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

Who Americans spend their time with, by age

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 432 posts

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#371

Post by cgriswald »

irrational wrote: post #340
cgriswald wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they show up at your door, decide to move wherever you moved, or even try to move in with you. You can't solve a boundary issue by not dealing with the boundary issue. At best , you can avoid it and hope it's no longer a problem. The underlying issue still remains.

Then you just cut them out of your life. Tell them to never contact you ever again and move once more.

Right. It’s not the move that matters. It’s the “tell(ing) them to never contact you ever again” that matters. In other words, setting a boundary.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#372

Post by PurpleFoxy »

mcguire wrote: post #149
burlesona wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true. Unfortunately such places are almost all very expensive these days. So if you’re not already into late retirement age (and you moved there 40 years ago when it was affordable), then it’s not economically feasible for most people to get in now.

Visit any rural diner between 8:00 and 9:00 (or urban diner between 9:00 and 11:00) when it's otherwise quiet. I'll bet you will find a cluster or two of elderly people swapping lies. Indoor malls used to be similar gathering places for people who wanted to walk without being in the weather. Basically, look anywhere the 20- or 30-somethings aren't.

I find it amusing when Americans tell stories about malls being ghost towns. In Australia they are almost reaching the limits of how many people can fit inside the buildings and the whole road and public transport systems are based around the locations of them.

I have no idea what the difference between here and America is. Amazon is not super big here like it seems to be in America.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#373

Post by irrational »

cgriswald wrote: post #371
irrational wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you just cut them out of your life. Tell them to never contact you ever again and move once more.

Right. It’s not the move that matters. It’s the “tell(ing) them to never contact you ever again” that matters. In other words, setting a boundary.

I don't think cutting them out of your life is setting a boundary. That's like the difference between putting a fence around a cow pasture (a boundary) and slaughtering the cows for meat. One is a bit more permanent than the other. Not really a boundary but an excising.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#374

Post by heinrichhartman »

an_opabinia wrote: post #293
frakt0x90 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced this first hand when I visited my wife's family in Vietnam. All 10 or so of them live in homes side by side on the outskirts of Saigon. Everyone woke up in the morning and cooked for each other. Every day was like a little party. It was so nice to have that much support around all the time. I have never experienced anything like that in the US. Of course having family literally at your doorstep has its…

> Everyone woke up in the morning and cooked for each other I am not passing judgement here. The women woke up in the morning and cooked for everyone else. > It was so nice to have that much support around all the time. People have written about this in books that are now almost four decades old. Everywhere women entered the workforce in a highly compensated way, this arrangement came to an end, the number of childre…

> where the women do all this crappy work

This is very disrespectful to the many women, and a growing number of men that are making a conscious choice to prioritize raising children and caring for a family over salary work.

The problem is forced labor here, i.e. not having a choice to enter the work force. Not that the work is inherently "crappy" - it is not.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#375

Post by ttjjtt »

barry-cotter wrote: post #346
emptysongglass wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that capitalism co-opts everything and that women entering the workforce led to two people now earning what a single person used to? What's more, I'm not really sure the women cooking in those villages hate it as much as you put on them. That's not to say we don't all deserve self-determination but the story we were sold, of ultimate freedom for everyone, is just a new wage-slavery for everyone. Lest y…

> You do realize that capitalism co-opts everything and that women entering the workforce led to two people now earning what a single person used to? Two people earn a lot more than one person used to by any material metric. People don’t feel any richer because any surplus gets eaten up by positional goods. It’s not enough to have a perfectly reasonable 1950s house. You must have one twice as big, like your friends.…

Factors like the rising cost of housing and competition for education means that two parents working in professional careers with university educations can barely attain the same assets as a family supported by one blue collar tradesman in the 50s. People are having far less kids any more and they are stunned by the incompatibility of work-family when they do. We have been played.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#377

Post by denimnerd46 »

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #372
mcguire wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visit any rural diner between 8:00 and 9:00 (or urban diner between 9:00 and 11:00) when it's otherwise quiet. I'll bet you will find a cluster or two of elderly people swapping lies. Indoor malls used to be similar gathering places for people who wanted to walk without being in the weather. Basically, look anywhere the 20- or 30-somethings aren't.

I find it amusing when Americans tell stories about malls being ghost towns. In Australia they are almost reaching the limits of how many people can fit inside the buildings and the whole road and public transport systems are based around the locations of them. I have no idea what the difference between here and America is. Amazon is not super big here like it seems to be in America.

where I live desirable malls are always packed and there is a steep cutoff to ghost town. in fact the ghost towns have existed for so long most are demolished or in the process of.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#378

Post by denimnerd46 »

asiachick wrote: post #347
ThoreauBred wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the bottom half of the linked website? It clearly states more alone time does not necessarily mean they’re lonelier as individuals. Perhaps as a species this nuclear family model we have to start with should really be giving way in later life to more autonomy? After 20+ years being parented and pushed into team work, is it so terrible to consider enabling free agency and experience? What makes me sad is…

> After 20+ years being parented and pushed into team work, is it so terrible to consider enabling free agency and experience? This is an entirely western or American POV. I have no idea if it came from media (movies/books telling us we should move out as soon as possible) or from advertising (because if you can get people to move out you sell more stuff. More housing, more cars, more every day appliances etc...) In…

In America it's relatively easy to move out so if you can't meet that bar it's seen as weird. In other countries it can be more difficult to so there's less pressure.

There's so much credit available for developers to build housing that it's widely available and affordable. Many countries do not have that kind of financial market.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#379

Post by cgriswald »

irrational wrote: post #373
cgriswald wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It’s not the move that matters. It’s the “tell(ing) them to never contact you ever again” that matters. In other words, setting a boundary.

I don't think cutting them out of your life is setting a boundary. That's like the difference between putting a fence around a cow pasture (a boundary) and slaughtering the cows for meat. One is a bit more permanent than the other. Not really a boundary but an excising.

I hear what your saying but it’s at best a matter of scale.

Slaughtering the cows would be like... selling her car so her mom can’t use it. Her mom can’t hurt the cow anymore, sure, but there’s still no fence there.

In contrast, telling her mom “No, you can’t use my car” would be setting a boundary. But telling her mom “I don’t want you in my life” would also be setting a boundary. These are just two different fences. In both cases, the cow/car are just fine.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#380

Post by tripzilch »

burlesona wrote: post #36

The thing that seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age. There are many many reasons for it, but one thing I think is especially sad is how much this is a consequence of our built environment. If you live in a village with multiple generations of a family around, it’s much easier for grandparents to be involved day too day in helping with little things in the village, especially keeping an eye on t…

Not everybody is privileged with a functional family.

Or one that is safe.

Or sane.

Or will accept them for who they are.

Etc etc etc.

The idea that "family is who you got and you stick with them" is very nice if you have a great family, but please don't force this on everybody.

It's very similar to the antiquated idea that you should be sad for a woman because she doesn't have a man.

The problem is loneliness. By treating it as a "family" problem, any solutions will exclude people who still can't fall back on a functional/safe/sane/accepting family.

I can understand it makes you sad if you have a happy family and wish this for others. But in some situations it'd be equivalent to wishing someone would stay with their abusive partner.

Also, what's this about only grandparents getting to enjoy company in their old age? What about the people without children+grandchildren?? That singular fact makes their lives carbon neutral several times over, which deserves quite an amount of respect, unlike people who did it because say, they feared being alone in their old age. Which you should not underestimate as an actual reason people use. And it also does not create happy families.

Post reply on HN