Americans' life ratings reach record high(news.gallup.com)
news.gallup.com
Americans' life ratings reach record high
https://news.gallup.com/poll/351932/americans-life-ratings-reach-record-high.aspx
199 comments
I think, this is trickier. Happiness generally consists of 2 components: hedonistic (short-term, "had a great meal" type) and eudaimonic (long-term, "I am doing the right thing and am confident about my future" type).
What's happening for at least a decade is that the sources of hedonistic happiness are becoming more accessible(tasty food, booze, entertainment, substances), while things that used to bring eudaimonic happiness are either becoming unaffordable (property ownership, raising kids, financial independence), unpopular (long-term relationships, religion) or economically uncompetitive (small businesses).
The media is doing its best to distract people and convince them that they don't want all those long-term things, but you can't really fool the human nature. The tensions are rising, although it may all look great on paper.
A more interesting and objective metric would be the suicide rates, but I couldn't easily find anything more recent than 2019.
What's happening for at least a decade is that the sources of hedonistic happiness are becoming more accessible(tasty food, booze, entertainment, substances), while things that used to bring eudaimonic happiness are either becoming unaffordable (property ownership, raising kids, financial independence), unpopular (long-term relationships, religion) or economically uncompetitive (small businesses).
The media is doing its best to distract people and convince them that they don't want all those long-term things, but you can't really fool the human nature. The tensions are rising, although it may all look great on paper.
A more interesting and objective metric would be the suicide rates, but I couldn't easily find anything more recent than 2019.
The study appears to factor in short-term vs long-term happiness. Specifically, they ask respondents to project forward 5 years into the future:
>For its Life Evaluation Index, Gallup classifies Americans as "thriving," "struggling" or "suffering" according to how they rate their current and future lives
>For its Life Evaluation Index, Gallup classifies Americans as "thriving," "struggling" or "suffering" according to how they rate their current and future lives
Another problem is because of hedonic adaptation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_adaptation
People might actually feel happier when moving from a miserable state to a better state compared to being in a good state all along.
So we are seeing the effects of people being grateful that recovery is happening, not that the world has already recovered.
People might actually feel happier when moving from a miserable state to a better state compared to being in a good state all along.
So we are seeing the effects of people being grateful that recovery is happening, not that the world has already recovered.
There is a Gross National Stupidity index thats been on the rise for a while now. So the poll really makes sense.
I find these polls are biased and not represent equally well the entire spectrum of population. I am from Greenboro, WI and I can tell you it’s the opposite among the population in the areas I grew up. Most young people like me who had more than a high school degree have moved away and ones that are left there are either in some kind of struggling business or are plain into dark places dealing with addictions (alcohol and opioid).
Even people like me who did move to the cities, I don’t see how the optimism can be so high. I mean I work in tech and have pretty much accepted that I am forever priced out of the housing market I am in. The school district system of where I live also doesn’t look very promising so my kids will have a better education (and future). Starting a family with a single income in Bay Area, meeting ends meet is hard even with a tech job.
Like every other news these days, I take these polls with a grain of salt.
Like every other news these days, I take these polls with a grain of salt.
> I find these polls are biased and not represent equally well the entire spectrum of population.
It's easy to confuse our own personal bubbles with the general population. There's nothing inconsistent about you living in an area with low life satisfaction and a poll that says 60% of people across the entire country have high life satisfaction.
The way you describe your home town sounds depressing and it's easy to believe that they wouldn't be part of the 60% of Americans rating themselves as thriving in this poll. However, what you're describing is very far from the norm for towns in America. Occurs too often, yes, but it's not what life in the average American city looks like.
> Starting a family with a single income in Bay Area, meeting ends meet is hard even with a tech job.
The entire Bay Area represents around 2% of the US population. It's not expected that a national poll would reflect the realities of a single geographic region.
That said, I have several friends and extended families starting families in the Bay Area who are very happy with their circumstances.
> Like every other news these days, I take these polls with a grain of salt.
The poll said 60% of Americans see themselves as "thriving". That doesn't meant that no one is struggling. It's important to look at these polls as ways to get a glimpse of life outside of our own bubbles. It's also important to view them as a distribution rather than a binary outcome.
It's easy to confuse our own personal bubbles with the general population. There's nothing inconsistent about you living in an area with low life satisfaction and a poll that says 60% of people across the entire country have high life satisfaction.
The way you describe your home town sounds depressing and it's easy to believe that they wouldn't be part of the 60% of Americans rating themselves as thriving in this poll. However, what you're describing is very far from the norm for towns in America. Occurs too often, yes, but it's not what life in the average American city looks like.
> Starting a family with a single income in Bay Area, meeting ends meet is hard even with a tech job.
The entire Bay Area represents around 2% of the US population. It's not expected that a national poll would reflect the realities of a single geographic region.
That said, I have several friends and extended families starting families in the Bay Area who are very happy with their circumstances.
> Like every other news these days, I take these polls with a grain of salt.
The poll said 60% of Americans see themselves as "thriving". That doesn't meant that no one is struggling. It's important to look at these polls as ways to get a glimpse of life outside of our own bubbles. It's also important to view them as a distribution rather than a binary outcome.
Every now and again I read a comment like this and tell myself, "this is why I read Hacker News".
Ironically, it's the parent to that post that makes me think, "This is why I should give up Hacker News".
A post of the form "This must be biased, because my anecdote is X". Your specific experience is the most biased thing there can be.
I think they're trying to get at "deliberately altered for political ends", but with no basis for that statement. It feels like projection: "I know what I want the result to be therefore you must be deliberately saying the opposite".
To see it expressed so baldly like that really takes the wind out of my sails, regardless of the cogent and coherent reply.
A post of the form "This must be biased, because my anecdote is X". Your specific experience is the most biased thing there can be.
I think they're trying to get at "deliberately altered for political ends", but with no basis for that statement. It feels like projection: "I know what I want the result to be therefore you must be deliberately saying the opposite".
To see it expressed so baldly like that really takes the wind out of my sails, regardless of the cogent and coherent reply.
Love this take!
Why stay in the Bay Area in that case? A good number of tech companies will allow you to work remotely, and even with a moderate cost of living pay cut you can go from not being able to afford a house in the Bay Area to being able to buy a nice house in a great neighborhood with good schools somewhere else.
Nothing stopping the elites from pumping out fake polls to keep us distracted from how bad things are getting.
[deleted]
Meanwhile I’m an older millennial with kids and live in a suburban community with lots of kids. Most people seem pretty happy. People in Iowa, where my wife went to high school, and Oregon, where she grew up, seem pretty happy too.
Rust Belt decay is obviously less conducive to happiness, but I think “boom towns” (where a marquee industry makes a small percentage of the population very rich) also aren’t conductive to happiness. Might explain why the politics out of place as like San Francisco is so apocalyptic. People want to have a normal life but the economy of the city has bifurcated the population into “rich but stressed out” and “struggling to get by.”
To be fair I get the sentiment. DC was the same way. In DC it was childless wealthy professionals on one side (mostly white and Asian) and service workers on the other (mostly Black and Latino). It was depressing as hell and we had to get out.
Rust Belt decay is obviously less conducive to happiness, but I think “boom towns” (where a marquee industry makes a small percentage of the population very rich) also aren’t conductive to happiness. Might explain why the politics out of place as like San Francisco is so apocalyptic. People want to have a normal life but the economy of the city has bifurcated the population into “rich but stressed out” and “struggling to get by.”
To be fair I get the sentiment. DC was the same way. In DC it was childless wealthy professionals on one side (mostly white and Asian) and service workers on the other (mostly Black and Latino). It was depressing as hell and we had to get out.
Population isn’t evenly distributed. Iowa has a little over 1/3 or NYC’s population even excluding everything over the Hudson. Your “boom towns” represent a large chunk of everyone in the US.
There’s only a handful of cities that I’d call “boom towns” (in that a singular industry creates intense income inequality). Dallas is booming, but it’s got a well-diversified economy with prosperous but affordable suburbs. Same thing for Atlanta, Kansas City, etc.
Lots of rural areas and small cities have broadly shared prosperity too. I was very surprised when I went to East Texas and saw the brand new strip malls and shiny pickup trucks everywhere. (Along with a very racially diverse and integrated population driving those trucks and eating at the new big box restaurants. I was completely unsurprised to see Trump doing better than expected among Latinos in Texas.)
NYC, DC, and SF are probably the only cities I’d put in that category. Maybe Seattle. That’s only 12% of the population.
Lots of rural areas and small cities have broadly shared prosperity too. I was very surprised when I went to East Texas and saw the brand new strip malls and shiny pickup trucks everywhere. (Along with a very racially diverse and integrated population driving those trucks and eating at the new big box restaurants. I was completely unsurprised to see Trump doing better than expected among Latinos in Texas.)
NYC, DC, and SF are probably the only cities I’d put in that category. Maybe Seattle. That’s only 12% of the population.
Those shiny pickup trucks are short term before the repo man shows up.
The median household income in Jefferson County, Texas is $51,000. The median home price is $135,000. That's under 3x.
The median household income in San Francisco is $120,000, but the median home price is $1.5-2 million, depending on source. That's 12-16x.
A $500/month truck payment isn't putting people on the edge of financial ruin when you're talking about an $800/month mortgage versus a $6,500/month mortgage.
The median household income in San Francisco is $120,000, but the median home price is $1.5-2 million, depending on source. That's 12-16x.
A $500/month truck payment isn't putting people on the edge of financial ruin when you're talking about an $800/month mortgage versus a $6,500/month mortgage.
In towns whose livelihood depends on a feast-or-famine industry like oil, yes. In cities with strong, diversified economies, it's just people spending disposable income on stuff they want.
You seem to be conflating "boom town" and "large city". NYC is not a boom town.
Why not? It seems like finance fills the “marquee industry makes a small percentage of the population very rich” for NYC.
And many other industries make other small percentages of the population rich. It's not a one industry town like many places in the rust belt were and Silicon Valley currently is
Silicon Valley goes beyond tech with finance being a solid example. In the end many people are getting rich from other industries as all cities need a wide range of services like plumbing and heating/AC which opens up a lot of opportunities to start and grow a business in those industries.
[deleted]
It may seem counterintuitive but 60% is not so much for this to be noticed “everywhere”. Even less when your own area is not much populated.
Wages on the low-end are starting to rise for the first time in decades. Employers are having to compete for every kind of worker which is making them nicer and more agreeable.
When people see an upward trendline in their lives and can imagine it continuing they're more apt to lean in push harder. I'd imagine that even in the bay area, wages are probably rising fast for your typical worker and rents have tapered off due to the pandemic.
While in many cases we built a society where having a family is financially impractical to impossible - it's not hard to imagine that changing with a 20-30 dollar/hr 10th percentile wage ( which we get to in under ~5-10 years if the bottom quintile sees a 10% annual bump ).
When people see an upward trendline in their lives and can imagine it continuing they're more apt to lean in push harder. I'd imagine that even in the bay area, wages are probably rising fast for your typical worker and rents have tapered off due to the pandemic.
While in many cases we built a society where having a family is financially impractical to impossible - it's not hard to imagine that changing with a 20-30 dollar/hr 10th percentile wage ( which we get to in under ~5-10 years if the bottom quintile sees a 10% annual bump ).
I have noticed on social media that the cynical, assholes, grumpy, and those that want to take others down a peg are quite loud but in the minority. Typically when you run into one they have a comment history where they are just being a jerk all day every day to all comers. Normal people have good or bad days and it might come out in different ways on different days, but there is a surprising number of people out there just being hateful on the internet all day like it’s their job.
And the vast majority of them have statues of philosophers as their avatars, which I still don't quite get.
And the vast majority of them have statues of philosophers as their avatars, which I still don't quite get.
Here's the thing I try to remember: when life isn't going well for a person, it's easy to turn to the Internet to vent frustration. And the less one has going on in the rest of their life, the more time one has to spend arguing online. The volume of posting doesn't indicate how right someone is or how reflective their experiences are of reality, just how much time they have to dedicate to the task of commenting.
As a useful mental trick, I substitute "commenters" with "bored people on the internet" sometimes to remind myself of the source.
As a useful mental trick, I substitute "commenters" with "bored people on the internet" sometimes to remind myself of the source.
> Here's the thing I try to remember: when life isn't going well for a person, it's easy to turn to the Internet to vent frustration
Yes. It's right there (it takes three seconds to pull a phone out of a pocket), and it's instantly a way to talk to people. Sometimes there's no one else there.
Also, in American culture you're not supposed to be negative in social situations. Always positive, always chirpy. Maybe that is why it's so toxic online. Because similar to the Victorian age and sexual repression, the always-positive leads to a toxic sublimation into Internet anonymity? I'm just tossing this out there as a thought. A counter would be, the entire world is toxic online.
Yes. It's right there (it takes three seconds to pull a phone out of a pocket), and it's instantly a way to talk to people. Sometimes there's no one else there.
Also, in American culture you're not supposed to be negative in social situations. Always positive, always chirpy. Maybe that is why it's so toxic online. Because similar to the Victorian age and sexual repression, the always-positive leads to a toxic sublimation into Internet anonymity? I'm just tossing this out there as a thought. A counter would be, the entire world is toxic online.
Specifically on reddit and twitter, the few times I’ve used them, they seem to be filled with assholes.
It seems that these people have no release for their views in the real world and for some reason these social sites are suitable places (from their perspective)
It seems that these people have no release for their views in the real world and for some reason these social sites are suitable places (from their perspective)
"These results are striking in contrast to the increasingly cynical outlooks we see on sites like Reddit and even HN. It seems like every comment section is full of negative comments about how terrible everything is or how terrible it's going to be soon. Results like this are a good reminder to log off and go interact with the real world for a more grounded perpsective."
Agreed, 100%. It's amazing how HN, Reddit and other places select so strongly for the pessimism of the intellect, but quickly shoot down the optimism of the will. Without the latter (informed by the former, sure), civilization would never have advanced this far.
Sure, we need realism. And knowledge of what will go wrong. But find the positive -- otherwise, it's more like a withdrawal of people's energy.
Thankfully, like you mentioned, the real world, away from these artificial rectangles, is often way more empowering. :)
Agreed, 100%. It's amazing how HN, Reddit and other places select so strongly for the pessimism of the intellect, but quickly shoot down the optimism of the will. Without the latter (informed by the former, sure), civilization would never have advanced this far.
Sure, we need realism. And knowledge of what will go wrong. But find the positive -- otherwise, it's more like a withdrawal of people's energy.
Thankfully, like you mentioned, the real world, away from these artificial rectangles, is often way more empowering. :)
There's three concerns I have about this, the Cantri measure as it's applied.
One is that it's one question. Just one question to summarize your life.
The second is that the ends of the scale has always seemed sort of odd to me: "he top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you."
Someone who is depressed is probably going to shift a bit in their evaluations of the top and bottom. That is, someone who is visibly and diagnosably depressed will probably imagine a worse best possible life, and also maybe even worse worst possible life. So you could be pretty darn depressed and still rate yourself as moderate. If your options go from "depressing" to "unmentionable hellscape" you could still rate yourself as a 7. Are most people doing this? Maybe not, but it's an odd way to frame the question and leads itself to that.
The final concern I have is how many of these are on the phone. If someone randomly called me on the phone to ask, would I go there even if I was really depressed? Probably not.
I guess I see these results as pretty interesting but really difficult to interpret. It's like trying to gauge global ocean temperature changes from one temperature reading in your local bay.
One is that it's one question. Just one question to summarize your life.
The second is that the ends of the scale has always seemed sort of odd to me: "he top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you."
Someone who is depressed is probably going to shift a bit in their evaluations of the top and bottom. That is, someone who is visibly and diagnosably depressed will probably imagine a worse best possible life, and also maybe even worse worst possible life. So you could be pretty darn depressed and still rate yourself as moderate. If your options go from "depressing" to "unmentionable hellscape" you could still rate yourself as a 7. Are most people doing this? Maybe not, but it's an odd way to frame the question and leads itself to that.
The final concern I have is how many of these are on the phone. If someone randomly called me on the phone to ask, would I go there even if I was really depressed? Probably not.
I guess I see these results as pretty interesting but really difficult to interpret. It's like trying to gauge global ocean temperature changes from one temperature reading in your local bay.
Reddit skews young, and I’ve definitely noticed the younger generation likes to commiserate. There’s also this pervasive sense of doom that the environment and the economy is going to collapse.
There's a pervasive sense of stagnant wages, unaffordable homes, etc in first world and developing countries. In China, it's tangping. In America, it's my step sibling having 0 desire to move out of our parents home (e.g., "Millennials kill X" headlines).
Your options are to try very hard, and maybe secure a barely conventional middle class life, or not try. And for people who aren't a fit for the knowledge economy, the second is the optimal choice.
Your options are to try very hard, and maybe secure a barely conventional middle class life, or not try. And for people who aren't a fit for the knowledge economy, the second is the optimal choice.
That might explain the ratings. COVID has begun a kind of shift. Those in the upper class are getting it hard. Real estate traders are screwed. Those who pay minimum wage are having difficulty hiring, especially with the number pf deaths from those exposed to it. Things like bus driving come with hefty hazard pay now.
My observation is business owners are unhappiest. They're subject to restrictions. Workers don't want to work in the office anymore. People who took minimum wage jobs are dead and more expensive, with bus drivers and janitors getting double pay for danger. Real estate is going to take a dip, especially offices.
Most of these things are beneficial to the common man. People have demanded revolution for years and looks like they might get it.
Most of these things are beneficial to the common man. People have demanded revolution for years and looks like they might get it.
I don't know if HN folks, on average, are grumpy and negative and mean. They might get feisty in a particular debate and there are a lot of sky-is-falling type articles.
However, I find Reddit straight-up mean. I rarely participate, and if I do, it's more around specific hobbies, real estate and stock type forums. From the mods all the way down, there's a certain take-ya-down-with-one-liners personality type that seems to just predominate. Similar to Twitter. I'm sure there are good subs, but I'm really curious what it is about Reddit that leads to toxicity on seemingly neutral topics. I always thought it was the young age, but honestly a lot of these people are adults and not teens (teens don't frequent real estate investment subs).
However, I find Reddit straight-up mean. I rarely participate, and if I do, it's more around specific hobbies, real estate and stock type forums. From the mods all the way down, there's a certain take-ya-down-with-one-liners personality type that seems to just predominate. Similar to Twitter. I'm sure there are good subs, but I'm really curious what it is about Reddit that leads to toxicity on seemingly neutral topics. I always thought it was the young age, but honestly a lot of these people are adults and not teens (teens don't frequent real estate investment subs).
I guess happy optimistic people have better things to do than spend their day commenting on Reddit. Bit of selection bias maybe.
Nobody is going to go on an Internet forum to proclaim how great their life is.
Most of my Facebook and Instagram is full of other people sharing good things about their lives. I know the cynical internet commenters will insist it's all fake and that they're only putting on a show, but the reality is that most people in my circles are doing quite well and are generally happy.
I'm also part of several online communities and even forums where most people are doing well.
There's nothing about the internet that requires people to bias toward being negative and cynical. The cynicism does tend to collect in certain internet bubbles and especially certain cites that cater to outrage-as-entertainment (e.g. front page of Reddit)
I'm also part of several online communities and even forums where most people are doing well.
There's nothing about the internet that requires people to bias toward being negative and cynical. The cynicism does tend to collect in certain internet bubbles and especially certain cites that cater to outrage-as-entertainment (e.g. front page of Reddit)
Facebook and Instagram are primarily about showing. They are less discussion forums.
I post some positive life news on Facebook. I would never go around HN posting similar news.
I post some positive life news on Facebook. I would never go around HN posting similar news.
People do show (on-topic) things they are proud of on HN, people regularly share their own stories, and not just bad ones, in reaction to submissions. Not really life news, no, but still positive content.
Job openings are at ~9.2 million in the US and there has been a persistently healthy wage increase over the past five or six years for the bottom half of the laborforce due to the labor demand vs labor supply imbalance. It all goes a long ways toward bolstering optimism for the mass public.
If the US ever gets around to properly improving its healthcare mess, these ratings would soar.
If the US ever gets around to properly improving its healthcare mess, these ratings would soar.
[deleted]
That's an interesting point. I wonder why you can't talk about how happy you are but you can talk about how unhappy you are?
Does it sound boastful or insensitive? Is it uninteresting to hear?
Does it sound boastful or insensitive? Is it uninteresting to hear?
Feels boastful and insensitive in the current climate —- I’m guilty of worrying that it can make people in my circle who aren’t doing so well feel worse.
Maybe that’s patronizing and not giving other individuals enough credit. Thinking on my own past depression, I don’t recall that I felt worse because of comparison to others —- I think the bigger problem was more to do with my own lack of direction, displeasure with myself, and feeling trapped.
Seeing others take alternative paths and reach happiness might’ve actually been helpful for overcoming some of my self-constructed obstacles.
It’s become more about not wanting to feed the ad monster and give my circle more reasons to be in those apps these days. Apple photo stream is where we share instead.
Maybe that’s patronizing and not giving other individuals enough credit. Thinking on my own past depression, I don’t recall that I felt worse because of comparison to others —- I think the bigger problem was more to do with my own lack of direction, displeasure with myself, and feeling trapped.
Seeing others take alternative paths and reach happiness might’ve actually been helpful for overcoming some of my self-constructed obstacles.
It’s become more about not wanting to feed the ad monster and give my circle more reasons to be in those apps these days. Apple photo stream is where we share instead.
Well, let's face facts. The population on Hacker News is going to be much higher than that 59% in happiness. The population has basically hit the lottery from a socio-economic point of view, and things will always be rosy for this group as a whole.
I skimmed the article, but I think this disconnect may be due to demographics.
Reddit skews very young, and I think things are harder for youth. The older generation has seen their housing values explode over the last decade, same with their retirement accounts. Many are “paper rich”.
Younger people aren’t established, they see high housing prices and feel the “American dream” was stolen from them. They see the current market values, and think they “missed out” on the rise. After all, will we see another decade of this kind of prosperity? Could be a kind of FOMO.
I do agree that stepping away from social media is important. Reddit has a lot of folks with a victim mentality (victims of “the system” - represented by capitalism), and that idea is easy to cultivate in oneself. It has a kernel of truth, but I think people ruminate and it doesn’t do any good.
Reddit skews very young, and I think things are harder for youth. The older generation has seen their housing values explode over the last decade, same with their retirement accounts. Many are “paper rich”.
Younger people aren’t established, they see high housing prices and feel the “American dream” was stolen from them. They see the current market values, and think they “missed out” on the rise. After all, will we see another decade of this kind of prosperity? Could be a kind of FOMO.
I do agree that stepping away from social media is important. Reddit has a lot of folks with a victim mentality (victims of “the system” - represented by capitalism), and that idea is easy to cultivate in oneself. It has a kernel of truth, but I think people ruminate and it doesn’t do any good.
Reddit and HN skews to the perennially online, who are composed of people that believe work should be easy, fulfilling, highly paid, and most of all: optional. They also think this is the natural state of nature and it’s everyone else’s fault that it is not so.
Based on studies of neolithic tribes, the "natural state of nature" is spending 2-3 hours a day hunting or gathering food, an hour preparing meals, and the rest of the time goofing off.
Is there somewhere in modern society this schedule is available?
Is there somewhere in modern society this schedule is available?
Its also spent fighting off other people who want to live on the same very limited natural resources, or you die from starvation. That is the reason we stopped living like that, it hasn't been possible for thousands of years since there simply are too many humans to do it.
Supposedly actual warfare was quite low until sedentism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare#Paleolithi...
Apparently, humans would tend to migrate rather than fight for available resources.
Apparently, humans would tend to migrate rather than fight for available resources.
The reason there are too many humans to do it is because we invented agriculture, and we stopped living like that just as we invented agriculture.
Spending your time fighting for limited resources is actually not something we stopped doing. If you live in the US on average around 4% of your working time is spent on war, and that's working more than twice the hours, all things considered, of people in the neolithic. And that's in relative peace time, expect that to revert to the mean in the next decade or two.
Anyways, this is besides the point, the natural state of man is indeed to do less labour and even less work than nowadays.
Spending your time fighting for limited resources is actually not something we stopped doing. If you live in the US on average around 4% of your working time is spent on war, and that's working more than twice the hours, all things considered, of people in the neolithic. And that's in relative peace time, expect that to revert to the mean in the next decade or two.
Anyways, this is besides the point, the natural state of man is indeed to do less labour and even less work than nowadays.
Lol, I want to know how many people out there ordering Seamless because they’re too lazy to pick up the food are arguing they would have had an easier life chasing down an antelope with a 14-hour jog across the plain and dragging the several hundred lb corpse back to the tribe.
>Is there somewhere in modern society this schedule is available?
You could go live a hunter gatherer lifestyle in most forests in North America. Nobody will try to stop you if you are far enough from a road.
You could go live a hunter gatherer lifestyle in most forests in North America. Nobody will try to stop you if you are far enough from a road.
>natural state of nature
What about modern life has anything to do with this mythical "natural" state? Why should people be left to die as if we were the same as gazelles?
What about modern life has anything to do with this mythical "natural" state? Why should people be left to die as if we were the same as gazelles?
Reddit and Twitter skew young, urban, and educated. It seems like these people are the least happy, because they feel like they deserve more.
My in laws out in smaller Oregon cities, who mostly didn’t go to college or went to the local state school, seem pretty happy. One took on a lot of debt for college and is an unhappy progressive activist.
My in laws out in smaller Oregon cities, who mostly didn’t go to college or went to the local state school, seem pretty happy. One took on a lot of debt for college and is an unhappy progressive activist.
I don't buy this. I know plenty of unhappy rural people and unhappy uneducated people.
And statistically, going by social issues they don't do well either.
And statistically, going by social issues they don't do well either.
I disagree. City life is full of stress. Want to go to a nursery to pick up some plants in Oakland, CA? It will take ya 2.5 hours, not to mention finding parking on the street and then dealing with 'asshole' customer service - there is no incentive to improve because hey they have a lot of people buying plants and if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
This is just a small slice of what's wrong with city life from today's errands I had to run. Traffic, population density, constant fear of crime and someone breaking into your car, everything just takes longer and the noise itself takes the joy out of life.
My parents live in rural California and it is the most beautiful, impossibly gorgeous place with a sense of tranquility in the air. Life moves slowly and at a nice pace. Everyone is nice to one another. And this isn't some rich neighborhood.
This is just a small slice of what's wrong with city life from today's errands I had to run. Traffic, population density, constant fear of crime and someone breaking into your car, everything just takes longer and the noise itself takes the joy out of life.
My parents live in rural California and it is the most beautiful, impossibly gorgeous place with a sense of tranquility in the air. Life moves slowly and at a nice pace. Everyone is nice to one another. And this isn't some rich neighborhood.
I live in Oakland and it isn't 2.5 hours to go to a nursery for plants. Go to Broadway Terrace or even Ace Hardware on Grand.
I live in city and don't live in fear of crime. Also, I have most stores in walking distance. A lot more in biking/scootering distance. And public transport to get me further.
This is a pretty accurate take - “they feel like they deserve more”. Then you grow up with relatively few wants, there is a lot of time to spend wondering what your purpose is.
I assure you that growing in want doesn't detract from existential crises.
What is the standard error on these measurements? And what is the variance, that is does the mean satisfaction represent the majority or are there, say, two populations, one very optimistic and the other less so.
Perhaps that could explain the outlook seen on HN, etc.
Perhaps that could explain the outlook seen on HN, etc.
> Results like this are a good reminder to log off and go interact with the real world for a more grounded perpsective.
Gallup survey was conducted entirely online but "real world" survey [2] (including ppl without internet connection) says otherwise here
"Americans' optimism about country's direction over next year drops nearly 20 points since May: POLL
In May, a little more than a third were pessimistic. Now, it is a majority." [1]
1. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-optimism-countrys-...
2. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/outside-covid-19-bide...
Gallup survey was conducted entirely online but "real world" survey [2] (including ppl without internet connection) says otherwise here
"Americans' optimism about country's direction over next year drops nearly 20 points since May: POLL
In May, a little more than a third were pessimistic. Now, it is a majority." [1]
1. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-optimism-countrys-...
2. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/outside-covid-19-bide...
Is it possible reddit is mostly bots at this point?
Is that even up to disagreement? The main subs certainly are
To be fair many of the bots (those with a conservative world outlook) were banned years ago.
Bots that they know of.
Reddit has plenty of conservatives.
And crackdowns did closed lefty abusive subs too.
And crackdowns did closed lefty abusive subs too.
It's very much debatable which perspective is "more grounded."
Especially when one of them is based on ignoring an unprecendented economic bubble and hoping for the best. No reasonable person in rudimentary touch with reality can have elevated "anticipated life satisfaction" in this context.
Especially when one of them is based on ignoring an unprecendented economic bubble and hoping for the best. No reasonable person in rudimentary touch with reality can have elevated "anticipated life satisfaction" in this context.
> No reasonable person in rudimentary touch with reality can have elevated "anticipated life satisfaction" in this context.
This is a perfect example of the internet cynicism I was referring to. There's a general vibe on sites like Reddit and HN that the average people are wrong and they shouldn't be happy because everything is actually terrible and they just haven't figured it out yet.
Can we stop acting like these people are wrong or stupid and just accept that maybe people really are doing well?
This is a perfect example of the internet cynicism I was referring to. There's a general vibe on sites like Reddit and HN that the average people are wrong and they shouldn't be happy because everything is actually terrible and they just haven't figured it out yet.
Can we stop acting like these people are wrong or stupid and just accept that maybe people really are doing well?
> Can we stop acting like these people are wrong or stupid
This is really hard to do given my conversations with most people in real life.
There is a shocking obliviousness to climate change, plastic pollution, economic problems, healthcare (personal and the system), philosophical/existential inquiries, etc. Not to say people don’t know climate change is happening - they just aren’t aware of any details beyond surface level memes.
Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes.
But also a reminder that frustration and outrage drive content algorithms, so its no surprise that kind of content dominates the text based social media.
This is really hard to do given my conversations with most people in real life.
There is a shocking obliviousness to climate change, plastic pollution, economic problems, healthcare (personal and the system), philosophical/existential inquiries, etc. Not to say people don’t know climate change is happening - they just aren’t aware of any details beyond surface level memes.
Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes.
But also a reminder that frustration and outrage drive content algorithms, so its no surprise that kind of content dominates the text based social media.
To be honest, I think there might be a point where if you’re too plugged in to environmental social media, you end up opposing fairly practical approaches to solving it because increasingly-niche concerns. The “good is the enemy of the better” effect.
Normie: “Oh cool, electric cars are improving that means less pollution and i spend less on gas!”
Too-online environmental person: “But ACKSHUALLY, electric cars are terrible because theoretically lithium might have some environmental impact and we need to ban all cars if we REALLY care about the environment, so electric cars are bad because they’re stopping us from banning all cars.”
Normie: “Solar power is good; I heard a little bit about climate change, so I’m glad some people are working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.”
Left Caucus of Nevada: “ Arevia Power withdrew their application for the Battle Born Solar project. Congrats to @saveourmesa and the other activists who put in the work to keep the community healthy, safe, and whole”
https://twitter.com/LeftCaucus/status/1418403704047243264?s=...
Normie: “Oh cool, electric cars are improving that means less pollution and i spend less on gas!”
Too-online environmental person: “But ACKSHUALLY, electric cars are terrible because theoretically lithium might have some environmental impact and we need to ban all cars if we REALLY care about the environment, so electric cars are bad because they’re stopping us from banning all cars.”
Normie: “Solar power is good; I heard a little bit about climate change, so I’m glad some people are working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.”
Left Caucus of Nevada: “ Arevia Power withdrew their application for the Battle Born Solar project. Congrats to @saveourmesa and the other activists who put in the work to keep the community healthy, safe, and whole”
https://twitter.com/LeftCaucus/status/1418403704047243264?s=...
Your example proves the opposite. The person you accused of being "too plugged" correctly points out the ineffectiveness of electric cars.
Thanks for that. I was intending it to be an honest reflection of what some people actually think.
Electric cars are between 2 and 20 times better than the status quo. The end result of opposing electric cars won’t be that cars get banned but that we’ll just use internal combustion engine cars.
Electric cars are between 2 and 20 times better than the status quo. The end result of opposing electric cars won’t be that cars get banned but that we’ll just use internal combustion engine cars.
It's simply not that. Electric cars aren't just being proposed as a temporary replacement for ICEs, they're increasingly being proposed as a replacement to public transit. See the Loop, and various autonomous taxi schemes that compete not with personal car ownership but with public transport.
Beyond that, we live in a world of limited resources and path dependency. Every dollar being spent on subsidizing electric cars is a dollar not spent on public transport. So as soon as we're no longer talking about getting ICE cars off the road, we're spending money on tech that is not good enough instead of tech that is good enough.
It's not the good being the enemy of the better, it's the less bad being the enemy of good enough. A world where we're spending 5000$+ from taxpayer money on EVs while dealing with ineffective public transport, which incentivizes people to move to suburbia and double their CO2 emissions, isn't going to cut it.
So by all means we can work on EVs as a backup plan for those that will never use public transportation or human powered transport, but the second it's harming actually working transportation tech, and in the US that's starting to happen, it's doing more harm than good.
Beyond that, we live in a world of limited resources and path dependency. Every dollar being spent on subsidizing electric cars is a dollar not spent on public transport. So as soon as we're no longer talking about getting ICE cars off the road, we're spending money on tech that is not good enough instead of tech that is good enough.
It's not the good being the enemy of the better, it's the less bad being the enemy of good enough. A world where we're spending 5000$+ from taxpayer money on EVs while dealing with ineffective public transport, which incentivizes people to move to suburbia and double their CO2 emissions, isn't going to cut it.
So by all means we can work on EVs as a backup plan for those that will never use public transportation or human powered transport, but the second it's harming actually working transportation tech, and in the US that's starting to happen, it's doing more harm than good.
I just don’t buy this zero sum “every dollar helping vehicle electrification hurts public transport” idea. In fact, I think this zero sum idea is actively harmful.
Every year, our society spends VAST amounts on fossil fuels and fossil fuel vehicles. THAT is the real problem. Anything spent on electric vehicles is minuscule in comparison because every single new internal combustion car sold, about 60 tons of CO2 is released from the gasoline burned, in addition to manufacturing. It is conventional cars that compete with electric cars, NOT public transport. In fact, people who live in places where public transport or bikes (whose CO2 emissions per mile depend on not having a high beef diet) is not an option, such as many suburbs, are where electric vehicles are most suitable (can charge at home).
You’re making claims that people will, in the 10 years we have left to fully decarbonize, majority move out of the suburbs and into denser areas that are bike friendly and can have good public transport is absurd. Firstly, there’s nowhere for them to move into as prices in denser areas are often higher, so we’d have to kick off a massive apartment building campaign starting NOW (with all the cement emissions that implies… and cement is decarbonization resistant). Second, are we asking people (as most people in the US own homes) to abandon a massive $250k investment just to pay rent in an apartment? If everyone moves out of the suburbs on timescale you think, there’ll be no one to buy that house… it’ll just rot or will have to be torn down. Houses can last over 100 years (mine was built in 1919), much longer than cars, so you’re wasting the embodied emissions of the house. Thirdly, people often LIKE living in the suburbs with large yards (I live in a small duplex in a dense neighborhood with a small yard, but it’s clear that having more space has advantages), and this totally unrealistic idea that we can force everyone into a dense cityscape in just a decade or so is bananas. The political pushback would be enormous.
So the only option is to encourage densification on the margins (by getting rid of parking mandates, getting rid of local zoning that bans duplexes and multiplexes, etc), funding public transport infrastructure and bike infrastructure (which is cheap) to stop sprawl while decarbonizing people in-place. That “factor of 2” emissions for living in the suburbs is only because of building energy costs and commuting, which can both be decarbonized much cheaper (via heat pumps, solar panels, and electric vehicles) than the cost of abandoning a $250k house for more expensive and more cramped urban housing. PLUS you won’t have the massive political cost of taking the middle class’s most valuable asset and making it worthless while also forcing everyone to change their lifestyle.
The whole “electric cars are bad, ACKSHUALLY” argument relies on a chain of thought that is absolutely absurd when you look at the political capital it would take to achieve on the timescales we’re talking about.
Regardless, there would STILL BE CARS. Japan, the Netherlands, and every other large developed nation that is put up as a model of public transport STILL has a heck of a lot of cars per capita, much higher than we can afford to be fossil fuel run in a decarbonized future. Best case is we get rid of half of all cars with the rest electric. We are currently at like 1% electric, and the consumers who buy from biggest manufacturers in the US (GM and Tesla) don’t even get federal tax credits for their vehicles as those companies already used theirs up, so you argument that electric cars are bad because of competition for tax dollars already is shown to be false. We need to get to 50% electric in the BEST CASE SCENARIO of bike and public transport centric decarbonization, and ban the rest. We are not going NEARLY fast enough and many states have now added EV taxes that are HIGHER than the equivalent state gas tax. Plus, actual business (meaning practical things like contractors who do plumbing, bring food to market, etc) need electric vehicles as well which must be decarbonized, as well as all buses and trains and mining vehicles and semi trucks and whathaveyou needing if you be electric, so the whole sector needs a massive push.
Normies understand this better than too-online degrowthers who think you’ll be able to convince the politically diverse America to abandon the suburbs in a freaking decade and all take trains (which require expensive infrastructure that America takes literally decades to build), buses, and bikes. There is no plausible world where that happens outside of hellscape authoritarianism. We must decarbonize in-place with solutions that don’t require everyone to get on the same exact page lifestyle-wise within a decade.
(And a side note on zero sum thinking about climate change solutions: we need to decarbonize so fast and spend a LOT of money to do it, so even if we DID want to spend it all in one sector, we’d run out of qualified people to do the work and machines capable of building the thing, ie you’re supply-constrained and so you’d get massive cost inflation. Spreading the money over several solutions at once, however, prevents that from happening as those who build cars & heat pumps are different from those who build railroads and trains and multiplexes. So we SHOULDN’T put all our money on just electric cars or public transport or whathaveyou, but actually spend it on a wide spread of solutions to be most optimal & enable the fastest decarbonization. This is in addition to all the other arguments above. It is NOT zero sum.)
Every year, our society spends VAST amounts on fossil fuels and fossil fuel vehicles. THAT is the real problem. Anything spent on electric vehicles is minuscule in comparison because every single new internal combustion car sold, about 60 tons of CO2 is released from the gasoline burned, in addition to manufacturing. It is conventional cars that compete with electric cars, NOT public transport. In fact, people who live in places where public transport or bikes (whose CO2 emissions per mile depend on not having a high beef diet) is not an option, such as many suburbs, are where electric vehicles are most suitable (can charge at home).
You’re making claims that people will, in the 10 years we have left to fully decarbonize, majority move out of the suburbs and into denser areas that are bike friendly and can have good public transport is absurd. Firstly, there’s nowhere for them to move into as prices in denser areas are often higher, so we’d have to kick off a massive apartment building campaign starting NOW (with all the cement emissions that implies… and cement is decarbonization resistant). Second, are we asking people (as most people in the US own homes) to abandon a massive $250k investment just to pay rent in an apartment? If everyone moves out of the suburbs on timescale you think, there’ll be no one to buy that house… it’ll just rot or will have to be torn down. Houses can last over 100 years (mine was built in 1919), much longer than cars, so you’re wasting the embodied emissions of the house. Thirdly, people often LIKE living in the suburbs with large yards (I live in a small duplex in a dense neighborhood with a small yard, but it’s clear that having more space has advantages), and this totally unrealistic idea that we can force everyone into a dense cityscape in just a decade or so is bananas. The political pushback would be enormous.
So the only option is to encourage densification on the margins (by getting rid of parking mandates, getting rid of local zoning that bans duplexes and multiplexes, etc), funding public transport infrastructure and bike infrastructure (which is cheap) to stop sprawl while decarbonizing people in-place. That “factor of 2” emissions for living in the suburbs is only because of building energy costs and commuting, which can both be decarbonized much cheaper (via heat pumps, solar panels, and electric vehicles) than the cost of abandoning a $250k house for more expensive and more cramped urban housing. PLUS you won’t have the massive political cost of taking the middle class’s most valuable asset and making it worthless while also forcing everyone to change their lifestyle.
The whole “electric cars are bad, ACKSHUALLY” argument relies on a chain of thought that is absolutely absurd when you look at the political capital it would take to achieve on the timescales we’re talking about.
Regardless, there would STILL BE CARS. Japan, the Netherlands, and every other large developed nation that is put up as a model of public transport STILL has a heck of a lot of cars per capita, much higher than we can afford to be fossil fuel run in a decarbonized future. Best case is we get rid of half of all cars with the rest electric. We are currently at like 1% electric, and the consumers who buy from biggest manufacturers in the US (GM and Tesla) don’t even get federal tax credits for their vehicles as those companies already used theirs up, so you argument that electric cars are bad because of competition for tax dollars already is shown to be false. We need to get to 50% electric in the BEST CASE SCENARIO of bike and public transport centric decarbonization, and ban the rest. We are not going NEARLY fast enough and many states have now added EV taxes that are HIGHER than the equivalent state gas tax. Plus, actual business (meaning practical things like contractors who do plumbing, bring food to market, etc) need electric vehicles as well which must be decarbonized, as well as all buses and trains and mining vehicles and semi trucks and whathaveyou needing if you be electric, so the whole sector needs a massive push.
Normies understand this better than too-online degrowthers who think you’ll be able to convince the politically diverse America to abandon the suburbs in a freaking decade and all take trains (which require expensive infrastructure that America takes literally decades to build), buses, and bikes. There is no plausible world where that happens outside of hellscape authoritarianism. We must decarbonize in-place with solutions that don’t require everyone to get on the same exact page lifestyle-wise within a decade.
(And a side note on zero sum thinking about climate change solutions: we need to decarbonize so fast and spend a LOT of money to do it, so even if we DID want to spend it all in one sector, we’d run out of qualified people to do the work and machines capable of building the thing, ie you’re supply-constrained and so you’d get massive cost inflation. Spreading the money over several solutions at once, however, prevents that from happening as those who build cars & heat pumps are different from those who build railroads and trains and multiplexes. So we SHOULDN’T put all our money on just electric cars or public transport or whathaveyou, but actually spend it on a wide spread of solutions to be most optimal & enable the fastest decarbonization. This is in addition to all the other arguments above. It is NOT zero sum.)
> The end result of opposing electric cars won’t be that cars get banned but that we’ll just use internal combustion engine cars.
This is a false dichotomy. Other options are possible, e.g. increasing public transportation. Japan and Korea provide good examples of modern high-density cities with good public transportation. And many alternatives are possible.
Secondly, your reply still fails to prove your claim that people are "too plugged in to environmental social media" to support effective solutions.
This is a false dichotomy. Other options are possible, e.g. increasing public transportation. Japan and Korea provide good examples of modern high-density cities with good public transportation. And many alternatives are possible.
Secondly, your reply still fails to prove your claim that people are "too plugged in to environmental social media" to support effective solutions.
Japan and Korea both have a LOT of cars and both have way too many fossil fueled cars and not enough electric cars. I am not making the case of a dichotomy between supporting electric cars and supporting public transport; that dichotomy is the one I’m responding to and disagreeing with.
> There is a shocking obliviousness to climate change, plastic pollution, economic problems, healthcare (personal and the system), philosophical/existential inquiries, etc. Not to say people don’t know climate change is happening - they just aren’t aware of any details beyond surface level memes.
In the 60s-80s, there was impending nuclear war, overpopulation, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, radioactive and chemical waste, deforestation of the Amazon at an alarming rate, and various species placed on endangered lists. That and all the religious rapture expectations, in the US at least.
Somehow civilization managed not to collapse or annihilate itself decades ago. So the updated crisis of climate change, plastic in the ocean, etc. starts to sound like more of the same doomsday talk. Not that all of these things aren't problems to deal with, but are they existential in nature? Do they mean we should expect life to get worse? Because the overpopulation bomb and mass starvation didn't pan out. We produce more food now than we ever have. Acid rain and the ozone layer were manageable. Species often make recoveries after being protected. Rivers recover after being cleaned up. A majority of the original Amazon still remains, even though deforestation and fires remain concerns. There are more trees in the world today than 100 years ago. And standards of living having been going up around the globe over that same time, while absolute poverty has been diminishing.
Maybe we can manage our problems and avoid the worst case scenarios. In the movie Tomorrowland, Hugh Laurie as the villain does give a really compelling speech in which he talks about how all the doomsday expectations are an excuse to not fix problems, which contrasts with the main character, who is very optimistic that humans can find solutions, unlike all her classmates and teachers.
In the 60s-80s, there was impending nuclear war, overpopulation, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, radioactive and chemical waste, deforestation of the Amazon at an alarming rate, and various species placed on endangered lists. That and all the religious rapture expectations, in the US at least.
Somehow civilization managed not to collapse or annihilate itself decades ago. So the updated crisis of climate change, plastic in the ocean, etc. starts to sound like more of the same doomsday talk. Not that all of these things aren't problems to deal with, but are they existential in nature? Do they mean we should expect life to get worse? Because the overpopulation bomb and mass starvation didn't pan out. We produce more food now than we ever have. Acid rain and the ozone layer were manageable. Species often make recoveries after being protected. Rivers recover after being cleaned up. A majority of the original Amazon still remains, even though deforestation and fires remain concerns. There are more trees in the world today than 100 years ago. And standards of living having been going up around the globe over that same time, while absolute poverty has been diminishing.
Maybe we can manage our problems and avoid the worst case scenarios. In the movie Tomorrowland, Hugh Laurie as the villain does give a really compelling speech in which he talks about how all the doomsday expectations are an excuse to not fix problems, which contrasts with the main character, who is very optimistic that humans can find solutions, unlike all her classmates and teachers.
> climate change, plastic pollution, economic problems, healthcare (personal and the system), philosophical/existential inquiries, etc
If you're not doing actively something about it, what's the point of keeping this in mind if it only makes you sad? It seems like some people like having a moral high ground by being sad at important issues, but I don't really see the point. Either do something, or don't do anything.
If you're not doing actively something about it, what's the point of keeping this in mind if it only makes you sad? It seems like some people like having a moral high ground by being sad at important issues, but I don't really see the point. Either do something, or don't do anything.
Long ago, my dad checked out of news media entirely, and the effect on his mental health was incredible. Personally, I don't think I can turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, but IME those that do are generally much happier.
What do they say again?
> Ignorance is bliss.
I didn’t grasp this when my HS English teacher imparted this on us, but having consumed much of the trending Reddit content, it makes a lot more sense these days.
> Ignorance is bliss.
I didn’t grasp this when my HS English teacher imparted this on us, but having consumed much of the trending Reddit content, it makes a lot more sense these days.
When we all first hear this expression we assume that ignorance is a bad thing, thus we should not be like all the blissfully ignorant. But maybe it was really advice -- don't expand your circle of awareness too far beyond your circle of influence.
You can both acknowledge economic bubbles and have life satisfaction. It's as simple as not tying your own happiness onto gargantuan systems well outside your individual control.
I bristle when others captured by internet outrage loops suggest that I too must share their outrage or I'm unreasonable, out of touch, etc. Did you recognize that you have become a recruiter for social media algorithms?
I bristle when others captured by internet outrage loops suggest that I too must share their outrage or I'm unreasonable, out of touch, etc. Did you recognize that you have become a recruiter for social media algorithms?
I estimate around 20%-30% of the country has a mental health issue ranging from depression to narcissism to outright sociopathy and misanthropy. And they occupy a disproportionate amount of social media, etc congregating and spreading their sad world views everywhere.
I think it’s difficult for people with these types of issues to cope with problems that are out of range for any one person to fix, for coming to terms with change, and to fixate on these things. Just bring in a constant panic state while everything seems so out of control.
It’s sad because it’s just a very bad way to spend a life when there’s so much good and beautiful everywhere.
The internet was great before everyone got in the pool and 30% of them started pissing in it.
I think it’s difficult for people with these types of issues to cope with problems that are out of range for any one person to fix, for coming to terms with change, and to fixate on these things. Just bring in a constant panic state while everything seems so out of control.
It’s sad because it’s just a very bad way to spend a life when there’s so much good and beautiful everywhere.
The internet was great before everyone got in the pool and 30% of them started pissing in it.
I think your mixing up two different questions. This article is asking is your personal life good. Im generally happy with my own life and think it'll get better, that doesn't mean I think the world is on a good path. I think I can live a decent life independent of whatever is going on in the world at large.
Like even if there is an economic bubble what does that really mean for you? Is your long term personal life satisfaction really tied to the economy? Maybe you'll have a bad year like 2008 did to some but you'll probably bounce back
Like even if there is an economic bubble what does that really mean for you? Is your long term personal life satisfaction really tied to the economy? Maybe you'll have a bad year like 2008 did to some but you'll probably bounce back
>I think your mixing up two different questions.
That's what the pollster and reporter want you to do.
This has become an extremely common method of polling manipulation, and I can't believe more people don't see right through it.
That's what the pollster and reporter want you to do.
This has become an extremely common method of polling manipulation, and I can't believe more people don't see right through it.
Why is it a bubble?
This study is from June, USA still paid a lot of stimulus money in June. Being happy from stimulus money is a bubble, it wont last.
When will it not last till? There will always be another crash...
It seems to be human nature that people are more happy to talk about misfortune than about lucky events. 60% are thriving. But the 40% that are not probably have a much stronger opinion about things. So you'll hear the loud "minority".
Social media reflects a small slice of the population (like <1%) and it seems to overwhelmingly attract negativity. I would even argue it’s a bit of an outlet for people who aren’t that negative in their everyday life.
This is relief. I believe humanity's condition is getting better and better.
But I am surprised most others think so too.
But I am surprised most others think so too.
Yeah it could be a magnet for people to complain in a safe place where everyone will echo it.
However, maybe the study here presented has also some hidden selection.
However, maybe the study here presented has also some hidden selection.
Looking at raw numbers if always much more telling than cherry picked stats intended to sell an emotional narrative.
50-60% of 300 million+ people “thriving” means what for their other 40-50% of 300 million?
Comments like yours lead me to the same conclusion. I’d suggest people interact outside their usual filter bubble specifically, online or real.
50-60% of 300 million+ people “thriving” means what for their other 40-50% of 300 million?
Comments like yours lead me to the same conclusion. I’d suggest people interact outside their usual filter bubble specifically, online or real.
"Is the world getting better or worse? A look at the numbers | Steven Pinker"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ
tl;dr: it's getting better. We're living longer, homicides are down, fewer wars and autocracies, etc..
tl;dr: it's getting better. We're living longer, homicides are down, fewer wars and autocracies, etc..
This entire thread is a proof of how many people on HN constantly downvote anything that is not rage-worthy.
I'm usually optimistic, and I think there are bright days ahead.
But about this poll-- it seems like it happened before Delta version of Covid got traction. I think if they hold the same survey today, they'll get different results.
But about this poll-- it seems like it happened before Delta version of Covid got traction. I think if they hold the same survey today, they'll get different results.
They should show the results broken down by age. I think you'll see the vast majority of happy respondents being baby boomers.
That will undoubtedly have the opposite of the intended effect for me.
Real world interaction is where I get to learn that wild fires are supposedly being caused by migrant workers, where I get yelled at for wearing a mask during a pandemic, have my kids teased for the same, discover that people I used to think were reasonable adults are actually anti-vaxxers, and interact with depressingly insane inflated residential & commercial real estate markets.
My online interactions are probably principally responsible for maintaining the threads of idealism that are hanging on.
That said, I also spend zero time on Facebook, Instagram, etc., and near zero time on Twitter. So, neither my real world nor online world interactions are necessarily representative of much.
Real world interaction is where I get to learn that wild fires are supposedly being caused by migrant workers, where I get yelled at for wearing a mask during a pandemic, have my kids teased for the same, discover that people I used to think were reasonable adults are actually anti-vaxxers, and interact with depressingly insane inflated residential & commercial real estate markets.
My online interactions are probably principally responsible for maintaining the threads of idealism that are hanging on.
That said, I also spend zero time on Facebook, Instagram, etc., and near zero time on Twitter. So, neither my real world nor online world interactions are necessarily representative of much.
[deleted]
Ahh yes sounds like a pile of good reasons to hide in not real life, enjoy!
In the real world I’ve never heard anything resublime those claims, or been yelled at for wearing a mask.
That's fortunate. Dalliances with the rural expanses of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have not been so encouraging for me lately.
> These results are striking in contrast to the increasingly cynical outlooks we see on sites like Reddit and even HN. It seems like every comment section is full of negative comments about how terrible everything is or how terrible it's going to be soon. Results like this are a good reminder to log off and go interact with the real world for a more grounded perpsective.
A very simple explanation is rising salaries for manual labour, and unprecedented stimulus cheques.
A very simple explanation is rising salaries for manual labour, and unprecedented stimulus cheques.
Compared to 2020, this year has been amazing for Americans. But I wonder if the happiness will be short lived. Aside from Trump and Covid, the same issues we had in 2019 are lurking below the surface. And it’s entirely possible a Trumpy figure, or even Trump himself, will return to power in 2024.
I would say not 'possible', but more probable than in 2016.
Its been demonstrated as both a viable political strategy and that there is a clear bloc of voters to use to support that strategy.
We'll be seeing its hints in 2022 and it will be full bore in 2024. If the holders of the old-guard strategies (McCain 2008/ Biden 2020 style campaigns) want to not get trounced in 2024, they need to make a substantial difference in peoples lives to win that election. Otherwise, 'Trumpian' style campaigns will become the norm, as they'll be show to be more effective at winning elections.
Might actually be more riding on 2022/ 2024 than 2016. 2016 proved it possible; these next elections will decide if its reproducible.
We'll be seeing its hints in 2022 and it will be full bore in 2024. If the holders of the old-guard strategies (McCain 2008/ Biden 2020 style campaigns) want to not get trounced in 2024, they need to make a substantial difference in peoples lives to win that election. Otherwise, 'Trumpian' style campaigns will become the norm, as they'll be show to be more effective at winning elections.
Might actually be more riding on 2022/ 2024 than 2016. 2016 proved it possible; these next elections will decide if its reproducible.
Ron DeSantis will be elected president in 2024. You heard it here first.
> And it’s entirely possible a Trumpy figure, or even Trump himself, will return to power in 2024.
Wouldnt that be good for this particular measure given the scores reached 'new recorded high's in his presidency.
Wouldnt that be good for this particular measure given the scores reached 'new recorded high's in his presidency.
The job market really started to heat up for the first time since the 1990s under Trump, which I think explains that phenomenon. On the flip side, even my friends and family that support Trump were growing tired of the baseline level of anxiety he was causing with his erratic proclamations.
That's correct. Biden with that job market would have had very strong political approval ratings.
The US economy now has a modest, persistent labor deficit due to declining demographics (population growth is largely flat or negative for whites, blacks, hispanics). If you cut immigration much at this point, we'd be seeing a national population decline. Short of an economic catastrophe near-term (whether caused by Covid or other), I would expect Biden will get to enjoy a low unemployment rate in the next 2-3 years as well.
The US economy now has a modest, persistent labor deficit due to declining demographics (population growth is largely flat or negative for whites, blacks, hispanics). If you cut immigration much at this point, we'd be seeing a national population decline. Short of an economic catastrophe near-term (whether caused by Covid or other), I would expect Biden will get to enjoy a low unemployment rate in the next 2-3 years as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I mean, it’s not hard to understand. Give everyone a bunch of money and most of them will fix a bunch of problems in their life, feel less stressed, and be more optimistic.
On top of the federal stimulus, this housing bubble has a lot of people thinking “okay I can retire off the sale of my home now,” though I doubt they’re thinking through where they’ll live after that sale, nor how inflation may devalue what seems today like a vast accumulation of wealth on paper.
The current situation makes me (a) more convinced that policies like a negative income tax are a superior safety net to the bureaucratic means tested programs we use today, and (b) more concerned that zero interest rate policy and the incredible distortions in the financial markets are going to end very badly.
On top of the federal stimulus, this housing bubble has a lot of people thinking “okay I can retire off the sale of my home now,” though I doubt they’re thinking through where they’ll live after that sale, nor how inflation may devalue what seems today like a vast accumulation of wealth on paper.
The current situation makes me (a) more convinced that policies like a negative income tax are a superior safety net to the bureaucratic means tested programs we use today, and (b) more concerned that zero interest rate policy and the incredible distortions in the financial markets are going to end very badly.
The article doesn't talk about money though, but factors like "significant enjoyment the day before", which obviously took a huge hit during the various phases of COVID lockdown. And this in turn is tied largely to social interaction and the general reopening the US has been experiencing.
Why does it have to end badly?
Why can't money just always get funnier?
If Central Banks guarantee to always pay more for bonds than what the Federal Government sold them for - what difference does it make if the interest rate is 0% or -5%? It's still some fixed, semi-guaranteed return.
Inequality doesn't seem to be a major talking point in any major economy despite the fact that we surpassed The Belle Epoch peak a couple years ago.
The masses don't seem concerned that inequality is sky rocketing. Almost everywhere >50% of people own homes -> A lot of them on a lot of leverage. Why should they care if Jeff Bezos is making >$70Bn a year on paper - when they're also making more on paper than they do working their jobs?
Until the homeownership rate starts to plummet - I don't see why >50% will ever care. And if the homeowership rate does plummet - why can't the government just Federally back negative-percent-down, interest-only loans to increase homeownership and inflate housing prices more (both of these exist already in other countries)?
Things can always get funnier.
You know what's not going to happen... The government just sit back and watch 80% of the world's wealth disappear.
Why can't money just always get funnier?
If Central Banks guarantee to always pay more for bonds than what the Federal Government sold them for - what difference does it make if the interest rate is 0% or -5%? It's still some fixed, semi-guaranteed return.
Inequality doesn't seem to be a major talking point in any major economy despite the fact that we surpassed The Belle Epoch peak a couple years ago.
The masses don't seem concerned that inequality is sky rocketing. Almost everywhere >50% of people own homes -> A lot of them on a lot of leverage. Why should they care if Jeff Bezos is making >$70Bn a year on paper - when they're also making more on paper than they do working their jobs?
Until the homeownership rate starts to plummet - I don't see why >50% will ever care. And if the homeowership rate does plummet - why can't the government just Federally back negative-percent-down, interest-only loans to increase homeownership and inflate housing prices more (both of these exist already in other countries)?
Things can always get funnier.
You know what's not going to happen... The government just sit back and watch 80% of the world's wealth disappear.
People have been predicting since 2010 or so that things would end badly. Those that heeded such advice would have missed out on the biggest bull markets in stocks and real estate in a longtime, possibly ever. The media is obsessed with wealth inequality, but as you say, most people do not care. I think you are right.
> "You know what's not going to happen... The government just sit back and watch 80% of the world's wealth disappear."
Probably depends on who it's disappearing from.
Probably depends on who it's disappearing from.
> The most recent results, captured June 14-20, 2021, are based on 4,820 U.S. adults surveyed by web as a part of the Gallup Panel, a probability-based, non-opt-in panel of about 120,000 adults across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
People surveyed online have higher life ratings.
Edit: to show that it’s always important to understand how data is collected.
People surveyed online have higher life ratings.
Edit: to show that it’s always important to understand how data is collected.
You shouldn’t be downvoted. Web only vs. conventional phone surveys is a significant change. Cheaper, but definitely excludes poorer demographic sections. You can’t ignore this for a survey about ‘life ratings’.
In monkey studies, when a subordinate monkey is removed from the presence of the alpha male, its stress level goes down and it shows clear emotional signs of 'thriving'.
I wonder if that might help explain this improved outlook on life among humans since covid arose, now that so many subordinates are working from home and no longer under the mindful eye of a less-than-beloved boss.
I wonder if that might help explain this improved outlook on life among humans since covid arose, now that so many subordinates are working from home and no longer under the mindful eye of a less-than-beloved boss.
The article includes a graph that shows well-being was depressed during COVID. Well-being didn't reach pre-COVID levels until into 2021 as lockdowns were ending.
There isn't much mystery here: Average people do better when they're more social.
> I wonder if that might help explain this improved outlook on life among humans since covid arose, now that so many subordinates are working from home and no longer under the mindful eye of a less-than-beloved boss.
The raw numbers would suggest the opposite: That people reported worse life satisfaction during the times most associated with WFH.
There isn't much mystery here: Average people do better when they're more social.
> I wonder if that might help explain this improved outlook on life among humans since covid arose, now that so many subordinates are working from home and no longer under the mindful eye of a less-than-beloved boss.
The raw numbers would suggest the opposite: That people reported worse life satisfaction during the times most associated with WFH.
Basically, when you remove aggressive assholes, other sentient beings become happier?
This can be reproduced in human prisons or boarding schools. If you are not locked with bully you are happier.
This can be reproduced in human prisons or boarding schools. If you are not locked with bully you are happier.
A lot of this optimism is just not having Trump drive the news cycle everyday.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, I think you're right. Whether deserved or not, the news cycle 2016-2020 was one conflagration after another, sometimes with not even a day between them to absorb things.
Make News Boring Again
Really? While places like Chicago and Baltimore have murder rates now up there with warzones. And where they filmed Rocky in Phili looks like the zombie apocalypse:
https://youtu.be/-FD7xxo5ApY?t=518
Same place but parental warning, this one is rough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i45JMm9hM4
The areas you're talking about are isolation zones. That's how the US functions, it's huge, sprawled out and heavily bifurcated as a society. The war zone areas of St Louis (60 per 100k murder rate, astronomical, from ~2015-2019) don't directly touch the majority of people that live in or near St Louis and go out of their way to avoid those areas. The same is true of Chicago. They don't buy houses near those areas, they don't drive through those areas, they don't shop in those areas.
That's how you get Baltimore in a country with a GDP per capita of $68,000 - fourth highest in the world, after Switzerland, Ireland and Norway. Consider the context of matching up on per capita economic output to hyper rich tiny nations with 5m-8m people. The US low outcome is very low compared to those nations, it's median is high compared to the EU median, and it's top 1/4 is exceptionally high. The top 10%-15% in the US are far richer than the top 10%-15% in Europe.
Economically the top 10%-15% outcome in Europe is Germany, Britain and France. The top 10%-15% outcome in the US is Switzerland.
People that think of the US as one nation economically, are thinking about it entirely wrong. The US is more like Europe as a whole in both its diversity of outcomes and crime, with a far higher median income and wealth level. The worst parts of Baltimore are as dilapidated as the various ghettos of the eastern EU like Stolipinovo Bulgaria.
When you picture the US top 10% you should picture Switzerland; when you picture the US ~10%-35% bracket you should picture Germany or France. When you picture the bottom 10% in the US, you should picture poverty in poor EU nations, you should not picture the bottom 10% in Switzerland. That will help you get your head around how the US is arranged.
That's how you get Baltimore in a country with a GDP per capita of $68,000 - fourth highest in the world, after Switzerland, Ireland and Norway. Consider the context of matching up on per capita economic output to hyper rich tiny nations with 5m-8m people. The US low outcome is very low compared to those nations, it's median is high compared to the EU median, and it's top 1/4 is exceptionally high. The top 10%-15% in the US are far richer than the top 10%-15% in Europe.
Economically the top 10%-15% outcome in Europe is Germany, Britain and France. The top 10%-15% outcome in the US is Switzerland.
People that think of the US as one nation economically, are thinking about it entirely wrong. The US is more like Europe as a whole in both its diversity of outcomes and crime, with a far higher median income and wealth level. The worst parts of Baltimore are as dilapidated as the various ghettos of the eastern EU like Stolipinovo Bulgaria.
When you picture the US top 10% you should picture Switzerland; when you picture the US ~10%-35% bracket you should picture Germany or France. When you picture the bottom 10% in the US, you should picture poverty in poor EU nations, you should not picture the bottom 10% in Switzerland. That will help you get your head around how the US is arranged.
I wish people were more mindful of this when they critique our "averages" so incessantly. Certain parts of the country bring down the average hard, and while we SHOULD be doing everything possible to improve these areas, I roll my eyes when a European tries to use an average weighed down by places like Baltimore to tell me my likelihood of getting shot, having access to healthcare, or overall risk of catching a certain pandemic disease. My state had lower case rates than most of Europe, buddy.
> Certain parts of the country bring down the average hard, and while we SHOULD be doing everything possible to improve these areas, I roll my eyes when a European tries to use an average weighed down by places like Baltimore
European countries have their own Baltimore's also dragging their averages up/down, averaging such statistics is not some kind of American exceptionalism.
Just like it's a bit misleading to compare a country to a continent, or even to the EU. The EU is not a country, it's no federal government, it's mostly a economic, and to some degree political, union.
European countries have their own Baltimore's also dragging their averages up/down, averaging such statistics is not some kind of American exceptionalism.
Just like it's a bit misleading to compare a country to a continent, or even to the EU. The EU is not a country, it's no federal government, it's mostly a economic, and to some degree political, union.
Funny, because I said nothing about averages. I named three problem areas and linked to videos of actual human suffering in one of those places. It is the rest of you using statistics to dismiss those problems.
Talked to an Uber driver in Chicago who said he wouldn’t want to live anywhere else because Chicago has everything he could want, while acknowledging that certain neighborhoods are dangerous, like in most cities.
One thing that may be influencing optimism about the future is the fact that the job market is tilted in favor of job seekers right now. I know this is an anecdote, but I have coworkers who are quitting and seeing vast increases in their salary because the job market in tech is tight and is seemingly not getting any looser anytime soon. Now, they weren't earning table scraps before, but when you have people earning 20k to 60k more, that has a really big impact upon how you view the future.
"% thriving" pre-covid was about 56%, the worst of covid was about 46%, current is about 59%. "% suffering" is about 3.4%.
Anecdotally, I started getting depressed during the start of the pandemic and again during September-December of 2020. The pandemic loneliness and cynicism was getting to me. Albeit, it never got really bad. In May of 2021, I started feeling a lot better. Because everything is open again, and everyone else is optimistic.
Anecdotally, I started getting depressed during the start of the pandemic and again during September-December of 2020. The pandemic loneliness and cynicism was getting to me. Albeit, it never got really bad. In May of 2021, I started feeling a lot better. Because everything is open again, and everyone else is optimistic.
Working from home and spending more time with family is probably a big part of it. Commuting was such an enormous daily waste of time for millions of people.
Note that it was around all time low just six months ago. The chart seems very volatile. I don't know if it is a bad survey or if people are fickle.
> based on 4,820 U.S. adults surveyed by web
This is a bit much to call it " American's life ratings" based on 0.0013% of American population who we aren't even sure are americans.
This is a bit much to call it " American's life ratings" based on 0.0013% of American population who we aren't even sure are americans.
4,820 is a large enough sample size to be representative of the population within a few percentage points.
> is a large enough sample size
What logic are you using to say that( for my future reference). I am having hard time wrapping my head around how .001% of something can be representative.
What logic are you using to say that( for my future reference). I am having hard time wrapping my head around how .001% of something can be representative.
If you assume that your sampling is random, it's actually not too hard.
If you were able to pick randomly from all over the planet and ask who was male and who was female, you'd probably get a number of around 50-50 with a sample size of just 10. Maybe it's 60-40 or 40-60, but it's unlikely to be all of one or all of the other. That would happen about 1 time in a thousand.
If you asked a thousand people there's basically zero chance you'd get all of one or the other. Your low number might be 490 or even 480, but it would take a bizarre coincidence if it were even as low as 450.
The big "if" is assuming that you can sample randomly. That's the hard part. There are a ton of ways they go about trying to ensure that they're doing a random sample, but yeah, you do have to take it with a grain of salt.
But setting that aside, the fact that they sample only a tiny percentage isn't really a problem. The exponential nature of coincidences makes significant departures from reality unlikely. One coincidence is rare; hundreds is basically impossible.
Most of the math behind statistics assumes that there are infinite populations of people. It requires special corrections if you're dealing with only small groups like hundreds. Once you get into the millions, it might as well be infinite. And as long as your sampling is random, it still works out to give reasonably close answers.
If you were able to pick randomly from all over the planet and ask who was male and who was female, you'd probably get a number of around 50-50 with a sample size of just 10. Maybe it's 60-40 or 40-60, but it's unlikely to be all of one or all of the other. That would happen about 1 time in a thousand.
If you asked a thousand people there's basically zero chance you'd get all of one or the other. Your low number might be 490 or even 480, but it would take a bizarre coincidence if it were even as low as 450.
The big "if" is assuming that you can sample randomly. That's the hard part. There are a ton of ways they go about trying to ensure that they're doing a random sample, but yeah, you do have to take it with a grain of salt.
But setting that aside, the fact that they sample only a tiny percentage isn't really a problem. The exponential nature of coincidences makes significant departures from reality unlikely. One coincidence is rare; hundreds is basically impossible.
Most of the math behind statistics assumes that there are infinite populations of people. It requires special corrections if you're dealing with only small groups like hundreds. Once you get into the millions, it might as well be infinite. And as long as your sampling is random, it still works out to give reasonably close answers.
It's not mentioned in the article because it just started, but I suspect we will achieve new highs with the Child Tax Credit.[0] It will likely have a massive impact.
[0]https://www.whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit/
[0]https://www.whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit/
The Child Tax Credit has been around since 1997. The timing changed this year, but the credit itself is not at all new.
Except it's been massively increased and now comes with monthly cash disbursements sent via direct deposit whether you filed your taxes or not (eg, those who are too poor to need to file taxes and never got any tax "credit").
In its current form of being deposited monthly into people's accounts? No, it's very new.
"The percentage of Americans who evaluate their lives well enough to be considered "thriving" on Gallup's Live Evaluation Index reached 59.2% in June..."
And "homeownership rate of 65.6 percent"[1]. Everybody else is fucked.
1. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
And "homeownership rate of 65.6 percent"[1]. Everybody else is fucked.
1. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
Wow, the graph of happiness almost matches the S&P500 returns.
In other news, chocolate rations have been raised to 20 grams.
Interest rates are lower and the unemployment rate is lower than when the “morning in America” ad aired.
I think people are hopeful that after the vaccine rollouts, things will be back to normal - and people are starting to do what they used to do before the pandemic. When you down it's easy to overshoot a little when you go back up.
Actions speak louder than words, and so drug overdoses must speak louder than a poll. Even before the pandemic, life expectancy in the USA was stagnant or falling because of the upsurge in "deaths of despair". This is pre covid:
https://www.newsweek.com/what-so-called-deaths-despair-exper...
A poll has limited value and people are famously bad at self-reported happiness. There have simply been too many cases of people saying they are happy with their lives and two years later they commit suicide, or kill their spouse. Some researchers have argued that self reported happiness is worthless.
Instead, look at actions. After the collapse of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union men over the age of 40 engaged in one of history's greatest alcoholic binges, such that life expectancy in Russia dropped for men during the 1990s. Actions speak loudly. Killing oneself with alcohol communicates how one really feels about the future.
We've seen something similar in the USA since the crash of 2008.
Until such time as we see real evidence of people acting in the way that we might expect happy people to behave, including planning for the future and taking care of one's health, don't believe a poll that says Americans are happy.
But still, in 1945, on VE day or VJ day, if you asked Americans "Are you happy?" obviously everyone would have said "Yes". This is well known. But what they were feeling was relief.
The same is true now. People feel relief, thinking the pandemic might be coming under control. Such relief is fickle. It could be different next month. It does not signal long term happiness.
https://www.newsweek.com/what-so-called-deaths-despair-exper...
A poll has limited value and people are famously bad at self-reported happiness. There have simply been too many cases of people saying they are happy with their lives and two years later they commit suicide, or kill their spouse. Some researchers have argued that self reported happiness is worthless.
Instead, look at actions. After the collapse of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union men over the age of 40 engaged in one of history's greatest alcoholic binges, such that life expectancy in Russia dropped for men during the 1990s. Actions speak loudly. Killing oneself with alcohol communicates how one really feels about the future.
We've seen something similar in the USA since the crash of 2008.
Until such time as we see real evidence of people acting in the way that we might expect happy people to behave, including planning for the future and taking care of one's health, don't believe a poll that says Americans are happy.
But still, in 1945, on VE day or VJ day, if you asked Americans "Are you happy?" obviously everyone would have said "Yes". This is well known. But what they were feeling was relief.
The same is true now. People feel relief, thinking the pandemic might be coming under control. Such relief is fickle. It could be different next month. It does not signal long term happiness.
Why was this downvoted? Does anyone disagree with the basic idea here? People's actions are more meaningful than what they say to a pollster. This should be obvious.
There are entire fields of medicine, including psychiatry and psychology, that believe surveying people on how depressed, anxious, etc. they feel is the scientific basis of research, diagnosis, and treatment.
Your idea to just ignore what people say is just totally out there...
Your idea to just ignore what people say is just totally out there...
On the contrary, psychiatry and psychology measured very well how much people lie to themselves (in good faith) when answering questions.
That's why good psychological assessments have long lists of questions, poking at the same aspects from many different angles.
That's why good psychological assessments have long lists of questions, poking at the same aspects from many different angles.
Likewise, the literature that argues that these self-reports are worthless is also quite extensive:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9710-0
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cant-buy-happiness/2...
Just spend 15 minutes researching the literature that argues against the value of self-reported happiness.
This has been discussed on Hacker News many times.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9710-0
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cant-buy-happiness/2...
Just spend 15 minutes researching the literature that argues against the value of self-reported happiness.
This has been discussed on Hacker News many times.
I don't disagree that self-reported happiness may be meaningless, but I strongly disagree with any implication that experts have some reference point to evaluate objective truth about mental states.
Psychiatric drugs are developed by surveying how patients feel. If there was some source of objective truth, based on understanding the mechanisms behind illness and medications, they'd use that.
Common sense tells you people are complex and unreliable, but that difficulty doesn't give experts a crystal ball to replace self-reporting.
Psychiatric drugs are developed by surveying how patients feel. If there was some source of objective truth, based on understanding the mechanisms behind illness and medications, they'd use that.
Common sense tells you people are complex and unreliable, but that difficulty doesn't give experts a crystal ball to replace self-reporting.
You're raising a point that has no relevance to the conversation. Neither economists nor epidemiologists rely on self reporting. In the face of a large scale disaster, such as the rise in drug overdoses, self-reporting is meaningless and can be ignored. Economists have other ways of estimating the overall experience of the public, mostly looking at aggregate numbers that point back to some real experience.
Put a bit differently, if you know someone is an alcoholic, and they tell you that they are happy, you would be a complete idiot to believe them.
A poll saying that Americans are happy has a certain limited value that needs to be balanced against all of the other behaviors that Americans are currently exhibiting. If the average life span is falling because of excess "deaths of despair" that is a very large fact that you would be foolish to ignore.
"that difficulty doesn't give experts a crystal ball to replace self-reporting"
The entire profession of economics has devoted the last century to developing various aggregate numbers that give some reliable picture of the mood of the country -- reliable in the sense that investors can make actual decisions based on those numbers, with the results being good more often that bad.
Americans telling a pollster that they are happy is a fact that needs to be balanced against other facts, such as the decline in the formation of new firms, the spike in gun violence, the spike in drug overdoses, etc. Compared to people's real actions, a poll means very little.
It's amazing to me that such an obvious point should get so much push back on Hacker News.
Put a bit differently, if you know someone is an alcoholic, and they tell you that they are happy, you would be a complete idiot to believe them.
A poll saying that Americans are happy has a certain limited value that needs to be balanced against all of the other behaviors that Americans are currently exhibiting. If the average life span is falling because of excess "deaths of despair" that is a very large fact that you would be foolish to ignore.
"that difficulty doesn't give experts a crystal ball to replace self-reporting"
The entire profession of economics has devoted the last century to developing various aggregate numbers that give some reliable picture of the mood of the country -- reliable in the sense that investors can make actual decisions based on those numbers, with the results being good more often that bad.
Americans telling a pollster that they are happy is a fact that needs to be balanced against other facts, such as the decline in the formation of new firms, the spike in gun violence, the spike in drug overdoses, etc. Compared to people's real actions, a poll means very little.
It's amazing to me that such an obvious point should get so much push back on Hacker News.
>You're raising a point that has no relevance to the conversation. Neither economists nor epidemiologists rely on self reporting.
Your links were to stuff from psychologists, not economists or epidemiologists.
Your links were to stuff from psychologists, not economists or epidemiologists.
I think you might be uneducated on this issue. For starters, read the Wikipedia page on this subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
I just posted this for further discussion on a Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27953746
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27953746
> people are famously bad at self-reported happiness
...especially in cultures where describing yourself as unhappy is seen as a personal failure.
Or expressing worries about climate change / soil depletion / ocean depletion / plastic pollution / deforestation is shunned as "being negative".
The amount of downvotes only proves the point.
...especially in cultures where describing yourself as unhappy is seen as a personal failure.
Or expressing worries about climate change / soil depletion / ocean depletion / plastic pollution / deforestation is shunned as "being negative".
The amount of downvotes only proves the point.
Exactly. And even though this issue is sometimes discussed on Hacker News, I suspect that the people who are down voting me don’t know anything about this issue. For them, as a basic primer, I’d point them to the Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
My personal life is wonderful.
The country?
This chart from the Fed is just astounding. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
The country?
This chart from the Fed is just astounding. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
You shouldn't look at the debt alone. It's not inflation adjusted, and it doesn't account for the economy being far larger today than it was in the 1920s.
Debt to GDP is a better measure. We basically matched WWII on that metric, but the congressional budget office projects we'll exceed that going forward.
[0]: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/... [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57038
Debt to GDP is a better measure. We basically matched WWII on that metric, but the congressional budget office projects we'll exceed that going forward.
[0]: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/... [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57038
That looks like unadjusted dollars? It's a crazy graph, as the biggest pre-pandemic event in USA fiscal history (World War II) is simply invisible on this graph. As a point of comparison USA debt hit 101% of GDP in 1946, a level we only rose above recently, because of the pandemic:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
Why was this downvoted? World War II was the largest fiscal event in USA history (before the pandemic) and it is invisible on this graph, therefore the graph has little explanatory power. Why would I be downvoted for pointing that out?
>it is invisible on this graph
I don't know why you got downvoted -- but there is a definitely a visible artifact on that chart between 1939 and 1946, it's just not all that huge compared to modern deficit spending.
I don't know why you got downvoted -- but there is a definitely a visible artifact on that chart between 1939 and 1946, it's just not all that huge compared to modern deficit spending.
Right, but it should be huge, it was only significantly surpassed by the pandemic in 2020, which is a clue that these are unadjusted dollars, and so the graph lacks any explanatory power.
Contrary to what right-wing media claims (curiously, only during Democratic presidencies), deficit spending isn't actually bad.
Just imagine if we could have spent all that free money on human needs instead of stupid unnecessary wars...
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but if covid was made in a lab this seems like the biggest grift of all time. I can't imagine how much of that money just disappeared.
Sounds like propaganda material.
I do not even remotely believe this study. Myself and everyone else I know are not very optimistic about our economic prospects for the future and are scared of the direction the country is heading morally and socially.
Sounds like you're in a sad bubble that's all part of the 40% then.
But it's great out here in the 60%. I recommend you get out of your comfort zone and meet some new people, who statistically will be optimistic and happy.
But it's great out here in the 60%. I recommend you get out of your comfort zone and meet some new people, who statistically will be optimistic and happy.
This is about the same logic as "How did Trump get elected I don't know a single person that voted for him"
I am very optimistic about our future economically and socially. So you can add that data point.
I am very optimistic about our future economically and socially. So you can add that data point.
Life expectancy in the US just dropped by 1.5 years in 2020, the biggest drop since WWII. [1]
Life expectancy for Black people fell by 2.9 years and life expectancy for Hispanic males dropped 3.7 years to 75.3
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/us-life-expectancy-in...
Life expectancy for Black people fell by 2.9 years and life expectancy for Hispanic males dropped 3.7 years to 75.3
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/us-life-expectancy-in...
Self reported happiness is notoriously unreliable. Check out “Are you really happy?”
https://www.psypost.org/2016/01/self-reported-well-being-doe...
Here is a basic primer on the subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
Given that self-reports are unreliable, we should instead focus on what people actually do. And since 2008, the USA has seen a rising number of “deaths of despair”:
https://www.newsweek.com/what-so-called-deaths-despair-exper...
If you look at peoples actions, and ignore their words, it would seem the USA is suffering an epidemic of despair.
https://www.psypost.org/2016/01/self-reported-well-being-doe...
Here is a basic primer on the subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
Given that self-reports are unreliable, we should instead focus on what people actually do. And since 2008, the USA has seen a rising number of “deaths of despair”:
https://www.newsweek.com/what-so-called-deaths-despair-exper...
If you look at peoples actions, and ignore their words, it would seem the USA is suffering an epidemic of despair.
Importantly, they measure different things. If there's a dynamic "happiness disparity" (like income disparity, and plausibly correlated) changes on the lower end won't differentiate between a change in mean or variance.
I'm assuming they only talked to upper class white people
Even then I don't believe these results
No way
Even then I don't believe these results
No way
[deleted]
“Gallup selects potential panel members using random-digit-dialing (RDD) of landline telephones and cellphones or address-based sampling (ABS) to contact U.S. households at random.”
Also a bunch of weird stuff about weighting responses.
Overall, I think this is the result of asset price inflation. Everybody thinks they got rich last year while everybody else was struggling.
Also a bunch of weird stuff about weighting responses.
Overall, I think this is the result of asset price inflation. Everybody thinks they got rich last year while everybody else was struggling.
As mentioned elsewhere, self-reported happiness is notoriously inaccurate, and is not correlated with objective statistics like suicide rate. The suicide rate in 2021 is at an all-time high [1][2]. I think it's more likely that after months of forced self-isolation, people are less willing to show vulnerability and express unhappiness.
Sources: 2021: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/suicide-rat... since 1999: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide
Sources: 2021: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/suicide-rat... since 1999: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide
[deleted]
> Notably, even as current life satisfaction has increased in recent months, anticipated life satisfaction remains elevated compared with pre-COVID levels.
These results are striking in contrast to the increasingly cynical outlooks we see on sites like Reddit and even HN. It seems like every comment section is full of negative comments about how terrible everything is or how terrible it's going to be soon. Results like this are a good reminder to log off and go interact with the real world for a more grounded perpsective.