New ‘Digital Divide’ Seen in Wasting Time Online(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
New ‘Digital Divide’ Seen in Wasting Time Online
http://nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in-wasting-time-online.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
30 comments
The poor should eat gruel and play with things they build out of discarded refuse, or they're not poor!
Seriously though, children are ridiculously expensive with their need to be entertained. If you're in the inner city then having your kids indoors playing video games is cheaper/safer/better for society than letting them roam the streets.
Even if you purchased all that stuff new it'd be around $1,500. Given 10 hours a day consumption (from the article) and a device lifespan of 3 years then the cost is around 10 cents/hour to keep your kid off the streets, off drugs and engaged in some kind of activity.
Compare to going to the movies (guessing at $10/hr), after-school clubs ($2/hr), summer camp ($1.50/hr), renting a DVD ($0.50/hr), smoking weed ($20/hr) or reading a book ($1/hr) then video games are one of the most cost effective ways for poor people to entertain children.
Seriously though, children are ridiculously expensive with their need to be entertained. If you're in the inner city then having your kids indoors playing video games is cheaper/safer/better for society than letting them roam the streets.
Even if you purchased all that stuff new it'd be around $1,500. Given 10 hours a day consumption (from the article) and a device lifespan of 3 years then the cost is around 10 cents/hour to keep your kid off the streets, off drugs and engaged in some kind of activity.
Compare to going to the movies (guessing at $10/hr), after-school clubs ($2/hr), summer camp ($1.50/hr), renting a DVD ($0.50/hr), smoking weed ($20/hr) or reading a book ($1/hr) then video games are one of the most cost effective ways for poor people to entertain children.
Amortised across 5 years, that's less than £10/wk (2 laptops, a 360, a Wii, a bunch of games and a phone with credit can be had for considerably less than £2600).
Technology is a very cost-effective form of entertainment. Much better value than going on holiday, going to restaurants or going to the cinema.
Technology is a very cost-effective form of entertainment. Much better value than going on holiday, going to restaurants or going to the cinema.
I find it vastly preferable to go the other direction, converting weekly or monthly expenses into annualized sums. £10/week doesn't sound like much... but £520/year is 2.6% of the post-tax annual median income in the UK [1]. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad way to spend that money, just that you're better off thinking of it is as 2.6% of annual income. It's too easy to £10/week this, £10/week that your way into overspending, but add up 4 of them and see it as 10% of your income and you start to take notice.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Po... , with 20K at the 50th percentile
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Po... , with 20K at the 50th percentile
> Much better value than going on holiday
It might be cheaper, sure, but whether it's better value is questionable, especially when you define value as being the best return on your use of time, ultimately the most precious resource you have.
It might be cheaper, sure, but whether it's better value is questionable, especially when you define value as being the best return on your use of time, ultimately the most precious resource you have.
Second-hand workable laptop: ca $100 each
X box 360: $200 (new)
Wii: $150 (new)
Phone: $20
Also, consider that it's been many years since the 360 and the Wii came out - these purchases could all have occurred in different years.
These things just aren't the luxury items they used to be.
X box 360: $200 (new)
Wii: $150 (new)
Phone: $20
Also, consider that it's been many years since the 360 and the Wii came out - these purchases could all have occurred in different years.
These things just aren't the luxury items they used to be.
And that, my friends, is the miracle of capitalism.
the miracle being we can have all the electronics we want but not healthcare
There's a working market for electronics.
In which families spend large sums of money on cell phone contracts, DirecTV plans, video games, loading up on debt with high interest to be good consumers of 60" televisions, and eating out regularly, but won't save money to buy health insurance.
The math on that doesn't even remotely add up. A single months COBRA for a family of four could buy most of what you listed. Fully private/non-cobra would be even more, assuming they could even get it.
A family of three can get reasonable health insurance for $500 / month depending on how comprehensive you want it and how low you want your deductible.
I see middle class Americans blowing their money on $30,000 vehicles they don't need, and running their credit cards bills to the moon at 10%+ interest rates.
People have forgotten that health insurance was never designed to cover sore throats. It was designed for catastrophic coverage. Not to be used when you sprain your ankle, but when you get cancer.
When I was 25 years old I was able to get a very good HSA for close to $100 / month. It had a $2,000 deductible, and was not to be used for a stubbed toe, it was for a severe health scenario (thus the "insurance" part, just like car insurance, designed for serious accidents, not a rock chipping your paint). The HSA paid into a tax free account that could cover things like a stubbed toe (tax free so long as it was properly used for health related items).
A smart phone contract for three people will put you at $175 to $250 depending. DirecTV is commonly $100 / month if you want much on the setup. Look up how much your typical family can save by not eating out.
It's not far off at all to say that a family of three can save $750 to $1,000 / month by driving cheaper vehicles, living in small homes, dropping the crazy cell phone plans, dropping the hyper expensive DirecTV plans, and not eating out. Oh but of course that's unreasonable, that people not live beyond their means.
The average white middle class male in America earns $60,000 per year. That person and his wife can EASILY slash enough out of their budget to pay for health insurance. EASILY.
The whole point is: Americans have been extraordinarily irresponsible over the last 30 years. Instead of saving, they've spent themselves into oblivion. Affording health insurance is trivially easy for the middle class, but they've chosen not to be responsible. Previous generations didn't make the same stupid fiscal decisions. They bought cheap vehicles and homes half as big, and didn't use credit card debt to live.
The only legitimate argument for socialized medicine is for poor people and scenarios where someone has a pre-existing condition.
I see middle class Americans blowing their money on $30,000 vehicles they don't need, and running their credit cards bills to the moon at 10%+ interest rates.
People have forgotten that health insurance was never designed to cover sore throats. It was designed for catastrophic coverage. Not to be used when you sprain your ankle, but when you get cancer.
When I was 25 years old I was able to get a very good HSA for close to $100 / month. It had a $2,000 deductible, and was not to be used for a stubbed toe, it was for a severe health scenario (thus the "insurance" part, just like car insurance, designed for serious accidents, not a rock chipping your paint). The HSA paid into a tax free account that could cover things like a stubbed toe (tax free so long as it was properly used for health related items).
A smart phone contract for three people will put you at $175 to $250 depending. DirecTV is commonly $100 / month if you want much on the setup. Look up how much your typical family can save by not eating out.
It's not far off at all to say that a family of three can save $750 to $1,000 / month by driving cheaper vehicles, living in small homes, dropping the crazy cell phone plans, dropping the hyper expensive DirecTV plans, and not eating out. Oh but of course that's unreasonable, that people not live beyond their means.
The average white middle class male in America earns $60,000 per year. That person and his wife can EASILY slash enough out of their budget to pay for health insurance. EASILY.
The whole point is: Americans have been extraordinarily irresponsible over the last 30 years. Instead of saving, they've spent themselves into oblivion. Affording health insurance is trivially easy for the middle class, but they've chosen not to be responsible. Previous generations didn't make the same stupid fiscal decisions. They bought cheap vehicles and homes half as big, and didn't use credit card debt to live.
The only legitimate argument for socialized medicine is for poor people and scenarios where someone has a pre-existing condition.
Perhaps money is now tight (nothing left for a contingency fund or retirement savings), because they spend so much on frivolous amusements?
'tight' doesn't mean the family is formally poor. Plus there are very few expensive gadgets anymore.
You're assuming logical spending habits.
My guess is that rich parents take their kids to the zoo and violin lessons and what not, while poor kids have more time to waste on Facebook and Angry Birds. Not too surprising or alarming if you ask me.
The real digital divide is between creators and consumers. I'd like to see more effort to get kids to create with computers. Like programming, but also writing, drawing, etc.
The real digital divide is between creators and consumers. I'd like to see more effort to get kids to create with computers. Like programming, but also writing, drawing, etc.
Yes---I'd be willing to bet that similar pre-digital age studies showed poorer children spent more time watching TV, hanging out with friends on street corners and playing stick ball, while kids from wealthier families were practicing the cello and going to Space Camp.
Studies have shown a correlation between the ability to delay gratification as a young child and future success in life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment).
Social media and video games are one of the most ingenius/insidious dopamine releasers ever invented. It's not surprising kids prefer the dopamine hit _now_ to hard work. (Don't we all?)
Well off children surely have problems with this too, but they have more of a cushion to fall back on if they fail, and their parents are probably more aware of the problem since they are more familiar with computers.
Social media and video games are one of the most ingenius/insidious dopamine releasers ever invented. It's not surprising kids prefer the dopamine hit _now_ to hard work. (Don't we all?)
Well off children surely have problems with this too, but they have more of a cushion to fall back on if they fail, and their parents are probably more aware of the problem since they are more familiar with computers.
It would be nice to get the data from the study that's mentioned, if it's available somewhere. What bits are parceled out in this article seem pretty hard to interpret conclusively without more.
For example, they mention that children from less-educated families use "media" 90 minutes/day more than those from better-educated families, but don't break it down into which kind of media. In addition, "Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours." This could potentially have a large effect, but it's not mentioned how large. Are children from less-educated families using media for more total time, or multitasking more, or both? Or perhaps they're even using media for less total time, but multitasking more? Or using it for much more time, but multitasking less? This double-counting metric doesn't make much sense to me in the first place.
The causal conclusion about parents being "unable to monitor" their kids' usage also seems like only one of many hypotheses. Another one is that kids from less-educated families, which the article notes tend to be poorer, have fewer alternative entertainment options available to them.
For example, they mention that children from less-educated families use "media" 90 minutes/day more than those from better-educated families, but don't break it down into which kind of media. In addition, "Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours." This could potentially have a large effect, but it's not mentioned how large. Are children from less-educated families using media for more total time, or multitasking more, or both? Or perhaps they're even using media for less total time, but multitasking more? Or using it for much more time, but multitasking less? This double-counting metric doesn't make much sense to me in the first place.
The causal conclusion about parents being "unable to monitor" their kids' usage also seems like only one of many hypotheses. Another one is that kids from less-educated families, which the article notes tend to be poorer, have fewer alternative entertainment options available to them.
Double counting multitasking (second screen, etc.) puts the whole study in question. Why on earth would this be relevant? All it does is skew the results and exaggerate their conclusions.
The time I spent reading this article puts me firmly in the wasting time category.
The time I spent reading this article puts me firmly in the wasting time category.
tl;dr; Poor people are irresponsible and waste time on facebook, maybe rich people do something different. The title suggests a digital divide, but the body only discusses one side of it. Statistics are hinted at but not given.
I wouldn't be surprised if that study was written from end to beginning. That's the kind of thing that usually gets picked up by the media. They comb through thousands of B.S sociology studies and report on the ones that represents an amusing, interesting, or politically useful narrative.
Technology is definitely a force amplifier, so I guess it's not surprising that it will amplify pre-existing anti-patterns.
I think this is an interesting topic, but I have my doubts about the methodology of this study:
> Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.
It sounds to me that the so-called increase could be explained simply by the addition of the internet, or ever present cell phones. If the average poor person watched 3 hours a day of television in 1999, but now occasionally sends a text or browses facebook during ads, it's now 6 hours?
10 years ago I noted an inverse correlation between socio-economic status and time spent watching TV; now it's Facebook instead. Plus ça change, etc.
> Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.
It sounds to me that the so-called increase could be explained simply by the addition of the internet, or ever present cell phones. If the average poor person watched 3 hours a day of television in 1999, but now occasionally sends a text or browses facebook during ads, it's now 6 hours?
10 years ago I noted an inverse correlation between socio-economic status and time spent watching TV; now it's Facebook instead. Plus ça change, etc.
This is true of all media-related innovations. Once again, there isn't really a new "problem" here, nor is this in any way novel. It's the usual distribution among people.
Before computers and the Internet, ink, paper, typewriters, printing presses, broadcast television and radio were mostly used for bread and circus, too, by volume, despite the ways in which their development opened unprecedented new mass-learning opportunities and lent itself to more "elevated" purposes.
Before computers and the Internet, ink, paper, typewriters, printing presses, broadcast television and radio were mostly used for bread and circus, too, by volume, despite the ways in which their development opened unprecedented new mass-learning opportunities and lent itself to more "elevated" purposes.
Relevant: http://www.halfsigma.com/2011/10/computers-education-and-hbd...
Quote: Probably it won't be too long before underperformance is blamed on the presence of computers, which are after all a big distraction.
How true.
Quote: Probably it won't be too long before underperformance is blamed on the presence of computers, which are after all a big distraction.
How true.
Amusing that the article considers all social media use as "time-wasting" and whatever undocumented things rich people do as non-timewasting.
The only conclusion from the study is that poor kids spend more time online, the whole "digital divide"/"time wasting" thing is dubious editorial spin.
The only conclusion from the study is that poor kids spend more time online, the whole "digital divide"/"time wasting" thing is dubious editorial spin.
I think it's time we start taxing video gaming like we do real gaming.
From the article: "At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone." (emphasis mine)
This is a family "where money is tight"?!
Whatever point the article is trying to make about the "digital divide" is obscured if they believe that a poor family is one with two computers, two game consoles, and where each kid has his/her own cell phone.