"Elite overproduction" is the elites' own term for too many disaffected college graduates packing boxes at amazon (or equivalent).

Put enough of them to work there and many will radicalize and unionize. Having an education and little investment in the existing social order makes them a dangerous political wildcard.

I doubt the Economist is fretting about incels shooting up shopping malls when they use this term. Theyre probably more worried about a wave of Gabriel Borics taking the reins of power across the world and screwing over investors.

> Having an education and little investment in the existing social order

The problem back then was the latter. Many of them were not interested in productive work of any kind, simply because their pre-modern worldview would've equated this with a loss of station. Hence the sense of "elite" entitlement and ensuing "radicalization".

It's the combination. People with little investment in the existing social order without education dont tend to organize themselves sufficiently to be any kind of threat by themselves.

>aspiring elites who viewed themselves as oppressed losers out of a misguided sense of entitlement.

Yep, sounds like the disaffected white males who kill others or themselves in droves, despite often having better conditions than (less aspirant/entitled) non-white males.

If you honestly reflect on your comment, do you see anything wrong with it?

When I read it, I got very angry at what I perceive to be pointed racism.

But I'd like to try to step away from that and instead of lashing out, to understand your perspective more.

Would you mind explaining your thinking a bit more?

The point being made (as I understand it) is that given that it is true (if you believe the national statistical authorities of the relevant western countries) that young white men are often substantially better off than young men of colour (even when controlling for all non-ethnicity relating factors), it is perhaps unexpected that the suicide rates for those groups would be higher. Adopting the principle of charity, I think we can assume that the original poster does not mean to in any way minimise the plight of desperate people who are suffering from mental health conditions. Instead, I think it is an interesting question as to why suicide rates are so much higher (and at least in the UK this is not an exaggeration - see e.g. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...) than those of groups whose material circumstances are worse.

p.s. I am aware that suicide is not a function solely of material circumstance (and material circumstance relative to other people's)

It's just racism. You're not missing anything; there's nothing more to it.

So...despair to the point of suicide is a marker of racial privilege??