Geez, that article really felt light on examination, then bam, "the solution is obvious, tax the rich more!"
And why wouldn't they compare the US to other countries like Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. ? We all already know that the Nordic countries really have their act together and are effectively a cherry picked example.
Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? The whole point of the article seems to be to further the "tax the rich" argument.
No, you are trying to lump state-sponsored attacks on democratic institutions in with opinion pieces that you disagree with, which is not only disengenous but also very very dangerous.
Faciciously asking that question is very much an active strategy to downplay & dilute the term. And astroturfing is monied interests dressing up as grassroots. An article in a paper expressing an opinion, accompanied by some body of research, is journalism.
I also didn’t really mean that to be attacking, I possibly attributed malice to misunderstanding so if that’s what happened I apologize
> "20 percent of US children live in families with incomes below 50 percent of the national median income"
This is a bizarre metric. If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed?
What if we simply cut the pay of the upper 50%, not even redistributing the income? That would lower median income, and therefore shrink the "less than 50% of median income" demographic, "solving" child poverty.
Well, yes, if richer families started having children at a higher rate, this would almost fix itself.
Two major problems, though. a) By and large, rich people don't have more children and b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth. That is, many that are just barely in the "rich" category won't be once they have children. More, most wealth in the US does not survive generations. (And this is generally agreed to be a good thing, I believe.)
For the second, ok. Cut the pay. How? That sort of suggestion is literally "wishful thinking." If everyone could get by with less money, everyone would. Folks do grab for the advantages they can get, though, and most rise in costs and pay are ascribable to scarcity. Only wishful thinking will make housing and energy costs flat across the board. Same for social mobility. Or physical mobility.
"b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth."
I'd like to see a comparison between childless families and families with children, economic starting point held constant. There is the fatherhood bonus and motherhood penalty after all.
Would census data be a good place to mine for this? I confess I was basing my assertion pretty much purely on seeing how much child births cost. I do not condemn the rise in hospital births. I am worried at seeing how much it costs. And that is for births that presented no complications.
They wouldn't, was my point. One actively works against it through feedback systems. Having kids typically lowers your income. The other isn't actually doable.
Is the metric perfect? No. But neither is attacking it in ways that it can't be attacked.
Food security, nutrition, housing stability, rent burden, medical and dental care, K12 institutions that meet standards, college affordability, etc. Essentially anything focused on objective conditions instead of relative positioning.
The upper half of a country’s income distribution can absolutely be more or less productive compared to another time or another place. How would you go about it? Defunding education and research and starting a trade war would be great first steps.
Is this just a contest to look good? Yes, we have made great progress. I actually think we should celebrate more of it. Some metrics do give pause for concern, though. Long before they give pause for alarm.
It's bizarre because it's not parent age adjusted and number of parents adjusted.
If only 20% of children are members of age-adjusted & number of parents adjusted families with income in the bottom half then that means that the bottom half of families are being slowly genocided through the cost to have and raise a child.
But we have no way of knowing that from the national median income statistic.
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
I don’t think that works with wsj anymore since the whole Google Amp thing. Just tried your suggestion and was met with paywall after first couple paragraphs.
Is there a place to give feedback to ycombinator or voice your opinion? I'm very well could be in the minority here but I would rather paywalled articles were discouraged.
As a counterpoint, Canada (and presumably the US too) has seen a dramatic decrease in unintentional injury mortality among children over the last 70 years.
Yes, although that study suggests the big declines have been with things like choking and burns among very young children. I don't think anyone is arguing for more dangerous products or getting rid of safety precautions for toddlers.
That study also suggests more vehicle-related accidents but it's hard to know what to make of that without knowing more about the type of accidents, population patterns, etc.
>I don't think anyone is arguing for more dangerous products or safety precautions for toddlers.
Maybe some people think that way. Colloquially, I've heard about a million times Europeans laugh at how ridiculous they think some laws are in that regard, such as Kinder eggs being banned in America.
As with many things, there's probably a lot of focus on edge cases about which reasonable people can disagree. Bucky balls were another recent case. And then there's the sheaf of safety warnings that come with every product and no one ever reads. But, mostly, getting rid of small parts in toddler toys, avoiding sharp edges, baby monitors, etc. are probably significant net positives for safety without a whole lot of downside.
Are kinder eggs actually a dangerous product, or are they just getting swept up by broader American legislation? It's my understanding the American law preventing the importation of kinder eggs is a law against inedible objects from being embedded inside edible objects, which seems generally reasonable. Generally. But are Kinder eggs actually dangerous? Are many European children dying because of Kinder eggs specifically?
Kinder eggs are something that were swept up in a generally well-meaning legislation. It improved safety overall, but generally disallows such products to be sold lest there be a choking hazard.
All that said, I think there are ways to get exceptions, but they are shy to give them away. And it really is a shame in this case: though there have been perhaps a handful of suspected choking cases in children, overall they have been quite reasonably safe (based on years and years of them being sold to children elsewhere). It simply winds up being a silly ban done for a good overall reason.
As I understand it, it applies to corporations deliberately manufacturing foods that way. It would be ridiculous if the law applied to fruits, but it doesn't. And nobody would earnestly call for the law to be applied in that way except in an attempt to make some sort of rhetorical argument for allowing corporations to put inedible plastic objects inside of food.
The point is why it doesn't apply to fruits. People already feed their children with food that naturally contain inedible things in them. The law would make sense to force labelling so parents can tell if there's inedible things in a specific food item and also to make sure those things are non-toxic. Anything more reeks of overreaching to me. Then again, I'm not as creative as USA food corporations, so I could be having trouble imagining what they'd do if the law was as I'm describing it.
It's not the eggs that are banned, the FDA bans the practice of putting inedible objects fully encased in edible things in general. I loved me my Kinder Surprise when I was a kid but I don't think that's an unreasonable restriction when it comes to products marketed towards children (I don't know if it applies across the board or only to things marketed at children). Kinder has introduced an American version now where the egg is split vertically into two halves - one half has the chocolate and the other half has the toy so that there's no risk of accidentally eating it. I'm not sure if they do the assembly required toys for the American version but I see the eggs everywhere now.
Huh, I guess I have never seen "fake bone-in chicken". Interesting that food can contain inedible objects, but you're not allowed to put them there.
At this point I guess it would be helpful to know the letter of the law/regulation, but it's also probably not important enough to bother.
Do big American Easter eggs sometimes come with plastic bags of smaller candies inside? Those seem less likely to be a choking hazard, but similar enough that they could fall afoul of the law that hits the Kinder eggs.
Section 402(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is what regulates this. It says:
(1) has partially or completely imbedded therein any nonnutritive object, except that this subparagraph shall not apply in the case of any nonnutritive object if, in the judgment of the Secretary as provided by regulations, such object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health
Since hidden pillars are neither hazardous to anyone's health and also provide functional value, seems like they'd be just fine.
It is hard to say, since we diagnose more then before. Anecdotally, some say that yes there is such rise. Then again, teenagers are now less violent then before, commit less serious crime, get pregnant less often and take drugs less.
Do they take less drugs, or do they just take less recreational drugs? Anecdotally, I'd wager kids are taking more drugs than ever before, specifically the kind that come with a prescription. And we could really get into the weeds with which recreational drugs are/were popular with kids...
And I'd also wager that the number of kids negatively impacted by poor mental health today is a lot more than the number of kids negatively impacted by violent youth crime and teenage pregnancies in past years not so far removed from our own.
Furthermore we've got a baby/bathwater situation going on here specifically with respect to teenage pregnancy as it relates to minor autonomy. Teaching kids to use condoms and birth control needn't be thrown out with the bathwater that is overprotected children. In fact, I think you could argue that sex education for minors is an exception to the rule, where minors are being given more autonomy today than in the past.
I've seen sources for less cannabis, but I'm skeptical that the proportion of opioid/prescription medication abuse is down. Furthermore there is also the very serious issue of adderrall abuse, which is very common, and doubtlessly related the issue of modern social expectations forced on kids.
And beyond that, I'd wager caffeine consumption is also through the roof. When I was a kid it was virtually unheard of for minors to drink coffee, and I never saw colas let alone energy drinks sold in vending machines in schools.
But are they getting pregnant less often per instance of intercourse?
There were a lot of articles lately that teenagers and young adults are having less sex now than ever before which IMHO would be a failure rather than a success of overparenting.
I knew a guy some years older than me who had been a bonafide hippie. He told me "TV cut off at 9pm. Not really anything to do after that but sex and drugs."
With the internet providing 24/7 entertainment, that particular issue -- "I'm bored. I think I shall get high and/or laid." -- is mostly a solved problem.
2.) Statistically, kids who are well informed about sex and have factual information tend to both start later and use protection. So no, later sex is not failure of parenting. It is result of kids making rational well informed choices. (Meaning them skipping sex with partner they don't trust, them being less likely to be manipulated or shamed into it, less likely do it just to acquired social status or for fear they will look gay.)
3.) There is nothing inherently good about soon sex. Self control is good thing and will be correlated with later sex (cause you skip some chances by choice). The idea that there is something wrong with you if you are not having sex at 17 is ridiculous anyway.
Out of curiosity, why is that concerning - assuming we are really at some kind of historical low e.g. low compared to more then just hippy 80ties including pre-contracepion eras?
Is that you think it is lack of sex that makes people have less children (meaning that they would have them had they not be too lazy to have sex)? Or that there are less relationships or that people keep solely their own gender peer group? Mark of people caring about work more then humans? Or something else?
A problem with isolated stats is that it doesn't necessarily tell you much about the system from which it was derived. Life and development are extremely complex. Has there been a somehow more difficult to measure cost associated with this? For instance there are also various correlations such as a strong increase in mental illness, a decline in academic performance, and a general infantilization of young adults. I'm not sure it's such a stretch to see how we treat our children as, at least possibly, somehow related.
Probably due to the reduction in people working on farms which can be dangerous places - there was a documentary on Rick Hall - the founder of Muscle Shoals.
He grew up on a farm and one of his siblings was scaled to death and later when he had made money a tractor he had brought for his father overturned killing him.
Unintentional injury includes car crashes which have been getting less deadly thanks to increasing safety standards, seat belt laws, car seat laws, graduated licensing, stiffer penalties for DUI (as well as actual enforcement). You're also talking about increasing safety standards on consumer products and packaging leading to less injuries.
So does Switzerland where the norm is still to send off children to kindergarden alonr at age 6. Or in Japan where 7 year olds take responsibility over 4 year olds going there (with some adults also warching the crossings). There‘s many ways increasing child safety that don’t mandate parents to helicopter.
You can always tell when someone grew up like this. They are always afraid of doing anything that might even remotely be considered outside the box. They lack that ability and drive to find things out for themselves, and instead rely on others for help and guidance to a fault. Professional occupations are full of these people who were coddled from birth, through college, and straight into a high paying job with zero understanding of how life actually works. It makes relating to someone like that almost impossible.
Is this something that actually happens, in large? I'd be interested in studies that show this happens more. Meltdowns are far from a new thing in the world.
I mean, they make a nice narrative to shame people for overprotecting their kids. But this basically culminates in three of the major things that give me pause. a) Nice narrative, b) appealing argument without presented evidence, and c) shaming. Combine those and you typically have someone pushing or falling for an argument that has not been proven.
And yes, we all fall for those. All the time. I am not exempt.
The mediocrity comes from the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality. Overprotecting your kids feeds into that mentality as well. If everyone gets a trophy, why should you try harder than anyone else?
So you are okay with people with no spine basically running this country? Because that's what high paying professionals typically do. It may not be politics, but they typically have a lot of power and their spinelessness impacts a lot more people than just themselves.
But I don't know how much that mitigates the damage. If good leaders spend all their time cleaning up the mess left behind, it goes pretty far in preventing anything really good from happening.
Part of being a good leader (IMHO) is realizing you’re going to be spending time mitigating the actions of others who derail progress, for whatever reason (intentional & unintentional). You are the tip of the spear, blocking the impediment of progress for those who report to you.
Based on my limited knowledge of you from your HN posts and your history in corporate america, you’d be a great fit for a Chief Of Staff role, or any other executive role where you’re unblocking progress through mediating relationships (internally) and partnerships (externally).
This seems orthogonal. You project incredibly lot to parent description that basically described someone boring - your average worker that does his job and causes no problems to anyone. Not all that great innovative improvement either which seemed to be his complain.
People who don't follow advice and insist on going out of box all the time tend to generate even more mess behind. And are not great leaders either.
There is plenty of middle ground between those two extremes. It is not a given that someone who can take a stand will pathologically feel the need to make a stink about absolutely every little thing and refuse to ever listen to any advice at all.
Maybe. Agreeableness is often very high among the coddled set and that is a trait associated with doing well in the business world, especially for women (sometimes negatively associated when the subject is a man). However, it's also possible that these people ended up in their job due to a number of other factors that are correlated with helicopter-parenting: ability to pay for school, ability to participate in unpaid internships, etc. . . .
As young millennials and gen z (or whatever the fuck we end up calling them) start to occupy management roles we'll be able to make a better call in this regard.
Can you? Or do you just have good selection bias? Or do you just like not liking people?
Reality is most people rely on others for help. And there isn't a damned thing wrong with that. Indeed, the implication of the problem there is that it is not right to help and guide others. How is that ok?
Would it be great if we were all more self sufficient? I think so, but I don't have anything to back that belief. Especially knowing we are social creatures. And, all evidence is we have succeeded in large because we are social creatures. Even the giants among us relied heavily on social influence.
Reality nowadays when a piece of lab equipment breaks down is that the kids call tech support, i.e. The Professor. You wish they'd consult documentation or their own brain, more experienced students in the lab, the tech support number on the business card that's stuck to the instrument &c p.p., but instead they immediately kick the matter upstairs instead of consulting peers or using the means at their disposal. Their childlike trust in authorities is too great.
I'd think that's more a cause of the blame that's put on people for going outside of their given rules. I'm sure if the student attempted to fix that machine and even if they didn't break it more, they'd be in a world of shit.
You can't simultaneously expect people to be self sufficient and then punish them heavily if they try to be and anything goes wrong.
In the physical sciences you are simply expected to troubleshoot and perform basic maintenance on lab equipment. No, I wouldn't know where the helplessness amongst today's undergraduates comes from. Is it an unquestioning adherence to "the rules" that was beaten into them in school, or is it a desire to deflect potential liability? No idea!
Pre-undergraduate education is nothing like the University level. Some of the students have never been in a laboratory, some of them didn't have user-serviceable cars or bicycles or computers, even those who "have coded" might not really "be programming," and authority figures who could fix everything almost magically basically were their lives for 18 years. That's before you examine eccentricities and differences in upbringing. And, before addressing the "not not totalitarian" practice of 'Zero Tolerance' and its sizable human cost. As the other user said, that adds up. I wouldn't be surprised if kids doing gun violence in schools are reacting to a false image of society which they're getting from people for whom tardiness results in detention.
I still can't weld like some of my friends. They're so brilliant, it'd take me years to catch up.
Anyway: if you really want to sell students on becoming the complete Scientific Humanist Who Delicately Breaks Rules AND Can Fix Anything, which you seem to fancy, start off the laboratories with "LSD Synthesis: from Ergot to Your Homemade Blotter Art" and then break the thermal cycler before the next lab, with the phosphorescence plasmids.
And, yes, in the U.S. and elsewhere, I would expect some (perhaps milder than I imagine) difficulties with that; and, no, I don't really condone drug use but I think you can see where I'm coming from with this reasoning.
Even when I was in high school about 15 years ago, we were always punished for violating any procedures or rules. Zero tolerance policies weren't just for violent actions but for everything. Our society does not tolerate children who disobey authority and that doesn't magically switch off when we kick them off to college
The fact that they tracked into a high paying job despite their risk-aversion and limited ability to think abstractly seems to vindicate their parent's method of raising children.
Most parents aren't trying to raise the next brilliant artist, entrepreneur, or intellectual[1]. They just want their kids to have a stable, safe, happy life.
[1] And those that try often don't know what they're doing and end up inflicting emotional damage, so the best case: A successful but absolutely miserable adult.
I agree to a certain extent that if replicating an upper middle class lifestyle is the parenting goal this can be successful. The big concern I have with that parenting model is antedoctoally these seem to be the people I have seen fall the hardest when dealing with adversity.
For someone who had a long linear career progression a lay-off or temporary underemployment sucks and could cause a lifestyle downsizing but is manageable. For the person who’s entire existence expects xxx,xxx income that’s where foreclosures on very nice homes and bankruptcy happen.
It may vindicate the parent's method, but only up to the point where their child gets the job. It seems that the system will let the coddled individual get that far. I wonder what happens to the coddled people after that. Right now they probably have a hard time, but maybe the system is evolving to let those people, at least in some industries, stay in their bubble. (I hope not...)
>You can always tell when someone grew up like this. They are always afraid of doing anything that might even remotely be considered outside the box. They lack that ability and drive to find things out for themselves, and instead rely on others for help and guidance to a fault.
I would be careful there it can happen by other means too. I suffer from a fair bit of anxiety, so I show similar symptoms for different reasons; instead of not knowing how to act outside the box or being unable to not rely on others, I'm merely afraid of doing those things, although capable of them.
I think if you want to separate the two cases the easiest way is to give them alone time and a high level task to fulfill that requires initiative to solve. Those who have grown up overprotected will continue to seek guidance while those who are simply afraid of social missteps will be happily on their way the moment they are alone with a clear goal.
Outside of proper therapy probably not much and I've never gotten around to do that. In my case it helps to make sure that I always have something to work on alone via issues on JIRA or other collaboration tools.
I feel like there is a fine line between people like this and people who insist that documentation exists.
For me, maybe I know what the procedure is because I've done it a thousand times but it's still not written down step by step so what I know in my head is worthless once I leave the job for whatever reason [death, better deal, retirement, &c].
On the other hand, the person doing the job could just be sub-par. I'm not sure what there can be done about that.
Except the Concerned Adults will never get a chance to read it because they'll call the police to rescue the 12-year-old dropped off at the mall by her mom.
Same here in Canada, though I wonder if part of the reason older siblings are trusted with younger ones is that parents are less worried the second or third time around—if they’re more trusting that “the kids will be alright,” by then.
I'd imagine most 12 yo without experience of 3 yo children wouldn't have much of a clue. Many adults, even those of grandparent age (who've had kids) seem clueless as to the abilities of pre-schoolers and hence the ability of them to get in trouble.
They might be able to stop the infant from killing themselves, it depends a lot on the 3 yo. In our case the eldest is over-protective mostly, except when bored or distracted ...
A 12 year old with a 3 yo sibling will have 3 years of experience with that sibling and know how to care for them. Of course, if the 12 yo has not been raised to be a responsible person, there is a risk. But roughly for millenia, older siblings have cared for their younger siblings while the adults were working / busy. It is a relatively recent development that we don't trust kids anymore.
Agreed, but the parent post didn't mention 12 yos with 3yo siblings. A little experience, and learning from watching parent-infant interactions, goes along way.
Seriously? Where I live I regularly see 7 year olds alone in charge of 3 year olds at the playground. I‘m talking about Switzerland, much the same in many European countries and Japan.
Yes, in my time seven years old children could go off on the streets to play for hours by themselves, ride a bike or skate without a helmet, etc. Things have gone in not a precisely healthy direction, in my opinion.
When I first moved my family (from Denmark originally) to New York we had to put our oldest son in a daycare.
We have always been fairly "free range" i.e. our kids have had their share of bruises from climbing and in general being allowed to do challenging things.
After a week at the daycare my wife went to pick my son up, one of the teachers pulled her aside and told her that they, unfortunately, had to report some of the bruises on his arm or shoulder (can't remember) and that they hadn't said anything about the bruises on his legs.
My wife and I freaked out worried that the social services would come and take him away.
Of course, we soon learned that it wasn't actually the bruises on our son they were worried about but whether we would report them for mistreating our son.
The primary problem in the US is the liability issue which certainly doesn't help.
People in general though are really weirdly paranoid about their kids. I always thought it would be counterproductive for them later in life. Better to fall when you are a little boy than when you are older.
I wonder how much the built environment impacts the independence we can give our children. For instance, regarding the milestone of safely crossing the road that this article mentions, does the common milestone age decrease in more pedestrian-friendly places? It's one thing to cross a one-lane, slow-traffic narrow street in Europe versus a wide, high-speed one characteristic of most American suburbs.
The proliferation of these overprotective practices reminds me of the proliferation of simpler practices we impose on kids like showering regularly and wearing clean clothes that we just take for granted now. The link in my mind is how you can pick most any practice that is common amongst a majority of the population today and look back 50, 200, sometimes 2000 years and you can trace it back to a minority aristocratic or ruling class. You know, like medieval kings taking regular private hot baths but this not becoming feasible for the rest of Europe until the last century.
Another commenter made an observation along the lines of you see overprotected children nevertheless succeeding (or failing up, depending on your perspective) professionally as adults. That would make sense if what we are doing is slowly handing down practices from the higher classes to lower. The failing up phenomenon is clearly highly correlated with the privilege you were born into. As everyone becomes relatively more privileged, then practices would radiate out and be institutionalized amongst more of the population, i.e., everyone would start overprotecting because as long as your kid makes it, worse case, they will be able to succeed via the fail up method.
It used to be said that certain kings or personages were made of glass and that if you touched them, they would shatter and the kingdom would fall. Much like a regular private hot bath, I fail to see the value of a Glass King.
Once I visited the UK and some kids threw lit firecrackers into my scarf. Then all the adults kept drinking. I assume America is currently behind the times, Europe having since updated the myth to Atomic Motorcycle Danger King.
This failure has something to do with Americans having enjoyed Downton Abbey more than Mad Max: Fury Road. My investigation continues.
Abraham Lincoln was left in a cabin for 6 months, responsible for his sister, when he was 9 and she was 11. There were some dried berries to eat, and Abraham Lincoln could go hunt with a rifle. The house didn't have power or water.
He turned out OK. Modern social workers would have taken him. Heck, they'd literally swipe baby Jesus.
138 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] threadhttps://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre...
And why wouldn't they compare the US to other countries like Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. ? We all already know that the Nordic countries really have their act together and are effectively a cherry picked example.
Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? The whole point of the article seems to be to further the "tax the rich" argument.
Fake news is literally made up nonsense, usually that appeals to emotion or existing political bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
I also didn’t really mean that to be attacking, I possibly attributed malice to misunderstanding so if that’s what happened I apologize
This is a bizarre metric. If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed?
What if we simply cut the pay of the upper 50%, not even redistributing the income? That would lower median income, and therefore shrink the "less than 50% of median income" demographic, "solving" child poverty.
This does sound like a great idea.
Two major problems, though. a) By and large, rich people don't have more children and b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth. That is, many that are just barely in the "rich" category won't be once they have children. More, most wealth in the US does not survive generations. (And this is generally agreed to be a good thing, I believe.)
For the second, ok. Cut the pay. How? That sort of suggestion is literally "wishful thinking." If everyone could get by with less money, everyone would. Folks do grab for the advantages they can get, though, and most rise in costs and pay are ascribable to scarcity. Only wishful thinking will make housing and energy costs flat across the board. Same for social mobility. Or physical mobility.
I'd like to see a comparison between childless families and families with children, economic starting point held constant. There is the fatherhood bonus and motherhood penalty after all.
It’s great that the lowest end of the income distribution still has enough resources to have children. It would help no one to reduce productivity.
The metric is probably not the right way of thinking about this problem.
Is the metric perfect? No. But neither is attacking it in ways that it can't be attacked.
Do you have alternatives? What are they?
The upper half of a country’s income distribution can absolutely be more or less productive compared to another time or another place. How would you go about it? Defunding education and research and starting a trade war would be great first steps.
That is, wealth is a proxy for all of those measures. And every attempt at fixing those measures has ended poorly. At best.
If only 20% of children are members of age-adjusted & number of parents adjusted families with income in the bottom half then that means that the bottom half of families are being slowly genocided through the cost to have and raise a child.
But we have no way of knowing that from the national median income statistic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
(Shh.)
The paywall question has long been decided though, and there are lots of previous posts that explain why: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Firefox extension to read FT and WSJ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28026710
That study also suggests more vehicle-related accidents but it's hard to know what to make of that without knowing more about the type of accidents, population patterns, etc.
Maybe some people think that way. Colloquially, I've heard about a million times Europeans laugh at how ridiculous they think some laws are in that regard, such as Kinder eggs being banned in America.
https://www.popsci.com/buckyballs-are-back-on-market
The egg has been redesigned some years ago. The two parts now stay attached together.
All that said, I think there are ways to get exceptions, but they are shy to give them away. And it really is a shame in this case: though there have been perhaps a handful of suspected choking cases in children, overall they have been quite reasonably safe (based on years and years of them being sold to children elsewhere). It simply winds up being a silly ban done for a good overall reason.
At this point I guess it would be helpful to know the letter of the law/regulation, but it's also probably not important enough to bother.
Do big American Easter eggs sometimes come with plastic bags of smaller candies inside? Those seem less likely to be a choking hazard, but similar enough that they could fall afoul of the law that hits the Kinder eggs.
Perhaps there's a size limit on embedded non-edible components.
King cakes are another example — commonly enjoyed despite how many baby Jesuses have been swallowed or choked on.
(1) has partially or completely imbedded therein any nonnutritive object, except that this subparagraph shall not apply in the case of any nonnutritive object if, in the judgment of the Secretary as provided by regulations, such object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health
Since hidden pillars are neither hazardous to anyone's health and also provide functional value, seems like they'd be just fine.
Thanks for the research.
Extreme "get the government off our back" people are definitely arguing for that.
It is hard to weight those against each other.
And I'd also wager that the number of kids negatively impacted by poor mental health today is a lot more than the number of kids negatively impacted by violent youth crime and teenage pregnancies in past years not so far removed from our own.
Furthermore we've got a baby/bathwater situation going on here specifically with respect to teenage pregnancy as it relates to minor autonomy. Teaching kids to use condoms and birth control needn't be thrown out with the bathwater that is overprotected children. In fact, I think you could argue that sex education for minors is an exception to the rule, where minors are being given more autonomy today than in the past.
And beyond that, I'd wager caffeine consumption is also through the roof. When I was a kid it was virtually unheard of for minors to drink coffee, and I never saw colas let alone energy drinks sold in vending machines in schools.
But are they getting pregnant less often per instance of intercourse?
There were a lot of articles lately that teenagers and young adults are having less sex now than ever before which IMHO would be a failure rather than a success of overparenting.
I knew a guy some years older than me who had been a bonafide hippie. He told me "TV cut off at 9pm. Not really anything to do after that but sex and drugs."
With the internet providing 24/7 entertainment, that particular issue -- "I'm bored. I think I shall get high and/or laid." -- is mostly a solved problem.
2.) Statistically, kids who are well informed about sex and have factual information tend to both start later and use protection. So no, later sex is not failure of parenting. It is result of kids making rational well informed choices. (Meaning them skipping sex with partner they don't trust, them being less likely to be manipulated or shamed into it, less likely do it just to acquired social status or for fear they will look gay.)
3.) There is nothing inherently good about soon sex. Self control is good thing and will be correlated with later sex (cause you skip some chances by choice). The idea that there is something wrong with you if you are not having sex at 17 is ridiculous anyway.
Is that you think it is lack of sex that makes people have less children (meaning that they would have them had they not be too lazy to have sex)? Or that there are less relationships or that people keep solely their own gender peer group? Mark of people caring about work more then humans? Or something else?
He grew up on a farm and one of his siblings was scaled to death and later when he had made money a tractor he had brought for his father overturned killing him.
I mean, they make a nice narrative to shame people for overprotecting their kids. But this basically culminates in three of the major things that give me pause. a) Nice narrative, b) appealing argument without presented evidence, and c) shaming. Combine those and you typically have someone pushing or falling for an argument that has not been proven.
And yes, we all fall for those. All the time. I am not exempt.
No, but it lets mediocre people feel good about themselves.
I don't think this is at all a good thing.
But I don't know how much that mitigates the damage. If good leaders spend all their time cleaning up the mess left behind, it goes pretty far in preventing anything really good from happening.
People who don't follow advice and insist on going out of box all the time tend to generate even more mess behind. And are not great leaders either.
Absolutely. These people make fantastic employees. But the world needs more than just employees.
As young millennials and gen z (or whatever the fuck we end up calling them) start to occupy management roles we'll be able to make a better call in this regard.
Reality is most people rely on others for help. And there isn't a damned thing wrong with that. Indeed, the implication of the problem there is that it is not right to help and guide others. How is that ok?
Would it be great if we were all more self sufficient? I think so, but I don't have anything to back that belief. Especially knowing we are social creatures. And, all evidence is we have succeeded in large because we are social creatures. Even the giants among us relied heavily on social influence.
Reality nowadays when a piece of lab equipment breaks down is that the kids call tech support, i.e. The Professor. You wish they'd consult documentation or their own brain, more experienced students in the lab, the tech support number on the business card that's stuck to the instrument &c p.p., but instead they immediately kick the matter upstairs instead of consulting peers or using the means at their disposal. Their childlike trust in authorities is too great.
I still can't weld like some of my friends. They're so brilliant, it'd take me years to catch up.
Anyway: if you really want to sell students on becoming the complete Scientific Humanist Who Delicately Breaks Rules AND Can Fix Anything, which you seem to fancy, start off the laboratories with "LSD Synthesis: from Ergot to Your Homemade Blotter Art" and then break the thermal cycler before the next lab, with the phosphorescence plasmids.
And, yes, in the U.S. and elsewhere, I would expect some (perhaps milder than I imagine) difficulties with that; and, no, I don't really condone drug use but I think you can see where I'm coming from with this reasoning.
Most parents aren't trying to raise the next brilliant artist, entrepreneur, or intellectual[1]. They just want their kids to have a stable, safe, happy life.
[1] And those that try often don't know what they're doing and end up inflicting emotional damage, so the best case: A successful but absolutely miserable adult.
For someone who had a long linear career progression a lay-off or temporary underemployment sucks and could cause a lifestyle downsizing but is manageable. For the person who’s entire existence expects xxx,xxx income that’s where foreclosures on very nice homes and bankruptcy happen.
I would be careful there it can happen by other means too. I suffer from a fair bit of anxiety, so I show similar symptoms for different reasons; instead of not knowing how to act outside the box or being unable to not rely on others, I'm merely afraid of doing those things, although capable of them.
I think if you want to separate the two cases the easiest way is to give them alone time and a high level task to fulfill that requires initiative to solve. Those who have grown up overprotected will continue to seek guidance while those who are simply afraid of social missteps will be happily on their way the moment they are alone with a clear goal.
What if you are left alone with an unclear goal?
I’m interested to hear what you think helps?
For me, maybe I know what the procedure is because I've done it a thousand times but it's still not written down step by step so what I know in my head is worthless once I leave the job for whatever reason [death, better deal, retirement, &c].
On the other hand, the person doing the job could just be sub-par. I'm not sure what there can be done about that.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-AQ358_INDEPE_M...
^This here.
Except the Concerned Adults will never get a chance to read it because they'll call the police to rescue the 12-year-old dropped off at the mall by her mom.
https://www.brainchildmag.com/2014/01/guilty-as-charged/
“Hey! What should we do about those stray kids over there! Call the police??”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They might be able to stop the infant from killing themselves, it depends a lot on the 3 yo. In our case the eldest is over-protective mostly, except when bored or distracted ...
I think you've overstretched with that claim.
"Children under four years of age may only use public transport if they are accompanied by a person who is at least six years of age."
https://www.bvg.de/en/Tickets/fare-overview/conditions-of-ca...
We have always been fairly "free range" i.e. our kids have had their share of bruises from climbing and in general being allowed to do challenging things.
After a week at the daycare my wife went to pick my son up, one of the teachers pulled her aside and told her that they, unfortunately, had to report some of the bruises on his arm or shoulder (can't remember) and that they hadn't said anything about the bruises on his legs.
My wife and I freaked out worried that the social services would come and take him away.
Of course, we soon learned that it wasn't actually the bruises on our son they were worried about but whether we would report them for mistreating our son.
The primary problem in the US is the liability issue which certainly doesn't help.
People in general though are really weirdly paranoid about their kids. I always thought it would be counterproductive for them later in life. Better to fall when you are a little boy than when you are older.
Anyway who knows.
Another commenter made an observation along the lines of you see overprotected children nevertheless succeeding (or failing up, depending on your perspective) professionally as adults. That would make sense if what we are doing is slowly handing down practices from the higher classes to lower. The failing up phenomenon is clearly highly correlated with the privilege you were born into. As everyone becomes relatively more privileged, then practices would radiate out and be institutionalized amongst more of the population, i.e., everyone would start overprotecting because as long as your kid makes it, worse case, they will be able to succeed via the fail up method.
Once I visited the UK and some kids threw lit firecrackers into my scarf. Then all the adults kept drinking. I assume America is currently behind the times, Europe having since updated the myth to Atomic Motorcycle Danger King.
This failure has something to do with Americans having enjoyed Downton Abbey more than Mad Max: Fury Road. My investigation continues.
He turned out OK. Modern social workers would have taken him. Heck, they'd literally swipe baby Jesus.