Unfortunately not. The suicide capital of the world (including teenagers) is currently South Korea:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190501000216
which has the highest suicide rate among countries with a population of more than 5mln:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...
South Korea is on a capitalist upswing, not decline. People forget that South Korea was worse off than most of Africa after the Korean War. Capitalism and democracy is what saved them.
Look at their brother to the North if you want to see a real decline.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work, where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption - and indeed Korea has massive megacorps owned by just a few families that are de facto governments in themselves.
Ugh... I see you overlooked the small fact that the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula happened before the Korean War...
"After all, the South was by all standards a failed state after the Korean war (1950-53). GDP per capita in South Korea in early 1960’s was below $100. Lower than Haiti, Ethiopia or Yemen, making South Korea one of the poorest countries in the world. Infrastructure built during the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) was destroyed during the war. All of Korea’s natural resources remained in the North, as well as its industrial facilities. The first years of independence, under the presidency of Rhee Syng-man, brought no economic development and kept South Korea afloat only due to foreign aid." [0]
>“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work
There may be something strong and special about Koreans, but one half went capitalist, the other half went Communist/Socialist. The proof is in the pudding.
>where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption
Being capitalist is immaterial to being corrupt.
I guess explain China vs Taiwan, which are both doing well, although that is certainly glossing over some horrible decades with the cultural revolution.
Yes, that's exactly what PP posits as the cause of these suicides.
I believe it was Malcom Kyeyune who joked that if North Korea nuked Seoul, it would be the best thing to ever happen to young people in South Korea.
The birth rate in South Korea is like 1/4th the birth rate of North Korea.
People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children, by society, by politics, by wealth/industry.
Having a kid doesn't cost a lot in South Korea. In fact it's usually beneficial. The problem is that having a kid basically means your main source of income is vulnerable and your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.
This is how elite overproduction tends to happen. I suggest you read some of the writing on the causes and effects of EO. The Good Ol Boyz podcast has some episodes on EO in Korea that are pretty good.
If you can get into a relatively high status position by doing better than your peers in a school test, and you’re out of luck otherwise, of course many people are going to spend 16 hours a day studying for those tests.
> People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children
Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?
> Having a kid… it's usually beneficial… your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.
This seems contradictory.
Being a labourer is often highly regarded in lots of low population or first world countries. Not in Korea. Not even without significant immigration. They are just all sardines trying to squeeze into the upper jobs. No one wants to be left out and certainly doesn't consider it a career path.
>Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?
Their workforce and/or lack off work stability, almost entirely.
>This seems contradictory.
If you take it out of context..... yes. But I just said that it'd be financially beneficial to have a kid. But then also introduces instability that might pull the rug underneath when your financially beneficial decision removes your larger chunk of income.
i.e. babies are very affordable, and you get benefits that aren't bad. But also this coincides with losing your job due to having a baby. It's not contradictory as they're both alternate directions. Your job is stable whilst having a baby AND you have a baby? You're benefiting. You have a baby and it ruins your income stream? Those extra savings from having a baby are cancelled out.
Also, while America has a lot of guns, there's also a lot of variance. The stats are a bit hard to compute, but there appear to be some states in the US that have fewer firearms per capita than some other countries, notably Switzerland, Canada, and Finland.
It's also worth pointing out that suicide by firearm is largely a male thing. In the United States women attempt suicide at 3x the rate that men do, but they tend to die because of that at a much lower rate (22.4 for men, 6.8 for women). The rate of completed female suicides is currently rising faster for women than men, worryingly.
It's complicated, basically.
And as always discussing suicide creates a contagion risk. If you're experiencing suicidal thoughts, please know that help is available at the national suicide prevention hotline, 800-273-8255.
Do you have a reason to imply most suicides are impulsive? I don’t think the media implies that (and my experience in New Zealand is they are not impulsive - usually following a long period of depression and maybe stated intent or attempts).
There is scientific disagreement over impulsivity, and the distinction between impulsive and planning is so blurry as to be not that useful to a non-specialist. Also my quick skim of the topic was somewhat confusing because there is a different topic about whether impulsive personalities are more likely to suicide (probably not). And my case personally I am middle aged, and my peer group appears more likely to plan, which affects my anecdotal experience.
I think my problem is that the word “impulsive” is odd. Someone who has been thinking of committing suicide for months, and then one day “suddenly” decides to go through with it, seems to be considered by the literature to have made an impulsive decision. That definition doesn’t fit my usual meaning of the word impulsive (e.g. I don’t think it makes sense to say: I have been looking at cars to buy for two months and then I impulsively bought one).
For reference, nine of the top ten nations for suicide of banned civilian gun ownership. All of the top 40 nations make it difficult. USA is usually around #50 or so.
It is complicated, and even statements like ”access to firearms has been shown to affect suicide rates” are could be misleading because you could be putting the cart before the horse, if someone has chosen to kill themselves, it reasons they will chose a fast/painless, and effective tool.
But choice of method does affect rate of death, so it's correct to say that increased access to any method that's commonly used affects the rate of death. Decreasing access to that method is valid if its one of the measures taken to reduce suicide rates.
So it's less that guns increase the rate of suicide, and more that they increase the suicide rate to suicide attempt ratio due to their efficacy. Which, similar to the point you're making, means America probably has less suicide attempts to begin with than its suicide rate would indicate relative to other countries.
On the shittiest days I see the lines of nitrogen tanks we use at work for Gas Detector calibration and remember my old buddy.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29684846/
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#Suicide
Is this asking a question?
Edit: Today I learned the best course for a non native speaker is to not ask questions.
English was not my first language, and this peculiar phrasing confused me. Asking for clarity seems like a natural thing to do in this situation.
This sub-thread reminds me that there are many informal rules in languages that are rarely taught, and which can trip up non-native speakers. Informal shorthands, idioms, slang, etc.
There is a rudeness in making it one of these faux-questions filled with implications instead of clearly stating what it is you want to say.
And as mentioned elsewhere, the entire thread seems like a good natured discussion: perhaps it felt different without the original "edit".
1. is sincerely asking a question
2. accidentally hit they question mark key instead of the period
3. is mimicking the valley girl inflection
It's not that much of a problem here, but it's much more pronounced in places where people rarely use complete sentences to begin with. Such as chat rooms, etc.
:-) I was thinking this but couldn't find the right phrase.
It could also be expressing uncertainty. You want to make an assertion but not 100% sure you are right. A question mark at the end expresses some self doubt and leaves it open to correction. I use '?' that way quite often.
Both of your comments can be construed as linguistic pedantry. Particularly, saying "it's confusing" rather than e.g. "I find it confusing" is pretty prescriptive - and it just sounds like you're doubling down on your first comment.
If you want to ask a question about a feature of language, it helps to add the context that you're unfamiliar with the language itself. Otherwise, most readers will assume that you're attempting to correct the user you're replying to. Commenting on people's use of language is considered quite rude in most internet communities - not least because of the number of ESL users.
shortened, becomes:
I used this process, and came up with these numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close?
Why you got in trouble: people thought you were criticizing the original comment for hiding a statement to look like a question. (A common underhanded tactic to do and a common criticism - "was that a question?".)
Rendering it in written English is not correct per formal rules, you’d probably never see this in an English textbook, but it’s a semi-common colloquialism in forums like these.
Eg:
I think I left the phone in my car.
Vs
I think I left the phone in my car?
While technically incorrect in written English, this is very common in casual speaking and has found its way into casual writing.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide
Which looks like 5 per 100000 for 10 to 14 year olds?
The Japanese population in this age range is ~5M:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
So at the US rate we’d except ~250 suicides in Japan if the rate was the same as the US.
Over the 12 to 15 range in Japan the article states there were 103 suicides.
The rates seem roughly comparable therefore?
It terrible that this is increasing, but it would be interesting to understand if this is unique to Japan or not.