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

Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 336 posts

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#141

Post by bertil »

pchristensen wrote: post #120
ashark wrote: post #4

1) What's the age range for children, here? All, 0-18? Something else? 2) Is this per kid or per parent? That is, do you get more "points" if you have three kids and spend an hour with all three than if you spend an hour with just one of them, or does it count the same? Per kid the latter'd be lower averaged over the three, per parent it's the same. Looks like it's per-parent but I'm not entirely sure. [EDIT] notably…

Per #2, families are much smaller on average now so even if they count that way, I don't think that would contribute much.

Related to families changing structure: what about step-parents?

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#142

Post by shostack »

dsp1234 wrote: post #31
Pulcinella wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won’t have CPS called on you for letting your children wander and play in the neighbor. Please don’t spread nonsense. Edited with my response to everyone depositing articles about the Meitivs: Nobody “called CPS on” the Meitivs. Somebody called the polic because they saw the children wandering around a parking garage (not a park like in many of the news stories. See [1].) The police officer then called CPS severa…

I'll just go let my best friend know that the several CPS inspections she had to endure last year when she left her kids at the park unattended were not real. Anyone can call CPS for just about anything, and having someone pick through your home and point out every little flaw, with the threat of taking your kids away is a real issue. Please don't downplay it, and don't downplay how shitty people can be to each other…

I'm not very familiar with how CPS works and the law there--do you have any right to refuse unless they present some evidence that warrants such invasive next steps?

Seems like a passive-aggressive parental version of Swatting someone.

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#143

Post by eropple »

frenchy wrote: post #137
rjzzleep wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if you want to make a point, you should work on the way you phrase it. > only angry and negative voice their opinions i.e. bad people > positively minded i.e. good people I know you probably didn't think about it that much. Personally, I could start a rant about toxic culture now, but I'll leave it at that. If you don't want to create an aggressive response, maybe refrain from calling people that disagree w…

I hope you can appreciate the irony of ranting about angry people :)

The post to which you are replying is not a rant by any reasonable definition of the term and what 'rjzzleep is saying should (probably won't, but should) be taken to heart.

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#144

Post by watwut »

rjzzleep wrote: post #119
watwut wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, only angry and negative people voice their opinions and positively minded people don't. If you look at threads about something else, (say economy or politics) there are typically both optimostic and pessimistic people and even some discussions between those groups. When it comes to parenting and children, positive opinions are rarely heard.

Honestly, if you want to make a point, you should work on the way you phrase it. > only angry and negative voice their opinions i.e. bad people > positively minded i.e. good people I know you probably didn't think about it that much. Personally, I could start a rant about toxic culture now, but I'll leave it at that. If you don't want to create an aggressive response, maybe refrain from calling people that disagree w…

In what world are angry people necessary bad? Or negative people?

And no, positively minded people are not necessary good people. That is absurd claim.

"People that are happy about the way something is, are less likely to complain about it."

I did not made that claim nor wanted to. Which is why II contrasted it with other topics, so that it is clearer that parenting is treated differently.

Lastly, your comment seems to be the only negative reaction. As of now, there is not even comment disagreeing with me (which would be different then negative of course).

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#145

Post by bromuro »

rjzzleep wrote: post #119
watwut wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, only angry and negative people voice their opinions and positively minded people don't. If you look at threads about something else, (say economy or politics) there are typically both optimostic and pessimistic people and even some discussions between those groups. When it comes to parenting and children, positive opinions are rarely heard.

Honestly, if you want to make a point, you should work on the way you phrase it. > only angry and negative voice their opinions i.e. bad people > positively minded i.e. good people I know you probably didn't think about it that much. Personally, I could start a rant about toxic culture now, but I'll leave it at that. If you don't want to create an aggressive response, maybe refrain from calling people that disagree w…

Your comment does look indeed angry and negative :)

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#146

Post by khedoros1 »

ringaroundthetx wrote: post #12
tomc1985 wrote: post #2

Probably because helicopter parenting is in vogue (at least in the US). It is seriously messed up that you can have CPS called on you for letting your kid wander freely in the neighborhood

Man that meme really went wild huh Yes, CPS in one state did something ambiguous and alarming to self-proclaimed "free range" parents. No, you probably don't have the full story that a guy who had never seen the children before was concerned about their safety in that part of town, he decided to call 911 instead of talking to the kids and coming off as a creep. Yes, that one town's police department did get the CPS'…

It's extremely unusual to see unescorted children where I live, below early teens or so. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear about someone calling the police after seeing a child outside on their own; that's just the current culture.

I live in a small gated community, in among other ungated neighborhoods. I see kids playing around my neighborhood, but never leaving it on their own. I hear grumbling from some of my neighbors even about that.

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#148

Post by Pulcinella »

mrkurt wrote: post #110
Pulcinella wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody “called CPS on” the Meitivs. Somebody called the polic because they saw the children wandering around a parking garage (not a park like in many of the news stories. See [1].) The police officer then called CPS several times wondering what to do with children before finally driving over to CPS when they were dragging their heels[2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again... [2] Not tha…

I do think the lose-your-kids-to-CPS fear is a little overblown. But it's a little silly to say "they didn't call CPS, they called the police". The outcome is the same, and people almost always call the police instead of CPS directly.

The original comment I was responding to specifically said “you can have CPS called on” you. Many people then pointed out the case of the Meitiv family even though nobody called CPS on them. Somebody called the police because they saw children playing in a parking garage unattended. Nobody called the police and said “the Meitiv’s children are playing in the neighborhood unattended.”

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#149

Post by tempestn »

I found it very interesting how the change in time spent is so inversely proportional to the starting time spent in all cases. Every country that started low overshot every one that started high, and the lowest ended up highest, while the highest was the only one to decline. Some of that is explained by the bounds on time in the day, but certainly not all. Perhaps some societal backlash (or 'pendulum effect') to the extreme.

Also interesting is that those trend lines appear to strongly suggest it will go considerably farther still.

Re: Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 years ago

#150

Post by robbyking »

btilly wrote: post #44
Pulcinella wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won’t have CPS called on you for letting your children wander and play in the neighbor. Please don’t spread nonsense. Edited with my response to everyone depositing articles about the Meitivs: Nobody “called CPS on” the Meitivs. Somebody called the polic because they saw the children wandering around a parking garage (not a park like in many of the news stories. See [1].) The police officer then called CPS severa…

Yes, you will. http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/neighbor-calls-cops... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/22/canadian-mo... Do you have any more "corrections" to make?

I think your citations are instances of confirmation bias; also, you're only citing a handful of examples, and they're examples so extreme they made national news. (They're also each a year apart.)

Even in large cities kids roam alone in their neighborhoods and parks. I live in SF, and regularly see kids under 10 skateboarding or riding their bikes on their own around my neighborhood. Now that I'm a parent, I also see toddlers running around fields in GG Park, barely within in earshot of their parents.

Odds are, if you don't see kids running around your neighborhood, it's either because you live in a neighborhood without many children (like most of SF), or you tend to be at work during the hours in which most children play.

Post reply on HN