Researchers determine how many years of life you lose to a stressful job | Hacker News Reader

Researchers determine how many years of life you lose to a stressful job

washingtonpost.com

62 pointspmcpinto25 comments

Clickbait.

The article claims a stressful job will shorten your life, but the data[1] shows that "high job demands" have almost no impact on longevity, and that "unemployment and layoffs, and a lack of health insurance were the factors that exerted the biggest influence"

[1] https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://...

A job could be low on the "job demands" and still create a lot of stress through not providing healthcare, shift-work, difficult commutes etc.

I suspect that, if you don't have healthcare, job stress is not the top problem.

I left one job recently to join a startup, the founder was an arse, hadn't payed us three weeks into the second month us so most of the dev team kicked up a stink and got fired. I am the most relaxed I have been in ages. My girlfriend commented that she noticed too. (I guess its different being in a situation where I don't expect it to take too much effort to find something new, compared to someone looking for low skilled work).

WaPo has descended deep into clickbait headlines. I can't remember the last time HN hosted a legitimate headline from WaPo.

It's worth noting that there is "good" stress and "bad" stress, and there's some interesting research indicating that some types of stress managed well can actually be good for you:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kelly_mcgonigal_how_to_make_stress...

Of course, this article is mostly about the "bad" flavors of stress that are entirely out of your control: if you're stressed because your kid has cancer and you don't have health insurance, there's not a whole lot of positive in that situation.

Even if it doesn't cost you years of your life, serious stress costs you quality of life while you're still breathing.

28 or so years off for being an unemployed hispanic woman without insurance is a bit of a shocker

"you can see that people in some parts of the U.S. live as many as 33 years longer on average than people in other parts of the country, the researchers say"

That just can't be true.

Why do you not find this believable?

In the UK there is a 24.2 year difference between the life expectancy for men in the Calton area of Glasgow and the national average. I think 33 years for the difference between longest and shortest expectancies in the US sounds about right.

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

Sad to say that the first thing I did when you mentioned an area of Glasgow was to to find a map of support for football teams in different Glasgow areas.

By way of explanation:

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

[NB I don't follow football, come from a part of Scotland that has no real sectarianism and I married to someone from an Irish Catholic background - but I've seen enough displays of horrible bigotry towards Catholics to know it can be a serious problem, although it's not nearly as bad as it was]

Its a two way thing in Glasgow. Both sides are as bad as each other. "Normal" peope are better staying out of the road.

33 years is quite a lot, but there is well known Greek Island with similar effect:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/31/ikaria-greece-l...

Sounds about what I'd expect, given how environmental factors influence quality of life and life expectancy.

Crushing poverty's a hell of a thing.

However bad you think income inequality is, it's worse.

There's a 21-year life expectancy difference between the richest and poorest census tracts in just my city alone.

>Life expectancy on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the lowest anywhere in the western hemisphere, except for Haiti. A recent study found the life expectancy for men to be 48 years, and for women it is 52 years. [0]

With average life expectancy in the United States being around 78-79 years the quoted 33 year range seems reasonable.

[0] http://www.redcloudschool.org/reservation#.dpuf

A lack of health insurance is a consistent, major factor for each demographic provided in the article. Is it the job killing people or ideology?

The article doesn't claim that a stressful job is the biggest responsible of differences in life expectancy, but simply that for the first time has been taken into account, together with more traditional factors.

That means Indian drives should die young.)

Those without actual experience of driving a motorcycle, say, in Bihar wouldn't get the joke.

A stressful job to one person is a relaxed job to another person. It all depends on the individual's psychology. Perhaps other factors come into play such as how much savings they have, and if they really need the job financially.

Yes, I am sure some people find aggressive management relaxing to work with.

Maybe not relaxing, but everyone can learn to cope with negative situations and roll with the punches.

Not that I excuse unprofessional managers (or peers), but at the end of the day the power they have to get under your skin is in large part a function of how much (tacit) permission you give them.

"Coping" and "relaxing" are still worlds apart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com