Anxiety and burnout: why kids are consumed with worry - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/1/10/18174263/anxiety-kids-burnout <comment><USER2> I watched Stranger Things for the first time a few months ago (I know, I know, but at least I did).

I cried. Not at the scenes I think most people might. I cried because there was a scene where it was so obvious that the older brother was being treated as the "Man of the House".

I'm over 40, and grew up as the older-by-5 years sibling with a single mom. I had no idea I had all of this repressed trauma from being old enough to understand I was being given all of this responsibility, but no way to actually achieve it, or even a way to know if I was doing well enough. So I could never DO well enough, despite always wanting to.

Despite this, I grew up considered a pretty laid back, Zen guy. Until I got married. Now I'm a constant ball of stress. I'm unhealthy, and my sleep is so messed up that "good" nights are those that are less bad. Doctors tell me I should exercise more. All of this despite being financially successful and very happily married. I constantly feel like disaster looms around every corner. I'm aware of how lucky I am and how I screw this up (or just have it screwed up for me) at any moment, and I feel like I can't every fully relax because _I have to be responsible_.

Another poster here generalized beyond this article to say that we as a nation (and perhaps world) are at a high level of anxiety, and we reflect it in everything and kids pick up on that. I think they're very, very right. I find myself reflecting way too often that I'm glad I don't have kids - they won't have to live with the mess society is generating that I can't fix. Because no matter what I'm doing, I can never do enough to fix it. And I'm very, very tired.

<comment><USER3> You, as a child, were given responsibility as the "man of the house" because there was no father? Shouldn't your mother have been the head of household?

It says a lot about society that a male child was implicitly given responsibility instead of his grown mother. And based on your age, I'd guess this was in the 70s or 80s, not the 50s.

<comment><USER2> This is very indicative of the 70s and 80s - at least for the US.

No fault divorce was first legalized here in California in the late 70s, and in most states by the mid-80s. This increased the number of divorces, and I don't know the numbers, but I imagine there was an initial "boom" of pent-up unhappy marriages that took advantage at first before the numbers leveled out.

There's a reason the sitcoms of the era tended to involve single-parent homes (often with friends/family filling in) - this was an attack on the cultural idea of "norm". Putting children in the role of "man of the family" when there wasn't a father was a big thing, at least in the culture I grew up in. And since everyone now has grown up with that, it isn't going away quickly.

No idea of the quality of this db, but a search for "you're the man of the family" in movies turned up over a dozen matches for that exact phrase: [http://www.quodb.com/search/you're%20the%20man%20of%20the%20...](http://www.quodb.com/search/you're%20the%20man%20of%20the%20family), with most being between 1980-2010 - and it looks like those were generally delivered to children (a few to female children).

The Mom may have been head of the household, but the eldest son was (and is) treated as if that Y chromosome imbues him with mystical powers and responsibility, even if very young.

<comment><USER3> Stupid question about that website, how can you see what character is being spoken to? I'm curious what the context would be for telling a female child "you're the man of the family", so I'd like to dig into those if possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I imagine success like a little island, a hill surrounded by ocean. You're born wherever on the hill your parents happen to live. Your effort plus a lot of luck determines how high up that hill you're able to climb.

The higher you reach, the better the view and the fresher the coconuts. But more importantly, the farther you are from the sea. The next cyclone that rolls by chance sometimes washes anyone living too close to shore out to sea.

For generations, Americans took for granted that the hill was getting bigger, the slope was gentle, and each batch of kids could take a couple of easy steps forward and comfortably land somewhere safer and more prosperous than Mom and Dad.

But the last forty years or so of increasing economic disparity mean the peak of the hill gets higher and the slope up to it steeper every year. Harder and harder to climb, and easier to slip down, or get knocked down by a rival.

Meanwhile, outsourcing, offshoring and automation mean there is less and less shore near the bottom where you can start from. The sea is rising and if you can't at least reach the elevation marked "skilled worker", you better hope you're a good swimmer. (On top of this, the seas _literally are rising_ , which will disproportionately harm the poor, just like Hurricane Katrina took out the lowest-elevation neighborhoods the worst.)

It is clear that many of the rich in power in this country don't give a damn about this. As far as they're concerned, the more people that get washed out to sea, the more coconuts there are left for them. They're so high up now, they can barely see the rest down there scrabbling to stay dry.

My hope is that a new wave of elected officials will change the direction we're heading. But right now, the future looks grim, and our childrens' anxiety is entirely rational.

<comment><USER5> Is there any source to back up this claim that life is getting more difficult for Americans? Inequality has risen, but that does not mean that things are getting worse for those at the bottom ends of the wealth distribution. By most metrics (really, all of them other than home ownership and healthcare costs - both of which are primarily causes by an undersupply of housing and a growing cohort of old people, rather then inequality) life has continued to get better, even for the poor. Objective metrics like infant mortality, access to infrastructure like electricity and plumbing, educational attainment, all indicate positive trends. Measures of poverty based on post tax income and purchasing power indicate a drop in poverty by factors of two and five respecticely over the past 40 years [1].

The fact that many feel this way is an interesting perspective in and of itself. But perhaps more interesting is the fact that this is directly at odds with most objective metrics.

1\. [https://www.economist.com/democracy-in- america/2018/03/01/po...](https://www.economist.com/democracy-in- america/2018/03/01/poverty-in-america)

<comment><USER6> > But perhaps more interesting is the fact that this is directly at odds with > most objective metrics.

It's really not. Even the expected lifespan of Americans is declining. The only objective metrics that look good are GDP - and growth in this area is increasingly distributed upwards while the middle class doesn't really see a benefit. A reduction in poverty is good (assuming it's real and not a statistical sleight of hand), but the kids this article is talking about are the middle class - which is in decline[1].

[1] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas- shrinking...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking- middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/)

<comment><USER5> > The only objective metrics that look good are GDP

The link I provided gave several objective metrics that indicate positive trends. More people have access to goods and services that used to be more exclusive. People without access to basic infrastructure (e.g. plumbing, electricity)s are drastically fewer.

Upper, middle, and lower class are artificial labels. They don't correspond to quality of life. A decline or increase in one does not indicate a change in hardship. The question I seek to answer is, "has life gotten better or worse for the average person?" or "how has life changed for the Americans in the X to Y income percentile?". Overall the trends are positive.

Even life expectancy has a overall upwards trend. It has gone from about 70 to close to 80 over the past 40 years, which was the time frame that the previous commenter referred to.

<comment><USER7> It's comparing today to the '60s and '70s, of course it looks good by material standards:

>These measures better reflect changes in household welfare. Bruce Sacerdote, an economist at Dartmouth College notes the poorest quarter of households in America had 0.75 vehicles per household in 1970 compared to 1.4 per household in 2015. In 1960, more than one third of households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution lacked indoor plumbing; by 2015 virtually all households had indoor water and sewer systems. Microwave ovens have spread from luxury to ubiquity alongside mobile phones—microwaves are now owned by 97% of households.

Sure, it's great that we aren't dealing with Cholera outbreaks anymore, but that's not what people are talking about here and it might come across as a bit insulting and disingenuous to point to the fact that indoor plumbing is now available to people living in poverty as a counterpoint to skyrocketing wealth inequality.

<comment><USER5> > It's comparing today to the '60s and '70s, of course it looks good by > material standards

That is the time frame specified by the original commenter.

> Sure, it's great that we aren't dealing with Cholera outbreaks anymore, but > that's not what people are talking about here

Then what _are_ people taking about here? People in this thread (and society at large) are saying life is getting harder over the past several decades, but conspicuously absent are measurements that demonstrate that this is the case.

People can afford better things, are provided with better services. Post taxes, less people are in poverty. Post taxes, and adjusted for purchasing power, less than a fifth as many people are in poverty. This directly contradicts the original poster's claim that it is easier than ever to slip into poverty. The shore, to reuse his metaphor, is not shrinking. And yet, many seem to harbor the idea that it is. That's the mysterious aspect.

<comment><USER8> > Then what are people taking about here?

It is instructive to read Marx to answer this question. How much time do working people need to work every day to earn enough to reproduce themselves? College education is now expected for many jobs (working people reproducing themselves means the next generation having access to similar jobs). How big of a fraction of median income does a median college degree cost? What about healthcare, rent/home prices? Food and clothing prices have declined a lot, but the other prices have risen to a much greater proportion of median income. How many people are now working two or more "part-time" jobs for a total of more than 40 hours a week?

<comment><USER5> I'm more than happy to answer your questions, at least insofar as you are inquiring about facts:

> How much time do working people need to work every day to earn enough to > reproduce themselves?

The Economist article linked above says that adjusted for inflation and taxes, less than one fifth as many people struggle to do so as compared to 40 years ago. Sure, it's valid to say that the percentage of people that experience that struggle (~3-4%) is still a figure that is unacceptably high. But it has been a drastic reduction from what it was four decades earlier (over 15%).

> College education is now expected for many jobs (working people reproducing > themselves means the next generation having access to similar jobs).

A strange observation to make, seeing as the non-college educated reproduce at a greater rate than those who do.[1]

> What about healthcare, rent/home prices?

I mention that those are exceptions to the overall trend, but also explain that those are due to well known reasons: a large ageing generation, and an unwillingness to build housing in many growing metro areas. They are not cause by inequality, though good arguments can be made that they exacerbate it.

> Food and clothing prices have declined a lot, but the other prices have > risen to a much greater proportion of median income.

Sure, some things like housing have gotten more expensive. But plenty of others have gotten cheaper. In aggregate, costs are going down. That's what the Economist article I linked above explains.

> How many people are now working two or more "part-time" jobs for a total of > more than 40 hours a week?

People are spending less time on work on average.[2]

1\. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm)

2\. [https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/520f835b6bb3f7730d000...](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/520f835b6bb3f7730d00002f-480-360.jpg)

<comment><USER9> _A strange observation to make, seeing as the non-college educated reproduce at a greater rate than those who do_

You've misinterpreted his use of the word "reproduce". It's not about birth rates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction_(economics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction_\(economics\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was appalled by the idea that kids in grade 9 are supposed to be taking clusters of classes for career preparation. What happened to getting a broad education (especially in high school!) so that you can think about a variety of topics and participate as a member of civic society and have a foundation to be able to learn to do whatever job is useful in the 2030s or 2040s? Kids in the 80s didn't take classes to help them become web developers, but hopefully they got the necessary skills to do that job when it eventually arrived.

==

I went the opposite way with my own kid (do as well as you can in a bunch of subjects, think about which ones you like) to try to prepare him better _and_ spare him a lot of the execution optimization anxiety. As a result: high school was much better for him...but he now has these "what the hell will be my career" and "am I taking the right classes" anxieties in college :-(.

At least he didn't jump in front of a train like a disturbing number of other Palo Alto high schoolers did.

<comment><USER11> There is this seemingly comprehensive belief here in America that is utterly embedded in culture and common assumptions that the only value a human life has is to increase the GDP and enrich someone else

<comment><USER12> Middle class American kids are raised to have certain expectations about quality of life - that if they pursue a decent education then they can work 40 hours a week and afford a comfortable house in a safe neighborhood, resources to attract a spouse and build a family, good schools for their kids, and so on.

Most wake up in their mid 20s and realize that they have a pile of student loan debt and housing in desirable areas is beyond reach. It's the fundamental disconnect between what society (parents, media, culture) led them to expect and the reality they are confronted with that causes confusion, despair, and anger.

Reactions are varied. Some give up, some dig in. The American dream is still alive and well it's just accessed differently than it used to be and we don't talk about that enough with young people. Personally I'm surprised the youngest generations aren't even greedier, more ruthless, and more focused on economic value than they seem to be, based on the structure and incentives of the world into which they were born.

<comment><USER13> I grow more resentful and despise the way many will vote for a politician and hope and believe that change will happen, even with no track record to support it.

44 at least got SOME kind of healthcare, but not enough, shoved through before things gridlocked.

45 ... I understand and sympathize with why many followed this siren's call, but it's all emotional rhetoric and very little of real substance. I hope they are replaced soon and move on to making "The East Wing", a reality inspired drama made for TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My hypothesis: people are either consciously or unconsciously afraid that most jobs will disappear in the near to medium future. This is manifesting itself in many ways (nationalism, etc.). Adults feel it, children feel it. Our leaders are doing their best to make us feel like they have it under control but no one has a good solution, and until we come up with something these problems are just going to get worse and worse.

<comment><USER15> I am not sure it's just about jobs. Wealth in general is evaporating from the lower/middle class rapidly. There was a time when middle-class wages were kept in-line with inflation, this doesn't happen any more.

The wealth is being syphoned away from the economy at large into the coffers of huge corporations/individuals who just warehouse the wealth.

There is very much a sense of resources being scarce and it's due to those resources and wealth being taken out of the economy.

<comment><USER16> Is it though? It seems spending on health, education, and housing are all through the roof. Everything else is better and cheaper -- why are these 3 growing at outrageous rates?

<comment><USER17> Education costs (college and up) are increasing because institutions have no incentive to manage tuition costs if the default assumption is that people will take out loans to pay them anyway.

<comment><USER18> And people keep taking out loans because the (anticipated) ROI is still positive, eg, there is consumer surplus available to be captured

<comment><USER19> But the ROI keeps going down, and may be negative soon for many degrees.

<comment><USER20> I suspect it's already negative for a number of degrees but there isn't enough data to prove that yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A bit of a rant here - Having worked in education both here in the States and in Korea, this makes a ton of sense.

We all lauded the accomplishments of Asian countries in measures of math, science, and English. We sought to replicate their success.

And we have started. One thing about the US student was that we used to be behind in math and science, but our creativity was our strength.

And we're educating that out of the system, in the pursuit of standardized objectives (standardized objectives that encourage the development of things like remind to constantly keep kids on track, career clusters for focus, and the pressure to decide a career in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade).

<comment><USER22> I made a terrible mistake and I put a lot of pressure on my daughter to do well in school, do well in extracurriculars, etc.

I made the measurement the goal.

Now I'm trying to undo that damage and put it in her mind that at any point you can change direction, study, knowledge, but you need a few tools to do so: self-criticism, discipline, critical thinking. Initial progress has been good and our relationship is running quite a bit smoother, but Jesus I could have left my kid seriously messed up.

I think that a huge amount of this derives, in the US, from the continued degradation of the social safety net in this country. We have put an expensive gateway in front of success with very expensive college, and even with that there is no guarantee of a job that pays well enough for you to live comfortably. That in addition to the traditional standard of the "Atomic Family".

I have no proof of that, but it certainly seemed to have been a major factor in our house, but I have to recognize that individual human brilliance can occur at any point in life, and that the tools to act on it are more important than many of the things that she is learning at school.

<comment><USER23> _continued degradation of the social safety net in this country_

What degradation? Spending on the social safety net has only ever increased, not decreased.

<comment><USER24> The population has grown. Obviously spending increases. However, access to the safety net has decreased as have the net benefits. In other news water is wet.

<comment><USER12> I used to believe this but it turns out that net benefits (by almost any measure) have increased continually:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-16/the-u-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-16/the- u-s-social-safety-net-has-improved-a-lot)

The fact that so many people don't "feel" more secure from these very expensive investments may point to other structural problems.

<comment><USER25> Or maybe the social security net was always atrocious, now it's just a little bit less so.

(Not saying that's necessarily the case, just that it could be)

<comment><USER23> The US has a larger social spending budget than Canada.

So if the US is "less horrendous", then canada's must be even worse?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Technology is only the reminder of the stress. Kids are dealing with:

1.) A constant reminder that rapid climate change on Earth is going to drastically change the quality of their life in the near future.

2.) Less jobs, automation will inevitably consume more jobs for the next generation resulting in more service level work or careers that feel empty without much opportunity. The pressure to do compete for a desirable job will continue at an increasing rate.

3.) Extreme competition to live where you grew up or where desirable jobs are. The youth suicide rate in the Bay Area Peninsula (specifically Palo Alto) is the highest in the country. Kids need to compete at a world class level to get into a world class university to gain entry to a career where they _might_ have the ability to afford a home in their neighborhood. Anything less will be seen as failure to their friends or family. Similarly children who didn't grow up in the area face a life of trying to break in to a major metropolitan area where the highly skilled desirable jobs are.

<comment><USER27> I wish more of these people knew you can escape the bay. Escape California. Move somewhere cheap. Make your own life. You won't have a fancy car but if you're clever enough you'll be OK. Hell, start a homestead. I'm increasingly suspicious that we've managed to make modern life _worse_ than sustenance farming for a not-tiny percentage of the population.

<comment><USER28> ...

<comment><USER29> What? Vermont is 37th in population density. Alaska is by far the lowest (or Wyoming if you're only counting the lower 48).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density)

<comment><USER30> Unfortunately, many of the people that grew up in Calfornia/NY/etc have the view that there are a maximum of maybe 5 states worth living in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Summary: the anxiety is driven by pressure to do well in life, amplified by technology constantly reminding kids of this.

<comment><USER32> I have 3 kids in elementary school. So far my career advice plan for them is as follows:

Pick something and try to get really good at it. If that doesn't work, pick something else.

(Privileged, top 5%-er) parenting in 2019 is a constant battle against the temptations of over-scheduling and over-enrichment. Kids need time to relax and goof around without being under pressure.

<comment><USER33> I too have 3 in elementary, and offer similar advice, adding:

Don't look to me to tell you _what_ you should do; the hottest vocations of my generation will likely not even exist for yours (example: petroleum engineer). Look externally, experiment, measure, iterate. (essentially your first point)

* Make lots of mistakes, because mistakes mean you're trying new things, but with 2 caveats:

1/ try not to make any fatal mistakes

2/ don't repeat the same mistakes

* You have the resources of multiple generations of lucky & hard-working people at your disposal; don't waste them but make sure you use them (meaning educated families, diverse experiences and money)

* Your overall goal is to do your best to leave the environment you were born into better-off than it was when you started, meaning you've worked to improve the position of your family, community and the broader world.

<comment><USER17> > * Make lots of mistakes, because mistakes mean you're trying new things, but > with 2 caveats:

This is all well and good when they're in school and still dependent on your financial support. Once they're on their own (say, at age 22), and start making mistakes, the stakes are a lot higher and the margin for error a low narrower.

Let's say you majored in something but did poorly overall. That's mistake #1. You won't have as wide of a berth for mistake #2, because you are likely still suffering the consequences of #1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This seems to resonate with me. My little sister who is graduated highschool in 2014 had a very different experience than I did graduating in 2004.

I'd stay up late finishing homework in highschool but usually it'd be a rare occurrence caused by my own procrastination.

She'd routinely stay up past my parents because she just genuinely had 6-10 hrs of homework a night.

<comment><USER35> Dude my _elementary_ school daughter often stays up past one of her parents as she has genuinely had 6-10 hrs of homework many nights.

<comment><USER36> I am not going to tell you how to educate your daughter. I can tell you that if my son was going through that, I would think that something was very wrong.

<comment><USER37> Same, I would certainly not enforce my child finishing all of that homework. I might go so far as to tell them not to. There's no way that wouldn't interfere with family time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Author claims it isn't social media, then proceeds to describe the use of what is effectively social media applications where students communicate with their school and teachers. The apps are noted as a problem due to their notifications and because it's more difficult to leave school at school since the app is on their phone. Curiously, this is similar to what Jonathan Haidt points out as one of the big negatives of social media.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't consider the school texting you your marks to be "social media".

This example was used in the article to show how the kids are randomly sent stimulations for which they are not prepared. Plausible, but unproven (not that this article pretends to be science; it's a collection of useful anecdotes with some reflections on them).

<comment><USER38> The article explicitly mentions that students use an app called Remind. I would not call this, along with the web portal etc, social media per se, but it does approximately fulfill the ISocialMedia interface.

<comment><USER10> I think there's an important distinction. Social media are by definition social, so what happens there is public.

Getting your marks sent to you when you are in a different context is private; you can feel shame or stress and in fact _not_ know how you rank vs your peers.

The social stress isn't that new, and as far as marks went both my parents grew up under systems where the marks were posted outside the classroom and class ranking was also public.

I was really struck about the "prepared" part -- a lot of this should be considered spam: I don't need to know my marks (or bank balance etc) in realtime; I want to be able to get that info when I am ready to ask for it. The continual barrage of requests for attention is itself stressful. Having access to uninterrupted quiet (and boredom, especially for younger kids) is important for mental health and creativity.

Social has its own positive place as well. HN is a form of that.

<comment><USER39> disagree that social = public.

<comment><USER10> Sorry, I don't mean "public" in the sense of "universally accessible".

I'm using the sociological sense where "private" means "to one's self" and "social" or "public" mean "part of a common experience or utterance with at least one other person" because I think that's the important distinction in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's the boomers. Especially the ultra-rich boomers.

A generation that has bankrupted the nation, destroyed its foundations, disenfranchised entire following generations, vastly inflated the relative cost of housing, education, and healthcare and leaving a massive debt.

<comment><USER41> You might be right, but given that they didn't set out to do this, that they want their children and grandchildren to grow up and lead happy, successful lives, and that they weren't just some generational error where everyone was a selfish bastard but were mostly well-meaning people, how does this attribution help? It doesn't appear that we're learning from their mistakes with our current political climate or policies.

<comment><USER30> Our current political climate is due to their voting patterns over the last 30 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The irony of the "career clusters" in the one kid's course registration manual (that are supposed to help you get a high-skill/high-wage/high-demand job), is that they are the usual well-meaning suggestions by people who have no idea how to get a high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand job. Mind you I'm not taking a pot-shot at educators here (though you could read it that way); I'm just saying, nobody has an accurate idea what the landscape will look like in 6 or 8 years (which is when this kid will be out in the job market), much less how best to prepare for it. There is doubt attached to both the forecast and the preparation methods.

</comment><comment><USER43> I sometimes feel skeptical about `privilege' and `white privilege' and I think of them as over applied twitter concepts. But then I read articles like this and I am reminded of the meaning of privilege. I'm basically not stressed. I am very happy with my financial outlook. I'm about to lift weights. I bake my own bread. I have a supportive and kind partner. I do math. Biases go in my favor. The narrative in this article basically doesn't jive with my lived experience. Each year my life has basically monotonically improved.

My one interaction with a peace officer was scrubbed from my record because of a nice apology letter I wrote.

I guess that is privilege and it is real.

</comment><comment><USER44> Harvard Psychologist on Joe Rogan commented on this phenomenon in the past couple days, social media was definitely part of it:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6rX96oYnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6rX96oYnY)

</comment><comment><USER45> What a sad country the U.S. has become. I wonder if this state of anxiety is also the norm in European countries?

It seems to be a lot more sane in countries like Germany, Finland, etc where university doesn't require $60-150k+ in student loan debt, healthcare is free, you actually have job stability and can't get fired without good reason, you can work any job and support yourself, housing isn't obscenely expensive, 1.5-2 months vacation. Not to paint these countries as a paradise because of course they have their problems too, but I wonder what Europeans think when they read articles like this?

<comment><USER27> As someone who moved from the US to Europe, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately Europe seems to be trying to become more like the US, and my adopted home (Ireland) is an eager student.

I can't imagine going back to less than a month of PTO a year, and even that feels skimpy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Globalization means kids are now competing globally even for local social mobility and they can sense it. The consequences of failure are worse than they were, and they are running to stand still. They'll figure things out, but it's not going to look like the past.

</comment><comment><USER47> I saw this growing up as a millenial absolutely, I saw it throughout years 10-12 considerably as we were doing mock job interviews and planning our year 11-12 subjects based on our proposed career prospects.

You feel pressure from your peers that if you don't know exactly what career you want and know exactly how you are going to get there, that it's a problem.

You are pushed to plan early and to do well, it's only when push comes to shove when you are neck deep in year 12 exams and the prospects of your University entry scores are near, that the school insists that University isn't the only option, and that you shouldn't be stressed because your results don't define you as a person. It's only then do they say that.

For me the stress comes down to this, we are told to plan as early as possible. So that if I do these subjects for years 11 & 12, and I get X mark, I will most likely get into X University, to then graduate and get a career in X, which will provide me with a fulfilling career/life of achievement and success. This is the baseline, this isn't just the overachievers, everyone has this idea.

Any hiccup along the way in this process and you feel immense stress and anxiety that you will not be successful and happy. Because your entire schooling/education has led up to this moment, and as a teenager you are none the wiser that it isn't the end of the world, because it can sure feel like it.

I should say off the back of this that I was lucky and I was able to achieve a successful career, through the path of University.

<comment><USER48> > For me the stress comes down to this, we are told to plan as early as > possible. So that if I do these subjects for years 11 & 12, and I get X > mark, I will most likely get into X University, to then graduate and get a > career in X, which will provide me with a fulfilling career/life of > achievement and success. This is the baseline, this isn't just the > overachievers, everyone is fed this idea.

I have a friend that got a CS degree from Princeton. Went to work, found he hated it, spent 10 years working to pay off his student loans. Paid them off and quit.

Basically blew 15 years of his life doing what everyone told him was the 'right thing'

<comment><USER49> Sure - but how can you know? I don't dread my job, but I believe I could better my life in some ways by changing careers to make more money. I would have specific kinds of freedom and security for my family that we don't have right now, but there's a lot of feel fulfilled about in my current line of work that might be lost in the change. If I knew the right path, I would have taken it already.

<comment><USER47> Well nobody can know for sure, but it's about providing an environment that fosters the right outcome, rather than simply an outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I can relate to this article on a personal level. Even though I was homeschooled, I grew up in the Silicon Valley during the late '90s and early '00s and felt a lot of pressure from my peers and their parents to "succeed"

Two clear memories stick with me from those times:

\- A visual image of my education as a Saturn-V type rocket, but with no destination in mind.

\- A strong desire to make myself a shirt with a picture of a Golden Calf that was simply labeled "Education"

</comment><comment><USER51> This article goes very well with the recent NYT "Relentless Parenting" story [0].

If you live in America, its not surprising that once you reach the age where you can think in-depth about your future and the consequences of "failing" that an existential sense of dread may loom over you.

School age kids have to worry about the pressures related to school and getting into a good college, college students have the pressure of college and debt. Millennials are dealing with high college debt, a substandard labor market overall, and high rent. Middle aged folks are dealing with rising healthcare costs for their children and parents, along with debt and other issues. It just goes on and on.

There might have been an idea in the 50s that by the turn of the century most Americans could escape the rat race, but it's probably just gotten worse.

0: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/upshot/the- relentlessness...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/upshot/the- relentlessness-of-modern-parenting.html)

</comment><comment><USER52> Also see another article today titled "US is an oligarchy, not a democracy". Let's put 2 and 2 together folks

</comment><comment><USER52> I mean, teenage angst, midlife crisis, and elder depression are not separate disorders, or really disorders at all. They are natural reactions to an insane world.

</comment><comment><USER53> > While on a youth retreat with my church...

For a secular person - the proverbial outside looking in - this sounds like a significant conflating factor.

Kids are especially vulnerable to suggestion, and any group that preaches the likelihood of eternal unpleasantness is _not_ likely to engender mental tranquility.

</comment><comment><USER54> I think kids _absorb_ a lot of the pressure their parents are in. people today deal with a lot more insecurity (jobs/financial etc) than in the 80ies or before, while the leisure / off-time now is reduced to being on a screen. Add the screen time the kids themselves are exposed to (minus the exercise they used to have before the "digital revolution") got to add up. Looking at what many eat today (fast or pre-cooked stuff rather than home-cooked and more sugar is gotta have some effect). Hyper-connectivity is killing us I think.

</comment><comment><USER55> As a related aside, kids can often reflect their parents anxiety. Adults are super stressed and anxious about the future, and I am sure that is having a noticeable effect on children.

</comment><comment><USER56> on one hand, it would be easy to dismiss the issues noted in the article as first-world problems, but it lays bare the intersection of technology-induced anxiety and economic realism affecting not just kids, but the larger culture in the US.

as an economy, we are prosperous, but to achieve even a meager share in any of that prosperity feels increasingly hopeless. the future depends on making uncomfortable changes, opposed by the rich and powerful, that lead to a little more just and equitable world.

</comment><comment><USER57> Question:

1\. Anyone considering or practicing unschooling/self directed education [0] for your children?

2\. Were you home schooled/unschooled/practiced self directed education ?

What's your story?

I am Considering this approach. Just finished reading free to learn [1] and Peter gray makes a compelling case for this approach. Also the documentary "schooling the world" covers some of the chilling effects of compulsory schooling. [2] it has made me seriously question our current education system.

Thoughts?

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Free-Learn-Unleashing-Instinct- Self-R...](https://www.amazon.com/Free-Learn-Unleashing-Instinct-Self- Reliant/dp/0465025994)

[2] [https://schoolingtheworld.org](https://schoolingtheworld.org)

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSIgZWNR9M](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSIgZWNR9M)

<comment><USER58> I'm considering it. I went to public school my entire life but I've spent the better part of the last decade with self-directed learning (programming).

I think it's that combined with my belief that our current educational model is broken and inefficient (as well as articles like these) that makes me want to explore unschooling more. Thanks for sharing these links.

<comment><USER57> thanks. What do you think is broken with the current model?

Added an Ask Hn for the question.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18878153](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18878153)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Seems to me like we've gone too far down the "add more schooling" solution to a changing world. This approach tries to anticipate what will be in demand for the 40-50 years after these kids graduate from high school and enter the work force; that is a pipe dream.

A shift to different skills would be more preferable: skills like creativity, adaptability, ability to learn new things. A worker who can adapt easily to a new world will be much better suited to navigate life than one who is educated in a single career path.

These skills are not new, nor is economic and technological change. My grandpa developed these skills early on and used them to great advantage through all the recessions and technological change of the 1970's and 80's. He did quite well for himself, despite not doing anything related to his formal education.

</comment><comment><USER60> > They're constantly stressed, and they're growing aware that there's no > payoff for it all.

If that's true then one would expect to see _lots_ of misbehavior, insubordination, and absurdist pranks. At least that the usual escape valve for that age and that problem.

Do we see those kinds of problems with this generation?

<comment><USER61> With this generation, pranks and insubordination are often dealt with by the school police officer! When I was in high school, I got a talking-to at most, or a blind eye because I was a "good kid". Now my old high school has a lot more law enforcement presence.

<comment><USER60> I'm thinking more along the lines of christmas-treeing the state administered IQ test. I remember a classmate doing that in high school.

It was as if a bunch of ostensible gang members met a real gang member who showed them they were only ever singing and dancing in a musical about gangs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I seem to have this fleeting anxiety with me all the time that gets triggered very easily. It seems as if part of me mind is always focused on my body sensations and goes off when I try to focus my mind off my body. I'm also triggered by any thoughts of illness or falling sick. Just reading about how anxiety can cause problems in this thread triggered me. I've tried myriad of medications and therapy such as CBT, talk therapy, hypnosis , yoga, Chinese herbal medicine , accupuncture, Ayurvedic treatments, SSRIs, benzos, Xanax, remeron, risperdol etc. Even exercise doesn't really help.

I'm currently on a very low dose of Prozac for sleep. Most medications help with sleep at the very least.

I still need to try a SNRI but after that I need may try some hallucinogens as I've never done so, and people seem to be responding well to it.

I'm currently late 30s and don't have any physical problems but in the back of my mind I'm always afraid I'm going to get sick soon. I eat bowl of veggies with every meal now, I do yoga prayanamic exercises in the morning and I try to walk daily or almost daily.

As for anxiety ,

I'm not sure if it's due to my childhood (Dad was abusive and very angry ) or if it's genetic. My dad has cooled down now so my relationship with him is okay. I don't have any flashbacks or anything so I'm assuming my problem is genetic?

Nonetheless, I want to feel some what normal. Part of me wants to go into the health field just to understand what's going on in the body and have more control. I also want to reverse aging as I feel like I missed out a lot of my earlier years due to anxiety.

I only started programming a couple of years ago and would need to become much better at data mining , machine learning to be of help to researchers. Though I'm really curious about lab work as well and really would like more biochemistry, microbiology etc. Ideally I would to get I knowledge in both. It seems most researchers have decades a of knowledge though and not sure if I can be of any help. I'm very curious about these science fields and like to watch moocs to build my knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER63> Feedback on learning has a very long feedback cycle. With the speed of which we are making changes to society, education has tried to keep up, but it was off the rails before we entered our modern technology Accelerando. The additional speed has only hurt it further.

<comment><USER64> I would suggest that it fundamentally cannot keep up.

In the olden days you would start working on the family farm as soon as you were old enough to walk. This is where the life lessons were learned. Schooling was meant only to broaden horizons into more theoretical subjects that were not directly applicable to every day life.

But with our newfound fear of having children work every so often (to the point that is illegal for most children to work; children of farmers working on the family farm remaining one of the few exceptions), they no longer have a place to learn about everyday life. They only get the theoretical, and it ends there. Then, in their 20s, they're spit out into the real world and all of a sudden have to figure out the life lessons that were once given over the span of decades under the guidance of a caregiver.

We have attempted to try to bring practical lessons to school, but as anyone who is an adult knows, there is simply no replacement for actual experience. Everything you think you have learned about it ends up being completely different once you live it.

<comment><USER65> I think that you are idealzing a bit outcomes of children in the past. They had their own set if problems - including higher violence and criminality rates and alcoholism etc.

<comment><USER64> Violence and crime rates are down due to the reduce use of lead in gasoline. Alcoholism seems to be down due to much greater difficulty in being able to drink (can't drive the bar anymore without fear of stiff penalties) and greater information.

But I don't think I am idealizing anything. The benefits of having a job when you are young are abundantly clear, and remain abundantly clear for those who still do so today. There is no reason why children cannot work and also have pursuits that are useful in other areas. It is not an either-or situation. They do not need to be full-time jobs. There is plenty of time for other pursuits.

<comment><USER65> I had job as teenager. There was no obvious long term benefit and no short term benefit except a bit money more. It did not harmed me either except being unable to do certain activities I wanted to (which would gabe me more back then, but not more enough to regret it too much).

You can't explain all past farms violence by lead, that explains violence peek in 1990. The past rural situations and societiés in general were not nearly as idyllic as people make them be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> quite shocked those kids receive their grades by an app. here in germany we have this discussion on whether to have computers/phones in classrooms. i'd say no to all of that- except for computer programming classes.

<comment><USER67> How is getting grades with an app different than getting grades via paper?

<comment><USER66> first, there should be a teacher to personally tell you if you messed up and why. second there is a time and place for these kind of things. imagine the teacher decides to check tests at night. do you really want your kids to constantly check their phones instead of gettibg sleep? we have a long way to go with that tech...

<comment><USER68> Giving feedback on what you messed up and why is pretty straightforward to do electronically.

It's also unlikely (or at least unnecessary) that electronic grades are released immediately after the teacher marks a test.

<comment><USER49> I am a teacher. Our marks are immediately available once I have entered them in the online grade book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I think it's largely constant reinforcement that kids aren't especially great. 90% of people are in the bottom 90%. A lot of our culture is pushing people to think that it's either best or worst.

A lot of of young adult stuff commiserates in this, celebrating the tacit knowledge that you'll eventually fail. So many memes are about feeling how you secretly suck. Or how they can do one relevant task well but fail at basic fundamentals.

I also think this is mostly a mindset issue caused by worrying parents constantly demonstrating why you need to be better.

</comment><comment><USER70> A great book, imho, on this very subject is: How to Raise an Adult by Julie Lythcott-Haims. I can't believe the level of material and amount of work for my poor 4th grader. She's doing hours and hours of homework every night and she's 10. Talk about diminishing returns!

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23168823-how-to-raise- an...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23168823-how-to-raise-an-adult)

</comment><comment><USER71> This is very worrying because, according to Dr. Gabor Mate, there is strong evidence that stress in kids impacts brain development and leads to conditions like ADD and addiction.

Dr. Mate's claims resonate with my personal experience (stress and lack of emotional support as a kid leading to ADD and other psychological problems). I recently found out about Dr. Mate's work, and if you are familiar with this work I would be interested in hearing your opinion on it.

</comment><comment><USER72> The article describes the problems with getting a notification, at any point in the day, about grades.

Probably one of my biggest disappointments with Android is that it's still hard to regulate notifications.

One of my bigger disappointments with modern American culture is that we don't push back on interruptions enough.

<comment><USER17> You may want to look into an Android phone that has "Do Not Disturb" on. It will hide notifications from showing on the statusbar. So unless you explicitly open that app, you won't know if there's a notification to be had.

I have a Nokia 6.1 with Android 9.0. The other day, I actually missed some important messages because I had DND turned on, thinking it was the same thing as silent mode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> sorry for the self promotion, but because it fits so well: This is exactly what we are trying to solve with Pocketcoach: [https://www.pocketcoach.co/](https://www.pocketcoach.co/)

</comment><comment><USER74> Can the title be changed to something that's more descriptive and not click bait?

</comment><comment><USER75> Frankly, I wish my college kid is at least a bit worried for his future... to me him and his friends are all spoiled, wanting for nothing, happy go lucky, with no clear idea what the real life looks like...

</comment><comment><USER76> [http://southpark.cc.com/clips/nr2bie/everyone-has- anxiety](http://southpark.cc.com/clips/nr2bie/everyone-has-anxiety)

</comment><comment><USER77> >All of them said they voluntarily get their grades pushed to their phones through notifications. It took me a minute to realize just how annoying and agonizing that must feel. It means that at any moment, they could find out they bombed a test or missed an assignment. Instead of having the time to mentally prepare to receive a bad grade

Our lives have gotten _so easy_ that we now write articles about how push notifications of grades "consumes" children with anxiety.

Here's an idea. Maybe kids are more anxious these days because instead of, especially in the case of faux adversity like going to school, teaching them to be strong, we legitimize their anxiety, and worse, take them to doctors who prescribe them with unnecessary drugs for what amounts to normal and healthy teenage angst.

Here's another idea. It's normal for life to get a little scary when you're starting puberty. And giving young kids terrifying materials like "43 pages long" course registration manuals (the horror!) is an opportunity to teach young teens the value in planning ahead and taking control of one's life. We shouldn't normalize their anxiety over making decisions and commitments - it's a year of schoolwork! Big deal! Just wait until real life!

What's the problem? If we don't expose these kids to stress and teach them to accept it as part of normal life, they'll grow into helpless, anxiety ridden adults, as I seem to see among many of my contemporaries, perpetual children in their late 20s who do not understand commitment or forsight.

Given that this is from vox, I can't help but notice themes in common with nonsense like toxic masculinity - this is all opportunity to begin on a path of success from an earlier age, and instead of celebrating it, vox predictably avoids the celebration of achievement and complains that it's too hard and we're scaring our poor children with talk of futures and grades!

The rift in our country starts here. At the divide between collectivism and individualism. But what vox et al. fail to understand is that when you vehemently shun individualism and achievement, instead focusing excessively on minimizing difficulty, your collective will fail, as those that exist within it become increasingly incompetent.

<comment><USER61> It's interesting that I agree with you at a few key points, but utterly disagree with your post in a few other places. Agree: "The rift in our country starts here. At the divide between collectivism and individualism." Interestingly, I think the problems described in the article are entirely from the whole-hearted embrace of individualism that America has fallen into. There is not communal or collective effort at all; these kids are told that they need to be fighting each other in the stack ranking of life for the next 18-65 years. No one will take care of them if they get sick or injured -- they need to save for that, and saving requires a good-paying job, which requires the right career path, which requires optimizing your class schedule in 8th grade and not accruing a police record for tipping cows or outhouses or, God forbid, spreading a little nitrogen triiodide in the high school hallway as a prank. That'll get you a terrorism charge.

In some sense I again agree with your first paragraph: "Our lives have gotten so easy that..." and the note about "faux adversity". I think we'd all be more mentally healthy if we spent more time in the woods or desert, where Nature doesn't care about your GPA or your career cluster, but you can truly test yourself against physical reality. Heck, even weightlifting can provide a touch of that. But again, it's not faux adversity when you see your parents missing mortgage payments because of the government shutdown and you realize that they went to college & did everything "right" and yet because they're not 5%-ers in the US your life in the good school district is precarious. It's not faux adversity when you see your parents get the $24,000 bill (after insurance!) for a broken arm from Zuckerberg Hospital. This is created adversity. We have created a system in which there is no floor and no escape from debts. All rests on the individual, and if you get old, or sick before you're old, you're f*(&ed.

<comment><USER78> "Interestingly, I think the problems described in the article are entirely from the whole-hearted embrace of individualism that America has fallen into. There is not communal or collective effort at all;"

Totally agree. The every man for himself is a very harsh system to live in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> This thread is making me depressed about the future.

</comment><comment><USER52> I feel like this author of this article is _this close_ to developing a working class consciousness..

</comment><comment><USER80> It sounds like parents are really the ones who need to be treated, not those kids.

</comment><comment><USER81> The data does not support OP's article. Here's a good synopsis of what the data does say courtesy of Joe Rogan's show.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6rX96oYnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6rX96oYnY)

<comment><USER82> This doesn't address OP's article's main point, aside from the backhand comment of "it's not social media," which is meant more so as clickbait and doesn't pertain much to the article's point of what _does_ cause the anxiety.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> "why kids are consumed with worry" .. too much social media?

</comment><comment><USER84> Training kids to be Sysadmins, smart.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Cutting down on fat" is not sound diet advice and is rooted in the "fat macro-nutrient = fat on my body" falsehood. I'm glad you are seeing success, but please don't post about things you don't know enough about.

<comment><USER25> Please don't post 'you are wrong' without supplying the correct information either.

I'm now left wondering what the actual situation around fat is.

<comment><USER85> The short version is that your body needs a balance of all three macronutrients - protein, fats, and carbohydrates, and that starving it of any is unhealthy. Parent would probably suggest focusing on calories in / out rather than minimizing fats.

<comment> barry-cotter This is also untrue. You can live in perfect health on fat and protein alone. Humans can't make the essential amino acids necessary for making some proteins so we need to eat protein, and there are a number of vitamins that are fat/oil but not water soluble so we need at least some fat but a no carbohydrate diet with sufficient fat is fine as long as you get enough fat. If you only eat lean meat that will be bad for you.

[http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat- diets/](http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/)

> To my mind, examples of real people eating mostly-meat diets for long > periods of time gives us much more powerful information about meat and > health than conventional scientific studies conducted over short periods of > time in which one group of people eats a little more meat or a few extra > servings of vegetables than another group of people.

> Meet the Meat Mongers

> The Inuit of the Canadian Arctic thrived on fish, seal, walrus and whale > meat. The Chukotka of the Russian Arctic lived on caribou meat, marine > animals and fish. The Masai, Samburu, and Rendille warriors of East Africa > survived on diets consisting primarily of milk and meat. The steppe nomads > of Mongolia ate mostly meat and dairy products. The Sioux of South Dakota > enjoyed a diet of buffalo meat. The Brazilian Gauchos nourished themselves > with beef.

[https://swizec.com/blog/week-17-what-happens-when-you- only-e...](https://swizec.com/blog/week-17-what-happens-when-you-only-eat- meat-for-a-year/swizec/6534)

[http://m.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf](http://m.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf)

<comment><USER85> Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> So, just a quick forecast (my personal hypothesis) of what this will lead to, short term: _really_ bad, _profoundly_ ugly drug epidemics.

And we have seen bad. We're in the middle of a bad one.

But ten years down the line, we'll see a new generation show up, pent up and ready to explode. And drug dealers will be there, ready to harvest some cash.

Every tightly wound miserable kid you see today is going to find a way to lash out or somehow escape tomorrow, and most of the time, with regular people, that takes the shape of getting annihilated as quickly and easily as possible. In part, self destruction as revenge for vicarious ambition on the part of authority figures. In part to literally render demanded performance an impossibility, whether for spite or not.

Probably nothing can fix this. The die is cast. Public schools in the United States are on a collision course with a transformative upheaval not unlike what we've witnessed with the decaying husk of the formerly behemoth United States Postal Service.

Actually, on second thought, we've been standing face to face with it, if you consider how school shootings mirror "disgruntled postal workers" "going postal" in the 1990's, just prior to the sensational media coverage of school shootings in particular.

No end in sight. C'est la vie.

</comment><comment><USER87> If we could stop telling kids they need to go to school, and instead tell them why they should want to, that might reduce the stress of having to perform well.

If you don't go to school, _you will not die in a gutter._ But if you do go to school, _you will be very well prepared for life._ Tell this to your kids.

<comment><USER11> >If you don't go to school, you will not die in a gutter.

America does not have a sufficient safety net for this to be true

<comment><USER88> Care to provide an example of someone (literally or figuratively) dying in a gutter in the US within the last few years? I'm talking about someone dying of hunger or exposure here, not overdosing.

<comment><USER89> This happened just last year: [https://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Mans- Death-Spotlights-...](https://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Mans-Death- Spotlights-Winter-Struggles-of-Homeless-469823853.html)

<comment><USER88> The article says that the man's drinking "played a significant role" in his death. I don't buy the idea that he slept outside only because there literally wasn't enough room for him in the shelter. If that were truly the case, more than one homeless person would have died in that area for the same reason, and it would have been a major national story.

<comment><USER89> We had a bunch of people die in Boston during that same cold snap for lack of space in shelters. What makes you think the nation was or will be _so_ scandalized by a bunch of homeless nobodies dying of exposure?

<comment><USER88> Okay, a few things. First, while my original question _was_ partly rhetorical, I'm always willing to change my beliefs based on new information, so if you can provide a citation for the claim that a bunch of people died of exposure in Boston due to insufficient shelter space, I'll stand fully corrected and admit that it does happen in the US. Second, if that's indeed the case, I find it appalling. Finally, assuming it still happens, I'm still very inclined to believe that it's both extremely rare—like one in a hundred thousand or even a million people per year—and much rarer than it was, say, 100 years ago. (I have no idea what the rate was in 1919, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something crazy like one in a thousand or even higher. If we go back 200 years, a rate of 1-2% wouldn't surprise me.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jack Thompson Disbarred - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred <comment><USER2> The important item to note here:

He is now forbidden from making any filings, etc. without the assistance and sponsorship of a member of the bar in good standing.

In the past, Jack has engaged in his stunts essentially on his own time and money. If he wants to fight this, he is going to need to convince another member of the bar to help him. It will be interesting to see if anyone will step up to the challenge.

<comment><USER3> I think the issue is that it has never been 'his own time and money', but instead the Florida taxpayers' money and the justice systems time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is certainly something worth noting, it's nothing terribly exciting. Thompson could barely get a case heard before a court nor would any Judge take him seriously because his allegations and presentations were just horribly designed, terribly cocky, and from an outside looking glass just not worth any sort of mitigation process.

I'm glad he's out but I doubt the gaming industry will change one bit now that he doesn't have the ability to nag through the veil of the court systems.

<comment><USER5> I will be satisfied if it just gets him off of CNN after every school shooting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also on Ars: [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080925-jack- thompson-...](http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080925-jack-thompson- loses-boss-battle-with-florida-bar.html)

And his response: <http://kotaku.com/5054801/thompson-responds-to-disbarment>

</comment><comment><USER7> Heck yes.

That is all.

</comment><comment> a-priori "About damned time" is all I have to say about this.

</comment><comment><USER8> Awesome.</comment>


Silicon Valley aside, why are Americans more willing to risk a startup? - <AUTHOR>

I'm based in the UK and am hoping to apply to YC in Oct. We are currently looking for strong hackers to co-found with us, if they like the idea.  We cannot, however, find anyone in the UK even remotely interested.  The concept of 'it's not what you do but when you do it' simply does not exist here.  What does the US have that we don't? <comment><USER2> American's love David and Europeans love Goliath.

The British believed in their Empire. They believed that it was right to put Squash courts and Polo fields in far flung countries. They believed that Britishness was the most natural state of man. The French, Russians and eventually the Germans felt the same way about themselves, only more so and less sucessfully. These empires were Goliaths and their people were proud of them.

The US was the first major colony to successfully break free from the Brits. The most formidable military force ever deployed sailed into the East River and bore down on a bunch of un-uniformed barefoot rabble representing our (at that time) pathetic revolution. Yet somehow we won. That picture was chopped up and burned into the DNA of every American. We re-live it when Bruce Willis crawls through air-ducts and elevator shafts to outwit German terrorists. And again when he leads his band of blue collar drillers to blow up a merciless asteriod. And his goals are simple too. Bruce just wants to get home in time for dinner whereas James Bond is "keeping the British end up." Americans are wary of higher causes which makes them distrust things bigger than themselves.

It's everywhere in this country, Big is bad and small is good. We hate Wallmart, Microsoft, Nike and Exxon. Nevermind that Target, Adobe, Reebok and Shell are doing the exact same thing as their bigger counterparts. They're not big so we can't hate them. The only thing that will "kill" Google (IBM / MS style) will be bigness. We will turn against them once they become Goliath.

Our people (formerly your people) banded together way back then and forged our ideals in violent reaction against bigness. And so it's been ever since. We were the 12th biggest army just before WWII and few thought we would outlast the Soviets. But once the Soviet Empire fell we became Goliath and we have hated ourselves ever since. The Brits and Russians in their prime would have no problem with Iraq. The Russians would roll in and kill everyone and the Brits would pit the Sunnis against the Shias and colonize what's left. We have gone in half cocked and we don't truely believe that it's our place to tell other people how to live. It is cruely ironic that we may have to sail back across the pond and ask our British cousins how we can best play the part of Goliath.

This is all a long way of saying that revering startups is just natural to us. It's what we've always done and for better or worse, it's all we know. I'm actually not sure why they were ever called startups. Upstarts is way more fitting...

<comment><USER3> I agree with the first two paragraphs, but not the rest of it. Somewhere in US history, things changed. The average American is clearly accepting, if not loving, of Walmart and other big companies, otherwise they would not be the juggernauts they are today. There would not be over 3800 Walmarts in the USA alone if we loved small and hated big.

<comment><USER2> We have a love hate relationship w/ our captains of industry. We glorify their rise and then sue them into a corner and call them robber barrons when they get too big. I would say walmart is reaching its tipping point. MS has passed it and spends most of their revenues on lawyers. Walmart is close behind. As of now they get sued every 5 minutes.

<comment><USER4> I think that's sufficiently explained by noting bigness makes you more worth suing, and the associated power and high stakes tempt you to do stuff that deserves suing.

<comment><USER2> Nobody makes scathing documentaries about Burger King, Target or Ford. McDonalds, Wal-Mart and GM are the lightning rods for our hatred of bigness. The smaller guy's legal fees are also way lower in relation to their size than their bigger counterparts. If you have an economist login check this out: [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E...](http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VPDDRTS)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html>

"I think what holds back European hackers is simply that they don't meet so many people who've done it. You see that variation even within the US. Stanford students are more entrepreneurial than Yale students, but not because of some difference in their characters; the Yale students just have fewer examples.

I admit there seem to be different attitudes toward ambition in Europe and the US. In the US it's ok to be overtly ambitious, and in most of Europe it's not. But this can't be an intrinsically European quality; previous generations of Europeans were as ambitious as Americans. What happened? My hypothesis is that ambition was discredited by the terrible things ambitious people did in the first half of the twentieth century. Now swagger is out. (Even now the image of a very ambitious German presses a button or two, doesn't it?)

It would be surprising if European attitudes weren't affected by the disasters of the twentieth century. It takes a while to be optimistic after events like that. But ambition is human nature. Gradually it will re-emerge."

<comment><USER5> Did I Godwin this thread? It's a good essay, but I disagree with pg about the ambition being discredited by certain actions in the twentieth century. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it also has a lot to do with the way Americans view failure (versus Europeans and a few Asian countries).

In America while failure is not a good thing, it is also not a permanent thing that can scar you forever as a pariah in both society and the business community. You can try again and again... I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the case for Europe or countries like Japan; it's much harder to try something entrepreneurial more than once if you failed the 1st time...

Case in point, I think it took Sam Walton over ten tries before he got it right with Walmart. (Hell look at Edison too)

(I think as Americans we're just crazier than the Europeans.)

<comment><USER6> I forgot to mention this: Americans are either descendents of risk takers or risk takers themselves (if they are immigrants). I've forgotten the article/research but even in horrible times of famine, economic disaster, or war; for some reason very few people actually leave their country. I think less than 30%. I'm willing to bet that the US probably has taken in a huge majority of the people that were willing to take a risk in a place where they know little of (including the native language) for greater opportunity...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> On a quick note...I would have to say that the laws of the US provide a unique and time-tested opportunity for startups. This has driven the US to become a destination for many of the world's immigrants, leaving their own countries less populated with potential risk takers.

The notion of a free market is what distinguished the US from its European counterparts at its inception and has since demonstrated the ability to learn and grow. The benefit of the US at that time was a clean slate economy without all of the potential 'baggage' that the European countries possessed in the monarchical systems. What's more, for the most part it didn't matter where you came from or who your family was in the US. All that mattered was market potential.

Though European countries have moved their economies in much the same direction they still have to contend with the history of their governments. Culture and history are slow to let go of a people group. New ideas take time to be successfully introduced on an indigenous level if they are to become part of the cultural paradigm and identified history.

<comment><USER8> I would agree about the market being freer in the US than Europe, but the UK's market is almost as free as the US' [http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cf...](http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)

... there has to be something else that the US has got too. A population of 300 million (vs. the UK's ~60 million) springs to mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I believe another part of it has to do with the cost of incorporation. In most places in the US, you can do it yourself for under $100. Comparatively, in most of Europe, it costs between $2,000 and $10,000 to form a company.

Also, with America's long standing tradition of entrepreneurship comes easy money for financing a new venture. In Europe, the spirit isn't there so to speak, so I assume the money would likewise be harder to come by.

I don't know anything about European law. Are companies in Europe afforded the same rights as in the US?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a lawyer in NY (where I used to work) and the U.K., I also have a company here (in the U.K.). Cost of incorporation in the U.K. is GBP25 ($50), takes 1 Hour max and can all be done online with the incorporation docs emailed to you after 30 mins. Incorporating a Co. is very, very easy here. Bankruptcy blacklisting also only lasts 3 yrs now (excluding students trying to write off their student debt by incorporating and folding - former loophole).

As for E.U. V's U.S. Corporate (chancery) law it all hinges on a thing called 'The Delaware Effect'. In this E.U. this was tested in the European Court of Justice (our highest court) in 'The Centros Decision' where a Danish couple avoided the $4,000 incorporation fee in Denmark by incorporating in the U.K. and opening an office in Denmark. The ECJ ruled in their favour citing the free movement of persons (corporations are non-natural entities having the rights of a natural person).

The U.K. (Corp tax 22%) and Ireland (Corp tax 12.5%) are the Delaware's of Europe due to a rich body of corporate case law, ideal business law and economic climate and lenient laws on corporate responsibility. Your Sarbanes Oxley Act has resulted in a dilution of the Delaware effect and an uncompetitive business environment due to the expense of compliance. Its introduction has lead to London (and the LSE its stock exchange) becoming the preferred place of incorporation and IPO, and in London becoming the Largest Financial centre in the world. More money was invested in venture capital, and more takeover activity took place, in London this year than in the USA in the past 3 yrs. I was a stockbroker for 18 months after leaving law so sorry for the legal and finance lecture but hope this clarifies a few things.

Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Paypal, Dell, IBM and ebay all have their main base of European operations in the Republic of Ireland where they enjoy a 10% corporation tax (as the got in before it went up to 12.5).

Soooooooo, I'm not sure why YC are still incorporating companies in Delaware.

<comment><USER3> Great info, thanks for the education!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As an (expat) British person myself I notice than many British people are very pessimistic about the chances of success compared to what I can gather from Americans.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not convinced that there are fundamental differences between attitudes in the US and Europe or at least Britain. The industrial revolution began in Britain and was a time of immense innovation and entrepreneurism. Us Brits still point to that as an example of our inherent entrepreneurial spirit however I reluctantly feel compelled to pour cold water on that idea. I think that period in our history could have taken place in any country given the same economic, educational and scientific conditions etc.

So my point is basically that you can find people with the right attitude anywhere. But that also is kind of the problem; unlike in the US, we don't have a Silicon Valley to gravitate towards. Some entrepreneurial people gravitate towards London but unlike Silicon Valley every other person you meet isn't going to be a budding empire builder. So in conclusion, they are there but you'll just going to have to look that much harder to find them.

</comment><comment><USER10> Desperation. Lack of security to any in the long haul, unless you make it big. The fire is always below your feet, here. Any given job sucks, until you can make your own, work on something you /want/ to work on and make it. Bleak, but that's behind my own attitude.

</comment><comment><USER11> Some of them might be telecommuting for a US based startup. For instance, it is very hard to find people who are good with audio/video signal processing in the USA. The good ones are all in Europe. We have guys in France, Spain, London, and Estonia.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks you America (and those from the UK) who pitched in on this thread. These are the types of things we should discuss in this forum (I find people chat a lot of sh*t on here, none of it related to start-ups or being entrepreneurial)

I also appreciate that Americans appreciate they are the descendants of Europeans. The word entrepreneur is French after all, so we must have had it somewhere along the line.

I have lived in your country and a couple of European countries and even in Saudi. In my experience and, in my opinion, Americans are entrepreneurial due to historical reasons. Those who left Europe went there to set up on their own and escape the 'system' in Europe.

'All men are created equal'. This one line explains it all (first suggested by an Italian). Any country in the world could create what America has in proportion to its population and size (yes that's a caveat of context and proportionality). It has to do with attitudes and these attitudes are, as rightly pointed out by PG, informed by trends, society, accepted norms and experience i.e. examples around you.

Experience has taught me, sadly in a personal sense, that accepted norms and historical attitudes which prevail to this day are the major reason for this differing of opinions. My parents are not particularly happy with my deviance from the legal profession, a traditionally highly respected profession in Europe. I was good at it, I qualified as a barrister and passed your NY Bar exam with 5 weeks study. But it had no creativity to me, I would create nothing but documents and a name for myself (which dies with me) and I began to realise that I did not measure success by virtue of a persons professional position.

In the USA success is measured by your contribution to society not your position within it or control over it.

I will say no more, I've gone on to long anyway. But hey give an Irishman a platform and expect to have warm ears X or sore eyes as the case may be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Out of curiosity, where have you been looking and what would you expect from people if they joined you? Is it a part time thing?

(You have an interesting looking product there so I think you could do well out of it if you get it going)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Andy, I've been put on to a few resources by YC companies (I'm a relentless networker) so am contacting programmers directly) Our current project (Quarrysell.com) does require a part time PHP, MySQL, Joomla, HTML experienced developer. This is because Quarrysell is only the first stage of a greater concept which you will not be able to guess from it right now.

So yes, Quarrysell needs a part time hacker. Our YC application needs full time hackers of course and we would prefer to have them on board sooner rather than later. If you (or anyone else is interested) drop me an email.</comment></comment>