably crop up?

The constant threat of liability leading to lawsuits forces most of us to waste our incomes on countless forms of insurance. The social media lifestyles of the narcissistic elite are held high on an entertainment pedestal, and I wonder how watching that shit doesn't ultimately feed depression. Life is hard these days because it isn't getting any cheaper, and that chasm between the 99% and the 1% sure as hell isn't getting smaller, so don't assume Greed who helped create this mess is going to suddenly find compassion.

As if all that wasn't bad enough, here comes automation and AI to help shrink the human worth down to nothing.

It's sickening. Literally.

Re:Because

[buddyglass]

Refusal and/or inability to trust will ensure you remain lonely even when you're in a relationship. It's also somewhat of a fallacy to assume every woman, or even the majority of women, are like your ex-wife. This assumes your description of why she left you is accurate. If the truth is closer to "I lost my job then sat on my ass for six months and played video games" then it may be entirely reasonable to suspect most women are like your ex-wife.

Because isolation is fun

[iamacat]

Let's forget about individuals who are too physically or mentally ill to socialize for a moment. These elderly single have been married for many decades and know their years are numbered in any case. Would all of them be THAT eager to give up independence and restrict their habits to accommodate a new person they just met? Even if it means sticking around for a few years longer?

Let's not glamorize traditional hypersocial society either. It's not fun having people ring your doorbell without warning or never ending stream of social commitment that leaves little time for personal interests. Failure to adequately separate self from family and neighbors makes it difficult to succeed in ways not traditional for these groups or resist bad influences. How many join gangs because all cousins are in gangs?

We mostly live the way we do by choice. A lot will feel lonely on holidays, but would be miserable if made to experience all consequences of lifestyle of their coworkers who are having a big home gathering.

Re: Because

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Half the problem is that many, many American/Western women make terrible partners. They're self-centered, self-absorbed perpetually unhappy, and will dump you in a heartbeat for something "better". They're not your partner, they're your competitor. It's very very hard to have a real relationship with most American/Western women. And I speak from 50+ years of combined dating and marriage experience.

If anything and I mean anything goes wrong, it's going to be your fault because your job sole job in life (in her mind) is to make her "happy" and "satisfied", whatever that means. If you don't make her happy all the time, that's gonna be a problem- your problem, not hers.

If you can't read her mind and know/predict exactly what she wants, you're screwed. ("You don't understand me!")
If you can't fulfill her every whim, you're screwed.
If one day she wakes up and decides you're not her "soulmate" anymore, you're screwed.
If you suggest to her what to do, you're domineering and controlling, but if you let her do whatever she wants, you're a wimp.
No matter how well off you are, remember that that will be her baseline in terms of expectations during your marriage. Drop below that for any reason and you're in trouble. Not her, YOU.
You don't like her friends? Tough shit, deal with it. She doesn't like your friends? Get rid of them.

From my experience you're far better off looking abroad for a wife and partner. Ask me how I know. :)

I Need Companionship

[PPH]

But the law won't let me rent it by the hour.

Re:Inflation is only low for the upper class

[knorthern knight]

Agreed, the cost of food, shelter, clothing, and transportation is going up like crazy, while electronics go down.

* Summer of 2007, I bought a 50 inch TV (1366x768 resolution) for $3500 Canadian. Today, 48-to-50 inch TVs (1920x1080 resolution) can be had for $350. That's a 90% drop in price.

* Stuff you really need, like food, shelter, clothing, and transportation has been constatnly increasing. I remember my first car, a new 1974 Ford Maverick 4-door. It cost $4,070 including taxes. Nowadays a compact 4-seater is at least $20,000

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/s...

TTC Fare Structure, July 1, 1954:
> Adult day fares: 15cents cash; 5 tickets for 50cents 20 tickets for $2.
> Children: 5cents cash; 6 tickets for 25cents
> Scholars: 10 tickets for 55cents

http://ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes...

As of January, the fare structure will be
> Adult (cash) $3.5
> Adult (token or Presto-card) $3.00
> "S" fare (Senior or Student) (cash) $2.10
> "S" fare (Senior or Student) (ticket or Presto-card) $2.05

Food, clothing, and housing (own or rent) have also skyrocketed. See http://www.thepeoplehistory.co... for some scarey numbers. To summarize... the current "2%" number is an an outright lie. The real number is a lot worse for people in the working class.