- California creates own currency
- Why you spend so much time with your kids
- Incandescent lightbulbs get more energy efficient
- GM Section 363 sale goes through smoothly
- Information may want to be free, but landlords want to get paid
- Change you can believe in: three-day weekend reform
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm skeptical of the finding that parents spend more time with their kids now than they did back in the Good Old Days. The rub is in the definition of "time spent with kids." I scanned the working paper mentioned at the link (superficially, I'll grant; I have to make breakfast here) and it seems to suffer from the same flaw.
Whenever there is a finding that time spent with kids has increased, this usually means that they are only counting time spent doing nothing else but child care. So if mom is cooking dinner with her daughter, that doesn't count. If dad is folding laundry while the toddler plays on the floor in the same room, that doesn't count.
What's really increased is time spent in single-minded focus on kids.
The paper defines child care as "care of infants and older children, medical care of children, playing with children, helping with homework, reading to and talking with children, dealing with childcare providers, and travel related to childcare." The very fact that apparently, driving alone from work to the babysitter to pick up the kids counts as "time spent with children" sort of proves my point. If it takes you 20 minutes to get from work to the babysitter's during rush hour, that's 20 more minutes of quality time!
The change may also have something to do with a change of perception that the world is more threatening to children now than it was 20-30 years ago.
I remember when I was a kid we would be left to our own devices for hours at a time, with the assumption that we would make it back home for dinner. Nowadays it seems like there's much more of a 'molester/drunk-driver/drug-dealer around every corner' attitude, causing parents to supervise much more of their kids' time - even when they are playing with other kids.
Also, I think that higher-income kids are much more involved in organized sports than in the past, and that the practices and games are more time-intensive.
Perhaps more than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and that's relevant. Not more than it was 75 years or more ago, of course. Different threats, but if you're a parent "a threat is a threat."
bearing's point is very good: define "time."
The whole concept of "teenager" is basically a 20th century idea. Until then, children worked right along side their parents from a very, very early age. Whether it was farming, ranching, cooking, cleaning, etc., kids spent a *lot* of time with their parents.
And I daresay it was much better for them then the "quality" time they get now.
The spirit that made this country great came from this very close interaction with family. It is where children were taught that life is good - but that life requires work. Life isn't fair, but hard work goes a long way in making up for that.
The values taught in a hard working, God fearing home were the bedrock of the United States.
"It takes a village" is about as bad an idea as you will ever hear. What it takes is a family, not a village.
As bearing stated, it's not just about time - it's about what kind of time. In both metrics there is no denying that the American family of 100 years ago was closer, more selfless, and more education-focused than it is now.
Until then, children worked right along side their parents from a very, very early age.
The poor did, sure. But the upper class, the class that this article addresses, sent their children off to boarding school as soon as possible. The British Empire was built by people who were raised by servants until they sent to boarding school. Indeed it was considered harmful to have children spend too much time with their parents.
Indeed, for most of human history, those that could afford it preferred that others raise their children. The idea that the upperclass would actually wish to raise their own children is a new one.
As I thought about this more over the course of the day, I wondered how things like "travel related to child care" got into the definition of "time spent with children."
Then I realized: These people are operating from a preconception that Child Care = Time That Could Have Been Spent On Other Things.
If it's not keeping you from doing something useful, it can't be child care.
It's this paradigm that says child-raising is separate from your real life -- your adult life. A regrettable yet temporary condition.
Careful, Megan, I will start calling you Tyler.
I grew up in a different social environment than the one I actually inhabit today, and there is no doubt that my parents and my friends' parents spent far less time with their children than the parents I observe today. The only difference is that the parents I know today are much more affluent than the ones I knew as a child.
Is this good for the children? I doubt it. If I were one of these children of today, I would find Mom and Dad's overinvolvement a bit claustrophobic.
Do we need to think about a morph of the democratic party like those of the past?
bearing,
Two things:
1. The USGA (U.S. Golf Association) is very aware and concerned about this fact. It is no longer acceptable for a family man to spend his weekends on the golf course, this is putting a world of hurt on the nations gold courses.
2. Back in the 50's, kids got home from school and were promptly shooed outside and were expected home for dinner. While one may have had a stay at home mom it didn't and doesn't mean she doesn't keep herself busying doing things other than interacting with her children.
As I mentioned at Matt's, three-day weekends are a dreadful idea. All they do is make it that much harder to drag yourself back to work. It is far, far better to have days off on Wednesdays. A Wednesday off nicely breaks up the workweek.
That's certainly one opinion. I have another.
print-edition publishers were posting my work on-line, without permission or payment, for years. In fact, the exception to the rule was the magazine or newspaper that offered a contract and paid for on-line distribution, despite copy-right law and legal precedent.
How funny that now the industry falls victim to its own habits.
But the news on light bulbs is welcome by folks who get migraines, seizures, etc. Very welcome.
The USGA (U.S. Golf Association) is very aware and concerned about this fact. It is no longer acceptable for a family man to spend his weekends on the golf course, this is putting a world of hurt on the nations gold courses.
Also, golf is boring.
Rob,
I'd like to hear your thoughts on why this change has come about. From ancient times up through the Victorian era, children of the middle class and above were raised by others. For most of human history - no one, who could afford to do otherwise, raised their own children. Indeed, the Victorians felt it was actively harmful for a boy to spend too much time with his family.
Perhaps you'd like to restrict this generalization to England, or maybe Western Europe?
jmo3,
Economics. Anybody good enough to be fully in charge of my children (with minimal involvement from me) can easily find a job making far more than I can hope to pay, and is also likely to be far less loyal. As opposed to an old-fashioned governess, whose job options outside governessing ran the gambit from prostitution to marrying a fishmonger and raising his children.
Anybody I can afford is probably somebody I wouldn't want my children to be around.
The really really rich still have servants raise their children, but they need to pay wages that reflect the foregone productivity of the high-quality people they hope to hire.
Chalk up another one to the industrial revolution. Now, if the robots but everyone out of work again, expect a return to the old model.
Rob,
I'm thinking you give too much credit to the average middle class nanny. In 1880's Boston such a woman was likely fresh off the boat from Ireland. I'd assume Boston patent attorneys of the time felt less than comfortable having their children raised by drunk, catholic, immigrants. But, they felt it was certainly better than having their wives do it, or God help them, doing it themselves.
In 1880's Boston such a woman was likely fresh off the boat from Ireland.
True, but as her other options were (absent a good recommendation from her employer) prostitution and marriage to a poor Irishman, she was likely to at least pretend to behave. And if she were meaningfully Catholic, that might have been a bit disturbing, but it would help her to check her baser impulses.
jmo3--another thought.
We have fewer children, so 1) they're more important, individually (decreasing marginal value) and 2) we have less need for help raising them.
Rob,
Or 3) Child mortality was much higher in those days, so perhaps it was thought best to not become too attached.
Yglesias is clearly not a fan of drinking to excess while watching Sunday night football.