What's the guy's point? Skimming the article, he's just saying that some people have more than others. And? So what? Is that supposed to be self evidently mentally distressing?

No, what’s distressing is that those at the bottom have nothing, and those just above the bottom are literally swimming for their lives, treading water and trying not to die.

Do you know what one of the animal models for depression is? It’s called the “behavioral despair test,” but it’s actually much crueler and more insidious than it sounds.

Put a mouse in an inescapable cylinder filled partly with water. The mouse will initially try to swim and escape, but eventually gives up. Remove the mouse after 15 minutes. Just 24 hours later, the procedure is repeated and the mouse gives up after less than 5 minutes. The mouse has become depressed.

These are the conditions that capitalism knowingly imposes on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Living paycheck to paycheck just to keep a roof over one’s head, if one is lucky, is what it’s like for a huge swath of America.

And, this is, if not “by design,” working as intended!

Can you honestly tell me that a literal 24/7 struggle to survive isn’t “self evidently mentally distressing?” Because it sounds to me like a recipe for PTSD and depression.

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

"a literal 24/7 struggle to survive"

Doesn't this describe nearly all of human history, for the vast majority of humans who have ever lived? For far longer than capitalism was ever the basis for any kind of human society?

The thing is that it just doesn't have to be this way anymore. We'd all need to work somewhere around 8h a week to produce enough food, housing and energy to survive.

Instead we make up bullshit jobs and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to convince people people they should be unhappy with what they have, while structuring the necessities for life and social function around extractive institutions.

Actually many people believe it does not. Living off the land might have caused stress occasionally due to e.g. natural hazard but on average people may have been able to get by with relatively little effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

Why does it have to be? We have plenty of resources. Everyone can have the bottom levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Everyone!

Today is today, not “nearly all of human history.” Who cares about “nearly all of human history?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

I think the point was that human history predates the recent increase in depression. Having unmet needs you need to work to fill is the baseline state of all animals, and the unending grind to fill them is what we are evolved to do.

People would still have plenty of unmet needs if the basic physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy are met. What kind of straw man are you trying to argue here? If anything, having those needs met makes it easier -- nay, possible -- to "grind" toward needs at upper levels of the heirarchy (not that I accept your contention that humans were "evolved" to "grind").

Who says the increase in depression is "recent?" The article itself mentions the strong upward trend since 1990. You know 1990 is 30 years ago now, right? (Not trying to be condescending here -- I genuinely forget this myself sometime.)

I'm not arguing any strawman.

I don't accept your non-acceptance of my contention.

I say 30 years is recent. Particularly given I was referring to evidence on a prehistoric timescale.

I hope that clears everything up for you. Totally not trying to be condescending either.

Then, what are you arguing? Why does it even actually matter if the increase in depression is recent, or not? What does that have to do with the fact that mere survival does not have to be a constant 24/7 struggle for anyone, really? And, what is your evidence we were "evolved" to do much of anything besides survive and breed? More importantly, who cares?

So the problem is poverty, not capitalism.

No. The problem is that capitalism creates wealth but in an unsustainable manner, and distributed very unevenly. This is pretty inherent in how capitalism works, because the way the free market works is that it responds to people voting with their dollars. This means that people with more dollars get more votes. So, guess who ends up with all the wealth?

This is a very simplified version of what goes on in a capitalist economy, but it can be made more rigorous using modern concepts of economics. The end result is still the same, though: a very few control an immense amount of wealth, while many have little, and some have none or nearly none.

Wrong link on that second one. Here's the right one: https://www.kindredmedia.org/2017/10/capitalism-makes-us-sic...