This was true in New Jersey in the 1970s. When I was 5 years old, I had to walk to school on my own, just like all the other 5 year olds in my neighborhood. We would walk to school together. The school was not quite a mile away. At the time, it was considered normal that kids would walk to school on their own, starting at age 5. this is still normal in some countries, but it is no longer normal in the USA.
A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
411–420 of 552 posts
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recent property crime rates are famously undercounted, as people have largely stopped reporting them because the police do not react. That's why my remark was on violent crime levels.
The first figure on both graphs is on violent crime. It's the orange one that's on property crime.
I know. I'm just pointing out that the violent crime rate graph is far more credible.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that crime is reported with the same reliability.
This is fear mongering, and works in both directions. You're assuming that older crime stats were reported with more reliability.
Sure, that's something to consider. What I've read leads me to believe that less crime is reported due to increasing lack of faith in the criminal justice system.
Here in Canada, it's hard to trust any crime stats because of this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-crimes-going-unreported-...
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/is-crime-in-canada-really-declin...
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is your mother going to make an insurance claim for a stolen car without a police report? Or is she just going to eat the loss?
> How is your mother going to make an insurance claim for a stolen car without a police report? Or is she just going to eat the loss? It is a 1992 ford ranger, in theory worth a fair bit in the current used truck market, but insurance will value it at next to nothing, so I presume she'll eat the loss.
I don't have comprehensive insurance on my old car, so insurance wouldn't pay for it being stolen.
The reason is pretty simple. The comprehensive insurance premium adds up to more than the car is worth.
Also, the way insurance works, is your rates go up to reimburse the company for payouts to you. Insurance is only worthwhile for losses you cannot cover yourself.
This is why downtown businesses have largely stopped reporting shoplifting to their insurance companies. It just makes the losses more expensive.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Recently I drove by that school, and the bike racks were gone. This is the thing: the bike racks are gone because so are the kids walking/biking to school. If you let your kid do it, they'll be the only one. I walked to school in the 80s and there were lots of kids in my neighborhood walking to school at the same time. That's a very different experience. I also lived in a neighborhood that was laid out in the early…
> You can't combat this enormous societal change by making an individual effort to let your kids do more by themselves. Maybe not, but you can do things like: * Live downtown instead of in a suburb * Ask your school / DOT to close the street in front of the school during dropoff and pickup hours * Walk with your kid to school instead of driving them * Support higher-density development in your area
I think it depends on the city and suburb.
I grew up in a fairly large and fairly dense (by suburb standards) suburban city of Boston and it was quite walkable as a child (and also had the benefit of having a few MBTA stops). I live in the middle of downtown Boston now and while I find it fantastic as a somewhat immature adult, I wouldn't say it's especially child-friendly.
That being said, I have seen many other suburbs (looking at you, various places in Connecticut) that don't even have sidewalks. That cannot be good for anyone. And Boston certainly has more child-friendly neighborhoods as well.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a saying in Ireland called "More Irish than the Irish" and refers to immigrants and non-locals who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels. Immigrants are statistically the most law abiding and often times, even conservative, members of a a community and it probably is one measure of long-term survival (esp. in the U.S. while living under the microscope of a work visa) so…
> who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels. What does this mean? My dumb brain goes straight to “even more alcoholism and fighting” but that might just be on account of being Irish diaspora myself.
The "more Irish than the Irish themselves" phrase originated as a description of mediaeval Irish history. Norman-ruled England conquered Ireland, and introduced Anglo-Norman settlers – Irish society became divided into two social castes, an English/French-speaking ruling caste and a subordinated caste of indigenous Irish-speakers. (This was prior to the Protestant Reformation, so everyone involved was Catholic – indeed, the English monarchy's conquest of Ireland was approved by the Pope.) The English became concerned that, after a few generations, the Anglo-Norman upper caste began to speak Irish and intermarry with the native Irish-speakers – they saw (quite accurately) that this would lead to weakening of English rule and eventual demand for independence. "more Irish than the Irish themselves" was really meant as a somewhat hyperbolic/ironic reference to this process of cultural assimilation. The English responded with anti-Irish legislation, prohibiting the speaking of Irish, intermarriage between English-speakers and Irish-speakers, and formally subordinating the theoretically independent Irish Parliament to that of England – however, the legislation largely failed to be enforced, the blurring of the boundaries between the native Irish and the Anglo-Norman newcomers continued, and English rule became (in much of the country, especially the parts furthest from Dublin) more theory than fact, as local lords found they could basically ignore the edicts of the English administration in Dublin and do whatever they liked.
This is arguably the earliest historical roots of the Northern Ireland conflict, although with various other layers added on top – the introduction of a religious dimension to what was originally a purely cultural/ethnic/linguistic/political conflict due to the Protestant Reformation; further waves of settlement from Britain; the Irish theatre of the English Civil War and the later Jacobite-Williamite War in which many Irish (especially, but not exclusively, Catholics and Irish-speakers) supported the deposed King James II against the regime of William of Orange.
I don't know how much sense the phrase has in the context of immigrants to contemporary Ireland. I suppose some users of it must have found some way to connect it to contemporary affairs–probably there is some immigrant somewhere who is obsessed with teaching their children to speak Irish when the majority of Irish people don't make much of an effort to do so themselves–but I think some use of it may also be motivated by its long history and memorable phrasing rather than genuine contemporary applicability.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the remark about immigrants make sense? The typical immigrant can't be more concerned about fitting in that the typical native. Because the typical native's behavior determines what "fitting in" means.
There is a saying in Ireland called "More Irish than the Irish" and refers to immigrants and non-locals who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels. Immigrants are statistically the most law abiding and often times, even conservative, members of a a community and it probably is one measure of long-term survival (esp. in the U.S. while living under the microscope of a work visa) so…
Not true in Western Europe.
They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#418Not in the US they can't. "officials placed two brothers into foster care after one, 11, was found playing basketball alone in his own yard." He'd gotten home early from school and his parents came 90 minutes later. He was in his own yard. The family lost their children to foster care. Ironically in foster care ACTUAL abuse rates are pretty darn high! "When Cindy and Fred arrived home they were arrested for child neg…
>due to the nature of my employment I am no longer employed This is an overlooked problem. Lack of employment protection. Nobody should be able to be fired for being arrested. That doesn't mean they committed a crime. It's not their fault they can't show up to work. There should be employment protection for that. In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. They aren't allowed…
If they're paid while the justice is being worked out and their trial takes years, that is potentially a burden that the employer can't bear.
Also, you're describing a situation where bad behavior becomes a protected class as soon as you get arrested for it.
In my high school, a teacher was caught raping one of his teenage students. He was fired for it.
In your opinion, if he had been arrested, he should have had his paycheck legally protected until his trial ended.
That's absolutely, totally insane. I don't know what country you live in, but I'm glad to live in the US where I can fire someone I know has committed a crime. It is possible to know things before the criminal justice system decides they are true.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#419It all comes down to the risk you're willing to accept. Back in the 70s when 4-5 kid families were common, population density was much lower and bad things happening to individual kids wasn't as widely reported? Doing this kind of thing in a nice suburban neighbourhood was fine.
Nowadays with far more 1- and 2-child families the risk we're willing to accept is far lower. Population density is higher which directly multiplies the chances of your kid encountering someone who will hurt them. Traffic is busier and drivers are more distracted, increasing the risk of accidents. Distances are greater, there's no "5-minute walk down to the corner shop".
All of these factors combine to make the expected cost of letting your kid loose unsupervised much higher and the expected benefit much lower. A 10-year-old would be fine. A 4-year old? Hell no.
Re: A 4-year-old can run errands alone and not just on reality TV
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you watch it, you'll notice: - Most of the kids live in quiet country towns or rural areas - Most of the errands avoid crossing roads, or: - If they do, then the assistants are checking for and controlling traffic - It shows kids doing their first ever errand, it's not their everyday life
I live in Tokyo and just today on my way to coffee, saw several kindergarten-aged children crossing busy main roads to go to school. It does happen and happens nearly every day. This show likely does help prevent accidents (and yes 2 year olds aren't running errands every day) but the main point still stands, kids are living more autonomously in some ways in their every day life.
Oh it happens, I'm not saying it doesn't. But my comment was more about how the TV show sets it up. I think kids should have more autonomy and be allowed to fail in a safe way, and shows like this do well to show what they're capable of.