Americans Are Among the Most Stressed People in the World, Poll Finds | Hacker News Reader

Americans Are Among the Most Stressed People in the World, Poll Finds

nytimes.com

107 pointsenraged_camel123 comments

From casual observation (living here since 2000) I believe that being stressed and "busy" is a badge of honor in the US. For example during Christmas time everybody complains about being stressed with it. I don't remember that from living in Germany. Christmas was downtime not a source of stress.

For a while it was also popular to be "outraged" about stuff but that seems to have calmed down quite a bit.

The popularity of being stressed by work/busyness is just Puritan work ethic continuing into the 21st century. When work is seen as inherently moral by a society, then being busy makes you a more worthwhile member of that society. It might’ve been a good idea back when we were subsistence farmers, but it doesn’t seem to be super effective nowadays.

Outrage culture, which I don’t think has gone away, appears to be new.

The puritans were a tiny group of people who lived in basically one corner of one state. I know it is thrown around a lot(e.g. "Why is America so conservative on sex? Puritans"), but I'm fairly sure the 98+% of non-puritans who emigrated to the US had a bigger impact on our culture than the puritans.

I believe the more general term is "Protestant Work Ethic", which encompasses a much larger swath of people.

That’s like saying “most of the people in South America weren’t from Spain, why should 16th century Spanish culture have an impact on South America?” It kind of makes sense until you start counting how many people speak Spanish!

The puritans are part of the founding myth of America. Ask any school child who founded the colonies and they’ll tell you the pilgrims. That kind of impact lingers. Nobody ever mentions Dutch settlers in what’s now New York or the Spanish in what’s now Florida. That doesn’t mean we’re literally puritans (which wasn’t my claim anyways), but that does mean that the echoes of their culture still have an impact on us today.

And, as others have kindly pointed out, “Protestant work ethic” is considered a valid term for the same historical/social trends by academics.

You're being a little pendantic. I think the original commenter clearly meant the better known phrase "protestant work ethic" rather than puritan - and protestant influence was indeed very significant to the formation of US culture.

From an economic perspective, the "Puritan work ethic" as coined by Max Weber and described as the impetus for economic development in post-Reformation cultures has been largely abandoned by economists. From a theological perspective, the "Protestant work ethic" refers to the idea that God does not favor clerical occupations over non-clerical occupations thus elevating the value of the work of the blacksmith, farmer, etc. to the same level as that of the priest, monk, etc. Neither support the idea that busyness or overwork are virtuous.

> The Protestant work ethic, the Lutheran work ethic, the Calvinist work ethic or the Puritan work ethic is a work ethic concept in theology, sociology, economics and history that emphasizes that hard work, discipline and frugality.

> The concept is often credited with helping to define the societies of Northern, Central and Western Europe. Even though some of these countries were more affected by Lutheranism or Anglicanism than Calvinism, local Protestants nevertheless were influenced by these ideas to a varying degree. As penal law was enacted to uphold the uniform teachings of the Church of England in England, only various English dissenters held to those values. Among them were the Puritans who emigrated to New England, bringing the work ethic with them and helping define the culture of what would become the United States of America.

> Hard work and frugality were thought to be two important consequences of being one of the elect. Protestants were thus attracted to these qualities and supposed to strive for reaching them.

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

All of the dissent I see on that page is about whether or not capitalism is inherently protestant, and whether protestant work ethic explains the relative riches of northern protestant nations over southern catholic ones. While that's interesting economic ground to argue over, it's completely irrelevant to the social phenomena I'm trying to pin down.

That Wikipedia article is horrible and incorrectly states the common misconceptions about the Protestant work ethic. Worse still, it cites Leland Ryken in its second reference who makes precisely the same point about the common misunderstandings of the Protestant work ethic:

> The Puritans never conceived of work apart from a spiritual and moral context of service to God and man. Richard Nixon's much-quoted Labor Day message of 1971 probably summed up the popular conception of the "Puritan work ethic," but if so, it is an inaccurate picture:

>"The 'work ethic' holds that labor is good in itself; that a man or woman becomes a better person by virtue of the act of working. America's competitive spirit, the 'work ethic' of this people... the value of achievement, the morality of self-reliance-- none of these is going out of style. (Nixon)"

>I trust that I have shown that the Puritans would not have been content with such a theory of work. Their ideals were obedience to God, service to humanity, and reliance on God's grace. In the Puritan ethic, the virtue of work depended almost wholly on the motives with which people performed it.

Whether or not there is some dispute between the commonly accepted meaning of "prostestant work ethic" (which the wikipedia article captures) and the academic definitions you're using, I think there is cause to say that American protestant culture advocated for a certain dedication to work that is unusual in it's demand for great diligence.

Here's a quote from John Wesley, the father of Methodism and Weslayan protestantism (both of which are highly impactful in the US from the great awakening revival periods):

"it is every Christian’s duty to observe this first rule: ‘Gain all you can’. Gain all you can by honest work with all diligence. Lose no time in silly diversions and do not put off until tomorrow what may be done today. Do nothing by halves; use all the common sense that God has given you and study continually that you may improve on those who have gone before you. "

Sermon - The "Use of Money" - https://www.eaforchristians.org/john-wesley-the-use-of-money...

People through history have always had an outraged culture, it is just that the goalposts of that outrage move, and occasionally rear up en-madd like a tidal wave over what for many is innocuous unless edge-case contextualized - which is often the case in outrage cultures.

There was a time in which people would be outraged at other people not wearing a hat, times change, yet the ability to be upset and project that upon others soldiers on regardless. Just today's outrage culture has a more accessible platform to artificially embellish their outrage and societies ability to see 1% vocaly upset with outrage and presume the other 99% agree is a path that sadly still plays out from time to time.

But let's not confuse outraged issues with real issues that don't need to be blown up out of proportions to gain attention. That is the worrying issue today, that so many times a small event gets recontextualized to fulfil a narrative of outrage and promoted as such. Downing out real issues that fester without vocal champions.

>People through history have always had an outraged culture

Sure has...just look at the Bible and the story of a mob chasing down Mary trying to stone her, until Jesus intervened and ask he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Of course society couldn’t handle such self-reflection - much less some radical preaching about love - and given the first chance, the mob took out their outrage on him and had him strung up on a cross Roman style.

Leaving out any religious context, those are perfect stories encompassing human nature.

The biggest difference is that today outrage is incentivized, even manufacturered, because it makes money.

"If it bleeds, it leads" has been a common refrain for TV news programs from decades ago. It's not new, although the mediums have shifted.

Yes, it's not a new trick,but it's been amped up to 11.

It's definitely carried like a badge of honor, as they make it sound as if nobody will have a Christmas unless they come through - It's a time to spend time with friends and family, it's not about the gifts or the dinner, many would be happy with just a pizza and good company.

I do miss the amazing Weihnachtsmarkt (Christmas Markets) in Germany. There are various incarnations of it in North America but none compare to theirs.

If you are busy, it is because you are both working hard and also trying to take advantage of all life has to offer (family, friends, vacations, fine dining). If you are NOT busy then it means you AREN'T trying to experience all those things to the fullest. Not only that, you might be DENYING those things to your spouse and children, with your LAZINESS. So, you better look busy.

Good observation. Not being busy is seen as being lazy in the US. Not working 10 hour days and commuting a couple of hours daily is seen as not being invested in your career. Not running your kids to two activities per night and all-weekend athletic tournaments is seen as being a bad parent. Then we spend money on stuff we don't need as a reward for being so productive, such a good employee, and such a good parent.

My daughter decided to stop playing Spring basketball, which entailed two 1.5 hour practices during the week and four games a weekend with travel involved. She made the very mature decision that she didn't want to sacrifice free time and friends to play a game. At first I was skeptical about her having so much downtime, but she's happier, doing better in school, and has a tight-knit group of friends. I'm enjoying it quite a bit too since I don't have to rush from work to drive her around and have every weekend tied up for months.

I have a feeling a counter-cultural movement is going to start. Maybe not yet, but soon.

"For a while it was also popular to be "outraged" about stuff but that seems to have calmed down quite a bit. "

Wait for it. The presidential election cycle is just starting up. Pandering to every possible demographic is just around the corner. (And they're all victims!)

> The findings were not all bleak for the United States. Despite having widespread negative experiences, Americans also generally reported more positive experiences, on average, than the rest of the world did.

It'd be interesting to know how they came to the decision to focus on the negative emotions in the article.

One could guess because "among the most" is more newsworthy than "above average". But a more cynical guess is self-fulfilling, i.e. media reporting encourages negativity/stress which begets the results and the focus choice.

According to the third paragraph the trend in negative experiences is what specifically stands out, not the degree.

Negative things always get the clicks. As the old saying goes: "If it bleeds, it leads".

Clicks I imagine.

Above average vs most in the eorld are not same levels of outliers.

I’m American, and I frequently notice that most people are always talking about how much everything sucks. If somebody sees a movie, there is a 50/50 chance they will be talking about how they didn’t like it because they thought the writing was awkward in one scene. When talking about a car they will complain about how the dashboard feels. When talking about their relationships with other people they will complain about how this person is too familiar and that person is too distant. It’s as though everyone is employed as the Roger Ebert of their lives and everything they come into contact with. This approach to life seems bound to make anyone stressed even if they live in complete prosperity. Are people like this everywhere or is this more of an American thing?

I noticed this in myself when I started writing a lot of Yelp reviews. Eventually I wrote several hundred, but ended up deleting the account.

An example regarding movies: there seemed to be an outrage around 'First Man' that it wasn't patriotic enough - but the movie was about one of the most awesome things any country has done and about a man who was a hero to people across the world (including me).

I'm not from the US and the movie seemed to be about one of the best things the US has ever done and still people complained about it!

Because they cut the US flag planting scene and then when responding to the hubbub over it the staff and Armstrong's sons said it was more of a moment for humanity as a whole. You dont see why some Americans would be angry? I mean the arms race era wasnt even that long ago and the project was literally an American (and some canadian) effort borne out of nationalism in the first place.

Out of interest, have you actually seen the movie?

Nope. Personally I'm not invested in the moon landing enough to actually pay money to see a movie about it regardless.

But isn't that kind of the point, you are repeating negative apparent negative aspects of something when in the movie they make it very clear that the program was about beating the Soviets and I'd say it presents a very positive picture of the US.

I'm just telling you over what and why Americans were pissed, and that the outcome should've been obvious to the producers. I'm certain most Americans and even most canadians would have seen a negative response to such a decision coming. It's not a part of a negativity culture or complaining or anything, they should've just put the flag planting scene in if they wanted to avoid the negativity.

Is that really a problem for things like movies and cars, though? When I watch a film, part of the fun is critically examining and discussing it afterwards. If I'm making a huge purchase like a car, I'd want to be extra-conscious about things I'm not 100% satisfied with. Sure, don't be critical about everything in life, but it has its place.

Sure, make a careful decision when buying your car. But after you buy it, like it! You made a big commitment, and switching costs are high, so you’ll be happier if you feel you made the right decision.

After watching a movie, critically analyze it if that makes you happy. You aren’t married to it because you saw it - disliking it won’t hurt you. But when you’re thinking about whether you should go with your friend to watch a movie they want to see, don’t agonize over it for hours, just see it or don’t. There are a million things going on in any movie and you can always find something interesting to pay attention to. If you can afford to spend $15 and a few hours, find a way to enjoy it.

It's a huge problem, why purposefully degrade your own happiness? Find the beauty in things, not the flaws.

Of course chose wisely, but once you've chosen something stop looking for the flaws.

It is a quirk of American culture. In many parts of the world, society expects people to be unremarkably average in some sense, and there isn't much room for unfettered ambition. American culture, by contrast, has an expectation that everyone can be exceptional and should strive for that, even though the reality is that most people have little capacity to be exceptional in any meaningful sense. I think attempting to live up to this standard of American culture is the root cause of a lot of uniquely American stress. You even see this difference in the startup cultures between the US and Europe. The flip side is that in some sense I think Americans feel like they achieve self-actualization more often.

I don't think you can change this part of American culture, it is deeply embedded part of the American identity, and it does come with real benefits as a society in addition to the obvious downsides. Individuals can choose to opt out but there is always pressure to spurn that option.

I moved to San Francisco from Russia and lived there for over 10 years. Despite unstable life in Russia, with each year I was becoming increasingly anxious whilst living in the States. Although I was making a bank, it felt like I could loose it all any day if I’d became ill. I left that country less than a year ago. It’s magical how exponentially happy and calm I am after moving to Australia.

US is a country for people in their 20s who are either rage at EDM festivals or those who busy building startups. There’s nothing to do if you poor or ill - you fucked!

I wonder if the root cause for all of this is poor instruction on stress management and anger management.

I am starting to wonder if many of these issues are actually culturally driven, rather than biologically driven. American urban and industrial culture as-a-whole is one that prizes productivity, grinding, and individual work, rather than looser workdays, efficiency and teamwork.

I am aware there are exceptions.

>>I wonder if the root cause for all of this is poor instruction on stress management and anger management.

Do citizens of countries with low stress and anger levels receive such instructions?

Because if not, lack of such instructions is unlikely to be the "root cause" of the observed phenomenon.

Instruction on stress management and anger management is driven by parenting and school environments, not by state-mandated education and mandatory stress management workshops.

If you see your parents constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and lay-offs, struggling to pay off medical bills and resorting to shouting as a stress relief mechanism, then odds are, you'll grow up thinking this is the norm.

Cultural values and government policy are symbiotic.

I think it's culturally and socially driven. As an outsider looking in I have discussed American capitalism with others and its more ruthless nature compared to the more moderate varieties of Europe. The US GDP (ppp) per capita is very high for the size of it's population (and not being a tax haven or major oil exporter). Even compared to a wealthy powerhouse like Germany the US has a gdp per capita $10k higher. I don't believe that is due to the Us being a more efficient economy. It's because US employees and citizens aren't afforded the same services, rights, and level of care that people in countries like Germany do get that alleviates the stresses of daily life.

I find the less news and social media I consume, the less stressed I am.

It's a strange balance between our desire to get informed and the need of the media to monetize that desire.

I think the movie / book "Fight Club" does a good job of pointing out how ridiculous American culture can be. Up until they go off the rails and start bombing stuff, it's a really nice critique on society.

For example: "We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. "

"We're consumers. We are the byproducts of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra."

America has a problem with raising people to have realistic expectations. Whatever your parents' station in life, that's probably right about where you'll end up. You can't be "anything" you want. People grind themselves into the ground trying to be things they aren't.

That movie was made in the 90s, right? I think that culture has shifted some since then and people are less obsessed with brand names. But maybe that obsession has been replaced with looking good on social media?

People are obsessed with social status of various forms. How that is expressed may have changed, but I don't think the underlying motivation has.

Well I think that's deeply rooted in human psyche.

Are people really less obsessed with brand names? I think it's just not proper these days to point out the brands they wear but I think people still obsess about it.

Hmm... I still see people cracking "sent from -Android- a potato" or "when his text has a green box" jokes on Twitter, and the street scene is so brand-obsessed it's become a weird critical-mass self-reflective meme (supreme hypebeast).

You bring up an interesting thing I noticed in the film (released in 1999 btw). There's a scene where Brad Pitt is on a bus and pointing to an ad of a ripped Calvin Klein model and commenting to Edward Norton "As if that's what real men look like".

And yet, what do people remember most about the film? Brad Pitt's shirtless physique during fight scenes. Look up "Tyler Durden Fight Club fitness" on Youtube. Tons of hits. People may conceptually understand that Fight Club is satire, but their actions indicate otherwise. They want to have that kind of body, even though they know it's not going to make them a movie star or a rock god.

That's a good point about missing the satire and why movies like "Boiler Room", "Wolf of Wall Street", etc can rub me the wrong way. Sure, there's a fall and consequences after all the money and partying but that money and partying looks pretty good (especially if you don't get caught).

I didn't like WOWS for the reason you describe. They went completely over the top with the party/drug/girls scenes, and you can tell the film is trying to overtly glorify that kind of lifestyle, as opposed to showing the trappings of that life. I got the same feeling I get when I see some random flexing on Instagram. It felt fake.

Boiler Room on the other hand might have been a worse movie, but it had a low-budget feel about it that at least grounded the characters and story within some sense of reality. I think they were going for the Glengarry Glenross aesthetic.

I consider all of your examples a form of corruption and fraud. It's not criminal, like embezzling, bribery, or extortion. But it has a similar deleterious effect on the individual and society through massive opportunity cost, and even psychotic disorder. Perhaps all of the hyper consumer people I know vacillate between purchase regret and social inadequacy when they resist purchasing. They've set themselves up to fail no matter the choice, and they're always stressed out about buying shit they don't need. It's a little bit stressful to even hear these stories of manufactured problems.

I wonder where these negative experiences are coming from. What are people stressed about? Is it money? Certainly, but would that explain the recent rise? People have been poor in the US for a while.

Maybe it comes from the news, both real and fake.

  Only in America   
  could you find a way to make a healthy buck  
  and still keep your attitude on self destruct.

-MF DOOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQnjNOWd1sI

>The findings were not all bleak for the United States. Despite having widespread negative experiences, Americans also generally reported more positive experiences, on average, than the rest of the world did.

So we have both. But that isn't in the headline because it wouldn't be clickbaity enough.

I honestly wonder how much of American's stress over the past few years is because of this crap. We are constantly told the sky is falling by new articles only to have it not be the truth.

The sky is definitely falling. Maybe you should talk to more poor people

Maybe you should provide concrete examples instead of suggesting I talk to more poor people.

Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth. Anecdotally I also have to say my neighbors are much more jovial and optimistic than the wealthy people I interact with (I live in a very low income area). Should be noted my experiences are probably skewed towards optimistic as I live in a very religious area and generally speaking religious folk are more optimistic than secular folk.

What is "better mental health" in this context? It's pretty well established that rates of mental health issues are greater among those below the poverty line - see, for example, these data from 2015: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2720/...

If you're talking about general "level of happiness", there is evidence for the "money doesn't buy happiness" meme, but that is more the product of the hedonic treadmill than anything else. Our brains are good at convincing us that our current situation is okay, but that doesn't mean that poverty doesn't have very real effects on the basic services needed to function in our society.

Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth.

That is absolutely untrue.

>Maybe you should talk to more poor people

Most people I know who were poor a decade ago are no longer poor.

selection bias

When you say "Maybe you should talk to more poor people", unless you are advocating HN readers to conduct a randomized study, you are essentially telling HN readers to engage in selection bias.

“Seeking out perspectives that could combat your inherent selection bias” != selection bias.

Are you arguing that poor people would be OVERrepresented in the minds of techies who go out and talk to them about their experiences?

No - I am arguing that the only way not to have selection bias is by doing a randomized survey - it is the very definition of selection bias. If andbberger wishes to make a nice, nuanced argument, I encourage him/her to do so. However, if instead (s)he wishes to provide two word answers, (s)he should expect push back.

Furthermore, I highly doubt andbberger has done a randomized study, and thus the accusation of selection bias applies equally to him/her. Saying things like "perhaps you should talk to more poor people" is simply dismissive, and unjustifiably assumes that someone who is disagreeing with him/her hasn't talked to enough poor people or that the other person suffers from selection bias, and not him/herself.

Look at the whole thread: andbberger's comments are short, lacking any citations, sarcastic, accusatory ("middlebrow dismissal", not talking to poor people, talking to the wrong poor people).

Contrast with HN guidelines:

>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

(Two word responses don't help).

>Assume good faith.

(Implying people of being ignorant of the conditions of the poor doesn't help).

>Please don't post shallow dismissals

("Selection bias")

So no, I'm not commenting here to argue whether the conditions of the poor constitutes a sky falling. I'm commenting to counter low quality statements.

Simultaneously lacking in the pro-relaxation/mental health benefits of both the developing world (importance of family and extended family, close-knit community structures) and the developed world (social welfare, healthcare safety net - people don't go uninsured and risk bankruptcy or avoid doctors due to potential bills in other developed countries).

The USA is a great place to try to become wealthy but a terrible place to be poor.

When I was living in the US, the thing I hated the most and that stressed me out the most was that I had to drive everywhere. You can't walk places. Well, you can but it's not fun. And no decent public transport. No bike lanes (well a few but you still had to ride on roads without any).

I have never owned a car in Germany. I can walk to a supermarket or a bakery. I find it so much more pleasant than having to drive everywhere.

Your scope might be too broad; the US is a large place. Germany is not so small either. In many cities in the US cars are not a necessity and public transit is adequate.

Apart from the big transit-friendly metro areas like New York and Chicago, where else will you not be penalized for being carless?

Even in Chicago, I often feel like the city is giving me a middle finger for not owning a car ... Urban planning and zoning regulations in the US as a whole favor cars over pedestrians.

At the risk of being flippant: they needed a poll for this?

Reader, reflect on the society in which you live, and ask yourself: if something really crappy happened to your family out of the blue, would someone catch you when you fall?

So you're suggesting rather than sourcing the poll for the article they should source their feelings?

A common cause of stress for people I know is getting and paying for healthcare.

I wonder how much the stress level would change if Americans had a tax-funded universal healthcare system?

I certainly know people who stay in jobs they hate because they fear going without medical cover for self and family; in contrast, over six jobs in 18 years, I've only once lined up a job before quitting and the idea of having to keep a job for the medical insurance sounds like bondage to me (yes, I know, it's not bondage, it's all just relative - that's what it sounds like to me). Being able to simply quit (and sometimes just knowing it's a genuine option) when I get sick of work has, I suspect, contributed to my mental health.

I've seen people keep jobs they hate because they need to keep providing for their family. In the worst cases, they come to resent those very same loved ones for what they have to go through on a daily basis. It's not healthy for anyone involved.

Opioid crisis, crushing debt, taking away healthcare from the poor to give to the rich (literally killing people for money) and bankruptcies from healthcare costs and lopsided divorce arrangements. Because of wealth capture of the political process and media, America is simultaneously a paradise for the rich and crushing austerity and wage-slavery for the poor. There's people living rough on the sides of highway embankments because they can't afford housing and killing themselves quickly with opioids because their futures seem so wretched and bleak. It's a third-world country, while many Americans think everything's "great."

I've noticed many of my peers claim to be Busy.

I know it's impossible to be productive all day... But I'm curious if these are Americans who claim Stress.

They might be stressed and busy, but these are also my peers with awful time management and make bad Decisions.

I believe the stress is self imposed and optional.

I have a theory for this. I am a capitalist but I do believe that America has a real wage growth problem for majority of Americans especially on the lower end of income spectrum [0]. Things have changed where now even though people make more money monetarily, the actual purchasing power is much lower. So now, most American families have both spouses working and of course single income households are only by force and not by choice for most middle class/poor Americans. Not to mention the stress of things like healthcare costs, it really adds up to the stress that I would argue most other developed nations don't have.

So I really think that we need a Capitalistic society with social programs that provide the basic needs to EVERY american. For basic needs, we should not compete with each other. We should only compete for innovation and creativity. I want every American to be able to eat, sleep in a decent place and not worry about healthcare. If that can be taken care of, let them excel if they can in whatever they want to excel at.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

are the countries being bombed in various wars excluded? I always wonder about their stress levels and coping techniques. Here high school stress is leading to depression epidemic.

It's probably not feasible to collect data from countries that are being bombed. :)

I remember reading that Londoners got rather blasé about the bombing during the blitz, by the end many didn't even bother going to the shelters. It seems seeing houses across the road turned to ruble but not being affected yourself blunts the anguish.

You get used to it. My mom says that sitting in a bunker during a long WW2 bombing (in Germany) is a life changing experience. It damages a lot of people permanently. The question is how they express that damage.

The better (safer, healthier, whatever) a society gets, the greater the impact of any problem (inequity, health, etc) on the people, and the more sensitive they become. It's not at all a given that people in countries that are chronically worse off have more negativity.

Personal example: Lived in a country where corporal punishment of 2 years old is the norm. I didn't like it, but seeing it happen didn't negatively affect me much. Then lived in a country where it was definitely not the norm, and highly discouraged. A decade later, seeing someone slap a 2 year old is definitely invokes a strong negative reaction from me. I'm pretty sure that were I to move back to the first country, within a year it wouldn't.

Example on a wider scale: The level of outrage, fear, and paranoia when someone in the US gets measles. Go live in a country where it's more common, and getting measles is viewed as merely an annoyance. That it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death isn't enough to justify the extremes of vitriol I see in the US. At the end of the day, far too many things in the US cause more deaths. We don't call fines and imprisonment for parents who allow their kids to become obese (well, most of us don't).

From some people's perspective, this is also at play with the concept of safe spaces in colleges, perceived microaggressions[0], etc. The US has generally gotten more polite in the last few decades, so there is less tolerance for anything that is not perceived as being polite. And if someone is less polite, it has to be explained by a narrative. The concept that people are simply rude is eroding. Instead, they must be racists, misogynists, homophobes, nationalist, etc.

Science and technology do wonders for physical health and physical quality of life. Unfortunately, countries like the US focus a lot more on those without focusing on the required mental perspectives that need to go along with it. You're simply not going to improve people's perceptions of how well they are doing without addressing psychological factors. Not to get too philosophical, but most of a person's sense of suffering is generated by the narrative the person is telling him/herself. In a different country, when someone catches measles, it's "Pity." Or even "Thank goodness he'll get it out of his system and be immune" (which was the mentality when I was growing up). Over here, it's "X should go to jail for refusing to vaccinate the kid!" That mentality will no doubt reduce the amount of measles in a given society, but it is not going to improve the society's mental well being. Other strategies are needed.

[0] I say perceived, because it is often invoked for behavior that has little to do with what you see on the Wiki page for microaggressions - in my work place we've been taught that appearing distracted while someone is talking to you is a microaggression, for example.

>That it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death isn't enough to justify the extremes of vitriol I see in the US.

Depends on what you consider vaccine-preventable. The flu kills far more, and increased adoption of the annual vaccine would have a bigger impact in reducing deaths than anti-Baxter’s getting measles vaccinations would.

I double checked my source - and it turns out I read it wrong. It is "one of" the leading causes of vaccine preventable death.

Flu definitely kills a lot more. I don't know how many would be preventable by a vaccine, given that the vaccine isn't that effective (compared to measles).

> You're simply not going to improve people's perceptions of how well they are doing without addressing psychological factors. Not to get too philosophical, but most of a person's sense of suffering is generated by the narrative the person is telling him/herself.

I spent my formative years in both a poor, poverty-stricken country and a rich first-world country. I couldn't agree with this more.

You'd think that a more affluent society would result in healthier, happier people but it really doesn't ... there are so many psychological factors that come into play.

Frankly, you don't even need to compare richer vs poorer countries. Just compare today's generation with older generations.

My father was significantly older than me. He didn't have electricity early in his life. He didn't have comforts like an electric fan till he was in his teens. He could afford air conditioners only when he was in his 40's. When he was younger, smallpox was a constant presence in society (measles is nothing in comparison). He went from being close to food insecurity to not having to worry about food and shelter. I could make a really long list.

Now while in general he was a content person, at times it was clear that all these gains (with the possible exception of not having to worry about food and shelter) played little role in his mental happiness. As society progressed, the reference points all got reset.

This isn't all that different from comparing rich with poor societies. If even in a rich society you find that all these gains (which even the poor in society benefited from) haven't made a big impact on one's mental happiness, one shouldn't expect the same when comparing rich with poor societies.

I wonder how it compares to even more workaholic countries like Japan or South Korea.

Yes, of course.

Americans currently have record low unemployment (especially for minorities), rising wages, a roaring stock market and fewer race riots than when the previous president was in office.

So for some, it is not a stressful time.

Duh. All you have to do is fly from New York to Copenhagen and back to understand how angry and stressed we are, as well as what kind of life would be possible if our nation put caring about everybody's quality of life above power and greed.

Visiting Denmark (and Finland, Sweden, Netherlands) is what it took to make me realize we're (USA) doing it wrong. Those places just feel... low stress, safe and normal.

Had to fly to Germany for 3 weeks to help with a product launch last year. If we'd been in the US we'd have been working 15 hour days to ensure we hit our launch date. But since we were in Dusseldorf everyone showed up at 9 and left precisely at 5.

> When Gallup investigated the responses more closely, it found that being under 50, earning a low income and having a dim view of President Trump’s job performance were correlated with negative experiences among adults in the United States.

> But there still isn’t enough data to say for sure whether any of those factors were behind the feelings of stress, worry and anger.

> “We are seeing patterns that would point to a political explanation, or a polarization explanation, with the U.S. data, but can we say that definitively? No,” Ms. Ray said.

The United States is under attack from Russia. We are involved in a propaganda war, a real physical war attacking our election infrastructure, and the President encourages it to continue while cutting/removing our ability to secure our elections and defend our democracy. He states that he is intent on not leaving office peacefully in the future and that he likes China's one-party for life.

I get that this may not be conclusively proven to increase stress on Americans, but I would be _shocked_ if it were not a major contributing factor. Every single person I've spoken to IRL about the Trump-related-stress-and-depression concept eagerly agrees that this is weighing heavily on people in a very constant, deep and personal way.

Obviously, personal finances, job security, and other close things are likely equally or more important. But Trump has also eliminated many people's feelings of financial security or job security, as he has personally chosen to hold paychecks from a million people on a racist vendetta, directly removing those people's personal income while still demanding they work.

Surely it can be said that at least for some large portion of Americans, it is true that Trump's policies and behavior on the job _Are_ hurting us.

> He states that he is intent on not leaving office peacefully in the future

Source?

> Every single person I've spoken to IRL about the Trump-related-stress-and-depression concept eagerly agrees that this is weighing heavily on people in a very constant, deep and personal way.

Is it possible that that's the goal of the media right now? To make things seem so bad that they can swing political opinion? I mean look at this article. They focus on the negative but fail to mention in the headline that we also have the most positive experiences. That's framing and is very dangerous when done at scale.

We just asked yesterday that you stop the political battle. If you won't stop we'll ban the account, but we'd rather not, so please do stop?

> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, and we ban accounts that do it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

To these people I would probably say, the problem isn't Trump. The problem is the effects of a 24 hour news cycle coupled with social media. Another election cycle or two and he will be gone and the stress will remain. News agencies find a new stressor to focus on is all

What you said is so mild compared to the rhetoric deployed by right-wing HN commenters every day--few of whom get the same reprimand from the mods that you just got.

I have noticed this as well.

We don't see nearly everything—not even close. Please help us by flagging such inappropriate comments or emailing hn@ycombinator.com.

Will do, thank you.

"When Gallup investigated the responses more closely, it found that being under 50, earning a low income and having a dim view of President Trump’s job performance were correlated with negative experiences among adults in the United States."

I'm sure the media plays a huge part in this. Realistically speaking, American's lives are practically no different than before Trump was elected, yet almost all major media outlets produce Trump-centric outrage bait every day. If people actually looked at their own personal experiences vs what the media tells them to think about, they would probably be a lot less stressed out (about that issue in particular). The New York Times is ironically one of the top purveyors of Trump flavored stress.

Blaming a temporary administration for the problem gives them a new enemy every cycle, keeping you distracted from the larger issues and problems.

The administration may be temporary, but they have control of our military, our weapons, and our international policy. They have influence over slow-moving change in the country, and direct impact on faster changes via executive orders.

Yes, there are are deep systemic issues that go beyond the temporary leadership, and yes, those are important. But that doesn't mean the leadership should not be a concern of ours.

I lost my Engineering job when GM was no longer making 5B/yr due to Trump Tariffs.

I was not stressed until that happened.

>Realistically speaking, American's lives are practically no different than before Trump was elected

before, my foreign-born spouse and me didn't have a "how to bail from the US in a hurry when shit goes sideways and they start trying to round up immigrants" plan. now, we have a plan.

before, i didn't need to worry about being accosted by groups of right-wing militant street gangs if i decided to expand my horizons by checking out a leftist book fair. now, after nearly being caught in what could have spiraled into a massive brawl between the right wingers and the leftists, i do need to worry about that.

before, i didn't need to encourage my local politicians to make plans for the continuation of our state's institutions in the event of a breakdown of the federal government's cohesion. now, i do.

These are exactly the type of things I'm talking about though. Why would you think this would ever happen?

"how to bail from the US in a hurry when shit goes sideways and they start trying to round up immigrants"

If you're here legally you have absolutely nothing to worry about and shouldn't be stressing yourself out about this.

"Massive brawls" are also illegal and violence in general is at a historic low point.

The media feeds this kind of "we're at the edge" panic inducing narrative, but reality is far more tame in the US.

Or their spouse is from one of the countries on the immigration ban list. Legal immigrants can’t really have the same peace of mind regarding being allowed to remain in the country that citizens do.

>Why would you think this would ever happen?

oh, i don't think it will happen. but it wasn't remotely on the table before trump, and now it is remotely on the table, as shown by the wall we're building, the deportations, denaturalizations, denials of asylum, anti-immigrant violence, etc.

surely you understand: i'm merely following best practices in reaction to the intensification of trends stoked by the president.

>if you're here legally you have absolutely nothing to worry about

you're thinking of this issue in terms of following the letter of the law as someone who obeys the law without thinking about it.

but you forget that legal matters only self-correct in the long term; you can beat the charge, but you can't beat the ride. and it's the ride -- the not-legitimate exercise of the state's power which is later reversed by due process -- which is the thing that drives immigrants into anxiety.

an immigration goon emboldened by the trump administration can easily cause tremendous damage to a perfectly innocent and fully legal person, and that damage will not ultimately be rectified by the law. it doesn't matter if you are innocent; the act of being falsely or accidentally or maliciously accused is enough to destroy your livelihood.

>"Massive brawls" are also illegal and violence in general is at a historic low point.

and yet before trump there weren't any visible and active white nationalist street gangs in my city, but now there is at least one.

are we at the edge? i don't know. what i do know is that we're closer than we were before.

I highly suggest you and your spouse go a 'news diet[1].' What you are saying does not match up with reality.

While what you are saying has some valid points you have to realize that you are magnifying the intensity and severity of these issues greatly.

White nationalism didn't destroy the US during the civil rights movement and it certainly wont now. Good people and tolerance is winning.

[1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com