[beseku]

When I think back to the decisions I made as a 17 year old (and an 18, 19, 20 ... year old) I think it is perfectly valid to call a 17 year old a child.

At that age I would guess a large proportion can barely cook for themselves, have never lived alone, probably never paid a bill or shopped at supermarkets.

[gaius]

There is a strong case in the modern world for upping the age of maturity to say, 25.

[InclinedPlane]

How will that help? You don't solve the problem of people being immature even into adulthood by delaying the official onset of adulthood yet more. You solve it by treating teenagers as adults in training. Which used to be the case until very recently. Now we avoid giving responsibility to teens, we treat high school like day care or a prison, and we wonder why our "kids" don't magically acquire maturity when they turn 18, or 21, or 25, or 30.

Maturity and responsibility are skills that must be taught. And they cannot be taught at a distance, they must be taught live, with the real world, because it is only through learning that actions have consequences, sometimes serious ones, that maturity is acquired.

[engtech]

I think the answer isn't so much giving people consequences as giving them responsibility.

It's ridiculous that some kids get their post secondary education degree without ever having held a job (of any kind).

I find it amazing that teens walk around with $200-$2000 worth of electronics that their parents paid for them with no thought to their value because they didn't pay for it, and they know they'll be replaced if they whine enough.

[btilly]

Both points are accurate.

The case for upping the age of maturity to 25 is that there is solid brain science suggesting that that is how old we are when our brain finishes developing the ability to make mature decisions. See http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/... for that.

However you're absolutely right that children who are never given responsibility never develop their ability to take responsibility.

[chris_wot]

After reviewing the conduct of a number of 25 year olds, I find this comment somewhat amusing.

I wouldn't say that increasing it to the age of 40 would be crossing the maturity threshold, either.

[philwelch]

Yes, let's just keep infantilizing and disenfranchising young people for more and more of their lives, that's sure to work.

The main reason teen rebellion and delinquency are issues in the first place is because young people are already held back for too long.

[S4M]

Totally agree. You see things from a different perspective when you start having responsibilities and duties, like having to pay for your rent, having to cook and do the cleaning yourself, and so on...

[bloaf]

"...the tough thing about adulthood is that it starts before you even know it starts, when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd, no Lifeguard is watching anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end. "

An arbitrary age of maturity has nothing to do with actual (as opposed to legal) adulthood or responsibility. The fact is that "kids" at the age of 17 and 18 are already making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Making the legal age later will certainly not help these people realize that the decisions they are making are important or that they need to take responsibility for themselves.

[junto]

I often find the idea of "maturity" an interesting concept. We have a fairly fixed average lifetime expectancy, which can vary by a couple of years depending on where you live (on average). I think the global average is 68 years old for both sexes.

The western world has an fairly fixed period of "maturing" into adulthood, which is usually achieved when the individual reaches 18 years old. Most countries then offer the vote and other "adult" related perks and responsibilities. Meanwhile, adults are living longer and social and health support costs for those people in retirement is increasing and this burden falls on the working population.

Historically humans have matured before 18 years old. This shift has happened over the last two centuries (western world). However, let's not forget that in many parts of the world, children start work and start families at a much younger age and it is socially acceptable within their own societies. These are concepts that we in the western world find (now) quite bizarre, but during the (British) industrial revolution, children (and we had a lot of them) helped to power the revolution, working in mines and factories. These children had children younger and further increased the population at a more rapid growth rate. We now look on this with distaste, disgust and a large degree of pity, but at the time I doubt it was viewed as so.

I would go further and state that today we see this as slavery, whilst back then they saw it as necessity. This necessity still exists around the world, and even though there is a huge drive in the western world to boycott companies in the third and second world who use child labor, it is an important source of income for their families living in poverty. Importantly and all to often forgotten, we are too blinded by our indignation to see otherwise. I'm not saying that this is right, merely making an observation.

Meanwhile our welfare states are collapsing and we have few options. We have to reduce our social support costs or see our support systems collapse. Alternatively we could import human resource from abroad to pay the taxes to support welfare. Importing labor is not without its own challenges, but has helped to build countries like the United States into global powerhouses.

Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement), which is for many countries, especially in Europe, the first step on this path. The "lord taketh and the lord taketh away", but woe betide the state that tries to take anything away from its citizens. Countries like France are being brought to their knees by this welfare burden. The people protest in their millions as they see banks profit and get richer, but nothing will change, except for the fact that eventually, the French will have to accept later retirement and higher taxes.

Thus, the question I put to you is this: Do our children really need 18 years to mature, or is our system taking 18 years to mature them? Are we able to improve the system so that we can increase the number of workers in the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down?

We could radically change the way (and speed) in which we educate our children (and have more of them) to help offset the welfare gap from the bottom up. I haven't ever heard this idea proposed and the devil's advocate in me wants to question why not?

I have children and I want the best for them. On one hand I want them to enjoy their "extended" childhood, but I also want them not to suffer in poverty when they get older. The pragmatist in me thinks that there is little option other than consider extending the worker's life from both sides.

To summarize, the baby boomers fucked us and we and our children just have to live with the consequences.

[Tichy]

"Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement)"

How is this a given? Increased efficiency might counteract demographics. Hundred years ago a lot more farmers where needed to feed the same amount of people than today. If your phone can do your medical checkup, lots of medical aid workers can perhaps be freed to do other stuff.

I worry that we are being brainwashed on a constant basis by a rich elite to believe the "we have to work harder and longer" dogma. It doesn't make that much sense, given that we are a lot more technologically advanced than 50 years ago. Granted, the population has grown, too. All I want to say that I wouldn't take your claim at face value.

As for working children: sure, children can work. Does that mean they are adults? I think in our times it basically means being allowed to vote and make responsible decisions. You can still work in a coal mine following orders without being able to make responsible decisions.

Obviously people will do what they need to survive, but while we can, we should probably try to attain to a higher standard.

Even for the child laborers in India it is not a given that things have to be what they are. Yes, the current system makes it so - doesn't imply that there couldn't be another system. Paying their parents more might be a start.

[junto]

I guess that is my opinion, as I personally see this as the most attractive option to solve the deficit. You can of course raise taxes, but that decreases fluidity. Decreased fluidity dampens growth, etc..

[Tichy]

What deficit?