←back to thread

America’s incarceration rate is in decline

(www.theatlantic.com)
239 points paulpauper | 9 comments | 25 Jun 25 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 2.13s | source | bottom
Show context
strict9 ◴[25 Jun 25 17:54 UTC] No.44380047[source]▶
>Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material that feeds the prison system: As one generation ages out, another takes its place on the same horrid journey.

Another factor which will soon impact this, if it isn't already, is the rapidly changing nature of youth. Fertility rates have been dropping since 2009 or so. Average age of parents is increasing. Teen pregnancy on a long and rapid decline.

All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out.

replies(14): >>44380181 #>>44380473 #>>44382284 #>>44382898 #>>44382909 #>>44382947 #>>44383374 #>>44384109 #>>44384259 #>>44384324 #>>44385946 #>>44387386 #>>44388342 #>>44389101 #
bluGill ◴[25 Jun 25 18:32 UTC] No.44380473[source]▶
> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources

This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids.

Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.

replies(18): >>44381237 #>>44381941 #>>44382227 #>>44382361 #>>44382472 #>>44383033 #>>44383863 #>>44384919 #>>44386153 #>>44386316 #>>44386477 #>>44387278 #>>44387735 #>>44388449 #>>44388573 #>>44389324 #>>44389472 #>>44389581 #
pamelafox ◴[25 Jun 25 22:05 UTC] No.44382227[source]▶
I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age.

It was really nice that I had time to establish my career and figure things out before having kids.

replies(6): >>44382573 #>>44382985 #>>44383105 #>>44385130 #>>44387697 #>>44388356 #
999900000999 ◴[26 Jun 25 00:04 UTC] No.44382985[source]▶
The issue here is this can lead people to pushing it till 40+.

I was talking to a nice girl up until she mentioned still wanting kids in her late 40s. Maybe I’m old school, but telling someone you froze your eggs the same day you meet them is weird.

Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle.

This rapidly transformed into no, get your masters, get 8 years of experience. Earn at least 300k as a couple. Then and only then should you consider a family. Childcare is 3k plus a month in many places.

For myself , I wish I made this happen in my mid 20s. I had to move back home to take care of a family member (fck cancer) and I suffered various personal setbacks due to it.

In my 30s I’ve let go of expecting anything. This world has already given me so much.

replies(7): >>44382999 #>>44383092 #>>44383937 #>>44384396 #>>44387801 #>>44388199 #>>44389957 #
wredcoll ◴[26 Jun 25 05:22 UTC] No.44384396[source]▶
> Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle

This has literally only been true for about 30 years out of the sum total of human history, would you like to guess when those 30 years happened to be?

Obviously the answer is "1950s america".

For the rest of human history, you needed something beyond the education you received until the age of 18 in order to support a family.

replies(7): >>44384502 #>>44384539 #>>44384799 #>>44385041 #>>44386367 #>>44386519 #>>44388131 #
wizee ◴[26 Jun 25 05:43 UTC] No.44384502[source]▶
People supported families with single incomes with less than high school education for centuries before the 1950s.
replies(2): >>44385187 #>>44389384 #
watwut ◴[26 Jun 25 07:55 UTC] No.44385187[source]▶
All the other members of the family were active and produced useful things - both kids and women. The iddle lifestyle was limited to richer classes.
replies(2): >>44385928 #>>44390108 #
mandmandam ◴[26 Jun 25 10:19 UTC] No.44385928[source]▶
In foraging societies - ie, most people for the vast majority of human history - people worked ~15–20 hours/week on subsistence tasks. The rest was leisure or social time (ie, time for being a human later rebranded as 'idleness').

Industrialization has pushed inequality to extremes while raising hours worked - even as productivity keeps shooting up. There's no good reason for people to tolerate this; it's just exploitation.

replies(2): >>44386030 #>>44386425 #
1. bluGill ◴[26 Jun 25 11:42 UTC] No.44386425[source]▶
Those hours worked are carefully defining a lot of work away. Most things people eat need hours of preparation that isn't counted in you 15-20 hours for example. When you relook at what people did most of the time you realize they had to work really hard for a lot more hours to survive.
replies(2): >>44387045 #>>44388485 #
2. mandmandam ◴[26 Jun 25 13:05 UTC] No.44387045[source]▶
Look man if you want to write a refutation of Marshall Sahlins' work, go ahead. I might even read it. But I'm not going to just take the word of a random commentator - are you even in anthropology?

Like, this is a broad consensus thing. There's not really much debate; ethnographic studies have backed it up. Where are you getting your info from?

replies(1): >>44387245 #
3. Avshalom ◴[26 Jun 25 13:31 UTC] No.44387245[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#Crit...
replies(1): >>44387421 #
4. mandmandam ◴[26 Jun 25 13:50 UTC] No.44387421{3}[source]▶
There seem to be two main points of critique there:

1. That there was war and war sucked; disease; and also infant mortality was high - therefore life sucked back then. None of that really factors in to the debate of how much free time people had; and those thing are all still very much with us (especially in America).

2. That food prep and gathering firewood takes time. Well, gathering firewood is also known as 'going for a walk in nature', and it's actually good for you. You can chat with your friends while you do it. It's not like your average job. It might not be technically 'idle', but it's a lot closer to 'idle' than flipping burgers in a sweatbox.

Same with food prep - picking through some dried beans, or stirring a pot every 30 mins and making sure it doesn't boil over, while you tell stories around the table just isn't comparable to working in an Amazon warehouse pissing into plastic bottles.

It's critique, and you can buy it if you want; but there's nothing there I would call substantial.

replies(1): >>44387667 #
5. Avshalom ◴[26 Jun 25 14:16 UTC] No.44387667{4}[source]▶
1. how many hours a day would you work if it meant not watching 6 of your 7 children die.

2. How'd you get those dried beans out of their pods? Where'd you get that pot? Where'd you get the water?

3. You didn't actually read the critique did you, you the wikipedia paragraph characterizing the critiques.

replies(1): >>44387802 #
6. mandmandam ◴[26 Jun 25 14:29 UTC] No.44387802{5}[source]▶
1. The choice isn't between having free time and having modern maternity care. And it's not what was being debated. Like, yeah, antibiotics and anesthetic are great to have, but working 40+ hours a week isn't a prerequisite for them to exist so I have no idea why you're bringing it up.

2. Sitting around the table, singing songs, telling stories, or quietly reflecting; all working at my own pace, in the comfort of a home that's been owned outright for generations, surrounded by organic soil free from pesticides and plastic.

3. I read your link, not every cited article. I've personally lived that way, and I know what I'm talking about. There's a big difference between shucking corn with your family or stacking logs, and shuffling numbers at a bullshit job which exists to make two or three incredibly rich people thousands of miles away a tiny bit wealthier. That said, if there's something more you'd like to bring to the discussion, bring it.

replies(2): >>44389152 #>>44390189 #
7. mschuster91 ◴[26 Jun 25 15:42 UTC] No.44388485[source]▶
> Most things people eat need hours of preparation that isn't counted in you 15-20 hours for example.

Yeah, and we now expect women to work 40+ hour work weeks and house work on top of that. That is the thing causing societal reproduction rates to plummet.

Let's just do the math: a day has 24 hours. The recommendation for healthy sleep is 8 hours. Then, you work for 8 hours, with 1 hour added for the unpaid lunch break. That's the two largest blocks, leaving 7 hours to distribute... dedicate 3 hours for the "staying alive" stuff (preparing for going to work in the morning, aka breakfast, shave, getting dressed, preparing dinner, eating dinner, have a shower and at least some unwind time to fall asleep).

And that in turn leaves only 4 hours for everything else: running errands (aka shopping, dealing with bureaucracy, disposing of trash, cleaning), just doing nothing to wind down your mind from a hard day at work, hobbies, social activities (talking with your friends and family or occasionally going out) and, guess what, actually having sex.

Easy to see how that's already a fully packed day. Society just took the productivity gains from women no longer having to deal with a lot of menial work (washing dishes and clothing, as that got replaced by machines, and repairing clothes) and redistributed these hours to capitalism.

And now, imagine a child on top of that. Add at least half an hour in the morning to help get the kid ready for school, an hour to drive the kid to errands (because public transit is more like "transhit"), and another two hours to help the kid with homework because that workload is ridiculous and you don't want the kid to fall behind kids of parents rich enough to afford private tutors. But... whoops, isn't that just about the entire "everything else" time block? And younger children need even more work, constantly changing nappies, going to the doctor's all the time because it's one new bug every new week and sometimes the bug also catches you cold...

8. Avshalom ◴[26 Jun 25 16:57 UTC] No.44389152{6}[source]▶
Where'd the corn come from? hunter gatherers had teosint. How'd you turn a tree into logs? Where'd the house come from, where'd the table come from?
9. kulahan ◴[26 Jun 25 18:51 UTC] No.44390189{6}[source]▶
You’re not really responding to what he’s saying. You’re sitting at the middle of the story, where the family is no longer surviving, but rather thriving. It’s probably possible to do this, but it’s a difficult stage to reach, and maintaining it requires a LOT of resources.

And anyways, if you’re a hunter-gatherer, you’re following your prey, not sitting around growing corn to be shucked while you sing songs or whatever.

By the way, my buddies and I tell each other stories at work all the time? You can do this at work too, you know. What you seem to be doing is imagining a world where you’ve outsourced all your labor to “it’ll get done” land, then combined hunter-gatherer lifestyles with agrarian lifestyles