[underlipton]

Spitballin': I imagine that chaos in the parents' own lives is a major factor. The nature of labor in the US makes employment, for certain classes of workers, highly unstable. The nature of housing markets and law makes housing, for certain classes of workers, highly unstable. The nature of health care (including addiction care) increases vulnerability in mental and physical health. The nature of transportation infrastructure and services make many aspects of life unnecessarily precarious. On and on.

"The measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members," isn't a platitude, it's a wake-up call, to pay attention to how bad things can get. If you're going to lose the health insurance that covers your asthmatic kid, because you're about to lose your job, because you can't afford to fix your (planned obsolescent) broken-down car, because you spent your fix fund on rent that increased 20% year-over-year... well, then, it's going to be difficult to be a good parent.

I fully expect the "personal responsibility" people to go in on me.

[rayiner]

> imagine that chaos in the parents' own lives is a major factor. The nature of labor in the US makes employment, for certain classes of workers, highly unstable. The nature of housing markets and law makes housing, for certain classes of workers, highly unstable. The nature of health care (including addiction care) increases vulnerability in mental and physical health. The nature of transportation infrastructure and services make many aspects of life unnecessarily precarious. On and on.

All of those things are much better now than 60 years ago. Have outcomes for children trended in that same direction?

[harimau777]

With the exception of maybe health care, I don't think those things are actually better now. Rent has risen significantly, home ownership is down, and many people are stuck working multiple service sector jobs or as part of the gig economy.

[rayiner]

Home ownership rates blipped down after 2008 and recently during COVID, but are still higher now than they were in the 1990s, which is higher than they were in the 1960s. Rents have gone up, but I think you’re overlooking what share of low end workers used to rent rooms or board with other workers. Lots of temporary housing situations that were common then aren’t even legal now.

I think the difference is that education levels grew much faster than the real economy. A lot of college graduates don’t realize that 50 years ago they would’ve been renting a bedroom from some middle class person instead of having their own crappy and too-expensive place.

[sokoloff]

On a macro level, home ownership is up from 63% to 66% since 1965: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

[underlipton]

This doesn't capture the relative precarity of home-ownership over time. So we've opened home-ownership to a few million more people. Aree they putting the same proportion of their paychecks towards mortgage payments? Are they sacrificing anything else in order to be able to make them? Were they forced into money pits because rent has become unaffordable? How much more or less likely are they to lose their houses in another downturn, if they lose their jobs, if they get sick, compared to the last 50 years? How do people's feelings and behavior change under these circumstances?

It doesn't seem so simple as, "More people own homes, stability is assured."

[pizzafeelsright]

I wouldn't go too aggressive but lemme ask: despite a game stacked against someone would the better path be one of drug abuse, taking on debt, and living in a manner that doesn't take into account that rainy days are ahead or perhaps living in a smaller dwelling, with less material obligations, and setting education above entertainment

[underlipton]

A portion of my hypothetical comes from my actual lived experience over the past year. I don't do drugs, I took on debt to pay for food and to avoid losing my means of transportation and possessions, and the next step for "a smaller dwelling" is my car (even rooms in shared houses have become too expensive).

My stance at this point is that if someone, personally, doesn't have a job (with training, if I'm not qualified) lined up for me so that I can work (work!) my way out of my situation - respectfully - they shouldn't be talking.

If the problem is that there aren't enough real jobs, or not enough capital to hire sustainably, or that industry and the government have dropped the ball on education and training... Those are not personal problems. If I'm lucky (lucky!), I'll find a way to work around it all, eventually. But there are too many people in similar positions.

[harimau777]

I'm not sure that your question reflects the reality of how mental health works. People often don't choose in the conventional sense to abuse drugs, they start using drugs in an attempt to manage the unmanageable problems in their lives. Similarly, prioritizing entertainment over education may be what allows someone to alleviate their depression enough to be able to go to work.

[pizzafeelsright]

I disagree with both conclusions. I would say it is more accurate, in my experience, that people partake of drugs in an effort to escape manageable problems. Likewise, provided enough productive actions and positive effort, the depression would be replaced with challenges that would lead to more peace.

[em-bee]

from the outside problems often look more manageable than the person faced with them sees them.