
Life expectancy in America has declined for two years in a row - doener
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21733980-thats-not-really-meant-happen-developed-countries-life-expectancy-america-has
======
birken
A recent episode of "The Weeds" podcast was all about this [1]. I highly
recommend listening to it and the podcast in general.

The general thoughts are (especially for those poo-pooing the findings):

\- The cause is likely a massive increase in drug overdose deaths, whose
average age of death is lower than other common causes (>20% year over year
increase, mainly opioid-related) [2]

\- The drop in life expectancy is not happening in other countries, just the
US (not measurement error)

\- It's sort of a big deal, especially if you consider that opioid-related
deaths could be going down, or they could be accelerating, we just don't have
the data. And if they are accelerating this could be much worse than it
already is.

1: [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-
weeds/e/52748846](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/52748846)

2: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/monthly-drug-
ove...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/monthly-drug-overdose-
death-estimates.pdf)

~~~
sprafa
Also of note - how closely related opioids are to poverty and desperation.
From reading recent studies, economy in the US is halving - on one side are
people desperately fighting for their lives agaisnt an unstoppable force of
wild capitalism, the other half is enjoying the wild benefits of digital
globalized capitalism, and the benefits of software expanding everywhere and
finance controlling the world.

The entire power of the rest of the industries (film, media, pharmaceuticals)
seems to rely on copyright, which is genius, since the US has guaranteed all
other countries have to play by its rules as far as copying goes through GATT
and all the other trade treaties signed since. Looking back, all of it has
actually been brilliant, outside of disconsideration for what the destruction
of industry would do for the middle class (See Vaclav Smil's comment -
"without manufacturing there is no middle class"). But the idea of copyright,
and replicating the US model of agressively pursuing violations of it
everywhere, was genius in the digital age - it's a way of permanently
entrenching and making sure no competitors can arise, because almost anything
can be copyrighted, therefore any similar enough competition is opening itself
up to a copyright violation lawsuit. Basically, the US has been rebuilt along
the lines of the same people who decided all of this back in the 1990s as a
way to construct a new american empire (which I'm fine it btw, I prefer it to
its competitors), and the result has been the mass anihilation of livelihoods
in the rural and industrial areas. The result of this "error in judgement" has
been Donald Trump - anger at the establishment and a willingness to anihilate
it all in exchange for a promise to return to the Valhalla of yesteryear, when
making a living was easy and the government was making sure all boats were
rising with the tide, instead of leaving some behind.

Anyway, back on the topic of opioids - in Portugal we had this problem. We
solved it by decriminalizing drugs and treating hard drug users as people in
need of help. Perhaps, in the end, we will inspire the rest of the world to
follow suit. It has always been my hope.

~~~
pjc50
> Basically, the US has been rebuilt along the lines of the same people who
> decided all of this back in the 1990s as a way to construct a new american
> empire

This reminds me of the great collapse in Russian life expectancy for Russians
after the end of communism: [http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/09/02/dying-
russians/](http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/09/02/dying-russians/)

The country became extremely unequal and was effectively looted by its
oligarchs.

> a willingness to anihilate it all in exchange for a promise to return to the
> Valhalla of yesteryear, when making a living was easy and the government was
> making sure all boats were rising with the tide, instead of leaving some
> behind

Quite a lot of people said they would have preferred to remain under
totalitarianism in the Soviet Union than to die of hopelessness in the post-
Soviet crony "capitalist" wasteland. I hear there are even people in Portugal
nostalgic for Salazar?

~~~
digi_owl
Oligarchs backed by the west in many cases.

Note how Russia was a cuddly uncle all the years under Yeltsin, while the
oligarchs ran rampant.

Then came Putin, the oligarchs were beaten into submission, and suddenly
Russia was back as the big bad bear.

~~~
avaika
From this perspective it's the same under Putin, just different people. They
just make it look like it's not and massively brainwash people in every
possible way. GDP goes down. Money flow out of country is growing. Poverty
over the country. Corruption in every political institution (even on highest
level). Speech freedom is dying (there are just a few media who still are
brave enough to criticize the government).

------
notadoc
Lingering effects of the great recession.

There is a very strong and well studied relationship between unemployment,
economic stress, and drug abuse. These are people who are depressed
(clinically, economically, or often both), and they are self medicating.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/04/joblessne...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/04/joblessness-
and-opioids/523281/)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935688/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935688/)

Unfortunately the media-driven obsession with this topic is focused on
everything other than the underlying problems driving the abuse, which is a
guaranteed way to never solve anything.

~~~
forapurpose
> Lingering effects of the great recession

Other countries went through the Great Recession, didn't recover as well as
the U.S., and are not suffering from the problem. Also, the problem started in
the last couple of years while the Great Recession began in 2008 (EDIT: and
has since ended, with unemployment low for the last two years).

~~~
majormajor
I'd say less the recession and more just a particularly-hard-hitting-in-
America trend away from the country's historical industrial base. The 20th
century US benefited massively from being on the front lines of modern
industrialization and mass production, creating a ton of jobs especially in
certain regions. And in areas that haven't been able to replace those jobs as
the US economy becomes based in different areas and other countries take over
in mass production, that's been a particularly rough blow.

The sense of hopelessness in a truly fucked town is particularly brutal.
Retraining and education sound nice, but aren't going to be all that appealing
in practice for a lot of people, even if the money is there. So now the US
suffers the hardest from the loss of this industry, the other side of the coin
of getting to benefit the most from the growth of it. Add in a historical lack
of awareness around the dangers of new painkiller drugs... and you've got the
recipe for a disaster without needing any judgmental conclusions about a
society as a whole.

Britain, another even-earlier industrial power, has similar things going on in
some regions, but I'd argue never saw quite the same peaks as the US.

It will be interesting to see what a more controlled country like China does
if/when all those jobs that first drew money to the country fully evaporate.

~~~
forapurpose
I'd say it's large reductions in government programs, from health to education
to food and welfare programs for the poor. I don't have data, but it's hard to
believe that such programs have no effect.

Also, the U.S. moved on from being an industrial economy decades ago, long
before most people realize. In Detroit, for example, auto industry jobs began
declining in the 1950s.

~~~
rayiner
Has there been a net decrease in these programs since 2008? I think the
opposite is true.

~~~
forapurpose
The GOP has refused to increase spending and has tried to cut it on principle,
and in some places has cut it dramatically (e.g., Kansas).

Most importantly, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the "Sequester") was
designed to set spending so low that both parties would be forced to
compromise on regular-order spending bills in order to fund what was important
to them (generally seen as defense for the GOP, domestic welfare programs for
the Democrats). Instead, GOP spending hawks refused to compromise and spending
has been locked at an insanely low level since then. That includes a lack of
funding that is crippling even the supposed GOP priority, the military.

~~~
jdavis703
How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need
more funding and why?

~~~
forapurpose
> How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need
> more funding and why?

Speaking generally: Readiness is very low; large amounts of equipment is out
of service do to lack of parts, and training is severely cut back, meaning the
personnel are not ready to perform their jobs - a major issue when they may
die and national security may be harmed; AFAIK training is what has long given
the U.S. military its edge. There are not enough personnel, forcing the
current ones to work exceptionally long and hard, which is also affecting
morale. One recent example are the collisions of navy ships in the Pacific;
basic navigation and seamanship training was cut for the officers, they were
constantly deployed and exhausted, and they worked 100+ hour weeks. Here's a
recent article I saw from a respected defense publication:

[https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-
na...](https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-navy-say-no/)

Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with
'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia. Generals/Admirals and
Secretaries of Defense, for multiple administrations, have been warning
Congress for years that they are unable to fulfill their missions with current
funding.

That's all off the top of my head; there certainly are more problems I'm not
thinking of. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "non-civilian"
programs.

If you want to keep up on these issues, I'd try these publications; budget is
only one issue they cover, but they cover it well and seriously, without much
political spin:

[https://www.defenseone.com/](https://www.defenseone.com/)

[https://breakingdefense.com/](https://breakingdefense.com/)

[https://www.defensenews.com/](https://www.defensenews.com/)

~~~
curun1r
> Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with
> 'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia.

Defense spending by country (from Google):

Russia: $84.9 billion

China: $171.4 billion

US: $618.7 billion

If we can't compete with militaries that spend a fraction of what we spend,
the problem isn't lack of funding, it's the people spending it. The military
has an efficiency problem, not a funding problem.

~~~
forapurpose
The U.S. spends far more, but the U.S. has far greater commitments.

Russia and China are "regional powers"; their goal is to dominate the areas in
their geographic proximity. The U.S. has to dominate China in its region,
Russia in its region, as well as the Middle East, the Americas, and everywhere
else.

The U.S. has fought wars in Central Asia and in the Arabian Peninsula
recently, as well as standing down an enemy in NE Asia (North Korea) and in
Europe (Russia), facing a competitor in the western Pacific (China), and the
Persian Gulf (Iran). There are deployments in over 100 nations, IIRC, and
ongoing military operations all over, from the Philippines to Chad to Yemen to
Somalia to many more. The U.S. Navy secures trade worldwide. And at the same
time, the U.S. military must train and prepare for every contingency, from a
Chinese invasion of Taiwan to revolution in Pakistan (endangering the nuclear
weapons there) to a Russian invasion of the Baltics to a breakdown in order in
Lebanon or Venezuala, to Iran restarting its nuclear weapons program ... China
and Russia don't have those problems.

Here's an off-the-cuff summary of why: Since WWII, the U.S. has been the
muscle behind the rules-based international order. Even domestically, under
the rule of law, government needs force occasionally (e.g,, police) to
maintain order and enforce laws. Internationally, there is no government; it's
fundamentally anarchy. History has shown that the anarchy is very difficult to
control and easily explodes into wars that destroy humans, cities, and set
back civilization, and that's especially true in the nuclear age. Nothing is
worse for humanity than war; WWI and WWII were major examples of that.

Post-WWII, the winning nations sought to prevent or minimize further wars by
establishing a rules-based (i.e., legal) international order, centered around
the United Nations and other institutions. The rules mean nothing unless
someone can back it up, and post-WWII and even now, the U.S. is the only
candidate with enough power to do so, military, cultural, and economic. The
cost of the U.S. military is considered far less than the cost of anarchy, and
in fact the U.S.'s preeminent position means that America has far greater say
in international issues than any other nation.

The Trump administration is retreating from that responsibility, to a degree;
we'll see how far they go and what the next administration does.

> The military has an efficiency problem, not a funding problem.

That idea has been around forever. Either it's not true, or it's intractable
to a degree. Every large institution is wasteful, from Fortune 500 companies
to large universities to the U.S. military. Unless you have a viable plan for
reducing that waste, and can say what the savings will be, it seems wishful to
say 'we'll just cut waste'.

~~~
curun1r
It's clear that you and I simply have very different world views. You use the
term "has to" in talking about what I believe is a pathological need to
dominate every other country everywhere. I favor a far more coalitional
approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer
our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than
defending US corporate interests overseas.

> Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste

Yep. It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes.
You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the
military to economize. The reason you get waste is a lack of accountability
and consequences for overspending. Forcing the military to cut everything non-
essential and then keep cutting the cost of the essential until they're
spending no more than the next-largest military will force the tough decisions
to be made. When you always say yes to military appropriations, those tough
decisions are never forced.

The US military is an obese, lumbering 600lb gorilla. It needs to go on a diet
to become a svelte, agile and precise tool of last resort. As a bonus, that
would either come with tax cuts, national debt reduction or the prolonged life
of Social Security. All three of those are, in my view, far superior ways to
spend money.

~~~
forapurpose
> It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You
> cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military
> to economize.

You haven't established that there is significant waste or where; I don't even
know what problem it solves, and the above has no basis. It's not good policy,
it's a talking point.

I'd love to cut waste, but there needs to be a serious discussion, not wishful
strategies based on wishful conceptions of the situation. I don't know about
the parent, but often this argument is used by partisans who want to cut
government no matter what, regardless of the consequences.

> I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly
> as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on
> actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas.

Again, this sounds like a nice theory, but do we have any reason to believe it
works? AFAIK, history shows that in an anarchic situation like international
relations, coalitions aren't stable; you need one actor. What I've read from
international relations experts and practitioners is that coalitions don't
work now: Effectively, very little happens in the international arena without
the U.S. pushing it.

So before we take that plunge, we need to know. Mistakes are very, very
costly.

~~~
p1esk
I think his point was _we_ don't need to know beforehand _where_ the waste is
happening. The funding cuts will force _them_ (the spenders) to figure that
out.

What exactly are you afraid of, if we reduce the funding for US military by
90%? Fewer regime changes? Fewer regional conflicts? Fewer civil wars? Because
US definitely has been behind some of those in the post Cold War era. What
exactly is happening in the international arena, that wouldn't be happening
without US interference?

P.S. You don't think there's waste? How about trillions of dollars spent on
Iraq/Afganistan invasion, that ultimately led to destabilization of the entire
region, deaths and destruction on a massive scale, and emergence of ISIS as a
major source and inspiration of countless current and future terrorists
worldwide?

------
forapurpose
Other measures of human welfare that are declining in the U.S.:

* "This year, the number of domestic undergraduate students dropped 224,000"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-
enrollme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/international-enrollment-
drop.html)

* If nothing is done, the number of Americans with health insurance is expected to decline by millions this year (due to the repeal of the health care tax (I forget the term they used) in the new tax law).

* With CHIP not being funded, the number of children with health insurance also should decline.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If nothing is done, the number of Americans with health insurance is
> expected to decline by millions this year (due to the repeal of the health
> care tax (I forget the term they used) in the new tax law).

This is a bad metric. We should be worried about healthcare costs, not
insurance coverage. You can have "universal coverage" and still be wrong,
because people are paying $5000+/year in insurance premiums they can't afford.

If it didn't cost a hundred thousand dollars to get sick then it wouldn't be a
problem for people to not be insured against it.

~~~
majormajor
> If it didn't cost a hundred thousand dollars to get sick then it wouldn't be
> a problem for people to not be insured against it.

This is a dicey one. One of the things that drives treatment costs up is more
advanced technology. Should we go back to 70s/80s-era cancer treatments, HIV
treatments, surgical outcomes?

We need a lot more national discussion about where the real opportunities to
save money are, and what should and shouldn't be covered, and if there's a
one-size-fits-all solution or not, because some of the costs will continue to
trend upwards as we become more able to keep more people alive for longer
(otherwise a good thing!). Some [surgeries, drugs, treatments] cost tens of
thousands of dollars and save lives. Some cost tens of thousands of dollars
with dubious outcomes. That's where the meat is.

But we have _no hope whatsoever_ of getting there if we can't even agree that
mandated health insurance at at least some minimum level is necessary policy.
Insurance needs that much to be able to work at all. Or give me the reverse:
if you opt out of health insurance when you're healthy, saying the sick can
fend for themselves, then you don't ever get to opt back in. (That's not gonna
happen, obviously.)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem is that we keep trying to pretend that it both is and isn't a
market.

In theory you can actually have a free market for healthcare. You get cancer,
there are multiple competing providers of cancer treatment products and you
choose one based on effectiveness and price. A better treatment can charge
more, but if it's only 5% better and costs a hundred times as much then most
people won't use it. Which will bring the price of the best treatment down to
something most people can afford.

The alternative to that is that the government imposes prices regulations,
sets low prices for everything and then funds medical R&D with tax money
instead of having high margins for medical procedures. The main problem with
that is that the government may not fund the right things in the right
amounts, either failing to fund very effective research or wasting money on
ineffective research.

What we actually have is a bastardized hybrid that doesn't work at all,
because when the insurance is paying for it but there are no price
regulations, people will always choose the treatment which is 5% more
effective but costs a hundred times as much, and then the provider obviously
has no incentive to lower the price. So the price of everything gets
completely out of control.

~~~
specialist
I have no idea what you're talking about about.

Don't confuse Freedom Markets™ with incentives.

------
nopinsight
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm)

“Life expectancy at birth decreased 0.1 year from 78.7 years in 2015 to 78.6
in 2016, largely because of increases in mortality from unintentional
injuries, suicide, and Alzheimer’s disease, with unintentional injuries making
the largest contribution. This is the second year in a row life expectancy has
declined (1). Changes in death rates at younger ages have a larger impact on
life expectancy than changes at older ages. The increases in death rates at
the younger ages from 2015 to 2016 resulted in the decrease in life expectancy
observed during that period.“

PS I got this link from another commenter here.

------
JoeAltmaier
Look no further than "What restaurants opened in the 1950's", since folks who
lived thru that are in their 60's now.

Taco Bell, KFC, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, Shakeys, Pizza Hut, Little
Caesars, IHop, Carl's Jr, McDonald's and on and on.

[http://www.whendidithappen.com/wdih/restaurants/1950.htm](http://www.whendidithappen.com/wdih/restaurants/1950.htm)

------
coldtea
It's probably because life expectancy, like maternal deaths (of which the US
has U.S. the worst rate in the developed world), can't be faked and spin-
doctored by government sources as easily as can unemployment rates.

And by "it's", I refer to the fact that this is known, not to the reason why
this happens. Unemployment rates, declining middle class, bleeding working
class, and people working shitty subsistence jobs that count as "full
employment" would be my guess for the latter (and all that comes from eat: low
self esteem, depression, drinking, drugs, poor health coverage, homelessness,
et al).

~~~
candiodari
Actually it's easy. Just take maternal deaths. The US is pretty
straightforward in maternal deaths and baby deaths.

If an infant is born alive, and dies, it is an infant death in the US. Even if
it is completely nonviable (e.g. no heart). In the Netherlands any baby that
dies in < 2 weeks after birth is not an infant death. If a child dies < 5
years it is not counted in life expectancy calculations. I'm not sure what the
situation in the US is. But frankly, any time a number sounds extreme (and
this one does) your first thought should frankly be "how have governments
faked this number". Just like for private companies, if a number sounds too
good to be true, it almost always is.

So the numbers aren't as comparable as people claim. There is obviously a
difference, but it's not as dramatic as advertised.

------
matte_black
Is there a way to measure “Life expectancy of people most similar to you”?

Seems like that would be a more meaningful metric for an individual, rather
than lumping them in with every drug addict.

~~~
decebalus1
> Is there a way to measure “Life expectancy of people most similar to you”?

Wow.. whenever someone asks me why the US doesn't have humane social services
and still regards drug addiction as a crime in need of punishment, I'll point
them to this comment.

~~~
matte_black
I don't get why this is a big deal.

We already serve up content based on people similar to you or making similar
choices as you, why not health forecasts?

If I eat healthy, exercise, get the proper amount of sleep and am not addicted
to drugs, why not show me how other people with similar habits as me are
doing, instead of averaging in people who treat their body like a dumpster?

Showing me the life expectancy averaged across an entire country of 300
million doesn't motivate me to do anything. There is nothing I can do that
will make any impact on that number. By this logic we should show life
expectancy as the average of the entire planet, that would be the best
wouldn't it? No.

Showing people an accurate life expectancy however, could motivate them to
make changes to their lifestyle or stay the course if they are happy with it.

I don't know, maybe people just have negative knee-jerk reactions to anyone
proposing individualist sentiments.

~~~
decebalus1
> Showing me the life expectancy averaged across an entire country of 300
> million doesn't motivate me to do anything.

This is not the point of life expectancy statistics. It's not to motivate
people. And It's not about you. Just because you're thinking it's about you
and that it's not relevant to you to be put in the same bucket with others
proves my point.

This is an intentionally nation-scale barometer which is used to asses the
Human Development Index. It's more tied with Income inequality than with your
diet and exercise regimen.

~~~
hueving
None of those reasons the life expectancy decreased had anything to do with
income inequality. Nobody died from an accident or Alzheimers because rich
people got more money. Please don't use this as an excuse for whatever pet
issue you want.

~~~
decebalus1
I didn't state what the reason for decreased life expectancy was. I only said
'it is more tied do X' (see 1) than his individual parameters.

1\.
[http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/158](http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/2/158)

------
biohax2015
It’s very frustrating to watch America decline and not being able to do
anything about it. Has democracy failed? Is it time for a rekindling of the
study of comparative politics? It seems the Chinese have a viable solution to
the problem of a largely uneducated and passive populace.

~~~
forapurpose
> It seems the Chinese have a viable solution

Viable to whom? And who gets to decide? If the Chinese solution is so popular,
why don't they hold an election?

There is no legitimate government without democracy, without the people
deciding who should govern them and how.

~~~
thablackbull
So serious question, do you consider Trump as a legitimate government? As I
understand it (non-American here), Trump won through the electoral college and
most Americans do not support him.

~~~
forapurpose
> do you consider Trump as a legitimate government?

Yes, absolutely, and I loathe him. Democracy isn't simply majority rule (which
is mob rule, not really democracy). While I have mixed feelings about the
Electoral College, it's the law made by the American citizens and their
representatives; he is President.

Also, the U.S. is a republic, not a direct democracy. For very good reasons,
elected representatives don't need day-to-day majority approval; that would
get bad results.

The only exception is if the actual vote was altered in his favor, such as if
someone hacked election machines or vote counts, or if voters were
substantially denied their voting rights. I know of no evidence of hacking -
and I'm someone who is very skeptical of election systems security. The latter
there is some evidence of, but it's hard to define the line between difficulty
and denial of rights, and the net impact on results of everyone of any party
who had a problem voting.

------
doctorless
I’m surprised to see nobody call out alcohol consumption.

While this is a few years old, the data should be relevant; alcohol takes
years to manifest into full-blown health crises:
[https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Surveillance95/CONS1...](https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Surveillance95/CONS10.htm)

Additionally, there has been an upswing in youth consumption in the past
decade directly. We need to have a public conversation about what we’re doing
to ourselves, especially in places with the extreme “beer culture” like SV,
Seattle and Portland.

~~~
ianai
It’s not just alcohol. Diets heavy on fat and cholesterol seem to only get
more popular year after year.

~~~
elsewhen
[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(17\)32252-3/abstract)

~~~
jonathansizz
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2530902)

~~~
elsewhen
I'm not disputing the findings, but take a look at the "conflict of interest"
section of the link you provided.

------
jk2323
This is really bad news and reminds me of: [https://www.amazon.com/After-
Empire-Breakdown-Perspectives-C...](https://www.amazon.com/After-Empire-
Breakdown-Perspectives-Criticism/dp/0231131038)

This guy predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union in his mid 20ies based on
statistical indicators like life expectancy.

------
thedevil
I didn't see any link in the Economist, but I think this is the original
source:

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm)

------
pkaye
What would be the life expectancy if we excluded drug addiction causes?

------
hacknat
Can anyone point me to the ethnic breakdown of the opioid epidemic? Does it
cut across ethnicity/race evenly or does one group suffer more (my guess would
be white men).

------
bjourne
> The last time life expectancy was lower than in the preceding year was in
> 1993. The last time it fell for _two consecutive years_ was in 1962-63.

Nothing really bad happened in 1962 or 1963. So couldn't the current two-year
"trend" be explained by randomness? Life expectancy can't continue to rise
forever.

------
68c12c16
the statistical data given in this article seem to show us only one part of
the whole picture...

And according to an article published at [1] (and of course, by intuition for
many of us), there seems to be an association between a person's wealth and
that person's longevity.

If the income gap between different social strata has been widened in the past
decade, then it is very likely that the life expectancy of poor people in the
country decreases much faster than that overall data could tell us....

============

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/)

------
beebmam
Time to end the war on drugs and start treating drug addiction as a disease...

------
anonytrary
Fat people U depressed people => accounts for what, 80%?

------
zhengiszen
Many call to see the relation with the Afghanistan War and its consequences
(or payback). Action = reaction of was it premeditated by the 'elite' as a
population regulator as we saw with the cocaine. A way to destroy the more
fragile part of the population.

------
lerie82
What I took from this was more dug addicts are dying, not "the average
American", or did I miss something?

~~~
ars
Average is not the same as typical.

~~~
IncRnd
Unfortunately, average, typical, and modal are often confused.

------
pcurve
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/fuele...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/fueled-by-drug-crisis-us-life-expectancy-declines-for-a-second-
straight-
year/2017/12/20/2e3f8dea-e596-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.4ff0dedeeff8)

Looks like it's attributed to drug epidemic

edit: I've posted this WP article because I couldn't actually read the
Economist article due to paywall, and I figured other readers may have same
issues.

~~~
robbiep
The article specifically mentions this

------
refurb
Life expectancy is a very blunt tool when measuring citizen's well being.

A few ways life expectancy can go down:

\- babies that other would have died and not counted live long enough with
modern medicine that they drag the average down

\- refugees or immigrants in poor health increase, dragging the average down

\- a change in methodology in how life expectancy is calculated

~~~
llamataboot
It may be blunt, but it's also pretty striking. Along most measures of
wellbeing and health, the US lags behind most other industrialized countries.

~~~
ajmurmann
It seems like it's not all states though. Funny enough the ones that are
behind are also the ones that don't seem to want any welfare.

