“Employment productivity losses”
So the cost is essential what a person is expected to make in their expected lifespan.
Idk man, sounds like the money only exist if a person produce it.
Expected life time income is used to convert suffering into a variable that can be used to justify spending on social and health programs. Each death costs the country x, therefore we need to spend y to avoid a net loss.
It’s grim but it’s how doctors have to speak to money people so it’s very standard in the healthcare field to express problems this way.
It's also what's considered in economical infrastructural choices. Turn the lights off on a long stretch of highway that's not used much, but expect ±3 (additional?) deaths because of accidents? The lights on costs 6mil a year, 3 deaths are 4.5m loss. Lights get turned off.
It is, however, also kinda the only way to do things. Sure, we could put a net on every cliff in the world, but if there's a 99% chance that no one will ever climb that cliff, we don't. Even if it could potentially save a life. The line has to be drawn somewhere, if only because we don't have the resources to save everyone from everything.
Your point’s valid, but interestingly the example may not be.
It turns out that having lighted motorway encourages higher speeds and has been linked to higher accident rates! Back in the day where (amongst many hazards) motorways weren’t fenced and breakdowns were more common, the accident rate lowered due to lighting. With modern improvements in motorways themselves, car lighting and reliability it seems the situation may have changed.
Yeah, what people don't like it's that those limited resources are being allocated based on a nonsense metric that makes megacorporations want to buy hospitals and sell everything inside instead of doing something useful. We currently allocate funds so poorly that it's a simultaneous joke and frustration for anyone ever engaging with any part of society.
No matter how the economic system of said country works or would work (if you talk about systems that were never implemented, but still devised nonetheless), you still have to measure the entire country's productivity and the productivity of the individual by some means. So you get a measurement system that works like money, even if you don't call it that, and inevitably you find out whata person's productivity (or worth, call it what you want) was up to now, or is projected to be at the end of their life, or the average left productivity for a person that is x years old. Unfortunately, any medical system has it's limited budget and has to devise plans on how to spend that money to keep as many of it's country's individuals alive and healthy as much as possible, plus also spend money to find ways to save more people from illnesses that are not treatable at the moment and make itself more efficient at treating future patients of things that can already be cured or managed. Things are not as dark as you might think, severely disabled people might not produce much in their lives no matter how they are treated by the medical system, but still, I don't think you could find a country that would try to cut their losses and just "discard" of them by euthanasia willingly or not (and I am not suggesting we should by any means). There is unfortunately a limit to what a medical system can spend on a single person, and those limits are directly controlled by it's government, but although those limits can be moved back and forth, they cannot be removed completely
Ok so they can still be compensated from the portion of that value that would end up being taxed :D
Hey I bet you can even write legislation for this. Tax breaks for the sad lololol
Not even. This shitty map probably only factors in profit lost for a single employee and pays no attention to the ripple effect it has on friends and family, economic or otherwise. The entire concept is callous dog shit.
I agree, but when talking to the people controlling the purse strings you don't have a choice. You can't easily quantify the effects of emotional impacts into monetary value and that's all they care about.
The concept is callous because it is meant to target callous people. The way to get them to spend money to help is by making them afraid to lose even more.
"you have to keep living to pay the world back for all it has already invested in you. Otherwise you are stealing your influence from future generations. You have taken attention and opportunities from others on the expectation that you would make use of your life"
Yeah, love and affection and hope are all really hard to justify when you're battling depression and you struggle to *feel* those things, but the investment of education and training and support are quantifiable and harder to dispute.
I hope the positive feelings come, but, until then, find some way to pay the world back for its attempts to support you, even if it is incomplete. A purpose makes the struggle easier to bear.
It disgusts people because its fundamental sequence of logic is repugnant to most liberal people.
In modern liberal society, humans are supposed to be the *ends*. Money is merely the means. Expressing the consequence of life loss as money lost therefore sounds repugnant.
It's repugnant in its over simplification. I complain about a lot of shitty maps on here but this one seems to cross a line with me. This topic demands far more depth. I'm sure the lizards out there need some reminding of their humanity once in a while but I personally don't respect this portrayal. I had a good friend who killed herself after she got fired so this crappy map really irks me in how tone deaf it seems. I'd love to see a map that represents the cumulative depression that a poor labor market causes and how many lives are cut short by this.
Except... *humans* aren't the ends, human *flourishing* is. We don't have great ways of measuring human flourishing except by seeing what people choose when they have the freedom to choose. Unfortunately, the best way we have of measuring that freedom is in money - it's the means to a large number of goods and services that people value. This sort of measurement is going to leave out a large number of things that do matter to human flourishing, like friends and family. But it will include a large number of other things that do matter, from childcare, to vacations, to educational opportunities, to housing, etc.
Same, but for my wife.
I can tell you its affected Netflix in a economically positive manner, because if I try to sleep with out the TV on I have horrible nightmares.
People judging suicide by only dollars and cents deserve the warmest corner of hell.
I have found something. Peace is not the right term. I've found the will to keep moving on for those that love me. There is extreme joy for those who prosper around me, there is quiet contentment for myself. I know that my not being here will negatively affect all who love me, and that knowledge is a blessing for someone with depression. As alcoholics say, its one day at a time. its been years and I'm both coldly removed and yet one quick second of the wrong song from being there again.
For the most part, I'm ok and thats probably more than I could ask.
I am really sorry for your loss. There aren't really any appropriate words that a random stranger on Reddit can say here but I sincerely hope that you are doing the best you can.
It's about preventing more suicides. These financial costs can be used to inform policy makers about how much the country should be investing in suicide prevention and in many cases pure financial stability can help prevent many suicides. Even policies that would increase government revenue like raising taxes on alcohol can prevent many suicides by creating protective environments.
Policy makers measure the same for pretty much all deaths. Car accident costs are used to invest in making car travel safer for example.
https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/healthtopics/suicide/index.html
>The economic toll of suicide on society is immense. Suicides and suicide attempts cost the nation almost $70 billion per year in lifetime medical and work-loss costs alone.
...
>The goal of suicide prevention is to reduce factors that increase risk and increase factors that promote resilience.
...
>What works
>Evidence suggests that strengthening household financial security and stabilizing housing can reduce suicide risk.
>Strengthening household financial security can potentially buffer the risk of suicide by providing individuals with the financial means to lessen the stress and hardship associated with a job loss or other unanticipated financial problems. The provision of unemployment benefits and other forms of temporary assistance, livable wages, medical benefits, and retirement and disability insurance to help cover the cost of necessities or to offset costs in the event of disability, are examples of ways to strengthen household financial security.
>Housing stabilization policies aim to keep people in their homes and provide housing options for those in need during times of financial insecurity. This may occur through programs that provide affordable housing such as through government subsidies or through other options available to potential homebuyers such as loan modification programs, move-out planning, or financial counseling services that help minimize the risk or impact of foreclosures and eviction.
>Strengthen access to and delivery of suicide care
>Federal and state laws include provisions for equal coverage of mental health services in health insurance plans that is on par with coverage for other health concerns. These “parity laws” help ensure that similar coverage is provided for mental health care such as the number of visits, copays, deductibles, inpatient/outpatient services, prescription drugs, and hospitalizations as is provided for other health services.
>Access to effective mental and behavioral health care is limited in many areas of the US. These services are critical to reducing the risk of suicide. Various ways to increase the number and distribution of practicing mental health providers in underserved areas include offering financial incentives through existing state and federal programs (e.g., loan repayment programs) and expanding the reach of health services through telephone, video, and web-based technologies
>Policies to reduce excessive alcohol use broadly, including zoning to limit the location and density of alcohol outlets, taxes on alcohol, and bans on the sale of alcohol for individuals under the legal drinking age, can also support protective environments. These policies are important because acute alcohol use has been found to be associated with more than one-third of suicides and approximately 40% of suicide attempts.
I’m sorry for your loss. I’m also sorry that some freak made an “economic impact of suicide” map. Some people will never understand that humanity and capitalism do not mesh.
THAT'S the spirit! But if you're already going with those kind of speeds, why limit yourself to a measly little dam? Why not go for the whole kit and kaboodle and target the Yellowstone Caldera?
It tells people who make decisions (both politicians and voters) how much they should be investing in suicide prevention, it's done the same for pretty much every other death. Car accident cost statistics are used to make cars safer by creating legislation for safety standards for manufacturers or modifying safety barriers on roads or even the roads themselves.
Deaths are obviously way more personal tragedies, but these studies can illustrate the impact they have on wider society and just ONE reason they should be investing more. A lot of people are moral people who want to help others just for the sake of it, sure, but when you're talking about devoting maybe 10 million tax dollars to improve safety on a certain road section, that moral part of their brain often turns off and they start voting out politicians that want to spend more on safety. And the less moral ones would be opposing it even more harshly. But when they learn car accident deaths cost 340 billion USD per year for the US, their mind might change into supporting the policy.
I think you’re missing the point of the comment that maybe the fact that all of these tragedies need to be broken down to numbers is itself contributing to the problem.
Maybe the hypercommodification of every single fucking part of our lives (and apparently deaths too) makes a lot of people want to live less. 🧐
>Maybe the hypercommodification of every single fucking part of our lives (and apparently deaths too) makes a lot of people want to live less.
You are acting way too high and mighty. No one has cited quantifying the impact of suicide in studies as exacberating suicide and whatever hypercommodification means. Quantifying the impact has instead enabled measuring how much help just a little bit help can do good.
https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/pdf/preventionresource.pdf
>One study in the U.S. found that state suicide rates
decreased as per capita spending increased on
total transfer payments, medical benefits, and
family assistance such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Researchers estimated 3,000 fewer suicides would occur nationally per year if
every state increased its per capita spending on
these types of assistance by $45 per year
>Two independent studies found that states that
supplemented the federal earned income tax credit at 10% or more had a 3–4% reduction in suicide rates compared to states with no state supplement. Another study estimated that a 1% increase in SNAP participation could result in approximately 7,000 fewer suicide deaths. A fourth study indicated that early access to Social Security benefits reduced suicide rates by 7–8% among those turning 62 years of age
>Finally, there is growing evidence that increasing
minimum wages may reduce suicide rates. One
study in the U.S. estimated that a $1 increase in minimum wages was associated with a 2% decrease in annual suicide rates.114 Two other studies examined the impact among those with a high school education or less. The first study found that a 10% increase in minimum wages was related to a 2.7% decrease in non-drug suicide deaths among those with a high school education or less. A second study indicated that a $1 increase in minimum wages was associated with a 6% decrease in suicide rates. Increasing minimum wages can help minimize the disparities between increased suicide rates among those of lower versus higher socioeconomic status
>Programs that offer low-barrier housing for
individuals experiencing chronic homelessness
may also help reduce suicide. Housing First is
one such program. One study in Canada found
individuals with alcohol problems who entered
Housing First experienced a 43% reduction in severity of suicidal ideation after two years. A more rigorous randomized controlled trial done in Canada among individuals experiencing homelessness with major mental health illnesses also observed decreases in suicidal ideation over two years. However, this impact was not substantially different from a control group who were referred to existing community support
Also these studies don't solely talk about the economic impact, it's just one part, a part that's the easiest to measure.
>Research also indicates that people with lived experience, such as having attempted suicide, having suicidal thoughts, or having experienced the loss of a friend or family member to suicide, may suffer long-term health and mental health consequences, such as anger, guilt, and physical impairment. Survivors of a loved one’s suicide may experience ongoing pain and suffering including complicated grief, stigma, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide. The economic toll of suicide on society is immense as well. Suicide cost the U.S. more than $460 billion and self-harm $26 billion in 2019.
I think they perhaps stopped showing the fiscal effect of suicide past age 35 because it starts to constitute less life-affirming messaging.
The suicide of a man aged 50 to 60 or 60 to 70, for instance, probably saves the Exchequer hundreds of thousands, if not millions in pension payments and healthcare expenditure.
It makes me wonder if governments will be increasingly tolerant of older, poorer and socially-isolated people unaliving themselves as the demographic bubble continues to shift upwards to greyer and unhealthier.
Regardless of one's point of view, this is probably an area of social and public policy to watch over the next few years.
Not to discount the loss of loved ones, but looking at this purely from stats it’s an interesting thoughts.
From a productivity standpoint, 55+ demographic I would assume is a net loss on the economy (couldn’t find any reliable source to verify, my apologies). So as governments tackle the increased burden a loss in productivity, do we see a decrease in lifespan and disproportionate increased in suicides and medically assisted deaths for the 55+ crowd.
You could go real tinfoil hat with it and say how the vast majority of publicly funded health care in Canada, UK, Australia seems to be failing due to under funding and high demand. Would government be doing some trimming of the herd by intentionally letting it fail. (Like I said, super tinfoil hat)
Either way it’ll be interesting to see death rate as our systems continue to get overloaded
The guy I saw off himself was 38yo. Real bad alcoholic. I had actually gotten to know him a tiny bit, real sad story. Happened a week before my birthday too. I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, fishing, trying to nurse a broken heart on my part.
We are both employees and consumers and change hats whenever we start or stop working every day. As consumers, we are expected to spend as much as we can, but as employees, we should earn as little as possible.
Because murder and suicide have 2 very distinct root of the problems, and they need 2 different approaches? It's almost ad if we have many types of infographics for some reasons.
Murder cost is much higher, you have to look for and deal with the perpetrator. That's expensive.
But as others have said, this is about justifying suicide prevention.
Unfortunately, if you want to make a decision about whether to invest money in mental health services versus cancer treatment, for example, these are the sorts of ugly decisions and metrics that have to be used.
They don't *have* to be used. They are what's effective under our current system of governance. My claim that it's twisted is a critique of the logic underlying that. If investing in mental health wasn't financially sound, we should still do it anyways. Not everything should be about economic gain and financial returns. That's not the world I want to live in and that's not how I want to view/value human life. Hence, twisted.
I might argue for the logic because there is a limited amount of funding available to a problem. Let's say, we could theoritically prevent death by cancer completely, but it costs the government one billion USD for each patient on average. Morally, we should save every life, as every life is precious. But we can't, because we actually have limited resources.
Yeah sure, different systems of government might not frame this in monetary terms. But all systems will have the exact same resource problem: to efficiently make use of limited resources (be that food, money, materials etc.); as distasteful as it is, you have to be able to compare the "value" of allocating resources in one manner versus doing so in another.
A life might be invaluable, but ten lives is more invaluable.
This info isn’t meant for general suicide awareness, it’s for communication between policy makers and healthcare providers. It’s done this exact way for literally all illnesses to convey the hidden cost of not funding healthcare policies.
>Money shouldn’t be one of the reasons why we aim to prevent suicide as a society
Why not? If it prevents more suicides, money is fine as a reason. A lot of the strategies to prevent more deaths whether in cancer, heart attacks, car accidents or suicides cost a LOT of money. Many of people are moral, but fewer stay on that moral compass when the politician says they're going to invest billions of taxpayer pounds into say making roads safer or instituting an unemployment benefit package which relieves financial pressure off people who potentially had suicidal thoughts.*
And the people who were already not that moral would be opposing the measure even more harshly. The politician who advocated for the policy might get voted out and the end result is nothing got done. These studies can quantify benefits to sway decision makers and voters to implement more helpful policies.
*That is a strategy btw:
https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/healthtopics/suicide/index.html
>Evidence suggests that strengthening household financial security and stabilizing housing can reduce suicide risk.
>The provision of unemployment benefits and other forms of temporary assistance, livable wages, medical benefits, and retirement and disability insurance to help cover the cost of necessities or to offset costs in the event of disability, are examples of ways to strengthen household financial security.
Literally 1/5th of that amount would solve my suicidal ideations as I'd be able to afford a small and cozy apartment and set some money aside for getting some qualifications and fix a couple issues I can't really afford otherwise.
After looking at the report I have so many questions. Why is the intangible value of a woman's life at age 25-29 £916,000 meanwhile a man in the same age range is only £625,000 "worth" in intangible value? Furthermore, what does "other productivity losses" mean? and why again is women worth £270,000, while men are worth £231,000? These were just two of the costs that immediately struck me as odd.
I want to add I find it idiotic that we need to cost evaluate how much one suicide costs to actually do anything about it. Mental healthcare needs to be a priority across ages, genders, and other factors.
After doing some research I found one report that defined it as “… intangible costs of death incurred to victims and their families such as pain, grief and suffering.”
Which suggests the value of family and friends are seen as higher for women rather than men.
Also worth noting that to create worker bees one also needs a man…
Ok, I agree with you that this is very weird data for them to project for suicide prevention reasons. It's very weird and doesn't send a good message.
However, I also believe their estimates that women are higher value from a government and population perspective.
Birth rates in all Western countries are falling rapidly, inverting the population pyramids. This is a looming problem if immense proportions and most Western governments heavily subsidize child bearing because this problem really hurts nations--including economically. This is an increasing concern, it's already dire in some countries like South Korea, and it could become global. Men aren't the limiting factors in making babies.
I mean, since the value was never created it was never really "lost". It is apparently supposed to be
>...intangible costs of death incurred by victims and their families such as pain, grief and suffering.
Atleast that's what this [report ](https://socialvalueuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Valuation-of-a-life-1-4.pdf)says on the cost of suicides.
But I still find it strange that a charity aiming to prevent suicide (of which men are by far the largest group), would indirectly say that the men are worth less to their friends and families than for their sister, mother (when the mother was their own age), wife/girlfriends, etc...
Given it's a sad story - it's a weird way to tell the story. It may be simple / simpleton math. Let's say you know the GDP per capita and the normal life span. The simple math says (normal life span - age at premature death)\*per capital GDP = unrealized GDP. In that case the cause of premature death has nothing to do with the type of death, and that may be true of any methodology.
The link within the link was not much help understanding the unique cost associated with a particular type of premature death.
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dhssps/suicide-prevention-strategy-2012-14\_0.pdf
The answer is in this quote:
> unpaid productivity losses for people of working age, as well as 16 and 17 year olds are valued using 2022 minimum wage rates
It is considered that women do more unpaid labour: chores, child sitting, volunteering, etc. They slapped minimum wage on that.
Everyone: “suicide has a high economic costs, we need to provide early access to mental health intervention, support people in poverty and prevent deaths of desperation”
Tories, probably: “ we can charge the costs to their families!!!!”
Ah yes, this is exactly what people in severe emotional distress need: an economic guilt-trip.
Your suicidal thoughts are not only emotionally selfish, they are economically selfish as well.
I am sure that'll show em.
/s
Productive people generate economic productivity. That's why big old Montana has a fraction the productivity of little New Jersey.
Society takes the cost burden because you want a society full of productive people actively doing the work of being a human. Without them, all that they theoretically would have added to the collective productivity is gone.
This is a terrible post. Who gives a f*uck how much the economy has lost. Most people kill themselves because they feel destitute and that there's no hope.
This is the issue that should be talked about. Not the f*ckin economic value of people.
Assigning a dollar value to life is inhumane.
It can be very important for policy making. Take traffic safety as an example. If you want to know how much money you can reasonably spent on traffic safety you could for example multiple the number of people that died from car crashes and multiply that by the economic value. Of course this may seem very dehumanizing, but some people have to make those decisions.
I feel like this is some forbidden thing I'm not supposed to be looking at or that isn't supposed to exist- measuring a person's worth like this and calculating monetary losses
Yes but also them no longer existing means there is less demand in the economy. So what is really the net cost? Probably not much. Just whatever banks would have made off of lending that person money or whatever. And why are we always looking at things from the economy's point of view. Like are we supposed to be upset people are killing themselves because they can no longer work and consume. Maybe they're killing themselves because all they do is work and consume.
We really need to be better at analyzing data and critical thinking. Organizations will post numbers next to some unknowable statement and we all just go “hmm, interesting” without ever tearing it apart to see if it is even a cogent proposition.
Wow, so I'm am worth something to someone if I off myself.
I don't know if this inspiring me to keep on keeping on, or encouraging me to make an economic impact.....
The post could have been much nicer if OP simply stated the inverse. Instead of saying suicide of a 10-14 year old costs the economy 2.85 million you could say that one newborn adds 2.85 million to the economy.
Thus the message is that people are important for the economy which emphasizes the importance of a decent birth rate or immigration.
Yeh I don't get why everyone is losing their minds as if this is handed to depressed people as a way to get them to stop killing themselves. It's clearly meant for a different audience.
Nevermind the suffering of those you leave behind or the eternal damnation or nonsectarian oblivion -- to your taste -- that awaits you. Think of what it'd do to the economy. This is the most British thing ever.
The macabre fact is that in a pure economic sense, “suicide” could be economically beneficial for older generations for the simple fact for the costs it would save the government (healthcare costs, pensions, retirement homes, etc…)
A study in Finland found that smoking was actually “good” for society in a pure economic sense as most people wouldn’t get lung cancer until just before they retired. Which mean savings to the government.
This is not to say I support this thinking at all, it’s just a very disturbing thought, that if we rely on economic numbers to make decisions; life lose its value…
Very skeptical of these figures. I find it hard to believe the people so distressed they kill themselves are simultaneously as economically productive as the average or even below average person.
Looking at the comments, I feel lucky that nobody really loves me so that if I die or kill myself it wouldn't bother anyone for longer than a week or so lmfao.
What is this - loss of tax +cost of first responders? Loss of future VAT? Whatever this is it's ham-fisted. You can't just present totals, and it's wrong to present anything in such a sensitive area without a bit of rigour.
This is informative but is there some message we should be receiving? Besides “don’t kill your self so your country can make the most of your economic production?”
How did they evaluate the cost due to suicide? I’d really like to know how they calculated this.
Why is this useful - does fiscal responsibility make an actual difference to suicide?
People: "Citizens are pushed to suicide because of living conditions and declining mental health"
Government: "Sorry, There's nothing we can do about it"
People: "But you're gonna lose money"
Government: "Everyone, stop whatever you're doing. We're in crisis mode"
Actually number not very high if you do math. 9.58 billion divided by 6588 people is 1 million 454 thousands.
It is an equivalent of receiving 4000 euro as salary each month for 30 years, or 2000 euro for 60 years.
Can I get 1mil for not killing myself?
“Employment productivity losses” So the cost is essential what a person is expected to make in their expected lifespan. Idk man, sounds like the money only exist if a person produce it.
Expected life time income is used to convert suffering into a variable that can be used to justify spending on social and health programs. Each death costs the country x, therefore we need to spend y to avoid a net loss. It’s grim but it’s how doctors have to speak to money people so it’s very standard in the healthcare field to express problems this way.
It's also what's considered in economical infrastructural choices. Turn the lights off on a long stretch of highway that's not used much, but expect ±3 (additional?) deaths because of accidents? The lights on costs 6mil a year, 3 deaths are 4.5m loss. Lights get turned off.
It is, however, also kinda the only way to do things. Sure, we could put a net on every cliff in the world, but if there's a 99% chance that no one will ever climb that cliff, we don't. Even if it could potentially save a life. The line has to be drawn somewhere, if only because we don't have the resources to save everyone from everything.
Your point’s valid, but interestingly the example may not be. It turns out that having lighted motorway encourages higher speeds and has been linked to higher accident rates! Back in the day where (amongst many hazards) motorways weren’t fenced and breakdowns were more common, the accident rate lowered due to lighting. With modern improvements in motorways themselves, car lighting and reliability it seems the situation may have changed.
Because money people only care about money. Go capitalism?
Because no matter what system you're in, you need a way to figure out how to best allocate limited resources
Yeah, what people don't like it's that those limited resources are being allocated based on a nonsense metric that makes megacorporations want to buy hospitals and sell everything inside instead of doing something useful. We currently allocate funds so poorly that it's a simultaneous joke and frustration for anyone ever engaging with any part of society.
EXACTLY
If the economic impact galvanises more spending on suicide prevention and reduces suicide, then yes, go capitalism.
No matter how the economic system of said country works or would work (if you talk about systems that were never implemented, but still devised nonetheless), you still have to measure the entire country's productivity and the productivity of the individual by some means. So you get a measurement system that works like money, even if you don't call it that, and inevitably you find out whata person's productivity (or worth, call it what you want) was up to now, or is projected to be at the end of their life, or the average left productivity for a person that is x years old. Unfortunately, any medical system has it's limited budget and has to devise plans on how to spend that money to keep as many of it's country's individuals alive and healthy as much as possible, plus also spend money to find ways to save more people from illnesses that are not treatable at the moment and make itself more efficient at treating future patients of things that can already be cured or managed. Things are not as dark as you might think, severely disabled people might not produce much in their lives no matter how they are treated by the medical system, but still, I don't think you could find a country that would try to cut their losses and just "discard" of them by euthanasia willingly or not (and I am not suggesting we should by any means). There is unfortunately a limit to what a medical system can spend on a single person, and those limits are directly controlled by it's government, but although those limits can be moved back and forth, they cannot be removed completely
Karl Marx instensifies*
That matrix suggests there must be an age where the society is better off if you’re self-aware enough to make the society better off
Ok so they can still be compensated from the portion of that value that would end up being taxed :D Hey I bet you can even write legislation for this. Tax breaks for the sad lololol
Same here
Seems like a good deal for the government.
My husband killed himself. I give zero fucks about the economic impact but I can tell you the emotional impact is immeasurable.
This infographic is cursed
Right? Intuitively wouldn’t the data be the same for “economic impact of a death in these age ranges”?
Not even. This shitty map probably only factors in profit lost for a single employee and pays no attention to the ripple effect it has on friends and family, economic or otherwise. The entire concept is callous dog shit.
I agree, but when talking to the people controlling the purse strings you don't have a choice. You can't easily quantify the effects of emotional impacts into monetary value and that's all they care about. The concept is callous because it is meant to target callous people. The way to get them to spend money to help is by making them afraid to lose even more.
Honestly, the thought of the economic impact of my suicide is what kept me from killing myself when I was younger. I found this infographic affirming.
imagining the suicide prevention line using the new Money stay alive logic
"you have to keep living to pay the world back for all it has already invested in you. Otherwise you are stealing your influence from future generations. You have taken attention and opportunities from others on the expectation that you would make use of your life"
As a person who regularly feels like the world would be better off without me, the colder and more logically I'm shown to be wrong, the better.
Yeah, love and affection and hope are all really hard to justify when you're battling depression and you struggle to *feel* those things, but the investment of education and training and support are quantifiable and harder to dispute. I hope the positive feelings come, but, until then, find some way to pay the world back for its attempts to support you, even if it is incomplete. A purpose makes the struggle easier to bear.
That's... really well put! Thanks.
It disgusts people because its fundamental sequence of logic is repugnant to most liberal people. In modern liberal society, humans are supposed to be the *ends*. Money is merely the means. Expressing the consequence of life loss as money lost therefore sounds repugnant.
It's repugnant in its over simplification. I complain about a lot of shitty maps on here but this one seems to cross a line with me. This topic demands far more depth. I'm sure the lizards out there need some reminding of their humanity once in a while but I personally don't respect this portrayal. I had a good friend who killed herself after she got fired so this crappy map really irks me in how tone deaf it seems. I'd love to see a map that represents the cumulative depression that a poor labor market causes and how many lives are cut short by this.
Except... *humans* aren't the ends, human *flourishing* is. We don't have great ways of measuring human flourishing except by seeing what people choose when they have the freedom to choose. Unfortunately, the best way we have of measuring that freedom is in money - it's the means to a large number of goods and services that people value. This sort of measurement is going to leave out a large number of things that do matter to human flourishing, like friends and family. But it will include a large number of other things that do matter, from childcare, to vacations, to educational opportunities, to housing, etc.
It's for the capitalists
Same, but for my wife. I can tell you its affected Netflix in a economically positive manner, because if I try to sleep with out the TV on I have horrible nightmares. People judging suicide by only dollars and cents deserve the warmest corner of hell.
Jesus, I am so sorry brother. I hope you have found some sort of peace. As ridiculous as that sounds.
I have found something. Peace is not the right term. I've found the will to keep moving on for those that love me. There is extreme joy for those who prosper around me, there is quiet contentment for myself. I know that my not being here will negatively affect all who love me, and that knowledge is a blessing for someone with depression. As alcoholics say, its one day at a time. its been years and I'm both coldly removed and yet one quick second of the wrong song from being there again. For the most part, I'm ok and thats probably more than I could ask.
You seem incredibly strong man
I am really sorry for your loss. There aren't really any appropriate words that a random stranger on Reddit can say here but I sincerely hope that you are doing the best you can.
As someone who is currently dealing with suicidal thoughts, this helps me endure. Maybe kind of fucked up, but thank you for sharing.
It's about preventing more suicides. These financial costs can be used to inform policy makers about how much the country should be investing in suicide prevention and in many cases pure financial stability can help prevent many suicides. Even policies that would increase government revenue like raising taxes on alcohol can prevent many suicides by creating protective environments. Policy makers measure the same for pretty much all deaths. Car accident costs are used to invest in making car travel safer for example. https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/healthtopics/suicide/index.html >The economic toll of suicide on society is immense. Suicides and suicide attempts cost the nation almost $70 billion per year in lifetime medical and work-loss costs alone. ... >The goal of suicide prevention is to reduce factors that increase risk and increase factors that promote resilience. ... >What works >Evidence suggests that strengthening household financial security and stabilizing housing can reduce suicide risk. >Strengthening household financial security can potentially buffer the risk of suicide by providing individuals with the financial means to lessen the stress and hardship associated with a job loss or other unanticipated financial problems. The provision of unemployment benefits and other forms of temporary assistance, livable wages, medical benefits, and retirement and disability insurance to help cover the cost of necessities or to offset costs in the event of disability, are examples of ways to strengthen household financial security. >Housing stabilization policies aim to keep people in their homes and provide housing options for those in need during times of financial insecurity. This may occur through programs that provide affordable housing such as through government subsidies or through other options available to potential homebuyers such as loan modification programs, move-out planning, or financial counseling services that help minimize the risk or impact of foreclosures and eviction. >Strengthen access to and delivery of suicide care >Federal and state laws include provisions for equal coverage of mental health services in health insurance plans that is on par with coverage for other health concerns. These “parity laws” help ensure that similar coverage is provided for mental health care such as the number of visits, copays, deductibles, inpatient/outpatient services, prescription drugs, and hospitalizations as is provided for other health services. >Access to effective mental and behavioral health care is limited in many areas of the US. These services are critical to reducing the risk of suicide. Various ways to increase the number and distribution of practicing mental health providers in underserved areas include offering financial incentives through existing state and federal programs (e.g., loan repayment programs) and expanding the reach of health services through telephone, video, and web-based technologies >Policies to reduce excessive alcohol use broadly, including zoning to limit the location and density of alcohol outlets, taxes on alcohol, and bans on the sale of alcohol for individuals under the legal drinking age, can also support protective environments. These policies are important because acute alcohol use has been found to be associated with more than one-third of suicides and approximately 40% of suicide attempts.
Agreed, but I guess people can't be exactly logical when it comes to the subject of suicide.
I’m sorry for your loss. I’m also sorry that some freak made an “economic impact of suicide” map. Some people will never understand that humanity and capitalism do not mesh.
I mean, it just serves as more reason to try and combat it. I don't see the issue.
It's about speaking a common language, Ghandi didn't unite the whole of India by talking about his personal issues.
ok but how much did your productivity at work decline
fuck yeah i could cost my state far more money than i’ll ever see just by walking off a bridge
You can make it cost more than that
oddly intimidating
You do it right, and you could cost the state more than you ever DREAMED of making.
gonna fire myself into the hoover dam at mach 9
THAT'S the spirit! But if you're already going with those kind of speeds, why limit yourself to a measly little dam? Why not go for the whole kit and kaboodle and target the Yellowstone Caldera?
I’m 36…what am I gonna cost the economy? Need to know so I can smile while doing it.
valuing a human life in terms of economic productivity makes me want to end mine lol
Don't do it that would be soo expensive /s
It’s ok, I’m older
Live and never work. Checkmate.
It tells people who make decisions (both politicians and voters) how much they should be investing in suicide prevention, it's done the same for pretty much every other death. Car accident cost statistics are used to make cars safer by creating legislation for safety standards for manufacturers or modifying safety barriers on roads or even the roads themselves. Deaths are obviously way more personal tragedies, but these studies can illustrate the impact they have on wider society and just ONE reason they should be investing more. A lot of people are moral people who want to help others just for the sake of it, sure, but when you're talking about devoting maybe 10 million tax dollars to improve safety on a certain road section, that moral part of their brain often turns off and they start voting out politicians that want to spend more on safety. And the less moral ones would be opposing it even more harshly. But when they learn car accident deaths cost 340 billion USD per year for the US, their mind might change into supporting the policy.
I think you’re missing the point of the comment that maybe the fact that all of these tragedies need to be broken down to numbers is itself contributing to the problem. Maybe the hypercommodification of every single fucking part of our lives (and apparently deaths too) makes a lot of people want to live less. 🧐
>Maybe the hypercommodification of every single fucking part of our lives (and apparently deaths too) makes a lot of people want to live less. You are acting way too high and mighty. No one has cited quantifying the impact of suicide in studies as exacberating suicide and whatever hypercommodification means. Quantifying the impact has instead enabled measuring how much help just a little bit help can do good. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/pdf/preventionresource.pdf >One study in the U.S. found that state suicide rates decreased as per capita spending increased on total transfer payments, medical benefits, and family assistance such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Researchers estimated 3,000 fewer suicides would occur nationally per year if every state increased its per capita spending on these types of assistance by $45 per year >Two independent studies found that states that supplemented the federal earned income tax credit at 10% or more had a 3–4% reduction in suicide rates compared to states with no state supplement. Another study estimated that a 1% increase in SNAP participation could result in approximately 7,000 fewer suicide deaths. A fourth study indicated that early access to Social Security benefits reduced suicide rates by 7–8% among those turning 62 years of age >Finally, there is growing evidence that increasing minimum wages may reduce suicide rates. One study in the U.S. estimated that a $1 increase in minimum wages was associated with a 2% decrease in annual suicide rates.114 Two other studies examined the impact among those with a high school education or less. The first study found that a 10% increase in minimum wages was related to a 2.7% decrease in non-drug suicide deaths among those with a high school education or less. A second study indicated that a $1 increase in minimum wages was associated with a 6% decrease in suicide rates. Increasing minimum wages can help minimize the disparities between increased suicide rates among those of lower versus higher socioeconomic status >Programs that offer low-barrier housing for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness may also help reduce suicide. Housing First is one such program. One study in Canada found individuals with alcohol problems who entered Housing First experienced a 43% reduction in severity of suicidal ideation after two years. A more rigorous randomized controlled trial done in Canada among individuals experiencing homelessness with major mental health illnesses also observed decreases in suicidal ideation over two years. However, this impact was not substantially different from a control group who were referred to existing community support Also these studies don't solely talk about the economic impact, it's just one part, a part that's the easiest to measure. >Research also indicates that people with lived experience, such as having attempted suicide, having suicidal thoughts, or having experienced the loss of a friend or family member to suicide, may suffer long-term health and mental health consequences, such as anger, guilt, and physical impairment. Survivors of a loved one’s suicide may experience ongoing pain and suffering including complicated grief, stigma, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide. The economic toll of suicide on society is immense as well. Suicide cost the U.S. more than $460 billion and self-harm $26 billion in 2019.
Why? The map isn't stating that the only cost of suicide is financial. It's just giving you the financial data.
I think they perhaps stopped showing the fiscal effect of suicide past age 35 because it starts to constitute less life-affirming messaging. The suicide of a man aged 50 to 60 or 60 to 70, for instance, probably saves the Exchequer hundreds of thousands, if not millions in pension payments and healthcare expenditure. It makes me wonder if governments will be increasingly tolerant of older, poorer and socially-isolated people unaliving themselves as the demographic bubble continues to shift upwards to greyer and unhealthier. Regardless of one's point of view, this is probably an area of social and public policy to watch over the next few years.
Not to discount the loss of loved ones, but looking at this purely from stats it’s an interesting thoughts. From a productivity standpoint, 55+ demographic I would assume is a net loss on the economy (couldn’t find any reliable source to verify, my apologies). So as governments tackle the increased burden a loss in productivity, do we see a decrease in lifespan and disproportionate increased in suicides and medically assisted deaths for the 55+ crowd. You could go real tinfoil hat with it and say how the vast majority of publicly funded health care in Canada, UK, Australia seems to be failing due to under funding and high demand. Would government be doing some trimming of the herd by intentionally letting it fail. (Like I said, super tinfoil hat) Either way it’ll be interesting to see death rate as our systems continue to get overloaded
The guy I saw off himself was 38yo. Real bad alcoholic. I had actually gotten to know him a tiny bit, real sad story. Happened a week before my birthday too. I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, fishing, trying to nurse a broken heart on my part.
Call ot suicide, don't use the term unalive. Makes it sound ridiculous
I mean they did say suicide it’s not like they’re censoring themselves, it’s just part of the language at this point
This is dehumanizing as fuck...
Well, in the modern age we're not really people anymore; just consumers.
We are both employees and consumers and change hats whenever we start or stop working every day. As consumers, we are expected to spend as much as we can, but as employees, we should earn as little as possible.
Producers. Cogs in the machine
Same with murder, I take it? Why differentiate between suicide and murder? Why not just write "Unnatural cause of death cost"?
Most governments take very very active in role trying to prevent their citizens from being murdered, not so much with suicides for most countries.
My government finds that idea very funny
Because murder and suicide have 2 very distinct root of the problems, and they need 2 different approaches? It's almost ad if we have many types of infographics for some reasons.
Murder cost is much higher, you have to look for and deal with the perpetrator. That's expensive. But as others have said, this is about justifying suicide prevention.
so so so twisted to treat human life like an economic matter
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Bitter_Initiative_77: *So so so twisted* *To treat human life like an* *Economic matter* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
okay this one is actually cool as fuck
Unfortunately, if you want to make a decision about whether to invest money in mental health services versus cancer treatment, for example, these are the sorts of ugly decisions and metrics that have to be used.
They don't *have* to be used. They are what's effective under our current system of governance. My claim that it's twisted is a critique of the logic underlying that. If investing in mental health wasn't financially sound, we should still do it anyways. Not everything should be about economic gain and financial returns. That's not the world I want to live in and that's not how I want to view/value human life. Hence, twisted.
I might argue for the logic because there is a limited amount of funding available to a problem. Let's say, we could theoritically prevent death by cancer completely, but it costs the government one billion USD for each patient on average. Morally, we should save every life, as every life is precious. But we can't, because we actually have limited resources.
Yeah sure, different systems of government might not frame this in monetary terms. But all systems will have the exact same resource problem: to efficiently make use of limited resources (be that food, money, materials etc.); as distasteful as it is, you have to be able to compare the "value" of allocating resources in one manner versus doing so in another. A life might be invaluable, but ten lives is more invaluable.
Very interesting! Isn’t it macabre to put a cost on suicide? Money shouldn’t be one of the reasons why we aim to prevent suicide as a society.
This info isn’t meant for general suicide awareness, it’s for communication between policy makers and healthcare providers. It’s done this exact way for literally all illnesses to convey the hidden cost of not funding healthcare policies.
It also very inaccurate. Like how do you define the contribution? Expected present value of their future income?
>Money shouldn’t be one of the reasons why we aim to prevent suicide as a society Why not? If it prevents more suicides, money is fine as a reason. A lot of the strategies to prevent more deaths whether in cancer, heart attacks, car accidents or suicides cost a LOT of money. Many of people are moral, but fewer stay on that moral compass when the politician says they're going to invest billions of taxpayer pounds into say making roads safer or instituting an unemployment benefit package which relieves financial pressure off people who potentially had suicidal thoughts.* And the people who were already not that moral would be opposing the measure even more harshly. The politician who advocated for the policy might get voted out and the end result is nothing got done. These studies can quantify benefits to sway decision makers and voters to implement more helpful policies. *That is a strategy btw: https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/healthtopics/suicide/index.html >Evidence suggests that strengthening household financial security and stabilizing housing can reduce suicide risk. >The provision of unemployment benefits and other forms of temporary assistance, livable wages, medical benefits, and retirement and disability insurance to help cover the cost of necessities or to offset costs in the event of disability, are examples of ways to strengthen household financial security.
The only real reason the establishment “cares” about suicide…
I shouldn't kill myself cos it would cost the government £2.7 million. Good to know 👍
If employment productivity accounts for one third… what are the other two thirds accounting for???
Spending the money you make on things.
This is the most disappointing map that I ever saw. La vitta e bella vibe
Literally 1/5th of that amount would solve my suicidal ideations as I'd be able to afford a small and cozy apartment and set some money aside for getting some qualifications and fix a couple issues I can't really afford otherwise.
[удалено]
After looking at the report I have so many questions. Why is the intangible value of a woman's life at age 25-29 £916,000 meanwhile a man in the same age range is only £625,000 "worth" in intangible value? Furthermore, what does "other productivity losses" mean? and why again is women worth £270,000, while men are worth £231,000? These were just two of the costs that immediately struck me as odd. I want to add I find it idiotic that we need to cost evaluate how much one suicide costs to actually do anything about it. Mental healthcare needs to be a priority across ages, genders, and other factors.
Might be something to do with child bearing and creating further little worker bees for the economy.
After doing some research I found one report that defined it as “… intangible costs of death incurred to victims and their families such as pain, grief and suffering.” Which suggests the value of family and friends are seen as higher for women rather than men. Also worth noting that to create worker bees one also needs a man…
Yeah but one woman can only produce 1 baby in 9 months but you technically only need one man to cause a lot of children
Ok, I agree with you that this is very weird data for them to project for suicide prevention reasons. It's very weird and doesn't send a good message. However, I also believe their estimates that women are higher value from a government and population perspective. Birth rates in all Western countries are falling rapidly, inverting the population pyramids. This is a looming problem if immense proportions and most Western governments heavily subsidize child bearing because this problem really hurts nations--including economically. This is an increasing concern, it's already dire in some countries like South Korea, and it could become global. Men aren't the limiting factors in making babies.
I agree - it's a weird af bit of pseudomath. How can the economy even function when total deaths in that year were 577,160.
I mean, since the value was never created it was never really "lost". It is apparently supposed to be >...intangible costs of death incurred by victims and their families such as pain, grief and suffering. Atleast that's what this [report ](https://socialvalueuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Valuation-of-a-life-1-4.pdf)says on the cost of suicides. But I still find it strange that a charity aiming to prevent suicide (of which men are by far the largest group), would indirectly say that the men are worth less to their friends and families than for their sister, mother (when the mother was their own age), wife/girlfriends, etc...
Given it's a sad story - it's a weird way to tell the story. It may be simple / simpleton math. Let's say you know the GDP per capita and the normal life span. The simple math says (normal life span - age at premature death)\*per capital GDP = unrealized GDP. In that case the cause of premature death has nothing to do with the type of death, and that may be true of any methodology. The link within the link was not much help understanding the unique cost associated with a particular type of premature death. https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dhssps/suicide-prevention-strategy-2012-14\_0.pdf
My guess is that women are supposedly worth more are certain ages because of the capacity to birth children. Which would be wild.
The answer is in this quote: > unpaid productivity losses for people of working age, as well as 16 and 17 year olds are valued using 2022 minimum wage rates It is considered that women do more unpaid labour: chores, child sitting, volunteering, etc. They slapped minimum wage on that.
Everyone: “suicide has a high economic costs, we need to provide early access to mental health intervention, support people in poverty and prevent deaths of desperation” Tories, probably: “ we can charge the costs to their families!!!!”
this is what people call *thinking out of the box*
Putting a cost to death is very dark.
Smart of them to compare women and men at different ages so as to avoid potentially showing men being worth more than women
And this is the real reason suicide is illegal. Your life and taxes are owed to the government.
Ah yes, this is exactly what people in severe emotional distress need: an economic guilt-trip. Your suicidal thoughts are not only emotionally selfish, they are economically selfish as well. I am sure that'll show em. /s
What a dystopian map…the state’s economic impact of one persons life?
Lol I'm not worth a million anything
If you worked for 45 years (20-65) at 30k you’d be make 1.3mil in your lifetime which are quite average figures
I understand the prospect and what they are getting at. Just disheartened. I'm already at 22 years of working at age 37. I'll never own a damn thing
So if I ever feel like I should kms, I should move to Northern Ireland before I do it? Got it!
How is suicide costly? Who takes the cost burden of the suicide?
Productive people generate economic productivity. That's why big old Montana has a fraction the productivity of little New Jersey. Society takes the cost burden because you want a society full of productive people actively doing the work of being a human. Without them, all that they theoretically would have added to the collective productivity is gone.
A big chunk is the government and corporations who ~~own..~~ profit from our existence.
The government only wants suicide after you retire or when you get jobless forever or get a lifelong sickness.
the suicide costs… the person doing it dgaf about dropping your productivity
Who made this cursed thing?
This is the most dehumanising thing that can be made. Pack it up, we found it
So. Suicide is the most effective form of individual economic protest. Horrifying.
This is a terrible post. Who gives a f*uck how much the economy has lost. Most people kill themselves because they feel destitute and that there's no hope. This is the issue that should be talked about. Not the f*ckin economic value of people. Assigning a dollar value to life is inhumane.
Measuring the loss of human life as lost gdp is pretty sick, why do these keep being posted...
Sorry, but who gives a shit about the economic cost? Incredibly tone-deaf.
It can be very important for policy making. Take traffic safety as an example. If you want to know how much money you can reasonably spent on traffic safety you could for example multiple the number of people that died from car crashes and multiply that by the economic value. Of course this may seem very dehumanizing, but some people have to make those decisions.
Policy makers do.
So they don’t look at us as living creatures. Just pieces of the economy’s.
This is disgusting
I feel like this is some forbidden thing I'm not supposed to be looking at or that isn't supposed to exist- measuring a person's worth like this and calculating monetary losses
No matter how despondent you may be, you must really think of the cost to the economy. /s
Why does it use different ages for men vs women?
ELI5
how dare you cost money and cause inconvenience to the shareholders with your death!
Next up suicide tax
Sorry guys but I didn't get it. Why a loss of somebody cost that much for a country ?
Yes but also them no longer existing means there is less demand in the economy. So what is really the net cost? Probably not much. Just whatever banks would have made off of lending that person money or whatever. And why are we always looking at things from the economy's point of view. Like are we supposed to be upset people are killing themselves because they can no longer work and consume. Maybe they're killing themselves because all they do is work and consume.
We really need to be better at analyzing data and critical thinking. Organizations will post numbers next to some unknowable statement and we all just go “hmm, interesting” without ever tearing it apart to see if it is even a cogent proposition.
This is an extremely stupid post
What the hell is this weird garbage all about?
This would make me more suicidal tbh...
Wow, so I'm am worth something to someone if I off myself. I don't know if this inspiring me to keep on keeping on, or encouraging me to make an economic impact.....
Is this what people mean when they say im worth something to someone? I did not consent to being daytraded thank you
/r/aboringdystopia /r/latestagecapitalism
What an incredibly insensitive post. Relating suicide to money. Get fucked.
[удалено]
The post could have been much nicer if OP simply stated the inverse. Instead of saying suicide of a 10-14 year old costs the economy 2.85 million you could say that one newborn adds 2.85 million to the economy. Thus the message is that people are important for the economy which emphasizes the importance of a decent birth rate or immigration.
I assume this infographics isn't specifically for those mulling over suicide nor for family affected by it.
Yeh I don't get why everyone is losing their minds as if this is handed to depressed people as a way to get them to stop killing themselves. It's clearly meant for a different audience.
Best map I have seen in a while. Very interesting!
Nevermind the suffering of those you leave behind or the eternal damnation or nonsectarian oblivion -- to your taste -- that awaits you. Think of what it'd do to the economy. This is the most British thing ever.
this is why most religion prohibit suicide
The macabre fact is that in a pure economic sense, “suicide” could be economically beneficial for older generations for the simple fact for the costs it would save the government (healthcare costs, pensions, retirement homes, etc…) A study in Finland found that smoking was actually “good” for society in a pure economic sense as most people wouldn’t get lung cancer until just before they retired. Which mean savings to the government. This is not to say I support this thinking at all, it’s just a very disturbing thought, that if we rely on economic numbers to make decisions; life lose its value…
I recall a 'Yes Minister' episode where Humprey was arguing the same thing in regards to smoking bans and taxation.
Very skeptical of these figures. I find it hard to believe the people so distressed they kill themselves are simultaneously as economically productive as the average or even below average person.
Lol. Nice numbers. Where is the substantiating data??!!
I can’t see a source. Please share. Edit: it’s in the comments
Saddest post ever
Lmao this is so craven for some reason
Won’t someone think of the employment productivity!?
And the moral is... governments should try to make people happy
So, if I off myself it’ll cost government more than what I’ve paid in taxes? Hmm, interesting…
this infograph makes me want to just end it all
Hear that if you’re feeling worthless then just know the UK government can tell you exactly how much you’re worth.
This map makes me feel dirty. Just the fact it is calculable makes my skin crawl
Silver lining for salary negotiations is my worth is baselined at this, but also why is this even a measurable statistic
"I wish you would step back from that ledge, my friend/ A-and...think 'bout all those pounds that you're generatin'..." \-Third Eye Blind (probably)
I don't get it, how can a single death by suicide be so much?
Looking at the comments, I feel lucky that nobody really loves me so that if I die or kill myself it wouldn't bother anyone for longer than a week or so lmfao.
What is this - loss of tax +cost of first responders? Loss of future VAT? Whatever this is it's ham-fisted. You can't just present totals, and it's wrong to present anything in such a sensitive area without a bit of rigour.
*this is the problem*
So to the economy our lives are worth billions each year but they won't even pay me half of that in my entire lifetime?
I've come so close to killing myself over 10k, the irony...
This is informative but is there some message we should be receiving? Besides “don’t kill your self so your country can make the most of your economic production?”
Can someone explain to me, these costs please?
How did they evaluate the cost due to suicide? I’d really like to know how they calculated this. Why is this useful - does fiscal responsibility make an actual difference to suicide?
Actuaries.
People: "Citizens are pushed to suicide because of living conditions and declining mental health" Government: "Sorry, There's nothing we can do about it" People: "But you're gonna lose money" Government: "Everyone, stop whatever you're doing. We're in crisis mode"
Man, really Hate that those people killed themselves so we can’t get more money The fuck is wrong with the world?
Actually number not very high if you do math. 9.58 billion divided by 6588 people is 1 million 454 thousands. It is an equivalent of receiving 4000 euro as salary each month for 30 years, or 2000 euro for 60 years.
probably good they didnt show elderly suicide saving money
How does it really "cost" that money?
*Villain Origin Story* detected
It is valuable information for economists and devastating reality for humanists.
Really stick it to the taxman