Connect with us

Business

Modern parenting is hurting kids and adults, ‘Anxious Generation’ author warns

Published

on



Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt is the author of The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, which has remained on the New York Times bestseller list since it was published one year ago. 

“It has struck a chord,” said Ezra Klein Show host Ezra Klein on Tuesday’s episode of the podcast, which featured Haidt as a guest for an hour-and-13-minute discussion on the endless parenting struggle of trying to keep kids off screens.

The wide-ranging interview expounded upon Haidt’s four golden rules for curbing screen use—no smartphones before high school, no social media before 16, far more unsupervised play and independence for kids, and phone-free schools—and celebrated the fact that the last recommendation, about schools, is seeing some traction in various states. 

But he also, in speaking with Klein, expanded on his four rules, warning that “modern parenting” appears to be hurting, not helping, the cause. Below, three of his most urgent messages to parents.

Stop spending so much time with your kids

Yes, you read that right. According to Haidt, the importance of “quality time” is a myth, and in fact does your child a disservice. He discussed this within the context of his rule about kids needing more unsupervised play, which is something too much screen time—as well as an omnipresent parent—robs. 

“It’s not the parent’s job to socialize the child all along. It’s the parent’s job to provide the right environment to provide certain kinds of moral frameworks,” Haidt explained. He noted that, in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, “women were not spending five hours a day parenting,” because kids were more often left to their own devices—playing and roaming for hours at a time with other kids, the younger ones learning from the older ones.

“Everyone before the millennials had this childhood,” he said, noting that it shifted in the 1990s, when fears of abduction and the like took over. 

“But the real work of brain development doesn’t happen when you’re with your parents. Your parents are home base—they’re your attachment figure,” Haidt continued. “When you feel securely attached, then you go off and explore…and that’s where the learning happens.”

It’s why, he added, “modern parenting is not good for the kids—and certainly not good for the adults,” particularly moms, who tend to bear the brunt of round-the-clock parenting.

But, Klein asked, what about the widely-held belief that spending lots of quality time with your kids is what makes a good parent?

“It’s definitely not true,” Haidt said. “You want to give your kids a quality childhood. You want to be a quality parent. But that doesn’t mean that you have to spend a lot of quality time with your kid. You need a warm, trusting, loving relationship. You need to provide structure and order and discipline.”

Too much time with a parent, he stressed, “is really bad for the kids because they don’t grow as much if their attachment figure is there.”

Understand that ‘the iPad is not like TV’

Something Haidt really wants parents to comprehend, he said, “is that the iPad is not like TV. TV is a good way of entertainment. TV puts out a story. But a touch screen is a behaviorist training device.”

When using a touch screen, he explained, “you get a stimulus, you make a response and then you get a reward, which gives you a little bit of dopamine and makes you want to do it again and again and again.” It can basically “train your child the way a circus trainer can train an animal,” he added. “So iPad or iPhone time for your 3-, 4- or 5-year-old is just not a good thing.” 

Still, there are ways that parents can distinguish between “a pretty good use of screens and a really bad use of screens.”

A pretty good use, Haidt said, is to put on a movie that’s at least 90 minutes long. That way, “they’re going to pay attention to a long movie about characters in a moral universe. There are issues of good and bad and norms and betrayal. It’s part of their moral training, their moral formation.” And ideally, he added, they’ll be watching it with another person—hopefully a parent, but a sibling or friend is also OK, he said, “because it’s social.”

By contrast, he noted, “Here’s what’s really bad: iPad time by yourself,” specifically YouTube. “Because that’s exactly the opposite. It’s solitary. They’re not consuming stories—or, if they are, they are 15 seconds long and either amoral or really immoral—disgusting, degrading things, people doing terrible things to each other.”

That does a number on attention span, Klein added, who recalled finding the “endlessness of YouTube” to be “terrifying” when his kids were little. “My kids would never even watch a full thing, because they were always hitting the next thing under it. Because there’s always something more interesting.”

Assume the worst about AI

Haidt feels certain that 2025 is the year regulators and parents and anyone else with an interest in protecting kids from screens need to “move quickly,” he explained. “This is really our last year before A.I. really has a big impact on life.”

That’s because society is moving “from the idea that A.I. enables you to know everything” to the idea that “A.I. allows you to do everything.” Now A.I. agents “are going to give us omnipotence,” he warned. “And that would be horrible for children.”

That includes the ability to create friends to your specific likings. 

“The way we adapt is by preventing kids from having these friendships,” he urged, referring to AI chatbot relationships—such as the romantic one that led to the suicide of a 14-year-old last year. 

“I think we have to stop. This is not even about the content. We have to stop saying: Oh, we just need better content moderation. No, we don’t,” he said. “We need to realize kids have to go through a childhood in the real world with other kids within a moral universe where they experience the consequences of their own actions. And they have to learn how to deal with real people who are frustrating.”

If we give our kids A.I. companions that they can order around and will always flatter them, he continued, “we are creating people who no one will want to employ or marry. So we’ve got to stop.” 

Haidt is hopeful that it’s not too late to put the genie back in the bottle—because unlike social media, AI is not yet fully enmeshed in our lives. 

“A.I. is not yet entangled. A.I. is just coming in,” he said. “And in two or three years it will be entangled.”

And what’s vital to remember before then, Haidt said, is that “Silicon Valley has a horrible track record at living up to its promises, especially for kids. They claimed that social media is going to connect everyone. No, it actually disconnected everyone.”

And while there are amazing uses for A.I., some of which Haidt appreciates, it’s important to understand that “children are not adults,” he said. “And given the track record so far, we have to assume that these A.I. companions will be very bad for our children.” So approach it with a skeptical eye, he advises. 

“Start by assuming it’s harming your kids,” he said, “and then you can bring in some uses where it’s not.”

More on screen time and kids:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s tariff formula used the wrong value in its calculations, conservative think tank says. ‘This whole thing was rigged.’

Published

on



  • A conservative think tank found the White House measured retail price elasticity when it should have used import price elasticity. That mistake meant the tariff outputs were about four times higher than they should have been. 

The formula the White House used to calculate its recent tariff is based on an error that roughly quadrupled the rates from what they should have been. 

Two scholars at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, found the White House used the wrong value when assessing the rate at which prices would change as a result of tariffs. The correct version of the formula uses price changes in the cost of imports, meaning how much it costs a U.S. based company to buy a good from a foreign seller. Instead, the White House factored in the retail price change, which is what consumers pay. 

That meant the formula was off by a factor of four, because the White House valued the elasticity of import prices at 0.25 when it should have been 0.945, according to AEI. 

“It’s pretty bush league,” Stan Veuger, one of the AEI fellows, told Fortune in phone call. “For such a big policy you’d expect a much higher level of professionalism.”

Using the wrong value rendered the formula inaccurate, according to Veuger and his coauthor Kevin Corinth.

“Now, our view is that the formula the administration relied on has no foundation in either economic theory or trade law,” Corinth and Veuger wrote. “But if we are going to pretend that it is a sound basis for U.S. trade policy, we should at least be allowed to expect that the relevant White House officials do their calculations carefully.”

Another AEI economist, Derek Scissors, went even further, saying the administration hadn’t made a mistake, so much as intentionally fudged the math to get the outcome they wanted. 

“This whole thing was rigged,” Scissors said Monday on CNBC. “It was a manipulated way to get very high tariffs because President Trump wanted to announce very high tariffs.” 

In their original report Corinth and Veuger said they hoped the White House would lower its tariff rates as a result of their discovery. “Hopefully they will correct their mistake soon: the resulting trade liberalization would provide a much-needed boost to the economy and may yet help us stave off a recession,” they wrote. 

The three trading days since President Donald Trump announced the U.S.’s new tariff regime saw markets across the world tank. In the U.S., the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and NASDAQ Composite all cratered. In Asia, stocks in Japan and Hong Kong sank even further on Monday, after Trump vowed to escalate the ongoing trade war. While in Europe stocks fell roughly 4.5% on Monday, after a dismal performance last week. 

The calculations used by the White House were already somewhat controversial after it became apparent that discounted “reciprocal tariff” amounts were based on a simple formula of dividing the U.S.’s trade deficit with a foreign country by that country’s total exports to the U.S. The resulting number was then divided by two and used as the tariff rate for said country. 

Even without the error, the formula was dubious, Corinth and Stan Veuger said. The formula “does not make economic sense,” they wrote. “The trade deficit with a given country is not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography, etc.”  

Given that the Trump administration’s tariffs were billed as reciprocal tariffs, analysts and investors had expected they would be based on a careful examination of a country’s trade and non-trade barriers with respect to American-made goods. Instead they were based on the formula, which the Washington Post reports President Donald Trump personally insisted on using.  

Trump’s personal views on tariffs were, in Veuger’s view, the principal reason for the recent tariff policy.

“What’s driving the policy, is that since the 1980s Trump has been a protectionist, and he thinks trade deficits are losses and trade surpluses are profits,” Veuger said. “He just likes tariffs. Then you can backfill them with various a little more sophisticated, intellectualized rationalizations. But that’s what it is—it’s rationalization.”

The White House said using retail prices instead of import prices was warranted because consumers make purchasing decisions based on retail rather than wholesale prices. A spokesperson added that in their view the tariff rates should actually have been larger.

Corinth and Veuger pointed to research from Harvard Business School professor Alberto Cavallo cited in the U.S. trade representative’s (USTR) memo about how the tariff formula, as evidence the calculations misinterpreted the difference between retail prices and import prices. Cavallo’s work “makes this distinction clear,” they wrote. 

Cavallo himself also addressed the fact his work was referenced in the USTR’s report. 

“It is not entirely clear how they use our findings,” Cavallo wrote on X last week. “Based on our research, the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs is closer to 1. If that figure were used instead of 0.25, the implied reciprocal tariffs would come out about four times smaller.”

If that version of the formula were adopted it would drastically lower the tariff rates imposed on countries. For example Cambodia’s 49% rate, would drop down to 13% and Vietnam’s would go from 46% to 12.2%. The vast majority of countries would end up being subject to the 10% tariff minimum the White House that is part of the White House’s new policy.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Even Trump’s allies fear he’s leading America into a recession with his tariffs. Here are some off-ramps

Published

on



President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” last week was more like a Day of Economic Infamy. With the announcement of sweeping new tariffs on friends and foes alike, he certainly made history. 

The open question: Is it all a negotiating ploy? Or does the president really want to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world, start a trade war, and collapse relationships that have kept the world relatively peaceful since World War II? The announcement certainly accomplished one goal—making news. The executive orders imposing a 10% baseline tariff on all countries and far higher rates on major U.S. trading partners sparked a media frenzy, with commentators, economists, and historians noting parallels to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which are widely recognized as a contributor to the Great Depression.

Even Trump’s allies are speaking out against the tariffs. “We are in the process of destroying confidence in our country as a trading partner, as a place to do business, and as a market to invest capital,” wrote Pershing Square CEO Bill Ackman, who endorsed Trump last summer, in an X post on Sunday. Ackman proposed a 90-day timeout to “negotiate and resolve unfair asymmetric tariff deals.”

It’s no surprise that Wall Street and the markets hate these tariffs. Corporate leaders are in shock—reorganizing priorities, halting investments, freezing hiring, and beginning shutdowns, all while trying to keep stakeholders calm. Retailers are flummoxed.

On Capitol Hill, the tariffs also prompted predictable reactions. Democrats are delighted as newfound proponents of free trade. Republican politicians have discovered the joy of tariffs. Some unions are excited. Others are skeptical. Meanwhile, Americans are split and foreign leaders are horrified.

I see it from a different perspective as the head of the Consumer Technology Association, which represents some 1,300 tech companies. Last week, I spoke strongly against these tariffs. In doing so, I felt I was saying the obvious: These are massive tax hikes on Americans that will drive inflation, kill jobs, and may cause a recession. The Day of Economic Infamy marked the beginning of not only a global trade war, but the severing of our ties with longtime allies and trade partners. The markets agreed, with more than $5.6 trillion (and climbing) in lost stock market value since the announcement.

President Trump clearly has a plan, but I worry that his view of our country is stuck in the past. I keep hearing President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick talk about huge new American factories. But in a high-employment environment, it’s not clear that factories are where Americans aspire to work. Even if they did, Secretary Lutnick has acknowledged that highly automated factories will employ few Americans, other than those who build them and fix them.

The reality is that not everything can be made in the United States, and not everything should be. Beyond goods with national security implications like ships and planes, Americans are better served by investing in strong supply chains that bring low-cost goods from around the globe.

So, what’s the solution? One possible off-ramp—and possibly the preferred option for President Trump—is dealmaking. The Trump wish list may include lower tariffs from these countries, commitments to buy American goods, or investment in the U.S. If President Trump cuts a deal with Vietnam or another major manufacturing country, others will follow, and markets will calm. In fact, rumors abound that those deals are already made and will soon be announced. This is a best-case scenario, pushing the world to lower or even zero tariffs.

Another option is action from Congress, which granted President Trump tariff authority and can take it back. Policymakers are already hearing from unhappy constituents. If they face the prospect of a blue wave in the 2026 midterms, they may decide that risk outweighs the president’s wrath.

We are already starting to see some Republican rebellion. Last Wednesday, a bipartisan group of senators passed a resolution refuting the “economic emergency” justifying tariffs on Canada. Senators Chuck Grassley and Maria Cantwell have also proposed giving Congress the right to reverse new tariffs. Every few hours we hear another Republican politician publicly questioning the wisdom of President Trump’s approach to tariffs. If the markets continue their nosedive, more leaders will speak up.

Of course, President Trump is a master of rhetoric. If he sees the economy go south and public anger rise, he may attempt to turn around public sentiment by doubling down on claims that tariff revenue is needed to fund economy-boosting tax cuts. While changes to tax law require action from Congress, new framing could help bolster political support.

A final option is litigation. A plain reading of the statute President Trump used to apply these tariffs makes it clear that it was written for genuine emergencies, and these tariff actions stretch that term well beyond any rational meaning. By the time you read this, lawsuits will likely have been filed in federal courts seeking tariff injunctions. However, judges rule slowly, appeals take time, and the judicial approach is fraught with risk, tardiness, and a certain randomness.

If President Trump and our political leadership refuse these off-ramps, the result will be a trade war that wreaks economic havoc on the world. Let’s hope at least some of our leaders are focused on helping Americans truly get “liberated.”

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

What is a bear market? How Trump’s tariff blitz caused a market meltdown that could send the S&P 500 to lows not seen since 2022

Published

on



 Wall Street could soon be in the claws of another bear market as the Trump administration’s tariff blitz fuels fears that the added taxes on imported goods from around the world will sink the global economy.

The last bear market happened in 2022, but this decline feels more like the sudden, turbulent bear market of 2020, when the benchmark S&P 500 index tumbled 34% in a one-month period, the shortest bear market ever.

Here are some common questions about bear markets:

Why is it called a bear market?

A bear market is a term used by Wall Street when an index such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 20% or more from a recent high for a sustained period of time.

Why use a bear to refer to a market slump? Bears hibernate, so they represent a stock market that’s retreating. In contrast, Wall Street’s nickname for a surging market is a bull market, because bulls charge.

The S&P 500, Wall Street’s main barometer of health, closed 0.2% lower Monday after having been down by as much as 4.7%. It’s now 17.6% below the all-time high it set on Feb. 19.

The Dow industrials fell 0.9%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite, which already was in a bear market, bounced back from an early slide to eke out a 0.1% gain.

The most recent bear market for the S&P 500 ran from Jan. 3 to Oct. 12 in 2022.

What’s bothering investors?

The trade war has ratcheted up fear and uncertainty on Wall Street over how businesses and consumers will respond.

President Donald Trump followed through on tariff threats last week by declaring a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States.

Global markets cratered the next day, and the sell-off deepened after China announced it would retaliate with tariffs equal to the ones from the U.S.

Tariffs cause economic pain in part because they’re a tax paid by importers that often gets passed along to consumers, adding to inflationary pressure. They also provoke trading partners into retaliating, which can hurt all economies involved.

Import taxes can also cause economic damage by complicating the decisions businesses have to make, including which suppliers to use, where to locate factories and what prices to charge. And that uncertainty can cause them to delay or cancel investments that help drive economic growth.

The tariffs come at a time when the U.S. economy is already showing signs of slowing. Markets are also worried that tariffs could fuel inflation, which recently ticked higher.

How long do bear markets last and how deep do they go?

On average, bear markets have taken 13 months to go from peak to trough and 27 months to get back to breakeven since World War II. The S&P 500 index has fallen an average of 33% during bear markets in that time. The biggest decline since 1945 occurred in the 2007-2009 bear market, when the S&P 500 fell 57%.

History shows that the faster an index enters into a bear market, the shallower they tend to be. Historically, stocks have taken 251 days (8.3 months) to fall into a bear market. When the S&P 500 has fallen 20% at a faster clip, the index has averaged a loss of 28%.

The longest bear market lasted 61 months and ended in March 1942. It cut the index by 60%.

When is a bear market over?

Generally, investors look for a 20% gain from a low point as well as sustained gains over at least a six-month period. It took less than three weeks for stocks to rise 20% from their low in March 2020.

Should investors sell now?

If you need the money now or want to lock in the losses, yes. Otherwise, many advisers suggest riding through the ups and downs while remembering the swings are the price of admission for the stronger returns that stocks have provided over the long term.

While dumping stocks would stop the bleeding, it would also prevent any potential gains. Many of the best days for Wall Street have occurred either during a bear market or just after one ended. That includes two separate days in the middle of the 2007-2009 bear market when the S&P 500 surged roughly 11%, as well as leaps of better than 9% during and shortly after the monthlong 2020 bear market.

Advisers suggest putting money into stocks only if it will not be needed for several years. The S&P 500 has come back from every one of its prior bear markets to eventually rise to another all-time high.

The down decade for the stock market following the 2000 bursting of the dot-com bubble was a notoriously brutal stretch, but stocks have often been able to regain their highs within a few years.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.