Don’t mean to twist your point; I’m just putting some statistical information out there that I think suggests a more hopeful picture than your assertion that a random kid in 1950 had pretty good odds of a positive outcome compared to a modern kid having ‘very little’ chance of being happy.
I don’t think it is fair to gloss over the large number of people who were children in the 1950s for whom their chances of happiness were limited from the start, and to hold out some hope that maybe actually on the population level the odds for kids today are slightly better.
your assertion that a random kid in 1950 had pretty good odds of a positive outcome compared to a modern kid having ‘very little’ chance of being happy.
Didnt say a random kid. I said a kid randomly air dropped with no resource nor parenting. I didnt say what kid. I actually dont think he'd end up easily okay today, I could be wrong. Anyway my point was more about illustrating the complexity of society today compared to before, its not about sheer accuracy.
Wow. So let’s unpack that a little more shall we? A kid with no parenting in the 1950s? Maybe they’d find their way into the care of the Catholic Church, where approximately 1 in 10 of the priests were abusers. Or perhaps to a residential school like the ones Canada where 1900 kids wound up in unmarked graves.
Can you please be more specific about what ‘complexity’ in the modern world you feel would contribute to it being so much harder for a kid to survive?
I don’t think it is fair to gloss over the large number of people who were children in the 1950s for whom their chances of happiness were limited from the start, and to hold out some hope that maybe actually on the population level the odds for kids today are slightly better.
But still not good enough, for sure.