442
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Working-age US adults are dying at far higher rates than their peers from high-income countries, even surpassing death rates in Central and Eastern European countries, and midlife mortality rates in the UK are not great either. A new study has examined what's caused this rise in the death rates of these two cultural superpowers.

Life expectancy started to rise around 1840 at a pace of almost 2.5 years per decade and has continued to the present day. A 2021 study calculated that if the current pace continues, most children born this millennium will live to celebrate their 100th birthday. However, new research by the Leverhulme Center for Demographic Science (LCDS) at the University of Oxford and Princeton University has revealed some troubling trends for those in midlife, particularly in the US and the UK.

“Over the past three decades, midlife mortality in the US has worsened significantly compared to other high-income countries, and for the younger 20- to 44-year-old age group, in 2019, it even surpassed midlife mortality rates for Central and Eastern European countries,” said Katarzyna Doniec, the study’s corresponding author. “This is surprising, given that not so long ago, some of these countries experienced high levels of working-age mortality, resulting from the post-socialist [economic] crisis of the 1990s.”

The study demonstrates that most countries have experienced declines in all-cause mortality over the three decades to 2019. The notable exception is the United States, whose divergence from comparable high-income countries in age-standardized mortality rates of 25- to 64-year-olds has accelerated over time. Strikingly, for US females aged 25 to 44, all-cause mortality rates were higher in 2019 than in 1990. The country’s higher mortality was especially noticeable when it came to preventable deaths: homicides, deaths from transport accidents, and so-called ‘deaths of despair’ related to suicide and alcohol and drug use.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 92 points 8 months ago

And they're trying to raise the social security retirement age. Bitch, I ain't gonna make it to 70.

[-] variants@possumpat.io 24 points 8 months ago

So it's all according to plan

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The millennial midlife crisis happened at 25

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

That's the plan. Demographics shows that age groups start seriously shrinking at 60-70. Half of the people who make it to 60 die by 70. And it halves again by 80.

Retirement past 60 was always more about the rich seeing them as less useful than it was about "golden years". And not being able to access your Roth IRA until after the age group starts seriously shrinking is just fucking crap. Pumping money into the stock market that many people will never see again.

[-] twack@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

You can pull money out of your Roth IRA at literally any point. You already paid the taxes on it.

You cannot pull more out than you put in though. If you have and properly use a Roth IRA throughout your whole life, you can live for many many years without ever breaching that cap if you wanted to retire a little earlier. You're just reducing your potential total.

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 months ago

You have to pay a penalty if you pull it out early.

[-] twack@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

No, you don't. You have to pay a penalty if you pull out earnings early. You can take the money you put in out at any time without penalty.

You are thinking of a traditional IRA, not a Roth IRA.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Right, so if I've been saving for twenty years and I get told at fifty that I likely won't survive until sixty, I get penalized for retiring.

If I've already paid taxes, why are there any penalties at all? Unless it's an incentive to keep working...

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 54 points 8 months ago

"Deaths of despair."

It's a subtle thing. I like to browse bookstores and libraries. It used to be if I engaged someone in small talk we'd have a pleasant little chat about books. These days, the only people who want to chat are the employees.

[-] ZeroTwo@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

As an introvert, I love this. Please leave me alone and let me browse. I don't wanna talk about what I'm reading/interested in, I don't care about your 5 cats at home, and I really don't wanna hear about what you like.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

Do you talk to people in the park? In the grocery? The point is that those little chats actually do a lot for people's mental health.

[-] ZeroTwo@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

If people say "hi"to me in passing, yes I will smile and say hi back, I'm not going to completely ignore people. Other than that, I just wanna be left alone.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago
[-] ramirezmike@programming.dev 26 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think you're confusing not enjoying small talk with isolation

[-] clark@midwest.social 12 points 8 months ago

Doesn’t really sound like isolation, though. Unless they are a hermit. But then they wouldn’t see a person to begin with.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

The information should be out there.

Half the posts I see here talk about having 'social anxiety.'

People need to make the effort to get into conversations that aren't on screen.

[-] OftenWrong@startrek.website 11 points 8 months ago

I don't want to make the effort because it is not enjoyable to me. Conversations "on a screen" aren't invalid just because you prefer to socialize in person.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I have AuDHD that wasn't diagnosed until I was 61. My whole life most of my brain has been used to study people, their reactions, and beat myself up for failing to act/react to them in a socially-acceptable way.

I've had 4 major existential crashes (and more smaller ones) in my life where I stay alone almost constantly ... mostly because I can't handle having to give my whole self to people, all of the time, so they don't see me as a freak.

The hell EVERYONE should do what you think we should do 'cause you are a know-it-all.

[-] OftenWrong@startrek.website 5 points 8 months ago

I bet they're the kinda person that waves to get someone's attention when they've got headphones on just so they can ask what they're listening to 🙄

[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

No they fucking don't. People aren't obligated to entertain you just because you feel lonely

[-] OftenWrong@startrek.website 18 points 8 months ago

No, they do a lot for your mental health. They just stress me out. If I want to chat I'll go chat with someone I know. I do not enjoy random people talking to me at all

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 9 points 8 months ago

Reminds me of all the extroverts wanting WFH to end. “I want to hear the latest gossip and enjoy the office culture!”

You mean you want a captive audience that can do nothing about your incessant cat stories that no one else wants to hear, and ruin the productivity of the entire office.

“But our mental health!”, yeah no. Everyone else is doing much better without you and the cat stories. We want to get our work done and then read/go for a walk.

[-] OftenWrong@startrek.website 6 points 8 months ago

I have so much hate in my heart for those people lmao

[-] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

Id love a chat but I'm also very socially anxious in public.

[-] stembolts@programming.dev 12 points 8 months ago

Beware of recursive patterns.

I'm anxious so I don't socialize which reinforces anxiety so I don't socialize which..

The mind can spiral in on itself and this can be difficult to recognize.

Or in short, always being comfortable is bad for your long-term health. Discomfort provides a great deal of value in the context of mental well-being.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

You only get over stuff by doing them. I don't expect everyone I talk to to be utterly fascinating; I just want to know if you've read a particular author.

[-] hermitix_world@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

"Excuse me, do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Ayn Rand?"

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 3 points 8 months ago

(Slaps knee) “wheeeellllppppp!”

Never coming here again

[-] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 54 points 8 months ago

I work four jobs. I don't have health insurance. If I got sick I'd be fucked. Not surprising that people my age are dying at higher rates than in more civilized countries.

[-] just_change_it@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

How's that scheduling work? You doing a day per job or something? 4 hours per job at multiple sites per day?

I've seen people do two jobs in their youth but it's very, very rare someone has more than a full time gig + part time weekends and maybe a night here and there.

I know professional workers who moonlight as teachers at local community college for a course some semesters, and then do a day a weekend at the rock climbing gym to stay in shape and help others share the joy of their hobby as an example. I guess you could do some uber or whatever on top of that but I don't consider that to be a job given the context.

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not the guy you were replying to, but I worked four jobs as well for a few years.

Job 1: Primary job, usually a 7-4kind of shift

Job 2 and 3: evening jobs, hired on to work a 4-12 kind of shift and they are usually good with you working two or three set days a week

Job 4: Weekend job. Was 18 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday. Most people slept in their cars in between shifts.

[-] just_change_it@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I've gotta ask... how? why?

I think I would have broken down in your shoes. I'm curious how someone gets into a situation like that or even survives it, if you're willing to talk about it.

  • 7-4 job (eg. 8 hours * 5 days = 40 hours)

  • 4-12 (3 days a week = 24 more hours)

  • 18 hour weekends (2 days = 36 more hours)

100 hours of work per week. Maybe 92 hours on the two night weeks. I think i'd have a heart attack within 3 months. I don't know how someone would do laundry, prepare meals, clean dishes, do grocery shopping or honestly do anything.

[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago

I got out of the army during the Great Recession. There was nothing to work but shitty retail, minimum wage jobs and a weekend shift job at a metal stamping factory.

Had to make the ends meet, no benefits. It was not a fun time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I use to work 4 jobs for awhile it's a bitch to juggle but can be done. I pretty much slept out of my car while paying for an apartment.

Target was 6a-12p (typically)

Home Depot was 1p-5p (most days)

Fireworks shop was the most flexible but never past 10p

And my 4th most favorite I shot fireworks for the shop professionally so that was typically 9pm until as late as 2am but usually 12am. When not shooting fireworks we built the racks and displays for other crews which is not easy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] getoffthedrugsdude@lemmy.ml 31 points 8 months ago

My friend had a stress-induced heart attack at 31 while working 60-70hr weeks trying to support his family.

[-] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

Yeah, that's why no one is having families anymore.

[-] getoffthedrugsdude@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago

Yep, never having kids. Probably never retiring either at this rate.

[-] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Well if SS and medicare continue getting attacked are you going to be able?

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Just support your aging parents, and two children on wages that are half that of those who came before you. It's so simple.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

We need to reset the economy back two or three decades. This is ridiculous.

[-] toiletobserver@lemm.ee 28 points 8 months ago

But we saved thousands of dollars along the way!

[-] d00ery@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago
[-] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 6 points 8 months ago

You know what information I have failed to see? How much the insurance companies actually give to hospitals. Sure, I got a bill for 1.2 million dollars for my kids being in an NICU, but what did the insurance company actually pay out of that.

My guess is nothing even remotely close to it.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

But rich people got richer!

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

Fascinating too that the study cuts off at 2019, right before Covid.

Wonder how it looks now?

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 21 points 8 months ago

Coincidence more than anything. It's a 2021 study, and it takes time to write and publish the data collected.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

If you're doing a study you wouldn't want COVID in it. It's a confounding factor. Unless of course, your study is about Covid's effects. It would be great to compare the periods of time.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

That's what I'm thinking. We see the results leading right up to Covid.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
442 points (100.0% liked)

News

23361 readers
2779 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS