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

How getting richer made teenagers less free

theargumentmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 344 posts

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#171

Post by rendaw »

dlisboa wrote: post #102
smallnix wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the risk What is the risk really? I mean put in numbers.

Do you have children? Would you point them a loaded gun that's only, say, 0.5% likely to go off and shoot them? 1 in 100k cancers also disappear spontaneously, should I wait and see for my kid and not treat them? When it comes to your own children the only number that matters is 1. The 1 time it happens their lives, your life, is over.

Do you let your children ride in cars? The risk of death in a passenger vehicle is over 100x that of being kidnapped.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#172

Post by elif »

pbmonster wrote: post #113
elif wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your analogy, swimmers may have gone down 90% but kids are still being submerged in water as much as ever if not more. The vast majority of traffic deaths are people INSIDE cars.

Pedestrian deaths in the US are up 78% since 2009. [0] [0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-so-many-pedes...

Another gem from your own source that refutes this entire line of reasoning:

"Deaths of children under 10 are actually down significantly (167 deaths in 2009 to 98 deaths in 2023), and deaths for ages 10-19 are down as well."

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#173

Post by joncrane »

casey2 wrote: post #157

富不过三代 Wealth does not last three generations. Most of America (at least west and east coast) is at this stage now. Look no further than startup culture were people have convinced themselves that repeated embarrassing failure is actually a sound investment strategy. This is the environment children are growing up in, of course they will all grow up to be embarrassing failures.

I feel like there's a sweet spot of wealth that is generationally sustainable, which I would say is in the middle and upper-middle class brackets. Just like with any human activity, the amount of work required for the payoff has to be in the sweet spot. Too rich, and not enough work is required for the offspring to stay engaged enough to surmount the hurdles all human face. Too poor and the opportunities just aren't there.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#174

Post by rawgabbit »

fallinditch wrote: post #132
throwaway732255 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interestingly, I've heard from parents that many feel like they're both suffocating and feeling inadequate When my spouse and I were dating, we made fun of those “overly involved parents” who tried to live vicariously through their kids and over-scheduled them. Since having kids, my spouse has (over a one year period) put our 5 year old in: T-ball, swimming, dance, theater, Sunday school, church, soccer, gymnastics…

My friend is one of those 'overly involved' parents with his daughter: tennis lessons and competitions, sailing lessons and competitions, skiing lessons and competitions. He sacrificed a huge amount of time to give his daughter every opportunity. I asked him one time "do you think she might end up hating you for making her do all these activities?" He thought it would be ok. He said "it will open doors for her. She's…

These extra curricular activities, were the secret game you had to play, to get into prestigious universities. At least, it was just a few years ago. Besides niche sports like lacrosse and rowing, there was the volunteer activities like serving at a soup kitchen. When Ivy League universities saw a resume like that, they knew which social class the student belonged to.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#175

Post by bittercynic »

symbogra wrote: post #53
slifin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars, I nearly got run over as a kid a few times Now as an adult I'd be worried about cycling around with cars that would hit me in the chest and not the legs on impact Also cars make it very easy for a stranger to pull up and kidnap, parents subconsciously know that and factor it into their decisions There was also youth clubs where I grew up and a BMX track and no phones so play was mostly happening outside Society…

The track that the US political economy is on with the feedback loop caused by government backed fixed term fixed interest loans requires an ever increasing LTV, meaning newer entrants in the housing market will have to accept increasingly precarious positions.

The 30 year fixed mortgage is an insanely good deal, and I say this as a guy who has one. The monthly cost can only stay the same (and decline due to inflation) or decline if interest rates fall and you refinance or adjust the loan. If interest rates go up, you're completely protected.

A mortgage may be more than rent for a similar place now, but I suspect it won't be that many years before the lines cross.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#176

Post by [deleted] »

rendaw wrote: post #171
dlisboa wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have children? Would you point them a loaded gun that's only, say, 0.5% likely to go off and shoot them? 1 in 100k cancers also disappear spontaneously, should I wait and see for my kid and not treat them? When it comes to your own children the only number that matters is 1. The 1 time it happens their lives, your life, is over.

Do you let your children ride in cars? The risk of death in a passenger vehicle is over 100x that of being kidnapped.

[deleted]

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#177

Post by raxxorraxor »

dlisboa wrote: post #95
TrackerFF wrote: post #15

I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, and came from a rural place with a lot of poverty and at best working class people. We'd be outside all day long - being inside was considered a privilege. Weekdays and weekends. Decades later, most of my peers have middle-class jobs. Their kids are barely outside. Their parents are involved with them from morning to evening, or chauffeuring them between sports and other extracurr…

It's a cultural shift. Your peers are now way more aware of child abuse, kidnappings, murders, than your parents were. Not that yours were necessarily bad parents for that time but there is way more information today of the issues with the world. I certainly wouldn't let my kid walk home alone in the woods at night: are we really sure this degree of freedom is so developmentally important to be worth the risk? I'd al…

They are more aware but bad at putting it in perspective. This is the classic "fear leads to bad decisions".

Granted, depends on where you live, but statistically woods are probably a lot safer than a city with a lot of traffic. Sure, regionally that is not true, you might meet a Grizzly and/or Canadian.

> are we really sure this degree of freedom is so developmentally important to be worth the risk?

Absolutely. A child has to grow up and detach from it parents at some point. It doesn't at all mean having a bad relationship, just being independent. Helps if you aren't a complete beginner by the time it inevitably happens.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#178

Post by elif »

pbmonster wrote: post #113
elif wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your analogy, swimmers may have gone down 90% but kids are still being submerged in water as much as ever if not more. The vast majority of traffic deaths are people INSIDE cars.

Pedestrian deaths in the US are up 78% since 2009. [0] [0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-so-many-pedes...

The increase is mostly attributable to 30-39 year olds on arterial highways at night.

Kids playing on neighborhood streets show continued improvement... In fact IIHS pedestrian fatality data says that 1-13 year olds are the group with the HIGHEST reduction

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#179

Post by eloisant »

a3w wrote: post #119
lm28469 wrote: post #28

And it also creates permanent adulescents, scared of responsibilities, scared of commitment, scared of exploring. I've seen it countless times with teenagers in my family, they're overgrown babies.

I read the article. And see zero evidence given that letting kids survive is a bad thing if you trade in nothing important. Then again, this seems US centric. But this comment just seems cruel, making people think it is their fault if they have bad feelings.

The whole discussion is US centric.

In France kids are still free to roam around, or stay alone at home at 10yo (sometimes younger).

In Japan kids start commuting to school, sometimes taking the train alone, at 6.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#180

Post by nathan_compton »

throwaway732255 wrote: post #103
TrackerFF wrote: post #15

I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, and came from a rural place with a lot of poverty and at best working class people. We'd be outside all day long - being inside was considered a privilege. Weekdays and weekends. Decades later, most of my peers have middle-class jobs. Their kids are barely outside. Their parents are involved with them from morning to evening, or chauffeuring them between sports and other extracurr…

> Interestingly, I've heard from parents that many feel like they're both suffocating and feeling inadequate When my spouse and I were dating, we made fun of those “overly involved parents” who tried to live vicariously through their kids and over-scheduled them. Since having kids, my spouse has (over a one year period) put our 5 year old in: T-ball, swimming, dance, theater, Sunday school, church, soccer, gymnastics…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN