3 ms·

I recently moved from a very low average income city to a very high average income city. In my former city it was nearly unheard of for children to unsupervise

I recently moved from a very low average income city to a very high average income city. In my former city it was nearly unheard of for children to unsupervised, despite most people having large families, because there was a very real concern about kidnapping/human trafficking and other issues (and this concern wasn't unfounded, this city made national news for masked men in a van grabbing multiple children while their parents were holding their hands in a Walmart parking lot and bailing). In my new city, I see 7-8 year old kids outdoors playing without any significant supervision in the neighborhood and allowed to walk to school on their own or walk/scooter to a friends house. It's a stark difference. There are complex issues here, and a lot of nuance, but on its face this made a statistical truth really obvious to me, which is that socioeconomic status nearly directly correlates to physical safety and crime rates. The simple truth is that the high average income city is just a much much much safer place for anyone to exist in, to walk in, and this includes children. I feel like every time this issue gets discussed, there's always people ignoring the socioeconomic factor, and worse, pointing it out is taken as a blanket attack on poor people.

standardUser 4y ago
This is interesting to me because growing up poor and with a single parent, I was allowed to run wild at a very young age. There was a whole crew of young kids in our apartment complex that would hang out and wander around unsupervised during daylight hours. Our parents were busy working and they probably needed some occasional time alone in those tiny apartments (my mother and I shared a 1 bedroom). As for "high income cities" it doesn't get much higher income than Manhattan and I would be shocked if I saw some under-10 kids wandering around here on their lonesome!
q1w2 4y ago
It's not socio-economics - it's Crime. They are correlated, but where they are not, children walk to school despite the poor neighborhood. When I grew up in India, we were dirt poor and we literally hitchhiked to and from school each day from the age of maybe 7. Students would get out of school, walk to the nearest busy intersection, and ask people to let us ride on the back of their motorbikes to get home. No helmets, no traffic lights, no sidewalks, no cell phones. This wasn't in some rural area - this was in central Mumbai decades ago where people were poorer than the poorest US neighborhoods. ...yet the danger of being kidnapped or assaulted was effectively zero. It was far more common to be attacked by a stray dog than by any of the millions of dirt poor people in the city. One factor (my guess - I observe anecdotally) is the high rate of drug use in the US. Drug use among the poor in India was extremely uncommon. However in the US (at least these days), it seems to be common among most people arrested (just my observation).
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  In almost all of the West, crime is associated to poverty. If you commit a robbery, being a poor is an "explanation". Individuals are rarely blamed, your circumstances determine your behaviour not your values. This assumption breaks down once you leave almost any inner-city area, see levels of poverty that are at least as high in rural areas and there are very little crimes against people (although things like drugs are often common). Drugs are part of it, culture, attitudes towards poverty, police behaviour, sentencing, social policy (i.e. welfare state, healthcare)...but yes, crime is basically out of control in societies with virtually non-existent levels of poverty. Also, this doesn't have much to do with the subject. In the US, there have been cases of children walking through residential neighbourhood, a neighbour calls the police, the parents are arrested and then have to give up their children (there was one case where the parents actually lost their jobs too because they had jobs working with children, and they put on a register for child abusers)...suburban people have a fetish for crimes against children, crimes like this get treated very harshly but they let shoplifters or robbers walk free because of inequality, police in the US have no capacity for working with the community, it is completely unrelated to reality.
- Falkon1313 4y ago
  Drug use was always common and not just among people arrested. "The War On Drugs" really butchered how we view that. Goodhart's Law states that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Since at least the 80s, incarceration for drug use has been batshit crazy in the U.S. It's the metric, so it's what people work for. So of course it's common among most people arrested. But how does it relate to actual crime? Or to people feeling that kids are able to play outside safely? Well, since I was a kid, crime rates have dropped in half (literally they're like 40-49% what they were in the late 80s early 90s). Maybe some part of that is indeed because we incarcerated so many people for drugs instead of actual crimes. But maybe not, and also even if it did, that doesn't change anything for the better. Things are actually worse now, societally. Why? Back then, in objectively more dangerous times, it was normal for kids to play outside and everyone thought that was ok. Now, in objectively much safer times, that's not a thing. I really don't think we can pin that on drugs or even crime. Especially not when we've incarcerated so many many people because of drugs and also crime rates have dropped in half. No, there must be a societal effect that isn't really related to drugs or crime or actual danger.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
People are ignoring the socioeconomic factor because it is basically reverse of what you're claiming it is. Worrying about shit that's rare is a rich white people thing. Likewise poorer places let kids roam freer. Making rent is hard enough and likewise parent's don't have the spare fucks to give to be micromanaging.

standardUser 4y ago

This is interesting to me because growing up poor and with a single parent, I was allowed to run wild at a very young age. There was a whole crew of young kids in our apartment complex that would hang out and wander around unsupervised during daylight hours. Our parents were busy working and they probably needed some occasional time alone in those tiny apartments (my mother and I shared a 1 bedroom). As for "high income cities" it doesn't get much higher income than Manhattan and I would be shocked if I saw some under-10 kids wandering around here on their lonesome!

q1w2 4y ago

It's not socio-economics - it's Crime. They are correlated, but where they are not, children walk to school despite the poor neighborhood. When I grew up in India, we were dirt poor and we literally hitchhiked to and from school each day from the age of maybe 7. Students would get out of school, walk to the nearest busy intersection, and ask people to let us ride on the back of their motorbikes to get home. No helmets, no traffic lights, no sidewalks, no cell phones. This wasn't in some rural area - this was in central Mumbai decades ago where people were poorer than the poorest US neighborhoods. ...yet the danger of being kidnapped or assaulted was effectively zero. It was far more common to be attacked by a stray dog than by any of the millions of dirt poor people in the city. One factor (my guess - I observe anecdotally) is the high rate of drug use in the US. Drug use among the poor in India was extremely uncommon. However in the US (at least these days), it seems to be common among most people arrested (just my observation).

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
In almost all of the West, crime is associated to poverty. If you commit a robbery, being a poor is an "explanation". Individuals are rarely blamed, your circumstances determine your behaviour not your values. This assumption breaks down once you leave almost any inner-city area, see levels of poverty that are at least as high in rural areas and there are very little crimes against people (although things like drugs are often common). Drugs are part of it, culture, attitudes towards poverty, police behaviour, sentencing, social policy (i.e. welfare state, healthcare)...but yes, crime is basically out of control in societies with virtually non-existent levels of poverty. Also, this doesn't have much to do with the subject. In the US, there have been cases of children walking through residential neighbourhood, a neighbour calls the police, the parents are arrested and then have to give up their children (there was one case where the parents actually lost their jobs too because they had jobs working with children, and they put on a register for child abusers)...suburban people have a fetish for crimes against children, crimes like this get treated very harshly but they let shoplifters or robbers walk free because of inequality, police in the US have no capacity for working with the community, it is completely unrelated to reality.
Falkon1313 4y ago
Drug use was always common and not just among people arrested. "The War On Drugs" really butchered how we view that. Goodhart's Law states that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Since at least the 80s, incarceration for drug use has been batshit crazy in the U.S. It's the metric, so it's what people work for. So of course it's common among most people arrested. But how does it relate to actual crime? Or to people feeling that kids are able to play outside safely? Well, since I was a kid, crime rates have dropped in half (literally they're like 40-49% what they were in the late 80s early 90s). Maybe some part of that is indeed because we incarcerated so many people for drugs instead of actual crimes. But maybe not, and also even if it did, that doesn't change anything for the better. Things are actually worse now, societally. Why? Back then, in objectively more dangerous times, it was normal for kids to play outside and everyone thought that was ok. Now, in objectively much safer times, that's not a thing. I really don't think we can pin that on drugs or even crime. Especially not when we've incarcerated so many many people because of drugs and also crime rates have dropped in half. No, there must be a societal effect that isn't really related to drugs or crime or actual danger.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

People are ignoring the socioeconomic factor because it is basically reverse of what you're claiming it is. Worrying about shit that's rare is a rich white people thing. Likewise poorer places let kids roam freer. Making rent is hard enough and likewise parent's don't have the spare fucks to give to be micromanaging.