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

321–330 of 344 posts

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#321

Post by xattt »

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…

Some of it is likely “subconscious” long-term planning. University programs that result in high income post-graduation typically have prerequisites that include heavy extracurricular activity involvement.

The truth is if you don’t do it early, it will be harder to scale up your ECs when your kids are older, which will then lower their chances in getting into something that provides a higher degree of insurance against financial uncertainty.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#322

Post by jchallis »

elias_t wrote: post #190

> In 1950, there were 2.7 suicides per 100,000 15- to 19-year-olds. Today, there are 7.5 (though that’s down from a 1990s peak of 13.2). Little typo, looking at the link it's 11.2 not 13.2. Someone knows why this peak?

One factor is definitely underreporting. Several “accidental deaths” in the 1950s were code for suicide.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#323

Post by testing22321 »

D13Fd wrote: post #144
reedf1 wrote: post #10

> Around 35% of American families have been investigated by CPS What?? > Fully 50% of Black voters in our poll agreed that allowing a 10-year-old to play unsupervised at a park for a few hours was grounds for a CPS call. 33% of white voters and 37% of Hispanic voters said the same. I am speechless. Has so much changed in the 20 odd years since I was a kid? I was playing outside unsupervised from maybe age 9. What hon…

I have six young kids. This attitude is absolutely prevalent (and it's insane). I've been chewed out by a cashier for sending an 8 year old into a store alone. I've had a person run out of a restaurant, panicking, and grab my 2 year old because she was walking too far ahead of me. I've had people tell me it's unsafe to let me 10, 8, and 5-year olds bike together in the park ahead of me while I walk. Just giving my ki…

Genuinely, move.

You become the average of those around you, and that sounds terrible.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#324

Post by testing22321 »

Swannie wrote: post #272
Aromasin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's common in the UK to work from the age of 13 or 14, depending where you live. I worked in the Post Office across my road at 13, every Wednesday evening and Sunday afternoon, in 2009. Most of my friends had part time jobs working in retail while at school. I was behind the pub bar at 16 slinging pints. The (possibly completely incorrect) impression I get from speaking with Americans I know who have moved here, or…

I am in Sydney, Australia. It was a nice surprise to see teenagers working in my local brewery this past weekend, collecting glasses, clearing and cleaning tables, etc. They were probably between 13 and 16. Not allowed to serve alcohol until they are 18, and can take on the personal legal responsibilities for Responsible Service of Alcohol. Most jobs for teenagers here are in fast food service - two of my friends hav…

That’s because fast food places have a special deal with the government and can legally pay below minimum wage to youngsters.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#325

Post by volemo »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #282
moffkalast wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

28 is the new 18. The problem is nobody's getting any younger on the other side of life, so that's a decade of life lost.

There's already people explicitly working on anti-aging technology. We'll see what happens over the next few decades there.

And don’t forget that fusion is just 20 years away!

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#326

Post by _vqpz »

Desafinado wrote: post #313
ericmcer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modernity has also made life really fucking complicated. A 16 year old could walk to the factory, get some paper money and then do what they wanted with it. Nowadays lets say your 16 year old wants a car and a job. To do that they need to schedule multiple tests with DMV, lessons with a driving instructor, update insurance documents and find the time to do hours of practice with you. At the end of that they need to n…

That's true, but the parenting part isn't actually that complicated, particularly at a young age when you're laying the foundation. Basically just stay out of the way and let your kids do stuff. Don't do anything for them that they can do for themselves. That way they learn problem solving skills and gain the confidence to follow through on things, so when they're 16 they are capable of navigating buying a car and ge…

Are your kids fully grown adults yet?

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#327

Post by _vqpz »

renewiltord wrote: post #287
HexPhantom wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tragedy is that we responded to the real dangers of the past by trying to eliminate all risk, and in doing so stripped away most of the texture that made childhood feel real

We did not try to eliminate all risk. That is a lie. We increased risk by allowing criminals to go on the street and then criminalized permitting your child to be a victim. The risk remains. We just added another risk. If I let my 6 year old daughter cross King St in San Francisco and a car illegally turning right while she is in the crosswalk kills her, who will society prosecute harder? Me or the driver? I think I…

You are talking to yourself

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#328

Post by solumunus »

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…

Instagram Mom algorithms is what happened, probably.

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#329

Post by kjkjadksj »

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…

I would guess a parent who can enroll their kid in sailing for leisure could have paid for college anyhow

Re: How getting richer made teenagers less free

#330

Post by kjkjadksj »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #34
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's it. There's definitely a kind of frenetic adversity in the whole college admissions process, at least for kids who are inclined to go that route. If anything, it has gotten much worse over the past 30 years; it's much more stressful than it used to be, and it's easy for teens to imagine that every little thing carries high stakes. If by "adversity" you mean helping the family put food on the tabl…

I think it’s a broader awareness of a K shaped socioeconomic trajectory, that the odds of an upward trajectory drop considerably if you don’t follow the standard path into a top 20 university, metro, etc. as economic opportunities continue to agglomerate.

What gives me pause with that take is that it only really applies to certain geographical regions of the country. I grew up in a place where today you can still get a starter home for about 100k. The nicest homes, akin to the Home Alone house, on the market are around 500k or less. You don’t need a glamorous job to be a homeowner here, to own a couple cars on the comparatively cheap insurance rates, to send your kid to the very competent in state university. It is still the same break it has always had since the region is stagnant in population. Ironically the lack of growth actually helps the people when you consider the affordability it offers. However the mass media is blind to this region, you won’t hear about it save for browbeating over 1950s population counts, missing the point entirely of what that really means in practice for the people who live there.

K shaped economy doesn’t just refer to class, but of geography. There is a hidden line out of the middle of that K going dead straight.

Post reply on HN