Resale value is critical for leases. If nobody wants to buy the car after the lease is over then the lease company needs to scrap the car. Lease companies pay close attention to expected resale value because they are betting a lot of money on it.
Cars are often sold. If everyone knows that nobody will buy it in 15 years, the person buying it in 12 years will pay less, which means the person buying in 9 years pays less, etc, so the person buying new doesn't recoup as much and has less to spend on a replacement.
That's no reason to design devices that enable this parent behaviour. We should move in the other direction. Shaming parents who overly rely on giving kids devices for adults can be somewhat effective.
Stop marketing to them to kids or normalizing kids using them?
This is really not that hard. Modern app culture is highly addictive and provably poison for our brains over time. Adults can choose poison if they wish but when they give it to their kids it is called child abuse.
Oh, I was just trying to figure out how you were using shame to get other parents to change their behavior, since that's what you said worked. Wasn't looking for a study.
Oh, the usual: make sure they overhear "my kids would NEVER", look at them with a signature look of superiority, smh literally...
The idea is to send a signal that this is not ok. I have no guarantees on effectiveness. What especially gets me going is when the kid eats and looks at some trash like baby shark while it's blasting loud everywhere.
Regarding my kids: high priority, wide/curated choice (not in terms of restriction, but in terms of actively finding things they may like), accompanied learning, and, crucially, starting from a very young age. It's pretty much standard parenting, that is, one gets out what one puts in.
By the time children start to pressure for this type of devices (say, 10/12), they will have learned to enjoy books and more creative activities.
I am in the same boat as you, my kids have never had screens. However I do wonder that if by not teaching them to use tech sparingly at a young age, will they just fall down that hole at an older age when they are young adults?
Mobile devices and social media does not get less addictive as you get older, otherwise anybody over about 30 right now would never have any issues with it. Therefore I worry its entirely possible to bring your children up completely avoiding the downfalls of screentime, but then set them up to fall later because they havent developed the guards against it or even havent 'got it out of their system' so to speak.
What bothers me the most is targeting children. I see why we need to make axes or chemicals. But these come with disclaimers and labels as well as common sense that they are harmful.
Our kid has certainly not had access to tablets/phones the first years of her life and only rarely until she was 9 or 10 or so. We have also banned phones from the dinner table, etc. from the beginning.
Parenting takes time and focus. Putting 0-6 years olds behind a tablet screen is just absolving yourself from your responsibility as a parent. Some TV time can be ok after 3 years or so, but you have to time it strictly (so that it does not become a convenience) and exclude some types of cartoons [1].
What? My kids have never ever had a screen of their own. They sit still in restaurants and flights like well parented kids have for decades. Anyone who thinks screens are required for bringing up children is ignoring countless research projects which prove otherwise, and are actively hurting their childrens development.
When has telling people to not have kids ever resulted in said people not having kids? It's a part of our instincts and biology and really really easy to do.
We have to deal with the fact a lot of people produce kids they do not want or regret having. That's reality.
Enabling the avoidance of parenting incentivizes parents who would otherwise be parenting to also avoid parenting. I agree with OP, hard to see how this is a good thing.
I wouldn't have believed you but it will take close to a decade to build under like half a mile of sidewalk near me with like actual construction time planned in weeks in contrast to the overall plan.
I don't think I would blame the environmental consultants though. This is just how we do things now.
The USD 2B path train stop at WTC became USD 4B+ and nobody went to prison for it. I don't think it should have even been USD 2B. All we needed was a path train stop.
You see in service economy most of the things done are services. Those are extremely profitable and low cost in materials. Actual real tangible things are entirely secondary. Preferably whole thing would be outsourced to some third-world country where it would be entirely build and maintained.
Services in a service economy aren’t expensive because they’re extremely profitable. They’re expensive because they have to pay for all the service-providers’ rent, which is a fractal source of ever-increasing costs.
We used to build subways by removing the entire road, building a steel structure, then covering the hole with a street surface (“cut and cover”)
Now that those neighborhoods are occupied by people who go on Hackernews and Bloomberg, they tend not to like having their streets converted into open pit mines, and so constructing subways is ungodly expensive.
Oiy you people are boring. The US will remain a world power just due to its geographical position. It owns the Americas economically and militarily. This is something no other country in the world is close to capable of doing.
reply