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

This is a teenager

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 868 posts

Re: This is a teenager

#461

Post by sabarn01 »

hirsin wrote: post #431
tomp wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? In the adult world, you'd just call the police. In the child world, sometimes you tell the adults, but they don't do anything, and the abuse continues. That's at least my experience with bullying in primary school. "Conflict resolution" and such virtue-signalling buzzwords don't work against violent bullies .

This is fairly literally how people watch a homeless guy get choked to death in the New-York subway. "Someone will call the cops eventually". No, you can't be a bystander, even if it might be dangerous.

that was someone stepping in because the homeless person had been threatening. In general people won't help because the risk of helping is too high.

Re: This is a teenager

#462

Post by valrix »

bsimpson wrote: post #246
ineptech wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone who only produces $7 of value is no longer employable This is the wrong model. You're using a worker's wage to describe their productivity, and a big reason for the mess we're in is that wages stopped increasing with productivity fifty years ago. (search "wages productivity graph")

This feels like you're nitpicking the language, not the thinking. Imagine someone's contribution to a business increases revenue by $1000 and the total cost to employ that person for the same period is $800. Do you think most businesses would go "nope, we only hire highly leveraged people who produce $2000 in revenue"? There are inefficiencies in scale (like communication/bookkeeping overhead) that might disincentivi…

Except an employee's contribution isn't static, while their cost is.

$7.25 x 8 hours = $58 for the day. However what they create is based on output, which for most businesses, varies day by day along with their sales.

A McDonald's could sell 500 burgers in one day at one location, but only 300 at another. In this case the employee at the larger restaurant generates 2/5 more value than the employee at the smaller one, even if both can output at the same speed and quality. So, in reality, the employee at the larger restaurant is being exploited by 2/5 more than the employee at the smaller location. Which also means the employee at the smaller location is getting paid more for doing 2/5 less work than an equally capable employee.

Profits are multiplicative yet unpredictable, while labor is static and predictable.

Re: This is a teenager

#463

Post by bccdee »

gentleman11 wrote: post #455
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, likely intentionally, understated. I cannot speak for the author, but the gist I got is that our society thrusts wholly unprepared people into adulthood and we could get a lot of improvements from just making it harder for people to fail at adulting. IYKYK and if you don’t you will get fucked - repeatedly. Basic life skills are not taught so it’s up to the individual if their family fails. Importantly,…

If you say the problem is social class and poverty, and not having available role models to show how adult life actually works, you’ll get flamed and trolled. If you say the problem is racial issues, you’ll get upvotes. I’ll just sit here and await my downvotes now

Role models are kind of a non-answer to the question. It's like saying the problem is "bad luck." Role-model-based policy solutions are, if not impossible, at least deeply impractical. Childcare subsidies and other forms of welfare, including simple direct cash transfers, have been shown to be strongly beneficial and are much simpler to implement. What people dislike about those is that they involve starting fights with lobbyists. Hence non-actionable perspectives like "the problem is role models" or "the problem is personal responsibility," which are not solutions so much as excuses for collective inaction.

Re: This is a teenager

#464

Post by nox101 »

coldtea wrote: post #457
nox101 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like it has possible unintended consequences? "Go shoot lots of guns and do violent things and then our hazard pay will go up!"

Only as much as any other such thing. Did home insurance availability increased arsons in any significant number?

I could be wrong but rarely do you get > replacement money from insurance. Pay $1000k for home, burn it down, get $800k from ins. You're out $200k.

Or am I mis-understanding how home insurance would incentivize arson

Re: This is a teenager

#465

Post by RajT88 »

tomp wrote: post #404
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teach conflict resolution skills to young children. This is pretty huge. A lot of my experience growing up in California during the 90s was "tell an adult" and "zero tolerance" coming down from school administrators. This is useful at a very young age, but it neglects to equip the children with agency for when the adults aren't around. You can't tell an adult when you're on the school bus and conflict breaks out. Y…

What do you mean? In the adult world, you'd just call the police. In the child world, sometimes you tell the adults, but they don't do anything, and the abuse continues. That's at least my experience with bullying in primary school. "Conflict resolution" and such virtue-signalling buzzwords don't work against violent bullies .

Adults largely do nothing, agree.

I recall trying once, it got to the principal level. Nothing happened. The kids got a talking to by the principal, but their parents did not care. Child bullies have parents who do not care what their kids do.

Fighting back works - against a single bully. If there is more than one, they will make the fight unfair. After all, it is about dominance and not proving yourself.

Bullies eventually usually grow out of it. That is the fix in my experience.

Re: This is a teenager

#466

Post by Aeolun »

The thing I took away from this, and seemed more than just a slight increase for one of the categories, was that people with zero adverse experiences are very rarely ‘happy all the time’.

Re: This is a teenager

#467

Post by sabarn01 »

3minus1 wrote: post #428

As others have mentioned this site heavily implies causality with statements like "we can clearly see that the experiences of their childhood had a huge effect" and "college or technical school can mitigate some of the effects of adverse childhood experiences". It is simply not possible to draw such conclusions from a longitudinal study. Interventions and actual experiments are necessary. The site is really nicely do…

The oddest example was suspensions. It treated suspensions as if they were random bad events not behaviour driven. Its not the suspension that causes poor outcomes its the behaviour.

Re: This is a teenager

#468

Post by naniwaduni »

Misdicorl wrote: post #312
Freebytes wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not make it more than $1000 per month. Very few would choose to be poor. It would put a lot of pressure on companies to pay decent wages, though.

$1000/month is $12,000/year. Thats far far below poverty levels. It needs to be enough that people can choose to supplement in order to engage with luxury consumption. If people are forced to supplement to just survive, then we need to maintain the minimum wage and a whole host of other weird baggage.

The 2024 FPL figure is $15060 + 5380 per additional person family member past the first. $12k/head/year comes up a bit short for an individual, but it's not that far off—expenses involved in holding down a job probably actually account for the difference anyway.

It also becomes clearly tenable with households of more than 1. Supporting a family of 2-3 on $24k-36k is like, yep, I've met married international grad students. Of course they'll spring for supplemental income where available, but as a baseline it is tenuously "enough".

Re: This is a teenager

#469

Post by dotnet00 »

tomp wrote: post #451
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the only resolution for a conflict is murder. Even in non stand your ground states. I do not think you understand conflict resolution and should probably study it a bit before speaking so authoritatively. The basic gist of it is to identify the root cause of contention and identify the best practical solution. Most people bad at managing conflict fail to correctly identify the cause and empathize with the o…

How would you attempt “conflict resolution” with primary school bullies? Sometimes the only resolution to violence is (threat of) superior violence. If you’re a child and a group of kids attacks you, that’s “adults resolving the situation”. Anything else is a failure of the schooling system.

It's telling that you seemingly only think of extreme cases when it comes to conflict resolution, and not all the mundane conflicts kids get into, eg arguing over who gets to play with a toy, arguing over who's whose friend etc, teasing that doesn't rise to the level of bullying, or kids interacting with/being watched by someone who is both meaningfully older than themselves and is also too young for the kid to acknowledge them as having authority (eg an older cousin), or teenagers arguing over/teasing over crushes etc.

These are all things kids need to have the freedom to learn to resolve without a parent just jumping in all the time.

Such conflict resolution can come handy in adulthood for things like dealing with angry/complaining customers, miscommunications causing arguments, professional disagreements etc. I've seen so many people who are completely unable to do conflict resolution of any sort, everyone's always walking on eggshells around them knowing that any conflict is going to end up blowing up into full "Karen"-esque argument.

Re: This is a teenager

#470

Post by bccdee »

richardlblair wrote: post #247
imacomputertoo wrote: post #209

The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced. I wish they had shown percentages with the visualization. They choose not to. I was underwhelmed by some points that seemed like they should have been more shocking. Look at the huge number of people in the many adverse experiences category who made it to college, and make a high salary.…

It's hard to look at visualizations like this and reflect on the experiences of the individuals living through hardship. Even those who 'make it out' may struggle in ways not fully captured in the data or this visualization. I grew up in a 'high risk environment', and experienced all the adverse experiences with the exception of gun violence (yay Canada). I'm one of the few that 'made it out'. Many of my childhood fr…

I'd love it if the government would throw resources at the problem, though. People act as if we're already flushing huge amounts of cash down the toilet of socialized benefits, but the fact is that the government has been extremely laissez-faire for decades. The midcentury boom was characterized by extensive intervention and public spending. There are much worse ways combat poverty than simply giving people public works jobs building the houses they need. Even direct cash transfers massively reduce the burden of poverty.
Post reply on HN