6 ms·

Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent

Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on. If we want a healthy society, of which independent children are a part, we should work to restore social trust. "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

minikites 5y ago
>all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on These things have been dysfunctional for decades. What's different now compared to when things were "good"?
- tw04 5y ago
  The major difference is the vast, vast majority of households were single income. "Working mother" was a non-existent thing. Men went to work, mothers stayed home. So if you let your kids roam the neighborhood in the summer SOMEONE'S mom was there to keep an eye out. I would say, in general, it also lead to more socializing in neighborhoods because while I would never claim that a stay-at-home mom isn't doing a full-time job, there was far more time for them to hang out during the (potential) afternoon lull. Or when kids were at school during the school-year.
  - caturopath 5y ago
    Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of it.
    - hahajk 5y ago
      So would you say the times when "things were good" was before modern suburbanism, or in other words the 1940s and earlier?
      - caturopath 5y ago
        No, I would say we're living in the best times we've ever seen, and I would not want to roll back history. I do think that modern sprawl suburbanism has some harmful elements and that other styles of urbanism and of suburbanism that don't look like we've built the last 50 years in North America have benefits.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid" with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my dad and either watch over me or call him. Today, nobody knows the people who live in their neighborhood. Some people don't even know their next door neighbor. Nobody answers their door anymore either, so if you're a kid your only island of familiarity is at home.
      - minikites 5y ago
        >If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered Crime is much lower now than the past.
        ryandrake 5y ago
        That's why I said "perception". People believe kids are going to get kidnapped or murdered, even though the crime statistics don't bear this out, therefore they don't think knocking on a random door is OK anymore.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >"Working mother" was a non-existent thing. It very much was but not at the relative income level most of HN is at or was raised in so people forget about it.
    - tw04 5y ago
      We must be talking about two very different decades. In the 1950s, which is generally the time people think to when talking about the "good old days" the number of women in the workforce was 27%. It had very little to do with income level. Both of my parents grew up dirt poor, both of them had mothers who stayed home. As the children were old enough to all be attending school, one of my grandma's got a job at the elementary school some of her children were enrolled in a few blocks from the house.
      - watwut 5y ago
        It was 34%. Which is quite literally one in three women. Labor participation of men was much higher, but it is absurd to claim that 34% represents nearly non existent phenomenom.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I think the popular opinion nowadays is to have either parents equally likely to stay home and raise the kids, with a negative bias against that being the female's responsibility, where historically there's been a strong positive bias for that. People should do whatever works for them and their partners, but I think the underlying point is that raising children requires more than just a single parent.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Society converging more and more into a "global" culture. Maybe we're just in a transitional phase, or maybe trust doesn't scale. Probably both.
standardUser 5y ago
I don't think many people who were not white, christian and straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are harkening back to.
- lghh 5y ago
  Agreed. So is the solution to reduce white social trust as well or to empower non-white social trust?
  - Kluny 5y ago
    I think it might be. When those who benefit from the current paradigm are forced to experience the pain that everyone else has been dealing with, they get motivated change things and they have the power to make it happen.
    - Der_Einzige 5y ago
      In practice, this doesn't happen. Instead they vote for people like trump.
- react_burger38 5y ago
  Well actually… Thomas Sowell (who is black) talks about how he felt safe going around on his own in Harlem in the 40s and 50s, and never heard a gunshot. So there actually was a fair amount of social trust / actual safety in black communities even then. With the obvious caveat of course that interracial violence was still a risk. But at least within black communities then, yes there was more social trust.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I dont think it is reasonable to take history of one place as told by literally one person and extrapolate from it whole nation.
    - textgel 5y ago
foobarian 5y ago
Maybe lack of churchgoing is contributing to this. Weekly meetups of the whole community under one roof really does wonders for social cohesion. Of course then you have the church abuse stories...

minikites 5y ago

>all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on These things have been dysfunctional for decades. What's different now compared to when things were "good"?

tw04 5y ago
The major difference is the vast, vast majority of households were single income. "Working mother" was a non-existent thing. Men went to work, mothers stayed home. So if you let your kids roam the neighborhood in the summer SOMEONE'S mom was there to keep an eye out. I would say, in general, it also lead to more socializing in neighborhoods because while I would never claim that a stay-at-home mom isn't doing a full-time job, there was far more time for them to hang out during the (potential) afternoon lull. Or when kids were at school during the school-year.
- caturopath 5y ago
  Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of it.
  - hahajk 5y ago
    So would you say the times when "things were good" was before modern suburbanism, or in other words the 1940s and earlier?
    - caturopath 5y ago
      No, I would say we're living in the best times we've ever seen, and I would not want to roll back history. I do think that modern sprawl suburbanism has some harmful elements and that other styles of urbanism and of suburbanism that don't look like we've built the last 50 years in North America have benefits.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid" with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my dad and either watch over me or call him. Today, nobody knows the people who live in their neighborhood. Some people don't even know their next door neighbor. Nobody answers their door anymore either, so if you're a kid your only island of familiarity is at home.
    - minikites 5y ago
      >If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered Crime is much lower now than the past.
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        That's why I said "perception". People believe kids are going to get kidnapped or murdered, even though the crime statistics don't bear this out, therefore they don't think knocking on a random door is OK anymore.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >"Working mother" was a non-existent thing. It very much was but not at the relative income level most of HN is at or was raised in so people forget about it.
  - tw04 5y ago
    We must be talking about two very different decades. In the 1950s, which is generally the time people think to when talking about the "good old days" the number of women in the workforce was 27%. It had very little to do with income level. Both of my parents grew up dirt poor, both of them had mothers who stayed home. As the children were old enough to all be attending school, one of my grandma's got a job at the elementary school some of her children were enrolled in a few blocks from the house.
    - watwut 5y ago
      It was 34%. Which is quite literally one in three women. Labor participation of men was much higher, but it is absurd to claim that 34% represents nearly non existent phenomenom.
- daenz 5y ago
  I think the popular opinion nowadays is to have either parents equally likely to stay home and raise the kids, with a negative bias against that being the female's responsibility, where historically there's been a strong positive bias for that. People should do whatever works for them and their partners, but I think the underlying point is that raising children requires more than just a single parent.
rajin444 5y ago
Society converging more and more into a "global" culture. Maybe we're just in a transitional phase, or maybe trust doesn't scale. Probably both.

standardUser 5y ago

I don't think many people who were not white, christian and straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are harkening back to.

lghh 5y ago
Agreed. So is the solution to reduce white social trust as well or to empower non-white social trust?
- Kluny 5y ago
  I think it might be. When those who benefit from the current paradigm are forced to experience the pain that everyone else has been dealing with, they get motivated change things and they have the power to make it happen.
  - Der_Einzige 5y ago
    In practice, this doesn't happen. Instead they vote for people like trump.
react_burger38 5y ago
Well actually… Thomas Sowell (who is black) talks about how he felt safe going around on his own in Harlem in the 40s and 50s, and never heard a gunshot. So there actually was a fair amount of social trust / actual safety in black communities even then. With the obvious caveat of course that interracial violence was still a risk. But at least within black communities then, yes there was more social trust.
- watwut 5y ago
  I dont think it is reasonable to take history of one place as told by literally one person and extrapolate from it whole nation.
  - textgel 5y ago

foobarian 5y ago

Maybe lack of churchgoing is contributing to this. Weekly meetups of the whole community under one roof really does wonders for social cohesion. Of course then you have the church abuse stories...