Population implosion is going to be the biggest problem of our lives. It is one of those issues that creeps up progressively (like Global Warming), but will have cataclysmic impacts. Sex is a precursor to relationships and kids, if people don't have sex...
Imagine 80% of the population is elderly and retired (or want to be retired) - that is where the world is heading by the end of the century.
But surely as societies enter the later parts of the demographic transition phases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition) something like that is bound to happen - you cannot have infinitely growing populations and eventually mortality will decrease (due to healthcare improvements and increased living standards) to a point where a non-insignificant part of your population will be of an advanced age.
So in a sense, that's inevitable, isn't it?
The alternative would be to ensure that birth rates are such that the population distribution across ages is always vaguely balanced, but due to the changing socioeconomic conditions, I doubt that's viable. So all that can be done for the most part is just to have social safety nets and support for the older people in the forms of affordable housing, discounts, pensions and other such systems.
Here in Latvia a certain part of each salary is put towards our retirement funds, be it through a privately managed set of funds (typically through one of the banks) or otherwise. The sizes of pensions and living expenses are still a hotly debated topic, given that those still aren't always sufficient for a comfortable lifestyle, but the idea of accumulating enough money for when you age seems like a sane approach to the problem at hand.
It's inevitable, but it's also not really something society has dealt with or addressed.
Money in a retirement fund is just an IOU. The actual labour of your retirement - the bartender serving you drinks, the doctor performing surgery, the carer taking you to the toilet - is done by young people. If there's not enough of them around, the money will very quickly inflate towards worthlessness.
> Population implosion is going to be the biggest problem of our lives.
While some current projections do predict a steep decline in population growth - it's still gonna take roughly a hundred years, just to reach zero growth. Which means we are looking at another 100 years of population actually still growing.
If the trend continues unchanged, and population growth goes negative, it would take another 100 years just to return to exactly the same population numbers that we do have today.
If the growth then grew even more negative for another 100 years, that's when you'd be able to talk about an population implosion - 300 years down the line. So no, I don't think there will be any implosion within our lives.
The problems you describe though - that's not implosion, but population aging and the economic problems that causes down the line. Those issues have been around in some countries for multiple decades already - and yes they are going to get worse. Still, growing population numbers to levels beyond what this planet can sustain just to keep the economy afloat does not seem like a well thought-through plan to me.
We will have to achieve zero population growth - and if the world economy can't take that... we really need to radically change the economy, not increase population growth again.
And yet people used to worry about overpopulation. Several countries already depend on immigrants to fill vital jobs, despite there sometimes being quite a bit of xenophobia towards those immigrants.
In the past, some people argued for a much smaller world population (however they imagine we could possibly get there), but now that it might happen, we realise our economies run on young people.
And yet we don't pay young people enough and we don't give them the opportunity to start families. Much of this is definitely also a policy problem: make sure young people can buy a house and start a family, can afford to raise kids, have time off with their family, etc.
I think the point isn't that a contraction is bad in general, it's that too fast of a contraction leaves an inverted demographic pyramid, which has all kinds of very bad implications.
You need a certain tax base to keep services funded. Then at some point on the curve, you start running out of service workers for the care industry.
I think automation will help to a degree but healthcare services is right at that sweet spot of both physically intricate and nonroutine that is so hard to automate.
The problem (mostly) isn't fewer people, it's an ever-increasing proportion of elderly. As long as total fertility is below replacement the proportion of elderly to working-age people increases /forever/.
That argument is in line with the "Thank God for the pandemic! all people are locked at home and pollution is decreasing! also less people in the planet!"
I don't know who are "we" and if they can afford it. I suspect most don't know either and think they "afford" part is not their part or imagine it's having one less latte/month in exchange for less traffic.
Depends on the scale you look at it. It's going to be a shit show for a few generations. Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co
> Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co
I don't think it makes much of a difference in practice for this scenario if retirement is funded by savings/investments of the elderly or through taxes and other transfers from the working population. As much of the population is retired the value of the investments will go down as now now people are selling than buying new investment. It would become a indirect transfer.
It's not a long term problem. To be utterly dispassionate about it, people who don't reproduce are voluntarily selecting themselves out of the gene pool, leaving behind those who genetically have a stronger drive to reproduce even under adverse circumstances. There's no moral or philosophical dimension to it; it's simply how the unfeeling mechanics of how nature works.
I am very, very excited about this. We are absolutely culpable for the absolute havoc we have wrought on the environment. Mindless consumption and endless growth cannot continue forever.
An early litmus test for this is to look at college admission counts. Universities are very concerned right now over projected admissions from now through 2025.
There’s simply fewer high school graduates available, so enrollment counts will go down and universities will have to fight harder or lower admission requirements to keep the same number of students year over year.
It could also be that young people today simply don’t want to pay the high cost of college, and honestly I get that. But even cheaper or budget colleges are seeing enrollment dips.
The issue is that most of the countries from which the US draws immigrants are going through the demographic transition themselves. The US will remain a relatively desired destination for immigration, but there will be many fewer migrants. And as the demographic transition happens in those countries, the demand for would-be migrants' labor will be higher, resulting in improved compensation and less reason to emigrate.
I'm not quite joking. They're some of the best farmers on the planet and they have huge families. I suspect, if you do the math, they smoothly replace the rest of us as we "grey out" so to speak. ;)
It's a bit paradoxical. I have a tech company and most staff want to come to the office 1 day a week. Getting them to come is very tough. Many of my staff and friends don't want to have kids, make no effort to find a partner and find all sorts of excuses. Netflix, the internet and these things are part of the problem, but I have no clue what the solution is. There is only one way to not be lonely - be with people who care about you. That requires an investment of time and of your emotions - something many people seem unable or unwilling to do. You have to get out into the world and invest in others.
They need stable, actionable futures. Homes they can afford to own, communities they can raise kids in, an environment that won't go up in flames; they need systems that have their back.
>Many of my staff and friends don't want to have kids, make no effort to find a partner and find all sorts of excuses
Is the lack of affordable housing and/or environmental disasters really responsible for people who lack the precondition (eg. having a partner) for buying a home?
When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home? Furthermore, what’s the point of finding a partner when the cost of a permanent place together might exceed both your incomes put together, much less a place big and safe enough to raise a family.
> When was having a partner a precondition for buying a home?
When you make an offer on a house you're bidding against two-earner households. For a lot of us in tech the salience of this fact is diminished by the industry's high salaries, but for most folks this is a really big deal.
This is only an issue because of constrained supply driving prices up.
If there was more supply, prices would stabilize somewhere lower. Given enough supply that point would be somewhere one income could support.
It's the constrained supply paired with high demand that drives prices up and requires multiple high incomes to compete (especially in places where this has been taken to the extremes because of NIMBYism and entrenched anti-build regulation/incentives).
Regardless of market conditions, DINK still offers a huge economic advantage because, well it's in the name: two incomes, ~half the living expenses compared to a single. It's popular because it's meta.
Yeah, but it'll only drive prices up if supply is constrained.
Land is scarce so there will always be some constraints in highly desirable areas, but today we're way way below what the land can support because of bad policy.
Sure, I'm all-in on YIMBYism, but some places will always be more desirable than others and those places will likely always cost more and all things being equal buyers with two incomes will be more likely to be able to afford those houses.
It might not be a strict precondition, but it's still a pretty strong precondition. Maybe "precondition" isn't the best word here, but I think my original point still stands. Suppose someone claims that people are deciding not to have kids for whatever reason (eg. global warming, unaffordable healthcare, expensive houses)[1], and I retort by saying that people aren't bothering finding a partner[2], so they're not meeting their "precondition". Sure, you can theoretically raise a kid without a partner, but if you're not even bothering to find a partner, then maybe it's fair to say that's the main reason, rather than blaming global warming or whatever?
When was the last time you asked for a mortgage? This is fairly standard nowadays, and has little to do with the size of your income. Banks prefer a mortgage in multiple names because it reduces their risk. If you're over 40, in my country it is all but impossible to get a mortgage on your own, regardless of income.
I'm making a far more banal claim: buyers with two incomes have more money than buyers with one income (all things being equal and across large numbers of people) and the latter will always be at a relative disadvantage.
Good point on agency. Throughout their lives GenZ has either had less agency or felt like we have less agency to do what we want. Certainly true for some financial goals like buying a house
The oldest gen z are just out of college though. I think it’s the younger millennials you might be describing (people a decade into their career with little prospect of home ownership).
Back in the 60s, people were buying homes in their early 20s or even late teens because it was that affordable. Obviously that is a bit of a historical anomaly, but it's almost a necessary complement to the idea you're supposed to become an adult and mature and grow up after age 18.
Perhaps we ran in different social classes but in the 60's most believed that you had to save a good portion of one's life to afford a home and worked towards that end. Home ownership was not a given - it was considered an enormous investment that took much of one's life to prepare for.
However, the affordable rental market greatly mitigated that and allowed "delayed" home ownership until a suitable nest egg was constructed.
They also had things a lot harder in many ways than we do. The 60’s is over 50 years ago now. The world changes a lot in that time. Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic.
Yes you're right. We do have many modern conveniences and information they didn't have. So why would we go backwards on this key metric of home prices and rent? Or housing as a percentage of household income? It is an economic, social, and moral failure (see the situation in Los Angeles)
> Basing your expectations on the 60’s is unrealistic.
We use historical standards to measure progress all the time. The thing we should be exploring is "why has home ownership become so expensive?" and "what can be done to alleviate that impact?" Anything else is a distraction.
As someone who graduated college into the Great Recession, I was told and shown no path to work for the better part of a decade after college-despite going back to college to become more marketable in that period. And seemingly nobody cares about people like me because we don’t get the ink that the people slightly older or younger than us get.
On the other hand, I do wonder how the economic outlook for work in the US looks once the deeper portions of the boomers retire and open up work. Not a lot of optimism though.
I’m the same age (although skipped college). Lots of friends in the same situation needing to get multiple degrees before finally finding their way into unrelated careers.
I think a lot of this lack of agency is what's driving the current interest in things like van life and digital nomadism. Whichever way you sell it, the idea that people ought to live every year until their 40s spending a huge chunk of their wages paying off some random Baby Boomer's mortgage through extortionate rents rather than their own is a bleak thing to face, especially when you can't even hang up a picture or adopt a pet in a lot of cases.
I for one am planning on moving onto a sailing yacht next year, while it's not exactly much cheaper that money is better spent on the inevitable maintainance than keeping the landlord's wine cooler full!
I'm sympathetic to the later part, but first part not what they want.
They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive).
That means more risk and all the things that come along with it.
I think even 'remote work' will have a serious of consequences we're not ready to accept, which is that it will make workers even more fungible.
If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around.
This talk really changed my thought process on careers. Basically every corporation in America is fundamentally unstable to work for, where you COULD be laid off for essentially arbitrary fiscal goals. That instability makes it impossible to trust your leaders (i.e. the company) to actually support you. As long as the people who pay your salary don't think long term about organizational health, people will be forced to play games and constantly job hop.
This coupled with the fact in tech at least that the easiest way to get a raise -- and usually a substantial one -- is to switch to a new company. If a person can either: spend a year genuflecting and begging their manager for a single-digit raise*, or spend three weeks interviewing and get 15%-plus more to do substantially the same work...all else being equal, which should we pick?
*Not to complain about 5%. For the vast majority of workers that's an unattainable dream -- but that just furthers the point that the worker is not treated as an asset.
> They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive).
Why do people want this though? 50 years ago, you could be a mechanic, work 50 hours a week and own a house. The wife could be at home to take care of the kids. These days, both have to work 60 hours a week to afford a rental apartment.
in the 70's, a home cost about 4.5 times the median yearly household income. Right now it's about 7 times the yearly income. That doesn't seem like a massive increase (even though it's more than a 50% increase), but employment of married women also increased from 40% to 60%. So while we have, on average, more earners in a household, we pay more of our income on housing. It's a double whammy.
So people want careers in order to start earning a living wage in order to be able to actually raise kids and live a meaningful life in a nice home. People don't just want a career because they want a career, they want that because they don't want to be wage slaves who don't get to live a life. Also, they don't get to raise their kids, because they don't have time for that.
Absolutely. Another HN commenter put it very nicely in a recent similar thread: people are working so they can make enough money to afford to be able to work.
If two adults have to work full time to have a house with kids, then they also have to be making enough for child care and various other things that they might be able to do more cheaply if only one of them was working.
In Germany where I live home owners are in the minority (40%). In Europe on average homeownership is about 70%. Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe.
Furthermore, buying a house on credit does not mean you own it — since as long as you pay your debt it’s the bank that owns it really.
Finding a partner and maintaining a relationship got nothing to do with owning a home. I am saying that as a dad without owning a house.
Being a tenant in Germany cannot be compared to being a tenant in the US.
Being a tenant in Germany is essentially as stable (if not more stable) as taking a mortgage on a home in the US. This is still the type of stability the state provides, which is quickly disappearing worldwide as all funds go into real estate due to a decade of zero (or negative) interest rates.
> Yet, we are one of the richest countries in Europe.
We have strong social security, but Germans have few assets and those aren't really equally distributed. I don't think financial problems are standing in the way of kids though.
You really have to know how to look after yourself, and be happy with yourself, before you can really bring another person into the mix in the form of a committed relationship (using the example of people not having partners or not thinking about children).
There's been an expectation for a long time that your self-worth as a person is connected to being with someone else, and therefore your path to increase self-worth is through a relationship, and then through creating a family by getting married and having kids.
It's not true though, it just forces you to get stuck in unhappy, abusive, or co-dependent relationships with other people because throughout all of your childhood and your formative years, you've been told that happiness is in the other person. That other person has to be responsible for making you feel complete, and you have to be responsible for making them feel complete. I think it's pretty bizarre that we've been taught to give up control over our own sense of self in that way.
Nobody is making excuses, and the internet and Netflix aren't the problem, and it's not as simple as getting out and meeting people. A partner and a baby won't suddenly make you less lonely or more happy, more likely you'll just have two unhappy people who have to work even harder to make a living, and a child that requires therapy.
The one way to not be lonely is to be happy being alone. If you're happy being alone, happy being with yourself, then you have a conscious and mature choice to make about whether or not you'll be happy being with someone else too.
But if you think the only way to not be lonely is a relationship, then sure, maybe you won't be lonely... but will you be content? And if you can't get the relationship, will you just grow bitter and hateful towards the people who won't give you that happiness you so desire?
> You really have to know how to look after yourself, and be happy with yourself, before you can really bring another person into the mix.
That's not really true though. We're born social animals, we die social animals. Being solitary isn't a means of "finding oneself" so that one is ready to "bring other people into the mix". It's just a way of slowly going crazy. There's a reason why solitary confinement is a form of punishment, or even torture.
Solitary confinement could drive someone to think differently, but the point was that solitary activity, not confined, is totally tolerable by some and not necessarily a bad thing.
You don't need to know how to look after yourself. This is perfect is the enemy of the good type situation.
Not being a fully realized person doesn't stop you from making connections. Even deep great friendships. You and your friends can grow together over time. You can cut out friends that are not a good fit over time if they are bad for you (abusive, etc.).
In fact, I find more and more the people who are most successful around me are those who just go for it rather than being contentious and trying to perfect themselves. I think the best place to be is, at always, in the middle. Too much alone time and you may be very independent but you don't want to spend time with others as they're worse company than your own self. Too little alone time, and you become codependent and don't learn to be independent.
Of course, but this isn't the same thing as the parent poster's surprise about people not finding partners or having kids.
I'm talking specifically about that kind of relationship. As everyone has pointed out, it would not be great to take this approach while making friends and doing the things friends do.
"A partner and a baby won't suddenly make you less lonely or more happy, more likely you'll just have two unhappy people who have to work even harder to make a living, and a child that requires therapy."
There's nothing wrong with being single, but as a statistical matter, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are many people, even flawed people who haven't found themselves, for whom a partner and a baby will make them feel less lonely and more happy, otherwise wouldn't our species be extinct? The fact that humans continue to be born suggest nature predisposes us to certain behavior which we see as being in our best interest.
I'm likely projecting a lot of my own life experience because I'm afraid of what might come out if I got involved with someone. Because I've had a history of not so great mental health and I basically have a hard trusting myself that I could be mature. So for me, I have to deal with my own shit first, but maybe as another commenter suggested, perfect is the enemy of good.
I feel like if someone goes into this with the expectation that a romantic relationship, or a family and kids, will solve their problems, then they might find out that they're wrong. Like, they're hedging all of their bets on those things and when you look at, say, the incel community, then you can see it's almost an all-or-nothing proposition because so much is riding on sexual or romantic validation at the expense of almost everything else.
And there are the people who have children to try and rescue a marriage, and then they find out it doesn't work like that. Sunk-cost fallacy, maybe you're not happy with someone and you're also not happy alone, but there is someone else out there who connect with you in the way you need.
If I were to rephrase my original post, I'd say that you should listen to your needs but you shouldn't dismiss that some of those needs, maybe, are fulfilled by you, and not someone else. So make sure that you keep yourself happy and don't put the entirety of that responsibility on another person.
Personally, my priority has been to make close friends and to do my best to keep them, while not being afraid of losing them over time.
Or to put it all another way, I'm the only constant in my life and everything and everyone else is a variable.
This is a pervasive cope. Relationships, romantic and otherwise, are necessary for most people to be happy. "You're not ready for relationships until you're happy alone," is something people say that doesn't make any real sense. It doesn't indicate a personality deficit, either. It's completely normal and healthy to require relationships for happiness; pretending that this is some sign of mental disorder is a disturbing modern coping mechanism.
What's stranger is that it's rarely a cope for the person saying it. Instead, they are explaining away others' desires as unhealthy, while they often have those desires already fulfilled themselves. It's as though the speaker is uncomfortable with others being lonely and seeks to demonize it as a personal failing.
Doesn’t this depend on having friends who are off the internet too?
In the before times, I’d go to get drinks with friends and often found they were chronically distracted. If there’s a lull in conversation they pull out their phones. I go to the bathroom and come back and they’re swiping through Tinder.
I got married before the dating apps got popular so I never went down that particular rabbit hole, but I feel like they’ve severely damaged people’s ability to pay attention to where they are and who they’re with.
If there’s a lull in conversation they pull out their phones.
I despise how this behavior has been completely normalized. Especially in the dating sphere. People putting their phones on the table to make sure they never miss notifications is just so fucking disrespectful to the people you're actually with.
> People putting their phones on the table to make sure they never miss notifications is just so fucking disrespectful to the people you're actually with.
FWIW, I don't use my phone while out to eat with another person, but I do put it on the table—on silent!—because it's large enough to be uncomfortable in my front pants pocket(s) while sitting.
Personally I never understood it as disrespectful, because I assume they’ve got some personal shit they might not be able to be uncontactable for. What if someone they know is in the hospital or they’re in some other high priority issue? What if a close friend of theirs is in a tenuous health position? What if they’re checking on their children? And most certainly they’re not going to tell me and frankly I’m not entitled to whatever shit they’ve got going through it we’re just getting to know if we like each other broadly. I think assuming I should have dedicated time to someone who is just seeing if we get along is rather selfish of me- I don’t know their life enough to know if they have other priorities they’re trying to balance.
> What if someone they know is in the hospital or they’re in some other high priority issue? What if a close friend of theirs is in a tenuous health position? What if they’re checking on their children?
Even if any or all of that is true you can still put your phone away. If it's an emergency someone will call you.
It’s also possible you miss a call, so if you check your notifications you’ll see you did. Again, I think this is all super judge mental over something that frankly isn’t my business.
Sure, but we’re not in those times anymore. It’s weird to be like “I’m dating someone so I choose not to pick up it I miss a call from my ailing mother”.
You can always find new friends once you start meeting people off internet. Tbh I find purely online friendships not to last long, especially now as an adult.
Or, perhaps a more charitable reading may be "if you’re not staring at a screen perhaps you’ll meet people while out and form social bonds"?
If you’re very online and you’re lonely being very online then proposing that you change what you’re doing to perhaps get different results is not the same thing as "have you tried not being sad????"
And why do people think someone just going offline will magically start talking to people (where? with whom?)
It's like telling an obese person to go exercise. It is meaningless advice. "Oh but can they figure it out right" Well, if they could maybe they wouldn't be so lonely.
And even more in boomer style "just take your printed CV to McDonalds to get a job" pulling people offline might be just cutting the only social link most of them have, instead of leveraging it.
If you spend all your time just mulling about online, or watching Netflix, or playing a game, then it's not surprising that you are lonely. You are engaging in solo activities that other people can't really join.
It is not anymore surprising that you are overweight if you don't exercise, and especially if you aren't cooking at home ever.
Cut out any drugs, go to bed at a reasonable hour, exercise, get a hobby, eat decently. If you don't know how to do those things or have medical issues preventing you, go to a doctor/therapist/personal trainer/nutritionist/life coach.
No you aren't going to become a social butterfly just because you finally logged off your game, but if you try a few different organized social events (board game meetups, hiking group, whatever) you will probably start talking to a few people.
If you still can't, then you need to talk to a therapist. You probably have either never developed or allowed your social skills to decay and need help to get them back on track.
The rest of your comment is on point and I think it’s good advice, but I wanted to respond to this:
> If you spend all your time […] watching Netflix, or playing a game, then it's not surprising that you are lonely. You are engaging in solo activities that other people can't really join.
The relevant qualifier here is "all your time", and I agree, all your time is bad, but these activities can be plenty social if they’re engaged in for a reasonable amount of time and with an eye toward being social.
Netflix and playing games to be were vital to me keeping a social link with friend when the pandemic started. What worked for me was to do these activities in a group with friends, friends of friends, and family of friends in a group. For example, we treated NetFlix like a book club treats a book store - a source of material to discuss. We picked out movies and series and would discuss them like a book club discussed movies. Hearing the perspective of others and their understanding of the shows/movies was very interesting and it allowed expanding my social circle with people that either had similar interests or were articulate, civil, and respectful about our differences.
Same for gaming - we would run social gaming nights for people that would break off into smaller groups based on gaming preferences. Did that over Discord and it worked great to break the ice and keep socializing.
The key was to use these things as a backdrop to bring people together and drive engagement and let their desire to be social drive relationships. This takes active effort as opposed to binging a show alone or just queuing in another public lobby in a game.
Another key was limiting time. We alternated between games and movie/series discussion every other week, and that gave everyone (especially participants with a busy work schedule or kids) time to set aside a couple of hours to watch/discuss the shows/movies or game.
> but if you try a few different organized social events (board game meetups, hiking group, whatever) you will probably start talking to a few people.
In my experience, actually no. I took up rock climbing about a decade ago, which most people would say is a fairly social activity. I rarely talk to anyone and certainly wouldn't describe anyone I've met at the gym as a friend. You have failed to consider that maybe the reason people are entertaining themselves with solo activities at home is that they are predisposed towards not being very social even when among other people with similar interests.
> If you still can't, then you need to talk to a therapist. You probably have either never developed or allowed your social skills to decay and need help to get them back on track.
Or, maybe I just don't enjoy interacting with strangers very much? It seems pretty insulting to insinuate that just because someone isn't very social it means they are fundamentally flawed.
We are discussing people who are suffering from loneliness.
If you do not suffer from loneliness, this entire thread is not about you.
If you suffer from loneliness and are not socializing successfully, something has gone wrong, somewhere.
Even if you need to see a therapist, you are not fundamentally broken anymore than someone who is physically weak is fundamentally broken. You simply need help with your development.
> And why do people think someone just going offline will magically start talking to people (where? with whom?)
Necessary (but not sufficient) for change in life to occur is for the person wanting change to desire it happen and make effort for it to happen.
To answer where: whatever activity you choose to do with other people, assuming you choose an activity that can be social - typically something based on your interests, and if you're not sure what those are, try a bunch and see which ones you enjoy. Part of building a social circle is developing interests of your own and then finding people who share those interests with you.
To answer with whom: the people that are doing these activities that are there to do them but also be social. There are tons of places out for hobbies and activities where you can meet people, but you have to go to those places, put in the effort with the activities, and be open to making connections with people, and even then, that may not work, but you'll never know unless you try.
Let me give you an example from my life. In my early twenties I was lonely and I spent most of my time forum posting and chatting on IRC/AIM. I was talking to people but not making connections. An acquaintance of mine who had a lot more friends and connections suggested that perhaps I was spending too much time forum posting and chatting and not enough actually out doing things. I resisted this change for about a year, but I found that continuing to do what I was doing wasn't changing my situation. I decided to make a change in my life and to start pursing interests and connections. Weekday, I would go to work (which required me to be online as a computer programmer), but then to limit my online time at home and make an effort to go out and meet people. I didn't go out every night, but I spent some time away from the screen - I got better at cooking, I started reading more, and I focused on discovering new interests.
In some cases, this was having a drink (not necessarily an alcoholic one if you're not into alcohol) in a bar during a football game to meet other football fans. Another was to go bowling once a week which turned into joining a league. Another was to go to a farmer's market to pick up fresh vegetables. The last was joining a local Linux users group. Starting all of these activities, engaging in them with the mind of being social, coupled with learning about myself, led to both personal and professional connections being made - I met my wife, I met a future employer and hopefully startup co-founder, and I met friends that I still bowl with to this day. It was my desire to go to these events, to be open, to talk to people who were open to being talked to, and to meet regulars and connect with them that helped me move forward. I don't want to make it sound like it was all sunshine and roses - it left me tired, some of the activities I tried left me physically sore because I wasn't really fit enough for them, some of the people I met ended up being terrible people and I had to learn to cope with that/cut them out, and I had a few failed relationships along the way which bruised my heart. None of that would have happened if I just stayed on forums and chat and never made an effort to change. There is also the chance that I wouldn't have met people out and doing this, but I never would have had the opportunity if I hadn't tried.
> It's like telling an obese person to go exercise. It is meaningless advice.
If someone is obese and asks for advice on how to become more healthy then suggesting exercise (along with some exercises they can get started with - see above for my analogous answer to that) is not meaningless. If someone is obese, asks you for advice, you give them advice, they don't follow it, and then they complain about how things aren't changing and that it was meaningless that you gave them advice then the obese person might bear some responsibility for their situation not changing.
> And even more in boomer style "just take your printed CV to McDonalds to get a job" pulling people offline might be just cutting the only social link most of them have, instead of leveraging it.
Anyone that is suggesting that you go _completely_ offline is wrong - I am not suggesting that at all! You cannot go _completely_ offline and be productive, educated, and social these days. Many of the social opportunities that I mentioned above these days are organized online, so you will need to be online in some cases to know when they're happening and to keep in contact with the people you meet there. What people are suggesting is that you limit the amount of time you spend online outside of work and the necessary time to find these activities, learn about them, and maintain the connections you make while doing them.
Not entirely sure why you're downvoted. I'm nearly deaf and I fully rely on lipreading. I've basically concluded I will have no social interactions in public until masks go away. I can't even make it through checkout sometimes without frustrating others. No one has the patience to try and bother to communicate with barriers. I can't count the number of times someone has finally screamed "never mind!" and made shooing gestures. Even the bus scares me. It's very hard to tell someone's emotional state both unable to see their face or hear them. I worry about being assaulted.
I know hearing people experience a mild version of the above. It's the most visible aspect of how the pandemic of virus has led to the pandemic of loneliness.
I'm sympathetic to people with hearing impairment. It's a shame that most mask-wearing, at least in my area, is arguably "virtue signaling" as single-layer masks do largely nothing to prevent aerosolized viral transmission. N95s and other serious masks, on the other hand, actually work. So tired of seeing people walking their dogs in the park or bike-riding alone while wearing surgical masks. It literally does nothing except make me think those people are crazy. And this is in a county that is 85%+ vaccinated.
There are many neighborhoods in America that don't have coffee shops, at all. And many that you wouldn't want to be caught dead cycling around in on a pushbike.
On a broader scale, the median wage in America is only ~30k, while the cost of rent and basics far outpaces any increase in wages. So the idea that people would use the time off from their excessive working lives to go hiking is actually a bit insulting.
The comment I responded to reeks of ignorance of the reality of the daily lives of so, so many Americans; who if they have any free time and disposable income it sure as fuck isn't going to be spent hiking up mountains and buying decent hiking gear.
... I visited Pittsburgh last winter, and was struck at the differences between neighborhoods. In Squirrel Hill the coffee shops were open and trading, the sidewalk was free of snow, people got their groceries delivered from Giant Eagle. In Braddock, the sidewalks were cracked to pieces, layered with demonically slippery ice that hadn't seen a grain of salt in years. There wasn't any cafe, or bagel shops, or proper grocery store; there was a dollar store and a bodega with people outside trying to sell me clothes, or threaten me because I only gave them a dollar.
So I dare you, go to your city's equivalent of Braddock and ask them how much they like hiking. Ask them how much free time they have, ask them why they don't socialize in coffee shops. [I'm not shitting on Braddock - I liked it, there were nice people there, and many neighborhoods are far worse.]
The reality is that poverty amplifies loneliness while reducing the ability to socialize, but so many Americans are happy in their little bubbles while huge portions of the country crumble around them.
The world knows how unequal American society is, from welfare to justice to infrastructure; but wealthy Americans seem not to be interested (or to even think of themselves as wealthy). The blissful ignorance of most American's daily struggle is only blissful for the ignorant.
This isn't flamebait or nationalistic prejudice; just my own observations about a country that seems to be racing blindly to an even darker place.
>The reality is that poverty amplifies loneliness while reducing the ability to socialize
Without diminishing how incredibly unequal/bimodal some areas of America are, I wonder if the second part of this statement is statistically backed up.
When I was poor I frequently interacted with different people waiting for the bus, riding the subway, hanging out outside the mobile home park drinking, etc. Now, borderline-rich, I find it much harder to interact with people. I drive alone in a car, live in a luxury condo complex where no one talks to each other, etc. (Although there's also a pandemic going on so apples-to-oranges)
The pandemic has affected the poor's ability to socialize far, far more than the wealthy. Your examples are each of choices you make that poor people do not have.
The stats aren't mixed, they're "u shaped" according to your link. Again, the difference is that the wealthy are lonely by choice; the poor by lack of options.
Also just because a certain subset of the population doesn't have various aspects of the suggestion doesn't mean the suggestion is invalid, or that the spirit of the suggestion, literally "go out", isn't even more broadly applicable. I might even say that your suggestion that lower income people at large can't "go out and do things" is what is disconnected from reality.
> This isn't flamebait
It kinda feels like you're looking to nit-pick/fight though.
Median income was $31,133 in 2019, according to the Census.
Hence my point.
Edit for the response below: Median income is not the same as median household income.
Edit for the edited response: Sure, median wage in real terms is $35k, a whole 4k more annually.
Keep in mind though that 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week; "the most overworked developed nation in the world". That's not out of choice, that's out of fear, propaganda and necessity.
Maybe you're thinking per-capita, which is in the 30s? But that unfortunately includes children, so not exactly what most people would think "Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group including those living in group quarters."
We've lost the community aspect. Previously, communities were essential for survival but nowadays it's easier than ever to be independent.
Work remote from your computer. Buy food, water, sex and get dopamine hits from social media.
When you don't really need anyone, it's hard to be vulnerable and try to open up to new people. So here we are, we have everything at our fingertips and yet we're empty.
Lost? It was dismantled and it was done with intent. Let us not forget the people who did it and how they did it. "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." - Margaret Thatcher It's much harder to build something than it is to tear it down.
How did Thatcher make it so Americans don't really bother to know their neighbors anymore(can your believe people used to borrow a cup of sugar from their neighbors-- now I feel like that'd make be seen as crazy)? How did she make it so that people feel like calling is weird and people should just text(and dropping by unannounced is just annoying, even if your a friend, which in the past was considered an occasion to show hospitality)? Did Thatcher make society secular so they don't meet and socialize at church every Sunday(with the subtext that the all knowing and all good wants us to do it even if we don't feel like it)? There are definite changes to society.
I think it is the cities really. It should be easier to connect to people there, right? The opposite seems to be true in my experience. Sure, you cannot select the people in your nearer community, but they seem to be far more engaging. My experience at least as someone that mostly lived in the city. Maybe it has something to do with having more of a stake yourself.
Please don't mistake my including that quote as asserting that Thatcher single-handedly lowered social trust. I used it as an example that sums up a broader ideological goal of a larger group of people. We both agree on the implications of such a change. Maybe you agree that some people pushed for systems which resulted in this conclusion and some occurred by other factors?
I see what you're saying, and it does indeed play a part in the grand picture. Many of the causes, though, are choices we made as a society. People don't want religion even if your tell them it offered important social benefits. They don't want to be forced to go somewhere one day a week, and they don't want a moral leader telling them they need to be love each other more, for example.
People also don't want to value just the presence of strangers, the way the in some countries the culture treats it as an honor just to invite people over to your home. Even in America a sense of neighborhoodliness was seen as a virtue in the past. That, though, is a positively strange idea in modern day America, in fact. I wouldn't even try to say I consider an honor to invite the awkward guy we work with over and talk with him(not saying I necessarily do have those virtues myself, I'm also a product of our times). People would not understand it at all.
I chose these particular examples because they were so common in the past and are now controversial. I'm sure someone will tell me they don't need religion or that some strains divided people more. I'm also sure some people will tell me it's weird and possibly even pointless to insist we all invite each other and make friends, even with the awkward people that have a hard time socializing, and I'm sure some will say they don't need that to be happy anyways.
Looking at large scale trends, though, these are things that were important to American society in the past that are now not so common. They were foundational to societies cohesivenessm. And they just haven't been replaced completely with institutions that replace those functions-- which is the key issue here. You don't have to be religious or invite lots of house guests-- I'm not saying that-- but damn if those kinds of things didn't provide benefits for society. And those also certainly aren't all the institutions that needs to be replaced.
I'm not entirely sure who pushed for these changes, but I do know people today relish them-- and even if their great grandparents can't out of the grave and said "I can tell your first hand these are the institutions that kept us from being lonely" I think many would still outright reject them.
> I'm not entirely sure who pushed for these changes.
If a historical analysis isn't your thing(and I get that), the next best thing anyone can do is look for it in the present. Anywhere we see people pressing for the individualization of responsibility, assuming the inability of groups of people to affect positive change, or the "I'm not responsible for anyone but myself" attitude, we see a person with this mindset realizing a reality where everyone is more distant, alone, and lonely.
I think this is off-base. Not being a political Collectivist has very little to do with participation in civil society. Americans were far more Individualist in the past and had a much stronger civil society. Conservatives also tend to be more Individualist, but are also more involved in civil society, mostly through churches.
This opinion just doesn't reflect reality.
As always, the best analysis of the decline of civil society is Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone (and his subsequent research to supplement). It's a bit academic, and sometimes biased, but it spells the issues out quite well
Happened all over the world in different systems. My friends from Ukraine recall living under the iron curtain when religious gatherings were banned and the communists trying to spread fear of neighbor (you could be ratted on) and the benefit those in power achieved when the citizens didn’t trust each other.
I think the powers that be benefit when citizens don’t trust each other in almost every hierarchical system because it’s a more stable condition (people aren’t banding together for the greater good).
I believe Thatcher was used there as an example of the prototypical predatory neo-cunt, sucking value out of the common good and funneling it into privatized friends hands in a most-vicious negative feedback loop.
In America, Reagan did a lot of the same shit; as did daddy Bush, Clinton, W, Obama, Trump and now Biden. There is bipartisan corporate oligarchy kleptocracy, and the Brits have caught up by defanging any people power in the Labour party via vile smear campaigns.
In both countries the tactics are the same - buy the media, the police, and the politicians. Sell weapons to the worlds worst regimes. Deregulate finance and environmental protections, subsidize fossil fuel bastards, and privatize healthcare and every other common nationalized good from water to waste.
The widespread fear and distrust and doubt you speak of is spread through the media with full intent by these people, so as to get away with more shit more easily.
Tech enables people to maintain communities digitally over distance and self select into ones they match with on metrics better than just location.
This has pros and cons. The con is people used to socialize with local people and groups (because it was the only option) and now do that less.
The pros include being able to communicate with people you wouldn’t be able to otherwise (like we’re doing now), if you’re growing up in a small town this is huge.
I think we’re missing a good way to connect the digital communities to the real world more frequently. Maybe metaverse will help, maybe better cities with cheaper COL so people can move around more easily, maybe remote work? I don’t know - we’re still in the middle of a big transition.
Why do you project your stereotypes and expectations over your employees? They're adults and if they wanted partners/kids/office work, they would go and get them. Maybe you're the one who has to adapt to the new world instead of 'finding issues' and even assuming you're the one to 'fix' your employees.
I see those are American self-reports. From experience, here around Eastern Europe, I am surrounded by people content with being single. If anything, life doesn't get cheaper.
So they say, but single people are statistically more unhappy to the degree that they don't live as long as married people. Saying this as a single person
Yeah I don't really understand their comment either - do you need a partner and kids to not be lonely? Maybe some people just enjoy the freedom of independence.
Not everyone has to subscribe to the "get married and have kids" philosophy of life.
Do the positions your staff work promote having enough time and emotion left after a days work to go out and pursue those things? Does your staff have enough financial stability to make impulsive but fun decisions? How do you quantify your answers to these questions? By asking your staff directly? During staff meetings or Zoom calls? Or by actually watching the decisions they make and the problems they face?
Many jobs out there use up workers like a resource. And the well is running dry.
I've chatted with a couple of people who feel that their country (USA) is descending into chaos, and they don't feel like investing in a doomed future. I agree with the general feeling, but I'm trying to use it to motivate myself to have more fun.
As to why people feel doomed: Republicans are putting the most faithful trump zealots in places to most influence the next elections. Remember that the Republicans believe the previous election was stolen.
This gives them motivation and means to throw out results where Democrats win.
If they do that, I'm not sure if the country will split or fall into civil war.
The utter insidious evil of the election theft lie from trump is going to destroy the USA by removing any trust in elections.
This belief appears to be an artifact of people spending way too much time on social media, where suppositions are amplified into emotional Armageddons with little basis in reality.
The United States' status of "doomed" isn't supported by any metric.
> The utter insidious evil of the election theft lie from trump is going to destroy the USA by removing any trust in elections.
This kind of invective is just utterly counterproductive. If you want to see a brighter future, start building.
The world is not that presented by the distorting effects of the shrill voices of the doomsayers.
>The world is not that presented by the distorting effects of the shrill voices of the doomsayers.
I completely agree. These doomsayers are powerful because we give them our attention, so if we ignore them they are impotent. We've collectively decided as a society that our attention is valuable so when we give it to people who want to do us harm by enraging us so we follow their political ideology, terrifying us so we doomscroll through the news all day, or showing us a highlight reel of the lives of our peers to make us feel like failures we're pretty much stealing from the pockets of our own futures.
Each of our realities is a canvas and we let some of the most ruthlessly calculating human beings of our generation scrawl all over them every day, but we as individuals can choose for this not to be the case. You don't build a brighter future by hoping someone at the top notices you, the people at the top are there because they benefit from the status quo so of course they're not going to help. You build a better world by starting small, and one small change is kicking the doomsayers out of your precious attention span.
If people actually think their country has a chance of upcoming civil war (or many other crises like ecological collapse), they should expand their in-person social network -- mutual aid is an important resiliency strategy.
Which is made all the more difficult when people react violently to your attempts to connect with them, because they perceive your political stance as a threat (usually through misunderstanding). No wonder we clam up and brace for war.
To be clear -- my comment is more about finding likeminded people who you can depend on if shit actually hits the fan. People who "react violently to your attempt to connect with them" are not great candidates for shit-hit-the-fan buddies.
Crossing the aisle is another commendable but unrelated thing.
People have always thought the world is ending. It's more likely things will just change somewhat, as they always have. Some things will get better, some things will get worse. As they always have
Is there a name for activity that we want to have done, but don't often want to do in the moment? You know how lots of people want to exercise regularly, but at any given moment when they could choose to exercise, they end up not doing so? That's how I feel about going into the office. A lot of times when I end up in the office I overhear interesting chatter I wouldn't have otherwise heard, or I catch up with a colleague I normally wouldn't have talked to that day. In the abstract, I wouldn't mind going into the office a couple of times a week, but on any given day I can easily come up with a reason why it makes more sense to stay home that day.
I think once you get out of the habit of these things, and there is nothing forcing you to do them, they’re difficult to find the motivation for even if you know they might be good for you. I know for a fact I would be happier if I went into the office every day (but still had the flexibility to work remotely in situations where that was necessary). But despite this I can’t find the motivation to go. The carrot doesn’t work, I need the stick - but it no longer exists.
I think tackling loneliness is like most other things that are good for you (eating healthy, exercising, budgeting) - they’re hard to do even though you know they’re good and they’re relatively simple.
I got involved with a weekly online poker game with some college buddies early on during the pandemic. It's been life changing. I know at least once a week I'm hanging out with friends and there are no expectations or pressure other than shooting the shit and playing poker.
I'm drastically less lonely based on that one life change. It's incredible what a difference that can make.
Fantastic advice! Lately I've been re-thinking how I've made friends throughout my life. I had some things right but some others were misguided. Creating intentional spaces was something right. I put myself into situations where I could be friendly with workmates during lunch and definitely felt engaged and friendly with the people there.
Over the years though, it felt more and more hollow. We've had time to step back and think lately. I realized what was missing was emotional openness and that comes with a little vulnerability. While being friendly with workmates is nice, it isn't the place to show emotional vulnerability. I had set myself up to never be able to turn associates into friends.
It finally clicked as to why people keep their work and friends separate. I'm glad you found your groove. The quality of life that comes with having deep friendships is incredible. I hope stories like these inspire others to take a step toward realizing deep friendship.
Absolutely. I don't get a lot out of small talk. (or "people talk") Some people do and that is certainly easier to get that from co workers. I like deep talk. Or talking about ideas. Sometimes you can get that from coworkers but typically that type of stuff isnt directly tied to work so its cut off after a 45 minute lunch or is relegated to office happy hours which is fine but again I don't find booze helps with actually feeling connected. It just tricks one into thinking they feel connected for a time. But that another topic entirely.
I could be wrong, but do you think it's possible that your staff actually fall in the 39% bucket? That is, they either don't feel loneliness or feel too little of it to do anything about it.
Otherwise I agree with you on dealing with loneliness.
As their employer there are limits to what you can do, and there is also a cultural aspect that is forming how people perceive the issue (Netflix, the internet, seeing a lack of investment from the individuals).
There are things you can do to help. Provide flexibility, paid time and/or funds to do side activities like hobbies and sports. Have them participate in conferences or expert groups. Offer opportunities to test out new activities like diving, skiing, wall climbing, and so on. Not as a team building exercise, but as activities which employees can do to improve their own well being.
There is definitely not only one way to not be lonely. Of course we are social creatures and loneliness is a part of being deprived of social interaction…but being lonely and being alone can be 2 completely different states. And being surrounded by people, even those that care and support you, can still leave someone feeling lonely.
If someone doesn’t want to find a partner and gives you “an excuse”, please don’t make it your problem.
I think the key insight in your comment is that adulthood takes a kind of social maturity and that we have crashed a lot of institutions that have developed over centuries and millennia, and that people (including everyone) don't quite yet fathom the degree to which they were a part of the social fabric.
I wish education and homes were a bit less expensive, I feel a bit for Gen Y/Z as they've been through 2 existential crisis and definitely have some legit beefs, but on this one, I think they should be coming into the office, joining social groups.
Political polarization, and not vaxx polarization is part of the problem, sadly every brand on the Internet that communications anything is a bit part of the problem, some more than others.
I used to read the newspaper everyday and cared about societal issues. After this pandemic & the response to it, I've lost all faith and excitement about society. My loneliness will only get worse
The 'newspaper' is not a source of social issues, it's all political, particularly in the US.
Your community is.
Also, the global response to the pandemic has been the most amazing thing in human history: we have never been so rapid and coordinated. Never have international institutions worked together across the globe in concert like this.
We had a vaccine crated before the disease even hit the West, we tested and manufactured over several months.
Vax hesitancy is understandable, although the anti-vax stuff is terrible, it's mostly been an American thing.
Even the coordinated economic measures, as crap as they are ... were on the whole good.
If this were 50 years ago, we would be dying at 5x the rate and the Fiscal Policy / Central Banks I don't think would have reacted and we would be in a terrible recession with serious calamity. It would have been destructive globally, maybe even leading to war.
You bring up some good points, I agree the vaccine was a miracle and I hope we can find many more cures to all the diseases out there. However, I personally am more gloomy about how countries are witholding information about the origins of the pandemic, nations without domestic vaccines have been left behind with who knows how many dead, lockdowns + economic pains + supply shortages + postponed elections have led to terrible crises like the war in Ethiopia or the overthrow of democratically elected leaders like in Myanmmar.
As for the "community," that has slowly been disintegrating in modern societies around the world. I can only personally attest to not feeling like I belong to one myself, whether it be a neighborhood, church, workplace, or anything else that people find community in. Not necessarily for lack of trying, but for not finding a group of people who deeply understand and accept me - aka loneliness.
China's coverup of their ills is a 2/10 for the bad things they have done even in recent history. That's normal.
As far as group cohesion, yes, it's a problem, I totally agree. Though don't think anyone 'understands' anyone, often not even their spouses or closest relatives, so keep your chin up and keep an open mind, be thankful for the things you do have.
Thanks for the positive message. As I've grown older and matured, I've learned to be content and even amusedly appreciative of both the beauty and many flaws of the world. I've also developed a better relationship with myself through writing more and giving myself the time and space to think about and appreciate who I am and how far I've come.
Hope you have beautiful day and a beautiful life ahead.
I would love to go to the office more often, but honestly it's just not worth it. Nowadays I live in a country that is notorious for its strict work-life separation, and just trying to get to know people during lunch, or go out for a beer on a Friday is almost impossible. Most of the tech department is from abroad actually, but I guess cultural assimilation is a very real thing.
This is similar to the concept of miswanting. Sometimes, the things we think we want aren't always what's good for us. Staying at home is easy and seems attractive, but is actually making us more isolated. Reducing effort sound attractive, but in the end removing friction doesn't actually bring happiness. Effort is difficult, but makes us better off in the end.
I think a big reason we don't do that is that our societal narrative is one that focuses on self. In the US in particular we have a strong cultural disposition towards "self reliance" and "individuality", which often shows up in our politics as throwing our neighbors under the bus to save a few cents on our tax bill. We are encouraged not to think about the effect we have on the people around us and believe that we 'deserve' and have 'earned' things as an individual because that mindset is easier to sell to. Self-sacrifice is for other people. We even idolize rich celebrities and sociopathic billionaires.
I mean, just look at this comment further down:
> I've chatted with a couple of people who feel that their country (USA) is descending into chaos, and they don't feel like investing in a doomed future. I agree with the general feeling, but I'm trying to use it to motivate myself to have more fun.
> You have to get out into the world and invest in others.
I agree. So with the context of that statement I will give you my opinion about your other statements:
> I have a tech company and most staff want to come to the office 1 day a week.
How many of those staff have to do work in the office? There's no reason to go to the office if you can work from home other than to socialize with others. And I don't know about you, but I think socializing with coworkers leads to a very unprofessional work environment. I'd rather stay professional.
> Getting them to come is very tough.
As it should be. Work shouldn't be their only way to socialize.
> Many of my staff and friends don't want to have kids, make no effort to find a partner and find all sorts of excuses.
I don't want to have kids. I wouldn't mind a partner but I don't particularly make an effort to find one.
What you see as excuses are perhaps your own opinion.
I particularly think it to be really fucking selfish to bring a child into the world when the child won't succeed better than you. Despite the tech sector and certain trade sectors, the job market is shit. Education is shit. Climate is shit. Government is shit. Neighbors are shit. Why the hell would you think now is the time to have children?
> Netflix, the internet and these things are part of the problem, but I have no clue what the solution is.
But on that point I quite agree with you
Everyone is different. There is not "the solution". There are many, sometimes mutually exclusive, solutions.
For me: work shouldn't take up all of the time I would require to run errands. Other businesses' time are completely within my own employer's time. There's literally zero time for me to go deal with a bank problem or take the car or lawnmower to the shop. If I have an electrical, or plumbing, or stovetop, or refrigerator issue that needs immediate attention then I have to take time off of work to do that. And there's only a few weeks given for that. I've seen people have to take a few weeks off just to deal with problems and then they have zero time for themselves. Where are they supposed to find time to build relationships or fix the problems that matter to them?
> There is only one way to not be lonely - be with people who care about you.
I've been around for a few years. It's one thing to care about someone; I care about many people! But I don't really want to learn more about them because what they're interested in is utterly empty and devoid of meaning to me. I imagine it's the same in reverse: the people who care about me don't really want to care about the things that I care about. That's where loneliness is.
You say you have a tech company and I see from your bio that you're "founder and president". How much steering can you provide? Can you steer your company's goals to align with the things that your employees care about? Because until that happens then I won't believe that you really care about your employees.
You care about your company and, on the peripheral, are your employees who seem to be dragging their feet with regards to your company. And that makes you peripherally concerned about your employees but not meaningfully concerned. At least, that's the surface impression I get without knowing who you are, what you do, or anything about your company; an assumption. I hope I'm wrong :)
Yes I spoke to Julien (their founder) back when we started the company. Nice guys. He gave us a lot of insightful tips and frankly wished we would have existed back when they got started. Their business legitimately got killed by covid.
As a Canadian and a French citizen, America definitely has this puritan streak of trying to be the best person you can be - or the purest you can be. Work harder, drink less, exercise more, etc.
My French grandparents lived until they were 100, were perfectly content, had 8 kids, ate great food during long meals and drank lots of wine. I don't think they jogged a day in their lives.
> America definitely has this puritan streak of trying to be the best person you can be - or the purest you can be. Work harder, drink less, exercise more, etc.
That might describe some parts of America, but it's definitely not universal. The German immigrants that formed the generation before me were drinking more and exercising less. They were also farmers, so they didn't need to exercise.
I would argue that it's the heavy influence of immigrants from all over the world that caused the self-help obsession. Those who came here weren't a random sample from their home countries. Immigration was itself a form of self-help.
It's been known for a long time that immigrants in the US perform better across most every metric than the native population.
Sometimes this is seen by policy-makers as indicative of a problem with the native population. Sometimes this is cast as immigrants taking over.
The reality is rather straightforward, imo. The type of person willing and able to uproot themselves from their parent culture and set their sails for new opportunity is a huge selection event, in and of itself. It's no wonder that the most driven percentage of humanity turns out to be the most successful.
(This is also why I think the US would only benefit from much less restrictive immigration policy, but that is a discussion for another thread.)
Yeah, probably true. My background is Jewish European and there is an obvious streak of self-improvement in that culture (or at least, there used to be....)
Portions are the #1 culprit as far as food goes, I'd say. There may be a bunch of other factors, but I'd expect that they're secondary to that.
I'm also very curious how much better US health would be if we could wave a magic wand and replace all sugary drinks with water. 64oz of sugar-water with a meal is a lot, but not uncommon thanks to free refills and helpful waiters always topping everyone off. Lots of people have way more than that on an average day, too. I'm sure it wouldn't fix (anywhere near) everything, but I bet that single factor is an awful lot of the cause of dietary-related illness rate differences between the US and other countries. The others have soda too, but it doesn't flow as freely and cheaply as here[0], and enormous cups/bottles of the stuff multiple times a day isn't common most places.
[0] With some exceptions—I understand Mexico, for example, consumes lots of sugary soda.
If portions are the problem then processed food should be fine, why is it that processed food always comes in larger portions?
Why do consumers often think that the smaller portion is more filling when eating a properly proportioned french meal than the equivalent calories from McDonalds?
Some of it's food culture. Giant portions are normal so you don't think twice about piling your plate high. Norms (and, yes, judgement/shaming) about consumption affect patterns of same. Snacking, even heavy snacking, between meals, is common. This may be suppressed elsewhere by stronger "you eat at meal times—if not exclusively, then nearly so" norms, and snack-availability that's about what you'd expect, given those norms.
Some people think our commonly-accessible "good" food (fruits, veggies, not from specialty stores, just the main produce section of normal grocery stores) are a lot worse than what's normal in some other, healthier countries. I don't have enough experience to claim anything definitive on this, but what experience I do have does support it. If "good" food doesn't taste as good as elsewhere, or if getting something as good as others' normal produce requires special shopping and much higher prices, maybe one tends to reach for umami-bomb fat+starch garbage, which is both kinda-addictive and not very filling.
A lot of our standard cooking is tied up heavily with giant portions. We even seem to do this with imported cuisines, for whatever reason. Not-especially-good food in giant portions. Heaping plates of mediocre pasta+sauce as our image of Italian food, Mexican food with bottomless chips & salsa (and huge, cheese-slathered plates for the entrees), that kind of thing. I guess that's more of the food-culture thing.
I doubt any of these are all of the reason, and maybe none of them are correct at all.
There is a theory (and I want to stress that it's theory, not fact) that many processed foods may not trigger our indicators of satiety. Some foods trigger satiety better than others, and we have pretty good evidence that a lot of sugars don't cause satiety.
On the other hand, foods like rice, potatoes, etc do.
Because it is. It's relatively easy to consume 2000 calories in one sitting in McD, while few people have the stomach to stomach the same amount of calories in salad, without sugary drinks.
I am not operating off any data here, and as far as I can tell neither are you so that seems fair, but it is quite possible that our conception of what is "filling" or "satisfying" is intrinsically tied to the cost of the meal. Processed food and fast food are cheaper and we know it, so if we get less of it, it is possible that that fact alone makes it less satisfying.
> Processed food and fast food are cheaper and we know it, so if we get less of it, it is possible that that fact alone makes it less satisfying.
Food pricing, especially at chain restaurants and fast-food joints, tends to support this. It's not uncommon to pay 20% more for double the food, either because larger sizes aren't much more expensive than smaller ones, or thanks to "combo" meals. Restaurants seem to be optimizing for total sales, not margin on individual items, based on how they price—in many cases their entire menu seems to exist only to make the "combo meal" look like a good deal, but of course it may be more food than you really wanted.
To say nothing of the phenomenon of all-you-can-eat buffets...
Right—I suspect one factor is that we have/had a weaker and looser food-culture than many countries, which fact has been exploited by companies to wedge food (so, food sales) into more situations and parts of our day, badly eroding whatever weak norms there had been.
Way, way more stores having very late or even 24/7 hours than before has probably further disrupted any norms and culture we had about when & where to eat—not just for the shoppers who have those wares available more hours of the day, but I'm thinking especially of the workers—believe it or not, young'uns, but as recently as the early 2000s almost everything in the US but certain districts of major cities were shut down and dead by a reasonable hour.
Another, possibly minor factor: I have a suspicion we have more waking hours per day, on average, than Americans did 50 years ago. You can't eat (snack) when you're sleeping, even if food's available.
TV Dinners are absolutely loaded with salt, sugar and hard fats so they taste good while being frozen. If I cook a delicious meal and then chuck it into the freezer for three months it will taste like crap because freezing is not an effective method to preserve taste and texture, to make it palatable after an extended period of time I need to add flavour enhancers like sugar (it's addictive and works on anything), sodium (it enhances flavours directly and salt is a common craving) and hard fats (ones that won't break down as quickly when frozen.
I think America really has figured out the difference and that information is pretty easily accessible - but if you're working twelve hours then you'll grab the five dollar TV dinner and just ignore the downsides.
I don’t think the accepted wisdom is that pre packaged meals are bad vs what you cook yourself it’s the quality that matters. It processed foods vs non processed foods. You can get posh TV dinners that are good for you but you pay for them. The cheaper stuff manufactured at scale is almost certainly going to be using cheaper/substituted ingredients because that’s just how business works. You’re going to be missing the macros you mentioned, as well as fibre and you’ll be taking on a lot of dodgy fats and sugars and typically many other additives used to flavour and preserve the food. What you get with home cooked dinners is control over your ingredients. Of course you could just eat ketchup and chips and you’re not going to be seeing a benefit but it’s hard to go wrong with rice, fish and a few vegetables for example.
There’s various other confounding factors such as how and when you eat, and ultimately your relationship with food.
There is plenty of research linking processed food with health risks.
I think you are correct here in terms of the base argument but wrong for the origin.
You don't make food cheaper by reducing the quality of ingrediants since decent ingredients are still really cheap. You make food cheaper by making it more preserved.
A lot of food cost is in waste and spoilage. Cheap foods are typically things that handle well and don't perish easily.
You accomplish this by adding more fat, more salt, and heavily processing food. You strip all the bacteria and cultures from it and you can get a tv dinner to last a decade if it's packaged well.
On the other hand, gourmet food is all prone to spoilage. Squeaky cheese curds, fresh pasta, homemade tortillas, etc.
The traditional french cuisine of Quebec was eaten by folks that regularly canoed hundreds of miles up and down rivers so they had an immense amount of physical activity to counter that out - an amount quite beyond what you'll get sitting at a desk job these days.
Sure. But it was also eaten by folks that stayed home all day. By store clerks and children and school teachers and grandparents and other normal, every day folks. Other folks on different traditional diets worked hard too.
That's great for them. Is there something wrong with trying to be the best person you can be? Is a life of leisure and hedonism something to be celebrated, while a life of striving to achieve is looked down upon?
I think this is part of the reason the US has been so successful and innovative. Hard work and improvement are seen as virtues here. A life of sloth and mediocrity, avoiding work and relying on the government to provide for you was not seen as something good until recently. I hope the essence of America isn't lost forever: industry, innovation, and individualism.
America is built mostly on immigrant work ethic, vast amount of arable land, no bordering enemies and the collapse of the european powers. Not sure america is that special, just lucky - right place, right time.
Forgive me if I don't care about an opinion piece by someone who hates America.
> America is built mostly on immigrant work ethic
Isn't it interesting how many believe the US was solely built by immigrants, slaves, and natives. I wonder what American citizens did during this time?
> the collapse of the european powers
The US was already inventing and building in the 1800s, no collapse needed.
> Not sure america is that special, just lucky - right place, right time.
It's easy to ascribe luck to anything successful. You could say Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc were nothing special, just lucky - right place, right time, but I don't think that's true.
I lived in Toronto for a few years, with the occasional trip to Montreal. I definitely noticed a cultural difference between the provinces—Quebec was rather less stressed out, whereas Ontario is just as tight-assed Protestant as the Midwest. (Maybe more so. Can’t buy wine at a grocery store? Raw uncut Calvinism.)
You can buy most types of alcohol at grocery stores now. You have always been able to buy wine at some grocery stores like Zehrs or Loblaws, though it was in a separate store-within-a-store. LCBO and The Beer Store no longer have a duopoly on alcohol sales, but I think it was just fine when they did.
Brewers Retail was a reasonable solution coming out of prohibition when it was jointly owned by all of Ontario's brewers, balancing their needs with the needs of consumers along with the needs of those still worried about the end of prohibition. However, it should have only been considered a short-term solution.
By the time mergers and acquisitions left it to be owned completely by foreign interests, all while Ontario's emerging craft beer scene were prohibited from inclusion, there was absolutely no excuse for it anymore. How the 2015 Master Framework Agreement got signed continues to boggle the mind.
Rural Ontario has allowed the sale of alcohol (all kinds) in grocery and corner stores since the 1960s. It is amazing how slow the rest of the province is to catch up. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to fully let go of being dry.
Genetics are a powerful thing. Trying to be actively healthy is playing a statistical game, not all of us have the magical genetic sequences to somehow live to 100 in perfect health while drinking copious amounts of wine.
Furthermore some of us exercise not just for the sake of it, we do it to enable us to become better at activities that we enjoy. I enjoy being able to track my measurable improvement at sports such as tennis and badminton as a result of my going to the gym and work on high intensity interval training, anaerobics, etc.
Coincidentally I think the best self help book I've read was written by a Canadian. Maybe it's because he had the rest of the culture to contrast his ideas against.
I guess, but that's just your personal anecdote largely based on your grandparents genetics and the fact that they probably weren't exceedingly overweight.
My (100% American) grandpa also lived to 100...he also never exercised and even smoked for 20 years or so. He ate whatever he wanted but didn't over-eat candy and snacks, which I think is the main issue lots of people have.
In other words, multi level marketing indoctrination memes. It's why I avoid self-help, especially the slick charismatic gurus like Tony Robbins, and the "positive thinking" movement altogether.
> My French grandparents lived until they were 100, were perfectly content, had 8 kids, ate great food during long meals and drank lots of wine. I don't think they jogged a day in their lives.
I have had my remarkable 2 for a month and really love it. It replaces paper and annotating paper PDFs. It is simple and easy to use. If you currently take notes or write paper PDFs, it is for you (this is enough for many people).
America is so blinded by their love of free speech they fail to see that most countries operate quite well with modest limits on speech. If American style free speech were so great the country would not be tearing itself apart as we speak.
