Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Overprotected American Child

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#71

Post by Broken_Hippo »

JackCh wrote: post #30
wallace_f wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think anyone is arguing for more dangerous products or safety precautions for toddlers. Maybe some people think that way. Colloquially, I've heard about a million times Europeans laugh at how ridiculous they think some laws are in that regard, such as Kinder eggs being banned in America.

Are kinder eggs actually a dangerous product, or are they just getting swept up by broader American legislation? It's my understanding the American law preventing the importation of kinder eggs is a law against inedible objects from being embedded inside edible objects, which seems generally reasonable. Generally. But are Kinder eggs actually dangerous? Are many European children dying because of Kinder eggs specific…

Kinder eggs are something that were swept up in a generally well-meaning legislation. It improved safety overall, but generally disallows such products to be sold lest there be a choking hazard.

All that said, I think there are ways to get exceptions, but they are shy to give them away. And it really is a shame in this case: though there have been perhaps a handful of suspected choking cases in children, overall they have been quite reasonably safe (based on years and years of them being sold to children elsewhere). It simply winds up being a silly ban done for a good overall reason.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#72

Post by awat »

spamizbad wrote: post #55
aphextron wrote: post #25

You can always tell when someone grew up like this. They are always afraid of doing anything that might even remotely be considered outside the box. They lack that ability and drive to find things out for themselves, and instead rely on others for help and guidance to a fault. Professional occupations are full of these people who were coddled from birth, through college, and straight into a high paying job with zero…

The fact that they tracked into a high paying job despite their risk-aversion and limited ability to think abstractly seems to vindicate their parent's method of raising children. Most parents aren't trying to raise the next brilliant artist, entrepreneur, or intellectual[1]. They just want their kids to have a stable, safe, happy life. [1] And those that try often don't know what they're doing and end up inflicting…

I agree to a certain extent that if replicating an upper middle class lifestyle is the parenting goal this can be successful. The big concern I have with that parenting model is antedoctoally these seem to be the people I have seen fall the hardest when dealing with adversity.

For someone who had a long linear career progression a lay-off or temporary underemployment sucks and could cause a lifestyle downsizing but is manageable. For the person who’s entire existence expects xxx,xxx income that’s where foreclosures on very nice homes and bankruptcy happen.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#73

Post by TangoTrotFox »

Pinckney wrote: post #11

As a counterpoint, Canada (and presumably the US too) has seen a dramatic decrease in unintentional injury mortality among children over the last 70 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28026710

A problem with isolated stats is that it doesn't necessarily tell you much about the system from which it was derived. Life and development are extremely complex. Has there been a somehow more difficult to measure cost associated with this? For instance there are also various correlations such as a strong increase in mental illness, a decline in academic performance, and a general infantilization of young adults. I'm not sure it's such a stretch to see how we treat our children as, at least possibly, somehow related.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#74

Post by repsilat »

ebikelaw wrote: post #61
ourmandave wrote: post #58

A wallet-sized Let Grow “Kid Card” is meant to be carried by children when they are out on their own, to calm the fears of overly concerned adults. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-AQ358_INDEPE_M... ^This here. Except the Concerned Adults will never get a chance to read it because they'll call the police to rescue the 12-year-old dropped off at the mall by her mom. https://www.brainchildmag.com/2014/01/g…

I kinda love the integrated shruggie in their logotype.

I think it's "pushing upwards", as if struggling against an artificially low ceiling, not shrugging :-).

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#75

Post by ivm »

empath75 wrote: post #69
ourmandave wrote: post #58

A wallet-sized Let Grow “Kid Card” is meant to be carried by children when they are out on their own, to calm the fears of overly concerned adults. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-AQ358_INDEPE_M... ^This here. Except the Concerned Adults will never get a chance to read it because they'll call the police to rescue the 12-year-old dropped off at the mall by her mom. https://www.brainchildmag.com/2014/01/g…

she left a 12 year old in charge of a three year old at the mall which is a much different situation.

11-13 year old me was regularly walking with my 1-3 year old brother alone. It was in Russia, in the 90s.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#76

Post by trentmb »

taeric wrote: post #53
ShabbosGoy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until some minor setback happens. Then they have a mental breakdown.

Is this something that actually happens, in large? I'd be interested in studies that show this happens more. Meltdowns are far from a new thing in the world. I mean, they make a nice narrative to shame people for overprotecting their kids. But this basically culminates in three of the major things that give me pause. a) Nice narrative, b) appealing argument without presented evidence, and c) shaming. Combine those an…

> Is this something that actually happens, in large?

No, but it lets mediocre people feel good about themselves.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#77

Post by repsilat »

civilitty wrote: post #31
wallace_f wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think anyone is arguing for more dangerous products or safety precautions for toddlers. Maybe some people think that way. Colloquially, I've heard about a million times Europeans laugh at how ridiculous they think some laws are in that regard, such as Kinder eggs being banned in America.

It's not the eggs that are banned, the FDA bans the practice of putting inedible objects fully encased in edible things in general. I loved me my Kinder Surprise when I was a kid but I don't think that's an unreasonable restriction when it comes to products marketed towards children (I don't know if it applies across the board or only to things marketed at children). Kinder has introduced an American version now wher…

Huh, I guess I have never seen "fake bone-in chicken". Interesting that food can contain inedible objects, but you're not allowed to put them there.

At this point I guess it would be helpful to know the letter of the law/regulation, but it's also probably not important enough to bother.

Do big American Easter eggs sometimes come with plastic bags of smaller candies inside? Those seem less likely to be a choking hazard, but similar enough that they could fall afoul of the law that hits the Kinder eggs.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#78

Post by matte_black »

repsilat wrote: post #74
ebikelaw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda love the integrated shruggie in their logotype.

I think it's "pushing upwards", as if struggling against an artificially low ceiling, not shrugging :-).

No, it’s definitely a shrug. As in:

“Hey! What should we do about those stray kids over there! Call the police??”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#79

Post by matte_black »

empath75 wrote: post #69
ourmandave wrote: post #58

A wallet-sized Let Grow “Kid Card” is meant to be carried by children when they are out on their own, to calm the fears of overly concerned adults. https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-AQ358_INDEPE_M... ^This here. Except the Concerned Adults will never get a chance to read it because they'll call the police to rescue the 12-year-old dropped off at the mall by her mom. https://www.brainchildmag.com/2014/01/g…

she left a 12 year old in charge of a three year old at the mall which is a much different situation.

If a 12 year old child can’t take care of a three year old they have failed as a 12 year old.

Re: The Overprotected American Child

#80

Post by closeparen »

taeric wrote: post #56
closeparen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "20 percent of US children live in families with incomes below 50 percent of the national median income" This is a bizarre metric. If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed? What if we simply cut the pay of the upper 50%, not even redistributing the income? That would lower median income, and therefore shrink the "less than 50% of median…

Well, yes, if richer families started having children at a higher rate, this would almost fix itself. Two major problems, though. a) By and large, rich people don't have more children and b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth. That is, many that are just barely in the "rich" category won't be once they have children. More, most wealth in the US does not survive generations. (And this is generally agr…

Neither of the things I mentioned are a genuine improvement to anyone’s situation, yet they would fix this metric.

It’s great that the lowest end of the income distribution still has enough resources to have children. It would help no one to reduce productivity.

The metric is probably not the right way of thinking about this problem.

Post reply on HN