| I took a four-year break from work (2009–2013) and moved to India. The reasons were simple: some family health issues required downtime (though probably not as much as I ended up taking), and I could afford to do this in India in a way I couldn’t in the US. This happened to coincide with the market bottom, but I wasn’t laid off—it was entirely voluntary. I didn’t experience an identity crisis for a single day. I didn’t feel insecure or anxious about not working. The only real friction came from my family. One big difference was social life. In India, I was constantly meeting people—connections were easy and organic. In the US, maintaining a daytime social life felt much harder. Everyone is on a treadmill—insurance, income, careers—often not by choice. I know there are ways to build community here, but in India it just happened naturally. My extended family struggled more than I did. Once it became clear the break wasn’t temporary, there was a kind of quiet depression around it. I initially framed it as “taking a breather” by doing an executive MBA, but the break never really ended. What eventually brought me back wasn’t overt pressure, but practical limits: my spouse’s mental health, and the constraints of India’s education system for our partially disabled, special-ed child. Those realities mattered more than any career concern. |
| > One big difference was social life. In India, I was constantly meeting people—connections were easy and organic. In the US, maintaining a daytime social life felt much harder. Everyone is on a treadmill—insurance, income, careers—often not by choice. I know there are ways to build community here, but in India it just happened naturally. The primary reason for this is the built environment we live in here in the United States. It's very difficult to organically build connections when you have to drive a car somewhere to have basic social interactions. Even some of the items you mention, like insurance and income are very much informed by the requirement to have a car to participate in society. |
| |
| ▲ | geodel 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know if it is build environment or cultural thing. In US showing up at friends, or neighbors unannounced and spend hour or two would be very odd if not downright impolite. But in India it is something everyone would do or at least used to do a 15-20 yrs back when I was there. One simple reason I think is overall US is very rich so people just can have anything they need on their own and sharing small things which lead to more interaction is simply not needed. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a little of both but the built environment is the primary issue. We have neighbors - sometimes we need someone to grab a package, or we make too much food and we share, &c. or we run into each other walking to a restaurant or through the park. But this isn't the norm. We live in a neighborhood built before the introduction of cars, so homes are built a little bit closer together, but not too close, and we have mixed-use developments and a good level of density to support restaurants and other amenities. You can't have spontaneous interactions like that easily in the United States because we build too much sprawl, visiting people or showing up to a bar requires a drive, and in the end you wind up just staying at home participating in surrogate activities like social media. It really comes down solely to cars and car-only infrastructure that degrades our social interactions to an extreme extent. -edit- I do want to mention, at least when I was a kid/teenager I recall we used to show up to people's houses uninvited/unannounced too. But we did not talk to our neighbors. That was a weird thing. There are some cultural things here. But also even if we wanted to visit someone, well, gotta hop in the car. Maybe stop and get gas, and the next thing you know, eh it's too much effort. Might as way stay home. That's kind of how that works. The car-only model that is implemented in most of America, particularly the cities not so much rural areas, is a leading cause of cultural and social malaise I believe in the West. | | |
| ▲ | massysett 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think the built environment is that determinative. I live in a car-dependent suburb. Walk Score 2. My neighbor knows the whole street. She knows the garbage men. It’s because she wants to. When I run into her outside, she chats. She walks her dog and chats with dog owners and anyone else she sees. Easy relationships are available at the grocery store, post office, etc. I’ve been seeing some of the same people working at Costco for years. I don’t know them. It’s not the built environment. I’d need to take effort to build a relationship with them. My neighbor would. I’m simply not so inclined. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is an incredibly important point - you could remove the car entirely, even make you dependent on others (as you're dependent - or were before self checkout - on the Costco clerk) - and you still would have the disconnect. Hardship can force it more often, perhaps, but that is accidental and secondary. In all the times I've traveled on forms of "mass transit" (airplanes, subways, trains) the only time I've ever really talked to someone was at the seat-together dining on a long-distance train. Otherwise you can sit next to someone for 20+ hours and never say much more than "excuse me" if you need to use the restroom. (Another counter to this is kids, if you have kids and there are kids anywhere within screaming distance, they will find each other and immediately be best friends. Parents get dragged along - https://www.bluey.tv/watch/season-2/cafe/ ) | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's absolutely the built environment. Your Costco example is a clear example. you drive to Costco, you walk in, grab generic packaged goods without needing to really talk to anyone, and then go to the checkout and use the automated kiosk to make your purchase. There's no reason to have a human interaction, so why would you bother getting to know the cashier? You're never going to build a relationship with the cashier precisely because of the environmental structure. Contrast that with walking down the street to a local store that one of your neighbors owns. I bet you would already have a relationship unless you chose not to. Why? Because you'd also see them at your kids birthday party, or you'd see them at the bark down the street, or out on a walk. | | |
| ▲ | massysett 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I made the choice at Costco to not build a relationship with anyone. There's a guy standing at the entrance checking memberships. I've seen him for years. I don't know him. I don't use the automated kiosk if I have several items. I see some of the cashiers for years. I'm cordial but I don't chat them up. One woman who has been there for years chats with me a bit; I'm cordial but don't reciprocate a ton. There's a corporate supermarket owned by a Dutch multinational not far from me. I see some of the same employees there every week. One of them loves people and recognizes me. I could stand around and chat with him if I wanted. But I don't want to. I made this choice. Someone who wants to build relationships chats with people. Folks like that chat with people at the grocery store, on the airplane, waiting in line, etc. Often it leads to nothing, occasionally it leads to something. But the point is, they practice it. I don't. The built environment is not stopping it. Not being in a "local store that one of your neighbors owns" has nothing to do with it either. Plenty of relationships are built in corporate chains. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think this is fundamentally incorrect, and the way we live today and the problems we experience bear this out. It's not about individual choices you make to engage with a cashier at Costco, it's about the opportunities to engage and where they occur. You're still talking about a forced connection you have to decide to make at the checkout line, and ignoring that you never see that person again in a different context, like in your own neighborhood or at your local restaurant. Socialization isn't a choice one makes, it's supposed to be organic. The fact that you have to choose and make decisions around interacting with other people proves my point. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | palmotea 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > One simple reason I think is overall US is very rich so people just can have anything they need on their own and sharing small things which lead to more interaction is simply not needed. That's a very interesting observation! I have a theory that reducing "friction" is actually a net negative after a certain point, and US society is way past that point. But everybody keeps doing it, because they're myopically focused on little problems and don't see the big picture or down have a full understanding of all the alternatives. People need external constraints, because those are the things that keep certain internal drives under control. It's like when food was scarce it made sense to gorge yourself on calorie rich things and avoid physical effort unless absolutely necessary. Now that food is abundant and it's actually possible to nearly completely eliminate physical activity, we have an obesity epidemic, because those drives no longer hit external limits and are now out of control. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
