Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans | Hacker News Reader

Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans

nytimes.com

106 pointspappyo98 comments

"Visit some formerly middle class suburbs of cities in the Midwest and you can see exactly why this is happening. No decent jobs, no social clubs, no children playing outside, sports tickets out of the budget of anyone but the 1%, no decent restaurants and obesity everywhere. Add decayed infrastructure and empty malls. You should see it. Horrific. "

"These sad statistics should come as no surprise given the pummeling the middle class has taken since 1980. As middle-aged, white males have been fired wholesale by the tens of thousands, battling years of constant unemployment with few or no resources, they have literally reached the end of their means. Broken men are unable to escape from hearing everyday how the executives of their ex-employers are reaping massive profits and personal gains. Their lives are overlaid with exhausted savings and unemployment benefits; all the negatives in their lives beat down on their heads like a ceaseless hailstorm. Finally, swallowing their pride, they turn to the caring myth of family and friends only to find them replaced with the harsh reality of indifferent relatives and unhelpful acquaintances. Too young for Social Security and too old for today's employment prejudices, the unloved and unemployed white males have few options. "

[nytimes comments]

As soon as I saw this comment, my first thought was "Holy crap. That sounds like Russia."

It's indeed very similar to the description of the contemporary rural Russia (excluding the suburbs of Moscow, and few other large cities). There's one important difference: there's no free public health care in the US. Not that it's great in Russia, but the US has none. :(

That's not entirely true. Hospitals here are not allowed to turn away those in need, even if they have no insurance. The stays usually turn into uncollectible debts for the hospitals.

With obamacare (Affordable Healthcare Act), the free options have been expanded quite a bit. In CA, the medi-cal is basically universally available to low income ($16,105 or under for 1 person, $21k or under for 2 person housefolds).

For Russia, if really depends how lucky you get with the doctors or how much you can pay. For much of the system there, people would be better off if it didn't exist. Speaking from personal experience.

"The stays usually turn into uncollectible debts for the hospitals." --> "The stays turn into bankruptcy for the patients"

Incidentally the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is unpayable hospital bills. For those outside the US, here is how it works: a simple visit to the doctor for antibiotics (the ER, since that becomes your only option) turns into a $1200 bill.

People in that situation rarely have assets that can be seized, so a bankruptcy is meaningless.

You also missed that Obamacare really does take care of a large chunk of the problem, as flawed as it is. The paid options with large assistance (Silver plans) are also fairly affordable. I'm not familiar with non-CA options, but can't imagine them to be that much different from CA ones.

>People in that situation rarely have assets that can be seized, so a bankruptcy is meaningless.

Until they want to purchase a home, purchase a car, pass a credit check to get a job, get a credit card, get a loan, start a business, or get a cell phone.

remember that a bankruptcy stays on your credit report for 7 years.

I would say having a job and a home are far from 'meaningless'

> a simple visit to the doctor for antibiotics (the ER, since that becomes your only option) turns into a $1200 bill.

WOW. It's like $10-$20 in private clinic here. Or free if you want to wait for a few hours.

Living in East Europe and work in IT to an abroad company (aka getting a super inflationed sallary) is the sweet spot of sustainable life quality - nowadays is probably the best you can find in the world. Be thankful.

What for do I want to receive 100K in the Bay area and pay an huge amount of money to get a decent house, health care, safety and schooling for my kids?

"free public health" also means preventative healthcare, not just ER visits.

Emergency rooms must stabilize patients regardless of ability to pay; outside of that, outside of ERs doing stabilization, hospitals are not obligated to serve without reference to ability to pay.

And the ACA Medicaid expansion is something States can opt out of (for to a Supreme Court ruling) and several states have.

>Hospitals here are not allowed to turn away those in need, even if they have no insurance.

What about the mentally ill unable to afford any mental health treatment or prescription coverage?

What about the terminally ill who will be turned away unless they wait until they are in critical or unstable condition (costing the hospital vastly more in treatment costs and endangering lives)?

Also, please speak to the statistics that show health care as the leading cause of bankruptcies in the US. If free care is so available, is it pure ignorance that is causing 3 of every 5 bankruptcies in the US?

Medicaid provides care for the poor. Thus the myth 'there is no free public healthcare' is false. Although technically, no care is free-- someone pays.

It isn't a coincidence. Post-1991 Russia and the US have shared some economic advisors (e.g. Larry Summers).

Parts of the US are turning into Third World conditions.

But don't tell the elite that. They're doing fine, and they have numbers that tell them how great everything is. Orwell meets pre-collapse USSR, with homages to a number of empires of yesteryear, overlaid with a Gilded Age veneer.

Something with as much momentum as the United States will not peacefully come to a full stop. It may continue to slide to a slow halt, or explosively disassemble in some fashion.

Ross Perot was right, and he was crucified for it.

Right. The US sold out its middle class to make peace with China, and isolate the USSR. And AI is coming. What will all the truckers do?

It's a sad state of affairs made worse by undereducated, lazy people who blame the government and simultaneously elect politicians who promise to solve the problem for them by handing out a gift-wrapped "american dream" that everyone feels they deserve. I see this kind of self-destructive philosophy/behavior every day, and I'm getting tired of it. It's always someone else's fault, yet it seems the "progressives" in our country keep shouting that the solution lies in more government involvement, forgetting that the only way we get decent jobs and favorable social and family conditions is by letting people fulfill their own dreams through hard work and less government intervention. The american dream isn't a gift - it's the idea that through blood, sweat, and tears, we can shape our own lives.

From my perspective, the problem is a manifestation of a shift in popular ideals and a growing sense of entitlement.

> the only way we get decent jobs and favorable social and family conditions is by letting people fulfill their own dreams through hard work and less government intervention

We tried that during the industrial revolution. Didn't quite work out that way…

Indeed. It's ironic how the new generation forgets that their grandparents and their grandparents' grandparents fought and bled so that we may enjoy somewhat stable and abuse-free employment today. Entrepreneurs will always complain about government intervention and will always spin dreams of better future "if only we could get that pesky government out of the way", but the truth is this future will be delivered only to few, and the rest will pay in blood and tears. We've been there. Be careful what you wish for - you may actually get it.

There's a role for government to play in ensuring public safety and transparency, in addition to providing national defense and perhaps a few fundamental infrastructure services. To function effectively in those areas, we don't need them trying to manage the finances of everyone, nor picking and choosing who should or shouldn't be deserving of tax breaks, subsidies, or any of the other countless benefit programs.

When people are out of work or large classes of people are struggling to get by, it's because we haven't provided a suitable environment in which people can thrive (and yes, most people can and will thrive through their own action in a healthy environment), not because the government has somehow failed to give people enough prosperity.

If it were a traditional business (without the ability to print money or use military force), the U.S. government would frankly be one of the most disastrous companies ever imagined - not just bankrupt (many times over), but mismanaged, fraudulent, and corrupt. A huge portion of our paychecks go to support this company today. And we want more of it?

Are you listening, or are you posting copypasta?

A constructive argument might be more appropriate than simply trying to deliver an insult in your comment.

I'm just confused, because you didn't address anything in my comment, you're just spewing right-wing propaganda. We tried "small government", it failed horribly and lead to widespread misery and avoidable deaths. How do you plan to make a "small government" without repeating past mistakes?

I did address your reference to the industrial revolution indirectly, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The industrial revolution had numerous positive outcomes including more jobs, increased productivity, and a strong economy. Yes, it also uncovered some serious problems, many of which were addressed by the government (e.g., child labor laws, better working conditions, etc). In my opinion, those are valid areas of government involvement (hence my point about government ensuring public safety), but that's a far cry from the kind of government intervention we're seeing today.

If we failed anything with small government as you say, those things were growing pains that we would have experienced with a government of any scale. I guess what I'm saying is that it's unfair to blame "small government" for the problems exposed during the industrial revolution.

This is a laughable takeaway. These white rural voters haven't voted themselves any government benefits, they've voted to dismantle the welfare state, destroy collective bargaining, increase the middle class tax burden, drastically increase mandatory prison sentences for non-violent drug crimes, a parade of trojan horse giveaways to the rich, etc. Now those chickens are increasingly coming home to roost at their doorstep.

I'm not sure exactly who you're referring to by "white rural voters", but it's probably not the same voter demographic to which I was referring. Their votes may affect the lives of middle-aged white Americans mentioned in the article, but as you know, not everyone's vote is represented by the policies that are put into action.

Your statements are such a massive oversimplification of a system that is so endlessly complex and full of exploitation that I'm beginning to suspect it's a well formed parody. Only a person with little experience "on the ground" in the formerly middle class America could produce such a piece without a derisive snicker. I won't bore the audience with anecdata but sufficed to say: The idea that hard work is both necessary and suffient to shape one's own life meaningfully is six feet under everywhere between the coasts. The people are fooled no longer and we shall see next election if they're willing to vote that way.

I never said that hard work alone is sufficient to shape one's own life meaningfully, but it is necessary. The other ingredient is an environment where hard work can be rewarded.

But I think we both agree that few people still believe that anymore, and that's what worries me most about our country.

> t's the idea that through blood, sweat, and tears, we can shape our own lives.

Which is a lie.

Turns out that voting against your own economic interests for a few decades has consequences.

I usually don't go in for snark but this is the hard truth that bears repeating. The same group that consistently derided the poor for being lazy and completely ignored their circumstances is now on the receiving end. The sad part is, I'm not sure this same group (which certainly includes my parents) will ever be cognizant of that irony. Essentially we've made the poor poorer so the middle class can feel superior to someone and ignore the fleecing they've been getting from the "job creators" who seem only to make jobs for overseas workers.

> I'm not sure this same group (which certainly includes my parents) will ever be cognizant of that irony.

Sadly you may be right, Exhibit A being the reelection of Sam Brownback, destroyer of worlds. The plutocrats behind the GOP curtain seem to have an unending stream of reactionary social issues to mobilize these votes.

Turns out if both parties in a two party system are co-opted by oligarchs then it pretty much isn't possible to vote in favor of your own economic interests.

Turns out sometimes equivalence is false.

Yeah they should have never succumbed to the inundation of propaganda and withering force of constant social and economic pressure to tow the party line. Shame on those people for exerting their natural rights and trusting people who sold them out.

I'm totally with you, the real people to blame here are the everyday rubes who knowingly gave power and money to a select few who always told the truth and never used traumatic events like 9/11 or economic collapses to consolidate power and wealth. All blame should exist on the stupid middle class who need to be controlled, patronized, and told what's best for them like 5 year old children.

I'm in my 30s, male and ostensibly white by American standards and I've been watching these sorts of trends for a while. Distrust in our certain brand of capitalism has led me to regard America with a wary eye. It has influenced a lot of my life decisions, i.e. stack cash, stay mobile/agile, no spouse, no children, etc. so that I can continually pursue the best jobs no matter when/where they appear. I luckily was able to obtain an EU passport recently via my mother, giving me a few extra countries as potential markets for work but mostly as a hedge against a (probably) meaningless 401k or just the general depressive idea of eventually being an older person in the US. Basically I'll spend my good years putting money away, and as soon as I'm sick (read, need healthcare) or ready to retire, I'll bounce back to the mother country where retirement actually looks like living rather than dying.

I guess you haven't looked to carefully into how the EU economies are doing.

Don't worry about that, we might not have amazing growth, but the actual living standards are still amazing in the EU (specifically, Slovenia). If it changes soon (hopefully not), it's more likely to be because of the influx of immigrants/refugees, not because pf the economy.

There's some similarities to Japan here, their economy is a disaster but they live long, have excellent health, decent purchasing power, low tuitions and incredibly low crime rates.

The economies aren't doing good, so you count off the low-crime, free healthcare, good free education, cheap housing altogether?

Ageism still seems to be very much in play in technology, and a trap to avoid for middle-aged, skilled white men:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/02/google-agei...

This guy had eyelid surgery, shaved his head, and got a pair of Converse "Chucks" to look younger because he was worried about jobs (previous HN submission):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-valley-ageism-i...

"Don't hire anyone over 30":

http://anewdomain.net/2014/12/11/dont-hire-anyone-30-ageism-...

Thanks for the links. This from the last link:

   "To walk the streets of Austin during tech’s biggest annual confab, South by Southwest Interactive, is to experience a society where Boomers and Gen Xers have vanished into a black hole. Photos of those open-space offices favored by start-ups document workplaces where people over 35 are as scarce as women on the streets of Kandahar."

At least made me chuckle against the backdrop of an otherwise serious topic. Well-written piece.

This is funny.

Also funny -- I worked in Austin in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Looked the same then. When I was stressed out one evening, I joked with my wife that I was tempted to run over a few of the yuppies. With so many, who would miss a few?

So wonder where all those guys went?

On a related note, this weekend might be a good time to re-watch Logan's Run.

Sorry, I won't be at Carousel tonight. It's my Love-Shop turn.

Maybe my math is wrong, but the raising rate is .134 percent?

I'm in that group of guys now. I sometimes wonder if white males are getting enough vitamin D. I never really gave it much thought, until I saw a friend's blood work-up. His doctor is routinely checking his level of vitamin D. I just chalked it up to his good insurance plan.

I know I don't get the amount of sunshine my father got. My father always had a tan, and made sure to get outside as much as possible. I, on the other hand, spend too much time looking into a screen. Maybe I'll get a few more years in because I have exercised, but it's been at night for years.

Depressing. Sometimes the Internet is really depressing.

The death rate "increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014". Without the starting point (the death rate in 1999) we can't know the raising rate. If there were 268 deaths per 100,000 people in 1999 that would be a 50% increase for example.

I did an analysis a couple years ago and found that drug misuse kills about a third of Americans. Possibly even more if you include the new study that found that the surgeon general's report is undercounting tobacco deaths by 80k per year or whatever, which I didn't because that wasn't out at the time.

http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2014/05/the-one-sta...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1407211#abstract

Alex interesting post, but I would not put too much value in the ADR numbers. Getting accurate information on the cause of death due to ADR is not easy given death in hospital rarely has a single cause.

It would be interesting to see this broken down by gender. My hunch is it's hitting men harder, but I'm curious if that's reflected in the data.

I may be projecting, but I feel like this is a symptom of our deteriorating middle class. White, now middle aged, men have been hit over and over by free trade, out sourcing and cheap immigrant labor suppressing labor value. Now they're beaten and broken.

I've worked with these people and seen it first hand. In my anecdotal experience, depression and drug use isn't just a common case with working class whites, it's nearly the majority. These people know they've been abandoned by society, and a lot of them are just giving up. They're people who have put in 60 hour weeks of hard labor, with little to no health care, for decades and have next to nothing to show for it, and no hope of things improving.

Naked capitalism has found a way to thin the herd more efficiently than the Jonathan Swift ever imagined. A modest proposal indeed.

Unrelated: the top NYT comments are better than HN. Sad day.

What is naked capitalism as against, for instance, naked socialism? And how germane is all to this to the topic? Or is it just hand waving according to predilection?

Would you like it better if it said "pure capitalism"? Or "capitalism and only capitalism"?

I must be missing this. I read the article carefully and scanned the comments here. Looks like FUD-bait to me.

This is how I would write the article (and this is probably all there is to the article)

Over the past 15 years, death rates for whites per 100,000 people aged 45–54 remained basically the same, with the natural increase lifespan being offset by increases in both suicide and alcohol/drug issues. This difference is statistically significant, but it is on the order of 1 or 2 extra deaths per thousand people for their lives from 45-54. It is highly unusual for death rates to change like that. The last great change in the west of this magnitude was with the introduction of HIV/AIDS. For context, the average middle class white american would experience the same increase in risk if they took up canoeing over the same period.

But maybe I missed it. I got a graph where one line stays the same where others decline, and I got a graph where risk increases for a couple causes of death by a very small amount (out of dozens not listed)

Also I have approximately 50 comments lamenting the rise of third world conditions in places like Peoria and the death of all things good and decent in the USA. I believe if a little more context was provided by the news outlet in this case, perhaps our comments would be more aligned with the actual impact of the news being reported.

Is this a case of Simpson's paradox?

Don't think so. Simpson's paradox applies when you have two groups and independently rates of your variable are increasing within both, but the population of the lesser group is increasing faster. For example, if death rates for both whites and blacks were decreasing but blacks had a higher death rate, and the population of blacks was increasing, you would see overall death rates increasing. If death rates for both uneducated & college-educated white Americans were increasing but there were an increasing number of college-educated white Americans, you would see death rates decrease.

Neither of those seem to be the case here: it's just one group who, tragically, is killing themselves or self-medicating to death disturbingly frequently.

You'll never see a black activist or feminist show solidarity with these poor middle-aged white people.

The greatest success of capitalism has been dividing people along gender and race lines - not letting them show any class solidarity. If people did, they'd realize that the difference between a poor white and a poor black is a rounding error compared to the difference between a poor guy and a rich guy.

"Nobody's free until everybody's free."

It's much more complicated than that--how shitty a situation is for someone is highly contextual, and you can't make absolute statements about who has it worse, since so much depends on particular circumstances.

It is fair to ask why in recent years movements and media have focused more on race- and gender- based solidarities over class-based solidarity, compared to a century ago. And a strong argument can be made that Capital is the primary nexus of power in the world, and in the end it really doesn't care that much about safeguarding patriarchy or white supremacy. Hell, breaking down those barriers often just generates new grit to be thrown to the mill, so it's commonly profitable to break them down. It's much lower hanging fruit (though still fruit that's worthy of harvesting), so people focus on them more.

Along the same lines, our educational and media systems have given us the imagination to envision a world where racism and sexism don't exist. Not that they're easily achievable, but it seems almost natural that a century or two from now they'll be gone. But social and economic class? They seem as immobile as Mt Everest.

ETA: Also, I think you're doing a disservice by writing off black activists and feminists. Obviously every person has limited perspectives, but you're just trying to pick a fight that doesn't need to be picked. Never pre-emptively write off a potential ally.

Not sure how you tied capitalism into that

Why would they, black people face a life time of unparalleled discrimination that white people won't ever experience.

The difference between a poor white guy and a poor black guy is that the poor black guy lives in a system where they've suffered generations of sustained oppression and subjugation.

I'm baffled at how you made this a race issue.

> You'll never see a black activist or feminist show solidarity with these poor middle-aged white people.

Speaking of "dividing people along gender and race lines".

I recommend you read "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness". The relevant portion of which I'm thinking relates to the historical affinity between disenfranchised blacks and whites in the early 1800's, and how a race-based conflict was stoked by those fearing a coalition of these two groups. There is an interesting historical context for the point you're making.

Happiness is reality minus expectations. Guess who had the highest expectations? White guys.

The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.

This should surprise no one. These are the people who work marginal jobs and they have been the most affected by so much manufacturing moving offshore, the resultant shift to service sector employment, and the downward push on service wages created by massive immigration of unskilled South American workers. (Not to mention the political and social demonization of this cohort.)

I don't think you can tie this to economics alone. After all, blacks and hispanics have been feeling the economic pressures as well.

Suicide, drug use, and alcoholism have deeper cultural ties. I have no idea what those ties are, but it likely won't be fixed by a 4% annual increase in wages.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps this increase in self destructive behavior is due to an increase in secularism. Blacks and Hispanics are more religious than whites, and with that religiosity comes greater church attendance which likely brings greater community support (a generalization, I know, but I'm guessing that this is probably more true than not).

Comparing the numbers here:

http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2013...

to the US in general:

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

The military has a slightly higher percentage of whites than the general population (and much higher percentage of males). Not quite the right age group, but I wonder how military service factors in.

I don't think you can tie this to economics alone. After all, blacks and hispanics have been feeling the economic pressures as well.

You have to be standing up to be knocked down.

I don't know, I remember seeing that Blacks and Hispanics were hit the hardest during the recession.

I found an article about this:

http://business.time.com/2011/07/26/great-recession-drives-f...

Please tell me you're under 25 y/o

Because I'm suggesting that there might be less community support today than in the past because fewer people today attend church which historically has been a major source of social interaction within a community? I fail to see how this is a ridiculous hypothesis. It might not be true, but ridiculing someone for their hypothesis instead of addressing the hypothesis itself doesn't speak well to your own level of maturity.

So what about the millions of years of human social interaction before church?

I fail to see how our primate ancestors ability to socialize outside of church somehow disproves that removing a large social component in modern American life could lead to less social support.

I just did a quick google search on church affiliation and suicide rates (to bring this back to the original article and my hypothesis), here's an interesting study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry on the topic:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.16...

So at least one study seems to support the hypothesis (interesting that it also showed increased substance abuse, which was also discussed as one of the culprit's of the higher death rate for white men).

Well if you did a quick google search, I guess I'll abandon my argument based on millions of years of human evolution.

Good theory but the same cohort in Europe has not seen the same Effect despite even higher secularization

I don't know, I don't believe Europe is really doing a bang up job of preventing suicide either, but I will admit that I don't know much about the situation, I'm just hypothesizing.

I don't know about recent trends, but I've been looking at mortality trends from the 19th century onward, and one point I _did_ key on was that from about 1960-1970 onward, white males and females saw relatively little increase in life expectancy, though black and minority experiences improved. These had lagged whites by 10-15 years, so there was a lot to make up for.

One possibility is that we're seeing a confluence of trends: continued improvements in minority life expectency due to better service and access, but still making up for past deficiencies. While whites are being hit by the leading edge of both decreased access and falling economic opportunity.

Hmm, I see what you mean but not sure why this would hit whites in particular.

Maybe because they expected more, based on their parents' experience.

There's tons of jobs out there for people with only a high school diploma. "Web Developer" is one of them.

Genuine question: have you ever heard of an uneducated, fifty-year-old unemployed factory worker becoming a successful web developer?

Maybe there are a tiny number, but I've never heard of such a thing. Re-educating fifty-year-olds into complete new fields on any mass scale is just not realistic. We're talking about millions of people that have minimal math skills, mediocre writing skills, and no computer skills. Even if we figure out a way to make older brains learn so much new information, it would take years just to catch them up to a college-ready HS diploma.

Your point is totally solid. Btw Web Developers today will on day be the auto worker of yesterday. It's cycle that capitalists systems follow. Reduce head count to boost profitability and stock performance. You do this by automation, productivity enhancements in supply chain and outsourcing. Replacing people with shell scripts is going to be a big part of what AI with do for low and high tech worker. A lot of programmers may find out how harsh capital markets feel in tight labor market. Retraining the US worker is not a sustainable prospect. So many middle age workers will find it more ugly and difficult to survive. This NYtimes article is particularly difficult to read because I know how bleak it is for many of these fallen men. In a nutshell it sucks. The US social network for such people tends to be an Ann Rand novel followed with an empty: sorry buddy. Good luck with that.

They already are the new auto workers, just without unions. Look at the downward pressure on wages, pop up hacker schools everywhere and a move for everyone to learn how to code (i.e. write CRUD apps). Basic web developers are in the crosshairs.

Maybe that's what should be done with all the fifty-year-old software developers complaining about ageism. Just train them to be web developers.

Sad to inform you, being a web developer doesn't help.

I think I needed a irony indicator ;)

That's not the sense I was using for "lots of jobs." My point was that the GP instantly compartmentalized the mortality of 40-50yo high-school graduates to being marginal workers most likely to be outsourced. This to me feels a little too narrow.

Side note: looking at the color choice in figure 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112.full...):

"Census regions are Northeast (blue), Midwest (red), South (black), and West (green)."

I think they were picked manually. On the one hand, I think picking that makes them more memorable, on the other hand, it surprises me that people in the politically hypercorrect USA would pick those colors this way.

Speaking from experience Im 43 years old but been rejected by women my entire life in LA for being a "white guy" its certainly depressing that no matter how well you do you have to spend your entire life alone have to be ignorant of sexuality because its cut off from you , theres never any reward for my efforts no matter how well i do only puniahment for being born the wrong ethnicity.

Leave the country, you'll do much better in that area.

> for being a "white guy"

I am 100% certain that you have not only been rejected for being a white guy. White people are the most sought-after race in the United States[1], partially because most people seek partners of the same race.

Furthermore, the language you're using is deeply concerning. Women aren't a "reward" for your efforts. Failing to find a sexual partner is not a "punishment". No one owes you sex, and there isn't a grand design that's keeping you from finding someone to have sex with.

I think it's very important for you to seek counseling or the support of a therapist. They'll be able to help you learn how to start and maintain a romantic relationship. There's always hope.

1. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanc...

I skimmed this and have no idea what it has to do with the comment I was responding to.

The argument in the article seems to be that, if you're a good guy on paper (you don't abuse women, you're financially stable, etc.) that you should get attention from women instead of men who aren't good guys on paper.

My response is similar: the world is not a vending machine where you insert "hard work" or "not beating women" and a sex partner drops out at the bottom. No one just "deserves" sex. It should never be a bargaining chip or a debt that someone is paying you.

What's particularly disturbing about this line of thinking is that these people seem to think women owe them in general. It's like they don't even know who they want to have sex with them, and they feel that some woman now needs to step up.

Do you not see how bizarre that is? It echoes the comments of the mass shooter who went to a Lulu Lemon to kill women because they "owed him".

Nice guys are nice guys because they don't want to harm anyone and because it's good for the people around them. They don't secretly (or publicly!) expect to be rewarded for it with sex.

If you skimmed it, then you should read it again, in full. Because it didn't say what you think it said.

This is probably one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read.

Nobody owes you anything, and based on your comment, it's clear you need an attitude adjustment and a new perspective.

You should probably work on yourself before pointing the finger at others when it comes to your problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com