Loneliness in Midlife: A Growing Gap Between US and Europe | Hacker News Reader

Loneliness in Midlife: A Growing Gap Between US and Europe

neurosciencenews.com

76 pointsgulced123 comments

I live in a 20s streetcar suburb and I know my neighbors because we all hang out on our front lawns and all eat at the same restaurants in walking distance.

My friends who live in modern suburbs don't know their neighbors. People complain their kids don't leave the house... Where would the kids even go?

We need to end the tyranny of the non grid suburb..suburbs should be on grids. Most things should be within walking distance so children can be more independent.

Then it's like really easy to know your neighbor. I mean how could you not? You see them everytime you walk your kids to the park, everytime you're at the community pool, everytime you shop.

I grew up in a 50s suburb and even that was a world's away from what my kids get

Sometimes we've already solved our problems if only we're willing to look to the past.

Where are you walking to in a suburb? Everything is driving distance.

Older suburbs are slightly different, I live in one from the late 1920s and it’s actually pretty walkable. It’s mostly single family houses but there are corner stores, restaurants, a grocery, barber, etc.

They’re called streetcar suburbs because they were originally developed by real estate speculators who would build a streetcar line and then sell the land to developers at a profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

Sounds more like a town/city than a suburb to me.

It’s sub-urban, it was developed as one of the earlier sub-urban expansions of the city. Lots of suburbs predate the Levittown style of suburb we associate with suburbs today but that doesn’t change what it is and how it came to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown

Well... That's what suburbs used to mean. It was a 'sub'-urban area. These days people use suburb synonymously with high density rural without agriculture, which is not the historic meaning.

TIL. Most of those streetcar suburbs on that list that I'm familiar with are actually pretty dense. They would have been considered neighborhoods in a big city (analogous to say Lincoln Park in Chicago).

Well that's what the suburban book of the 50s and onward should have been about. That was the original meaning of suburb.

But yes... Over time, cities tend to grow out. It's easier when the grid is laid out correctly.

Imagine a new housing development ever becoming like one of those neighborhoods ... They can't without being demolished. The entire infrastructure is wrong.

My suburb is on a grid and I'm two blocks from a main street with restaurants and bars, and now my city's light rail connects to it too so I'm like 15 minutes from downtown.

Most modern people would probably consider this a city itself, but it was developed as a suburb and hasn't changed much in structure since then.

These days people live in 'people prisons' with nothing that any person actually wants anywhere near them.

It's actually really easy to build a suburb like the one I live in. You take a farm, you build a grid of streets. Some streets are bigger. These naturally turn into commercial corridors. You then sell land to people to build homes and stick a frequent service bus line to the city center. Build some parks every few blocks.

Eventually restaurants, bars, cafes, gyms, barbers, stores , etc move in and you have a nice suburb to live in. This is not rocket science. I have no idea why people get so confused on this one.

God forbid one suggest this and you'll have everyone from the pearl clutching conservatives to the equity obsessed progressives all punditsplaining to you why this won't work.

My earliest memories are of Parma, Ohio, just outside Cleveland. We were within three blocks of a grocery store, a bakery, a library, school, a five-and-dime.

Even in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, a block west of Lakewood, one could walk to stores and a library. A mall was something of a hike (one or one and a half miles), but the sight of teenage pedestrians didn't scare anyone

Well said. Personally, I find modern suburbs to be dystopian. They are full of cookie cutter houses with zero creativity or self expression of the owner, and built with the cheapest materials possible. Their only purpose is to be the dark prison you go back to from your job so you can sit inside and watch TikTok until you fall asleep. Then you wake up, drive to work or sit inside and work remotely, then do it all over again.

On top of that, zoning laws usually mean there's no businesses or community spaces where you might gather to eat or hang out with the people who live around you.

> Then you wake up, drive to work or sit inside and work remotely, then do it all over again.

The mass preponderance of work from home is going to cause major social issues. Most Americans have very little family and social ties, so this just makes things worse. The COVID lockdowns were a huge mistake and have greatly damaged the social fabric of the country

This is gonna upset people on this site but you are 100% right. We already lost the third space, now we are losing the second one as well.

The average person in 20 years might never leave home. Remote education, remote work, home deliveries for food and anything you need. It’ll be an epidemic of Agoraphobia.

Yeah it’s a bit troubling. My hope is that it causes us to look at what we can do to make our cities more encouraging to social interaction. Fill in the missing middle housing, make them more human centric, etc.

It’s going to take at least a generation for that to happen though.

I wish that would happen, but honestly I see it all getting progressively worse. Offices cost lots of money so there is a pressure to reduce them. Universities are getting rid of in person lectures and classes to replace them with cheaper standardized online content. Social media, VR, and gaming is becoming increasingly engaging. And the cost of going out and doing things in person is becoming increasingly prohibitive. Local governments are becoming increasingly poor and unable to sustain unnecessary facilities like libraries and free hang out spaces.

I don't think this is a problem the free market can solve since sense of community and socialization doesn't generate revenue efficiently. We need to start using tax money to build more free public spaces and public transport to get people connected.

There was much more of a sense of community when the government was a lot smaller and the market was much free'er.

Is it just historical correlation or do you imply casuation?

I refer you to the pirates/average global temperature graph.

> We need to start using tax money to build more free public spaces and public transport to get people connected.

All the original public transit projects (including my own streetcar suburb and corresponding streetcar), were privately funded.

What governments need to do is make it clear that they will expedite permits for these projects and not put up roadblocks or attempt to extract profit from the investors.

This comment is being undeservedly downvoted.

In-office work has always been an important way to bootstrap your social graph, as are other in-person group activities such as schooling and college. Of course, some people may not like the commute and prefer in-person work, but any choice has tradeoffs, and the tradeoff in this case is that you usually end up knowing very few people other than your spouse and children which leads to loneliness in mid-life.

Relying on school and college friends doesn’t work as they would have also moved on due to other responsibilities and relocated elsewhere, and due to the lack of shared context that is required to rejuvenate said friendships.

Yeah I figured it would. WFH makes sense for established workers. For those new graduates... It's toxic and a huge set back.

I was a hiring manager during COVID... We just stopped hiring new grads. How would we on board them? How would I provide the guidance they needed? Even if my new hires would be in another office, I'd still be able to get someone there to help them in person.

Remote? Good luck. Established engineers have enough issues with that.

i am in that exact situation right now. i am trying to hire locals in a somewhat remote work location. most candidates want to work remote. even for a senior it took us a few hours of working face to face before i felt comfortable letting them work remotely. for a junior i can't imagine remote work until they are fully onboarded and able to work independently which may take a few weeks to a few months of time.

I think the downvotes are purely from the snipe at COVID restrictions, since it is sadly still a hot button topic. My initial urge was to downvote but I undid it and will keep my input neutral there because it’s just not on topic.

I personally think that the sudden need to accept remote work, delivery services, and isolating at home opened up a mode of living that until now has been inaccessible to those of us who actually like that sort of thing. Before, socializing with strangers simply couldn’t be avoided, because there was no other realistic way to live, besides going off into the wilderness and setting the entirety of civilization aside. We now have more options and that’s great! People who like the old way can still commute into the office, go to their pub, dine out in person, and so on, but now, the option has opened up for people who don’t want to do that, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. One size doesn’t fit all.

I now have the option to stay in my house for a month+ and not see another human being if I want, and still earn a living, enjoy modern life, conveniences, shopping, dining… not really possible as recently as 2019. It’s not for everyone but to me it’s better than the old way.

> who actually like that sort of thing.

The idea of living in a society (a democracy, even!) in which most people kind of dislike their neighbor is horrifying.

There are other ways to do this.

I would much rather spend the commute time engaging in local social activities where I live than being forced into a car or public transport for multiple hours a week, just to spend 40 hours in a grey box which is a worse working environment than the one I have at home.

This way you can build stronger local ties, rather than remote ties which are likely to evaporate next time you move job, or even department.

FYI the downvotes are most likely in reaction to the assertion that COVID lockdowns were a huge mistake.

Whether they have damaged the fabric of society (and I would certainly dispute that), the idea that they were a mistake in totality is at the very least somewhat contentious.

Often the sort of jobs you can do from home are not that social to start with.

While working in software at an office I definitely noticed that working with a PC all day was definitely not social. And some of my co-workers have been anti-social or just not socialised. Some offices were oppressive: just clicks and headphones.

> just clicks and headphones.

As a SW engineer, I'm just going to say that when I read things like this, it explains so much about the anti-socialness of all my colleagues. This is such an easy problem to fix. If your office is not social enough, you stand up, go to your neighbor's desk / cubicle and say 'Good morning, how are you doing today? What are you working on?'.

People love to talk if you let them

> Most Americans have very little family and social ties

citation needed. like, speak for yourself, mon ami.

You are misconstruing creativity of appearance for creativity of experience. Cookie cutter is not an issue. The happiest people are those driving honda civics, buying jeans at Ross and spending most of their energy, money and time on their hobbies, visiting their friends, families and having constant stream of guests over. Some of the best conversations in life happens in the most ordinaries kitchens, at most ordinary tables, on unremarkable front porches, etc.

I love architecture and find it can be very inspiring. But if one’s personal creativity is hamstrung by facade of their home, then I assume they don’t have much of it to begin with.

That is exactly right. In fact, cookie cutter stuff helps to express oneself even more. If the standard stuff serves its utility well, then it spares the energy of having to think and care about it, and leaves more for the rest of the stuff, including self-expression.

at risk of throwing out a beat up cliché, Steve Jobs famously wore the same black shirts as a way of simplifying his life. One less thing to burn brain power on, to have to navigate

Good example, it's the same with Zuckerberg and his wardrobe. And this idea carries over many aspects of life, for example, the meal prep Sunday is a bit similar, but applied to food, and minimalism as a lifestyle also touches on this.

> Cookie cutter is not an issue

It is an issue... not because it's built in a cookie cutter way (that's fine, and our suburb has tons of kit homes). What is an issue is the restrictive HOAs and crazy suburban design standards intended to basically prevent any modification.

Like I said, our suburb started off with lots of kit homes, lots of 'cookie cutter' looks, but over time, due to the lack of regulation during the bulk of the development, the houses have been turned into duplexes; they've been added on to; various owners with different personalities have added decorations, etc. In other words, it becomes less 'cookie cutter' over time until everything looks different.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could keep the art but get rid of those messy, opinionated artists?

> visiting their friends, families and having constant stream of guests over.

Except that these sorts of visitations / gatherings become far less frequent in suburban settings unless you have the good fortune to have many of your friends / family living close to you.

I live in SoCal, which is far denser than many other parts of the US and despite this, the sprawl is immense - far greater than many other large cities of the world. It doesn't help that public transport is a joke as it takes hours and hours to get anywhere using that and you'd still need a car anyway for the last mile or so if you're heading into a suburb somewhere.

Living in a suburb isn't all bad, it has its perks but it 100% takes a significant toll on your social life for most people I know and have known. I've lived in NYC and other "proper" cities before and this is actually one of the things I miss most about life there - it made it way easier to spontaneously get together after work or on the weekends because of the smaller and much easier commutes.

They lack the variety and self-expression of early Levittown?

well, the kids were having fun wrong, so we banned skateboarding, or hanging out at the park or the mall (remember malls?) because it was dangerous, so don't do that, or that, or that, which leaves just being at home, because everything else is wrong.

At the local park, which I pass through regularly on my jogging route, simply never has collections of unsupervised kids hanging out doing kid things. In the local greenbelts there are trails, and the only kids ever on the trails are with their parents.

It's not a dangerous area, either.

When I was a kid, we'd go out looking for other kids to play with.

I know there are other kids around here, as the school bus belches them out regularly, but I never see any otherwise.

I suppose they're all at home playing video games and social media.

I see kids out throwing frisbees, baseballs, and footballs in my neighborhood, shooting hoops where an alley meets the street. I see them skateboarding as well. On Saturday, my wife and I saw a girl of five or six ride her bike along Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park, with no parent visible to us. Now, the closed-off section of Beach Drive is pretty benign, but the apparent independence of this child was interesting.

That sounds quite lovely, but understand that outside your corner of DC, that's not how a lot of places are. To their detriment.

The district of columbia is mostly urban with some old-fashioned suburbs (not the modern ones I criticized), so I don't know what relevance this is supposed to have.

DC and its suburbs are some of the wealthiest places in the US, and many have excellent public transit, old neighborhoods, good schools, and safe communities. I'd let my kids play outside there, too.

SE DC is a different story -- there is a reason they changed the DC basketball team from "Bullets" to the "Wizards" -- but if you're in Northern DC or nearby, like Bethesda, you're straight up posh.

I would actually consider dense urban cul-de-sacs (or just quieter streets with less road noise in general) for knowing neighbors well. My issue with grids is there's generally an arterial street where apartments are crammed and nobody knows each other due to road noise.

References:

- sebastian hunger anecdote on cul de sacs: https://youtu.be/E9K43cXZg2Q?si=4Z5WgE4izKM5A0SF

- don appleyard's livable streets: https://vimeo.com/16399180

Can't find it but recall seeing a map someone made of a city in southeast Asia (Thailand or vietnam) illustrating how theres lots of cul-de-sacs

There's less road noise in my streetcar suburb two miles from downtown than my parents home in the actual suburbs. The 'arterial' street here is four lanes compared to the six lane giant stroads of the modern suburb my parents live in. Cities aren't noisy... Cars are. Walkers and bikers make no noise.

Apartments are great for knowing neighbors and we have lovely apartment buildings and condos that would be perfect for old couples or young ones.

I truly don't understand the logic here. If you want streets with less traffic just build narrower streets. We're lucky that our streets were built before cars (still have the horse rings on the sidewalk)... No one speeds. How could you?

We do have some 'cul de sacs' that are passable by walkers and bikes but not cars. These have their place but a walkable grid is an absolute requirement for sanity in my opinion.

“Walkable” and “grid” are orthogonal concerns.

London and Tokyo are two examples of very walkable non-grids, which I prefer to American grid-based city planning — the random connections fuel serendipity.

I think the problem in modern suburbs is really fortress-like unconnected developments, which also appear in urban form as overscaled block+ monoliths. The Metreon in San Francisco is a good example, or the ugly “italianate” Geoff Palmer apartment blocks around downtown Los Angeles.

> Most things should be within walking distance so children can be more independent.

But 15 minute cities are a trap designed to prevent you from ever leaving! They're gonna take away your car and make you eat bugs!

Obviously not something I believe, but it is mind-boggling to me that this obvious attempt to improve lives by trying to influence urban planners to make more things walkable and convenient, could be dressed up by reactionary weirdos as an attack on their liberty.

Because it seems like such a no-brainer - have stuff (where stuff includes shops, places of work, schools, facilities etc) within easy reach. There are so many places (here in Australia too) where the housing suburbs of the larger cities are such a deadzone for simple services and facilities, that you have to get in the car to even pick up a coffee and a muffin of a morning.

I mean as a very socially conservative person, I find the conservative opposition to fifteen minute cities extremely baffling.

I'm a unicorn. I often disagree with city dwellers politically, but I just cannot move to a prison suburb to be around people who agrees with me. What's even the point of living in a place with people who see eye to eye on social issues if I never actually see them??

But yeah the depression I had moving back home (briefly) after living abroad for a while really threw me over the edge in terms of knowing where I wanted to live. The car dependence alone is ... Terrifying if you think about it. What happens if your car doesn't start?

Nitpick, from what i've read from you in this thread, you're a societal conservative.

You might be a social conservative (most american are, i think the left of the left of the democrat party isn't, but even then, its clearly a huge minority), but clearly, your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo).

Liberals are often a lot more socially conservative than they say they are, and hide social issues their economic policies create by being progressive on societal issue, but even then they push their narrative. First and second wave feminism was about emancipation. Third and fourth wave feminism is about this "empowerment", which is fine, i guess, but really does not move the needle socially.

> your position on suburbia and meeting people not from your circle isn't (which is fine, you can be social conservative and still think social mixity is good for conserving the social strucure/status quo).

Given that I belong to many conservative urban clubs, I'm going to say that while urbanism tends to be a 'left-wing' issue, there's quite a lot of urbanism on the right too. More than you'd expect. For example, strong towns leans conservative (I think); the new polity podcast (traditional Catholic) has a bunch of episodes on urbanism; even Tucker carlson has gone on rants about ugly suburbia.

The truth about American politics is that random issues end up getting lumped into 'left' or 'right' and then, due to feedback cycles, become predominantly associated with one or the other. My point in bringing up my politics was (1) to show that I'm approaching this from a perhaps underrepresented viewpoint on this forum, and (2) to express my confusion as to why 15 minute cities are not a conservative issue (and like I said there are some smaller groups that have taken it up).

Finally, the reason I continue to say that I'm a conservative in these discussions is because I basically disagree with the vast majority of liberal urbanists. We agree on the results desired, but their methods are often toxic, unapproachable, and xenophobic in my viewpoint. I've directly butted heads with many at our local transit hearings. I truly don't see eye-to-eye with them on large portions of policy. One of the big issues right now in my city is the prioritization of 'diversity and equity' over actually building transit that works for everyone.

The issue is that you can be conservative or progressive on really different issues, and it does not apply 1:1 to politics (especially US politics). Most green party and ONGs are ecological conservatives (Greenpeace especially :/), despite being broadly at the left of socdems in Europe. Being societally conservative (practicing religious people are, in my experience) is orthogonal to being for closer communities, unlike pushing 'diversity and inclusion', which are an excuse to keep to social status quo, while virtue signaling.

Because as a group the "advocates" who are otherwise intelligent are so inhumanly terrible at communicating ideas that it frankly seems more like they are doing it intentionally to troll.

Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown" is just flat out leading with the wrong conclusion and emphasis. You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy' to do worse. And then there is the concept of "privilege" which takes what should be a simple concept of invisible issues and manages to phrases it in a way that sets out to invalidate the experiences and insult everyone....

I'm not exactly sympathetic to the crowds but it is no wonder they are reactionary and paranoid when their "opposition" is so bad at communicating. I can say without hyperbole that they would obliviously describe a vaccine for all cancers in a way that implies they are going to kill everyone's children.

> Fifteen Minute cities "inspired by lockdown"

Who said that? Who tried to sell that idea that way? Nobody who's in favour of it, and it predates lockdowns by several years, originating in 2016 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/15-minute...

> You'd have to go with 'own nothing and be happy'

Which comes from a discussion piece or thought experiment about the way the world was going at the time (again 2016) with the sharing economy being all the buzz, that was never communicated to anyone as a utopia or something to aim for, let alone forming anybody's policy. It's an inconsequential essay that would have disappeared into obscurity if the forces of outrage hadn't discovered it and whipped up a storm. And again it was years before the pandemic. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...

This is not people on the 'pro' side communicating ideas poorly; the communications you're citing as damning were done by the same reactionaries railing against these issues.

And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed.

> And this is precisely the problem - a nothingburger and the radical idea of having facilities closer to where you live have been spun into outrage fuel, which you seem to have at least partially swallowed.

Again for me, as a conservatively-minded person, I also naturally tend to be against anything that seems like central planning. Central planning is the main reason we're in this mess to begin with. Even modern 'urban' developments are so mind-bogglingly awful it's hard to understand what people think they're going to get (California forever comes to mind...). I'm totally behind the idea of convenient cities. Instead of committees to centrally plan it, let's talk about building normal sized roads (a government responsibility) and eliminating permitting and parking requirements so owners get to use their land. That's the way normal cities get built.

So while I absolutely support the idea of 15 minute cities, I find my natural reaction to many of the proponents of the idea to be wariness. I mean, all too often, I've been burnt by agreeing with someone only to then have them pivot immediately into the evils of capitalism, colonialism, etc. There absolutely is a problem with 'activists' in these circles, and they've hindered a lot of progress.

Leopold Kohr summed it up: 'Whenever something is wrong, something is too big'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr#The_Breakdown_of_...

I’m wondering why this is, and I can think of a few potential factors (broad generalisations follow):

- The US is a low trust society

- European culture typically places less emphasis on workplace friendships compared to the US.

- As an another commenter said, the size of US cities. But also the difficulty & cost of getting around

- There is something about the American demeanour that is surface-friendly, but also seems to discourage deeper/emotional connection. Whereas many European cultures can seem less smiley-friendly, but also more honest and genuine

- I feel like the very strong Protestant work ethic in the US may play a factor. When productivity is so important I feel that must detract from other aspects of life (stress, free time, relocations)

I don’t think it’s related to the Protestant work ethic that much. After all, the loneliness problem is more of a recent phenomenon – and America used to be far more of a Protestant country.

I would chalk it up more to the slow erosion of social expectations and standards, the proliferation of cell phones and social media, and the consistent push towards individualism and away from family/community values.

Don’t forget the commoditization and marketization of everything that businesses can get their hands on.

Ding ding ding

I find that there is a peculiar kind of work ethic in the US (or at least in Silicon Valley), but it's something other than Protestant. It's relentlessly optimizing oneself to death.

You can't just exercise, you need to be participating in some mudbeast games or run marathons or lift 5 times your body weight. You can't eat healthy, you have to religiously follow the latest fad diet and preach it while you are at it. You can't just work hard, you have to embrace hustle culture. Your kids need to be constantly exhausted from being in every sport and extracurricular you can sign them up for.

Oh, and your efforts on all these axes must be quantified, tracked, and gamified. Preferably by an app you pay a subscription fee for. And if your psyche rebels against all this you need therapy and/or pills. Because otherwise you are simply not competitive.

And that's the key: competitive. People don't have friends here. They have the Joneses to compete with.

All of that definitely exists in America but I don’t agree that it’s that widespread or even a majority. Especially amongst average people in the Midwest, South, Texas, etc. What you’re talking about is more of a coastal urban cultural phenomenon, whereas the loneliness epidemic seems to be widespread.

But I think that's the point. A society can be extremely individualistic or more collectivist. Loneliness is an affliction of individualistic societies. And of course there is a spectrum to this.

A common refrain heard in Russia when it switched from Communism to Capitalism back in the 1990s was that people stopped talking to their neighbors. Before the switch everyone was equally poor so there was no envy. There was little pressure to work hard, so people had more time to socialize. The change was abrupt enough that everyone noticed.

But the loneliness issue is more of a recent phenomenon. In the past, Americans worked even more hours - but they had more social interaction and less family fragmentation at work and home.

I think you could blame the loneliness issue on excessive individualism, but I wouldn’t blame it on competitive, hard-working culture. Especially because there are many places in the US which absolutely do not have a competitive culture yet still suffer from loneliness.

Those places have that "frontier spirit", "trespassers will be shot again" signs, and houses that are at least a mile apart. I think they are self-selecting for people who like loneliness.

I noticed the same thing but found it was affluent millenials (maybe gen z now) who were really into it.

How about, in the U.S. you can move 2000-3000 miles away from your family and friends but still be within the same country, and therefore, many people do.

European cultures can seem less smiley-friendly, but also more honest and genuine

we had this discussion a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39006092

as a european i strongly prefer the the american approach. which btw is also found elsewhere in the world.

as an individual who has difficulty making friends i need a lot of opportunity to interact with others before that happens. and a surface-friendly culture just makes that a lot easier. "fake it until you make it" somehow strangely fits here. it helps keep every day interactions friendly, and allows probing for deeper connections.

i lived in the US two decades ago. maybe something changed in that time that i am not aware of.

It think european city design is more nuanced for good social life - for example cities are more walkable, and frequently there are businesses at street level with living spaces above for several stories. Meanwhile america has suburbs for isolation/privacy, lots of driving and strip malls for business.

I'm a 'midlife' guy and I've lived in both Europe (Italy) and the US and... yeah. I had a better social life in Italy. We have friends here in the US too, but people by and large are a bit more superficial. Maybe they'll give you a big "Oh HIIIII, how AAAAARE you?!" at the supermarket, but even after all these years back in the US, when we go back to Italy, we'll get a super warm welcome and spend the evening chatting with friends there like we'd never left.

I don't think it's something easily explained by this, that or the other thing. Denmark is different from Italy, and Oregon is different from Alabama. Even within Italy, Padova is very different from Palermo.

I'm very 'urbanist', but it's not just that, although it helps. There's just a lot of things going on and you could probably write a book about it.

What if the Europe's laid back work culture and stricter control on environment(that is work environment, food and natural environment, healthcare) produces better outcomes after all?

The tech community loves to mock EU for being lazy or being anti-innovation or anti-business but at the end of the day life in Europe is pretty good. Food is good, its safe, people live healthy long lives - things reserved for the rich in the USA. Community preserving regulations are all over the Europe, which might make the housing markets less dynamic but once you are in you don't easily loose access to your community when your fortune isn't performing.

Being the "old world", Europe has been over this stuff long ago and despite people imagining that bureaucrats of Brussels are making up the regulations, European love for strong government is rooted in past experiences with issues and their solutions.

Europe is objectively better for salaried workers who will never have a shot at early retirement (which is prob 90% of the US population)

US is better for business owners and entrepreneurs and maybe the super ambitious

Europe is better for the rich too, just not for getting even richer. The rich in EU are having great time, there are many hot spots for the billionaire class as well as the other less rich but still wealthy. They only complain about how they can't do whatever they want to the workers and the nature.

Europe is also fine for startups, its just not good for scale ups. When successful with tech and the product, startups go to the USA to try to become gargantuan(which also affects the startups, because investors are less motivated to bet on them becoming scale-ups).

Yeah I was thinking more bootstrapped businesses or small businesses - the tax advantages for such businesses you get in the US are insane

The EU is a big place, and geographic Europe is even bigger. Try spending a couple years living outside the affluent areas popular with American tourists: rural Romania for example. Life isn't that great, nor is life expectancy particularly long.

Worst of Europe isn't better than the best of USA. I'm talking about averages here.

Oh and I'm born and raised in Bulgaria, poorest of EU and one of the poor ones in Europe and even the worst places of Bulgaria are quite safe and have good food available. Can you say the same for the worst places of the USA?

Life expectancy is worse though, according to the WHO that's because of prevalent smoking, frequent alcohol consumption and unhealthy diet and low physical activity. Completely avoidable, no one has to live off on cereal even in Bulgaria.

Have you been to rural Romania? Or stayed there for an extended period of time?

Socialising with other people is messy, and hard, and often the payoff is not realised for quite some time. This is why people end up having so many social connections from their work, or other areas where you have frequent forced interactions: it takes time to get over that initial hump and see people as friends.

Unfortunately our tendency as humans is to avoid this unpleasantness, and so we've built technologies and systems that embrace that. Food delivered to our door, dating apps that mean we never have to approach anyone, and embracing remote work where we never see anyone.

Something has to change. Connecting with others is in our DNA, and is going to cause a lot of suffering as we continue down this path.

It's time for DNA editing tools to seriously shine.

There is so much value in just being in the same room as other people. There are countless people who I have become close to that I otherwise would have ignored if we didn’t end up in the same space regularly.

I currently work in a company that has an optional office and I can say for sure that I am many orders of magnitude closer to the people who work in office than the remote ones. I quite readily have meaningful personal conversations with the people who come in office while I could hardly tell you a single thing about the remote coworkers.

90% of success in life is just showing up

Yep, techs obsession with remote work is myopic in my opinion.

Also hard when we’ve spread houses out so far that we don’t need to interact with neighbors.

Except housing has become considerably more dense. It wasn't that long ago that most people lived rurally. Today, nearly everyone lives in an urban area.

Lonely 40 year old here. I quit socializing because I couldn't afford to do the things my friends wanted to do. Eat and drink at bars, go to movies, travel to conventions.

For a time, I was participating even though I couldn't afford. I racked up significant credit card debt. For me it's all about money, the language that communicates value. If my net worth is negative, that means I'm taking value away from society rather than contributing, and I won't put myself out there until I rectify that.

It seems that it wasn't your crowd, nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Lots of fun activities are mostly free or require very little upfront costs. Outdoor activities are an example.

Even just setting up a board game group is generally low cost.

If you're interested in finding like-minded people, you'll find them! Keep it up :)

The cheap/free activities can draw you into spending a lot of money too, if you have it. I bicycle every day, and I spend a lot of my otherwise unallocated money on bike stuff. Good hiking gear gets expensive too. But you can also get away without buying most of that stuff and still enjoy your time.

That article talks about midlife, but loneliness starts well before people reach their 40s and 50s and is only getting worse. Per this HN post from last month, teenagers today hang out in person 50% less than teenagers from 20 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39378259

I live and work in the Bay Area and have experienced this myself despite having worked at large tech companies, where in theory it should be easy to meet folks. Recently, instead of just reflecting on my situation, have started validating some potential ideas that could help tackle loneliness. If anyone is open to sharing how you've either overcome loneliness, or struggled to (like me), please hit me up. Email in profile.

I live in the Bay Area. The problem here is the temporary nature of those residing here. They tend to plan to leave after a few years when enough of their RSUs have vested to afford a nice home elsewhere.

One thing that helped me enormously was… getting a dog. I’ll take multiple walks in the neighborhood each day and eventually got to know a whole bunch of neighbors. Even now I’ll go out for a brisk thirty minute walk only to end up spending multiple hours chatting with neighbors.

Befriend your neighbors. It's not as low-pressure as coworkers, but it's close. Not necessarily the immediate ones, but people in the neighborhood or apartment. Most people are normal, friendly and receptive.

This really depends on your neighbors. I was staying at my parent's house for a few weeks. They live in a nice suburb, not quite a gated community. The police were called twice about a "suspicious" vehicle, which was just my car street parked in front of my parent's house.

that's because your parents didn't befriend them.

many people are only normal, friendly and receptive if you actually talk to them.

Still somewhat relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone

"The study defends the promotion of social safety nets, through generous family and work policies, which may lessen midlife loneliness by reducing financial pressures and work-family conflict, in addition to strengthening job security and workplace flexibility."

An interesting article with a confusing ending. These policy proposals do not at all seem linked to the root causes mentioned earlier. I would be skeptical that giving people more money/time off significantly addresses the problem.

I think what stands out about the US is geographic spread. It seems common to move a few states away to truly start a "blank slate" life. You lose physical access to your original family, friends in the town you were born, and maybe even the college you went to.

I'll compare to that my "typical" European situation, which is characterized by a lack of geographic spread in the tiny country of the Netherlands.

I still live in the small town in which I was born. And most I've ever known from this town are still here or in adjacent towns. I have immediate physical access to "kids" I've known for decades, everybody I went to school with (except for college, which was further away) my parents, in-laws, 20 or so aunts and uncles and a shitload of their offspring.

So this is an additive network of blood (family), friends, co-students, neighbors. It's a solid network in quantity and quality. It's not a lucky shot because I decided to stay in my town, the point is that everybody stays in the town because they don't need to move a thousand miles for opportunities.

My work actually is quite a long commute away and this reveals another typical European phenomenon: on average, Europeans don't have a strong incentive to build an intimate social network at work. They're less likely to build deep friendships or do dating there. For the simple reason that they already have a network back home.

Maybe it's the greater barrier to see people in US cities. People are generally further away bc less density

80% of the US lives in urban areas. Surely at least those should find some friends nearby?

My observation is that it is the ease of seeing people that leads to loneliness. The midlife crowd are off driving their kids to a different sporting event, or what have you, every day of the week. It is so easy to see people that they never stop to see the same person twice, so to speak, and thus the repeated engagement required to form friendships isn't likely to happen.

If we look back at older generations, who notably lived in far less density than what is common today, they by and large had less trouble with loneliness as the difficulty in seeing people from limited transportation availability meant that they could only ever get to know their closest neighbours, which meant that is who they saw over and over, and that lead to friendship.

Misleading title, I wonder if all the speculators read the details?

> European nations displayed more varied patterns. For instance, England and Mediterranean Europe demonstrated similar increases in loneliness for later-born participants (

I don't get why it's written like all of Europe is the same?

Original article: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2024/03/middle-aged-...

The article mentions social media as a reason for loneliness. Is the premise that social media replaces socializing that would have otherwise happened in person?

Yeah. It's nice to meet up with a friend and get a through answer as to how it's going, but if I've been following along your vacation through your social media feed, what is there to really talk about? Your social media feed isn't going to give me the whole story, but unless we really want to dig deep because we're really good friends, then there's not so much to talk about.

I think i text more since deactivating my Instagram account about a month ago.

There is a societal trend where wealth/HDI and # children are inversely correlated (https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate). The US is generally wealthier than the Europe and has a higher HDI. "loneliness" might be measuring the same weird effect; ie, related to wealth and comfort.

I don't understand it, I just observe it.

I saw Jonathan Haidt's new book on the subject. I havent read it but I expect he's throwing the blame at the feet of social media and mobile devices.

In my opinion he's blaming what's holding things together. Humans are social beings and social media gives you a weaker form of social interaction. Whereas in person social interaction is what is necessary.

>Data were collected from 2002 to 2020 and only included responses given when participants were between the ages of 45 and 65.

Completely useless. Why ruin your research this badly? Why focus on the least impacted age cohorts?

Lets consider why we have so much less in person social interaction.

If we go back in time to when it wasnt a problem. Where did people get this done?

Church, Bar, and smoke breaks.

Church attendance is at record lows? I know im not religious, only spiritual. Good ole government is behind this one.

Bar? Government has basically ended that in the name of MADD.

SMoke breaks? Government basically ended that because of Lung cancer.

So basically government came in and "unintentionally???" ended in person social interaction. Now we have a loneliness epidemic and it's going to take 1 sweet talking libertarian to tear the government down.

I mean, people suck. I suck, you suck, your mom, and your brother sucks. Not all the time. Sometimes I'm able to be nice and kind and generous, but dealing with people is just so much work that it's easier to just not, especially when there's so much other stuff out there to do these days.

So it's easier to stay at home and not invest time in socializing, leading to loneliness. it feels unnatural to force it after college and high school but you just have to put in the effort and people just don't want to do that, absent some other motivation.

If there's a group project or something to bring people together, like an art piece, a float for a parade, or anything of that nature then there's space to connect and make friends. But one has to put in that effort and follow through, and without being paid to do it, in order to get to a point where you're not lonely and have friends. it helps if you're not a horrible person though.

Least relatable comment on the site. Almost every person I know and love is a big plus to my life. If I could, all my friends and family would live within minutes of me, and they have almost all expressed this to me about me as well.

but you're not lonely and thus aren't having the problem the article describes. I'm not lonely and sad and angry either, though I can see how my previous comment could make it seem that way.

Outside of your happy circle of friends and family is this epidemic of loneliness that the article is reporting on, so it's not surprising that you can't relate if you're not having that problem. I'm trying to describe why we're apparently falling into this hole of loneliness and how to fight it.

The other thing is to look at your relationships. The game Diplomacy has caused the end of many relationships because it exposes the true person inside, who will lie and cheat and steal to win a board game. You should try it with your friends and family sometime. Are your friends complete human beings, or do they only have a good side? Some people live in a happy world where they don't and are friends with them, and other people have relationships to whole human beings that suck sometimes. They're also awesome sometimes, which is why we're friends, but I'd rather see the whole picture than think they're perfect, just like me.

I love my friends, and would love for them to all live down the street from me, (teleportation when?) but my other comment is coming from a place where they're also human, same as me.

I think the part I don't understand is why you think people suck. It doesn't seem like anyone sucks, actually, to me. And it seems that those who are lonely prefer human contact and are unable to have it rather than being released from sucky people. But perhaps the point is flying above my head.

I haven't played Diplomacy but I imagine the subterfuge and betrayal is similar to that in Neptune's Pride (a real-time game that occurs over a few weeks, I slept in 2h fits during that period while trying to keep my allegiances straight and took a friend to a pub and kept him occupied so he would fail an obligation he had to someone else). The cruelty and betrayal are part of the fun. And while it can get acrimonious in play, I can't see that lasting.

You've never been let down by anyone, ever? no one's ever been late to something or come up short somehow to you? it sucks when somebody isn't able to show up or meet you in some way like they said they will. maybe you're surrounded by people that have a superhuman amount of time and energy and don't ever let people down. but for the rest of us, the real deal is that people suck sometimes. yeah, they're awesome as fuck sometimes too, which is why we put up with them, but anyway, I think a point I want to make is that it's easier to be lonely and right, than it is to be wrong and surrounded by friends. but for the people that are lonely, people are out there, you gotta put in effort to connect with them. but go in with your eyes open that they're human, and they're going to let you down in some way, but that's okay, because that's part of being human, is knowing that about your friends and keeping them around anyway. well, some of them, at least.

I'm not lonely, but I have a friend or two that are, so I'm projecting a little, but I know those particular friends of mine well enough to say that's where they're coming from. I'm sure other people are lonely for other reasons, but I know people who are lonely for the reason I gave. Because there are 8 billion. people on this planet. it's hard to avoid interacting with someone, in some way, if you push yourself and go touch grass.

No. The people around me are not superhuman. They err and fail. As do I. It just doesn't seem like a big deal or a crucial part of our relationship.

But I think I understand now. You feel the same way as I do. You believe these foibles are part of humans. The part we differ on is the standards you hold for calling something sucky. I can accept behaviour down into the first sigma down from the mu and you probably consider only behaviour past the first sigma up from the mu acceptable.

As an example, if someone were late or couldn't make it at the last minute, it doesn't bother me. I'm going to just make a note to check with them a little earlier next time. And everyone I know has my location so that if I'm late they know what I'm up to. We just work around each other's mistakes. It works all right for me. I won't pretend I don't feel disappointed. It's just momentary and I find it hard to align my life around those transient feelings. Not out of enlightenment, just I don't really remember those feelings strongly.

being able to not feel those feelings strongly is enlightenment, I'd say. I feel those feelings strongly and then choose to keep going anyway in order to have friends and not be lonely. it's been a pleasure connecting with you and coming to understanding each other. be well.

You too, man. Good chat :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com