Families Will Spend More Than a Third of Summer Staring At Screens (betanews.com)

Reader BrianFagioli writes: A new survey reveals that families will spend more than a third of the 2017 summer season with their eyes glued to some sort of screen. To make matters worse, parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328. Sadly, the overuse of "screens" are negatively impacting the health and behavior of children too. "With warmer weather finally arriving in most parts of the country and the school year winding down to a close, Groupon asked 1,000 U.S. parents how much time their families plan to spend on their electronic devices this summer -- and the results were staggering. The average American family will spend an average of 35 days of their summer, which is the equivalent of more than one-third, using their electronic devices. The survey, which was conducted for Groupon's Funtacular Fun Fest, found that the average child will watch an estimated 60 movies and play 150 hours of video games over the summer months," says Groupon.

Comments

Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[OffTheLip]

I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[hey!]

It's the power of habit and humans amazing power to adapt to whatever is usual to them. If you go outside all the time, the effort and discomfort are scarcely noticeable. If you take a couch potato and drag him on your weekend hike and it'll feel to him like a crime against humanity.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.

Do you have a family to support and take on vacation? I admit, it could be a little bit high, but I took my family of four to Universal Studios Orlando for a three night (two days in the parks) trip last month. We stayed on site, which boosted the cost quite a bit - more than the estimate in TFS just for the hotel and park tickets. We didn't have to, but you get a lot of perks and conveniences staying on site that you would have to pay for otherwise anyway, like express pass and not having to pay for parking (and early entry into the parks). Add in several days of decent (not McDonalds) meals, gas (we saved a lot by driving from GA), tolls (Florida Turnpike) and maybe a few souvenirs, and I easily topped $3500.

If you want to do something like that as cheaply as possible, you could do it for a lot less, but I suspect you'd compromise your enjoyment of it a lot as well. I'm of the opinion that if I'm going to be spending that much anyway, it's better to spend a bit more to get the best experience instead of cheaping out, but YMMV.

As far as preferring screens to outdoors, you're absolutely right. I would love to go hiking, camping, rafting, canoeing... my kids would hate it. They don't want to go to the zoo, the aquarium, or anything that even sounds like it might be a museum of any sort. I don't know what to say about that - I've forced them in the past, hoping they'd feel it wasn't so bad, but that didn't happen. They don't hate the outdoors, but our options for cheap local outdoor activities are limited.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[ravenshrike]

Sorry, but the idea that a weekend family outing needs to include Universal Studios Orlando is fucking batshit. That sort of outing should be maybe once every three years at most. A weekend outing can be as simple as going to the nearest park for the day. Doing things like hiking, biking, playing stupid outdoor games. Eating pre-prepared sandwiches and other food kept in a cooler with enough icebags to keep it cool.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[Aighearach]

You typed all those words because you can't understand a tiny little phrase like, "Many green spaces cost nothing to visit."

Universal Studios Orlando isn't a green space. We're talking about parks here. Check a map, you probably have one within walking distance. You'll probably drive anyways.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

A "day" is not a weekend, and going to the local park isn't a "getaway." You're conflating what you could do to occupy time with what they are claiming the "average" cost is for a weekend getaway. That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to (if it's not a theme park, it's something else - an aquarium, a zoo, something). They also say it's an average cost, not the cheapest thing you can possibly do.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

I typed all those words because people are talking the statement "A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328" and completely misunderstanding what they are saying. I have an annual parking permit to a park nearby - I go hiking there all the time for no extra cost, but that's not a weekend getaway, is it? A getaway involves, you know, getting away, which means travel, hotels, and restaurants at least. Nobody said you can't do something for a lot less money; nobody said you can't even get away for a whole weekend for a lot less money - that's why they said "could average" instead of "costs at least."

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

I took them outdoors.

What's the difference between a weekend getaway and a vacation? If you're spending some nights away from home, they are essentially one and the same. Sure, I could drive 300 miles away and spend two nights in a cheap hotel, eating at the local greasy spoon, and spend a LOT less for my family... but then what would they do? Sit in the hotel room insta-something or other with their friends the whole time (and during the car ride, also)?

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[Aighearach]

No, actually, the person you replied to didn't say anything about family getaways. Maybe you stepped in a pile of clickbait?

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

Really? So he wasn't responding to anything in particular, nothing in the article or the summary; he was just mentioning offhandedly, for no reason at all otherwise, that many green spaces cost nothing to visit?

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[smooth wombat]

That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to

Let's use my recent examples. I've taken a few one week vacations over the last year or so, and during that time it's cost me roughly $1,200 for each trip. That's everything from hotels, eating out, travel (gas money) as well as entrance fees to wherever and miscellaneous.

Some of what I visit is free in the sense my taxes have already paid for it, but everything else comes out of my pocket. If I can spend that little for an entire week's vacation and still have a great time, saying people are spending almost twice that over a weekend, even with kids, is a shining example of why people don't have money saved for retirement.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.

So yes, you can do things for a whole lot less, you can also do things for a whole lot more. You can't take what they say and then argue you can do it cheaper - nobody is saying you can't. But it depends on what you're doing, and what may be suitable for me, travelling alone, where I might do things as cheaply as possible just for me, is not the same thing I'd do for my family. I can stay at the cheapest hotel imaginable, but if I can afford it, I'm not going to subject my family, on vacation, to that. I could eat the cheapest food possible, travel on standby... I could do a lot of things that would reduce the cost for just me that I would NOT do when bringing my whole family along ostensibly for what should be a memorable (in a positive way) experience.

There's also the point that what I do, personally, if I'm already spending thousands of dollars for my family travel somewhere, I will spend the extra thousand to make it the best experience possible. That's me. That means paying extra for fast/express passes at theme parks; it means saying "yes" when my kids ask if they can get that very expensive T-Shirt. It means paying hundreds of dollars for my family to see the Blue Man Group when went to Universal. I can't imagine paying as much as it cost to go to one of these theme parks, stay at a hotel, pay theme park prices for food, and only go on 1/3 as many rides because I wouldn't spend the extra $400 for express passes.

Last time I traveled on my own (for work), I went hiking. It cost me nothing. But that's not what the article is talking about. The entire gist of the article may be wrong - it doesn't take a weekend family getaway to pull you away from the screen, but the numbers they are giving are for what they presume the average cost for a weekend getaway would be for a family. You can do it cheaper. You can do it more expensively. Nobody argued otherwise.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[Lost2Home]

You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.

The issue here is that the summary is misleading. The actual article (I know, who would look at that) says the family's "perfect weekend" would cost $2328. So yes, you could certainly fit in several weekend trips to nearby state parks for much less than the "perfect weekend".

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

You are misunderstanding the point, which is not that you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, but that $2350 is NOT outlandish as an "average" family getaway for a family... you can spend less, you can spend a lot more. In fact, the whole story is ridiculous because it obviously shouldn't even require a weekend getaway to get off the screens, but my argument is merely that the amount they are giving is not some crazy, ridiculous amount for a family of four to travel somewhere and do something. It makes no sense to jump on the point and argue that you can have a weekend getaway for less - nobody is arguing otherwise.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

Well, with that I agree - if fact, the whole article is misleading because it shouldn't take a weekend getaway to pull you off the screens. As a lot of people point out, going to a nearby park is free - my only point was that a weekend getaway, for a family of four, can easily be that much or more (and that's why they say average). It's silly for people to be jumping on the number they give because nobody is arguing you can't get away for less (or more).

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[Applehu Akbar]

The current state of the airline industry has turned people back to the old family road trip. If you're going to see a theme park, make it one in the next state and plan a route that includes a lot of adult attractions along the way. Take a close look at the map and you can find places to hike, explore ghost towns, see interesting downtowns, and hit the beach on the way to Wally World.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[bws111]

Here is what it says: "...parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328."

Do you understand that? They are saying they CAN NOT do more activities away from home because it is TOO EXPENSIVE, and the only number they give is that the AVERAGE 'typical weekend getaway' costs $2328.

And what everyone but you is saying is: that is bullshit. There are MANY 'outings' you can do, including weekend getaways, for FAR less than $2328. Not every experience has to be 'the best experience possible'. You should be doing something with your kids EVERY WEEKEND. Obviously, you can not go to Universal every weekend, but you sure as hell can do other things very cheaply.

It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[gfxguy]

It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you

That's because you're ignoring what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, because you're not letting it sink in: nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying. Nobody. Not the people who wrote the article, and not me. That's why they use words like "could average" instead of "costs at least." My posts reflect that people jumping in and complaining that the number too high just because they can do it cheaper are not understanding the word "average" and not reading the article which details how they come up with the number. I could spend a lot less on a weekend, I could also spend a lot more... what they are saying is if you ask people what they want to do, that's the "average" they come up with.

I'm sure if you ask people what's the "least" they could spend on a weekend family getaway, the "average" would not even approach four digits... but that's not what they are doing.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[tsqr]

You seem to be overlooking a key message of the article, which is that parents are saying "that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive". So when you say, "nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying", you are dead wrong; that's exactly what those parents are saying.

It isn't the cited cost of a weekend getaway that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the proposition that the only way to pry your kids away from their devices is to distract them with something shinier. If that's your situation, then you've already lost the battle.

Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[amxcoder]

I somewhat agree, but see both sides of the argument here. I have a famliy of 5, and it gets expensive to do much of anything outside of the house often. The article mentions a weekend 'getaway' which does to me imply a vacation of sorts, which is different than an 'outing' for a day trip. A weekend vacation can be done on the cheap, but can also get very expensive depending on what you do.

An example of both extremes:
earlier this year our family went to Disneyland. We drove there to save money on travel (and have a car when we were there). Stayed in a hotel for the week, and while we were there ate out at restaurants. We had a blast, and we all consider this our 'once every few years' type of vacation. We did a day at Knott's Berry Farm, and 3 days at Disneyland (hopper passes), and did the medieval themed dinner nearby one night. We ate at Denny's, and a few snacks in the park, but also brought sandwiches that we made with us for lunch each day to save a bit on food. We easily spent $3000 for the several day trip there and back. Between gas, lodging, food, park tickets, groceries, and other odds and ends. It would have been even more had we decided to fly there instead, or not get groceries at a local store and eat-out more (or buy more meals in the parks). So the article and OP hit the nail on the head here, it's too expensive to do very often, requires saving for the trip, and planning/budgeting, and all that.

The other extreme, is we go camping during the summer a lot. We tent camp at various campgrounds and do the outdoors things because my wife and I grew up doing that kind of stuff and love it and so do our kids. Once you have all your camping gear purchased (tent/coolers/camp-chairs/stoves/lanterns/etc.), you can go camping for several days for relatively cheap. Unfortunately it still isn't "dirt cheap", as campgrounds have really raised prices, and are now usually $25 or more a night for most of them in these neck of the woods. But even then, a 4-5 day camping trip can be done for $100-$200 plus some groceries that you bring to eat and gas to get there (varies how far you go). Not too bad. We try to fit several trips in during the summer, but too many can get old too. The problem with this is that campgrounds within a few hours of us are PACKED! We can't go 'spur of the moment' anymore. These days, we have to make reservations starting in like February for the summer. One of our favorite campgrounds was already booked up by the end of February this year. Sure, we could really 'rough-it', and go backpacking into the wilderness for a couple days, but that doesn't work to well with a whole family, including young kids and toddlers. My famlily loves camping and hiking, but they aren't too keen on digging-a-hole type camping if you know what I mean.

But, for those of you saying, "you can go to the park for free" and all that, these aren't the 'weekend getaways' that the article is talking about. And yes, you can go to the park for free, or go hiking, or geo-caching, or whatever. But these kinds of activies only give you a couple hours to a day tops to do. What then? Say you take your family out of the house to the park on Saturday, after a few hours, it's hot, the kids are tired of playing, everyone is hungry, and they've done everything there is to do already. So you go home, and you have the rest of the day, and next day still to fill up with something in order to make it a "weekend outing". This doesn't really fill-in the whole weekend.

There is other stuff you can try, but again, typical local outings for a whole family can be expensive. I looked into taking the family to the SF Exploratorium, and it's like $150-$200 plus parking (or Bart). There is lots to do around here, it's a major tourist area, but all that stuff is freaking expensive....
Day trip to Alcatraz for the famlily = >$200
Day trip to Fisherman's Wharf = $100-$200
Day at the beach = $50
Day at a local amusement park = >$250
Day at a baseball game

Re: Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[corychristison]

My family of four (my wife and I fall in the 'millennial' generation, both kids under 10) goes to the lake a minimum of 4 times during summer break.

We have 2 lakes within 'day trip' distance, and it's quite cheap. A tank of gas (~$50), plus park pass ($10), and some pre-made food in a cooler for the day makes for a great day on the beach.

My kids love it, I love it, my wife loves it. We go as often as possible. I suspect we'll get out there more this year, as my wife recently left her day job to come work for me. We're no longer bound by her work schedule where she usually had to work weekends.

Now that it's nice out I have a really hard time keeping my kids in the house. They have friends all up and down my block, lots of kids to play with in a fairly nice neighbourhood so I encourage them to play outside. After office hours, I'll do work outside/in the vegetable garden.

I love technology as much as the next guy here on Slashdot, but I also enjoy being outside and working with my hands.

Re: Many green spaces cost nothing to visit

[corychristison]

I never said it would. Neither would a single (expensive) weekend getaway like the article mentions.

In my family, screen time is fairly balanced. I use my computer or laptop for work during the day, but after that I'm generally all screened out.

My kids rarely watch the single TV we have in our home. I use it to play Spotify most of the time (hooked up to a sound system and I turn the actual screeen off, but need it to select the channel/play list I want).

They are too busy outside with their friends, just as I was as a child. This was my point.

$2300/weekend??

[eth1]

Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside.

Nowadays that'll get some powertripping CPS worker at your house threatening to take your kids to foster care if you don't do exactly what they say.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[dargaud]

And even if you do want a family WE getaway, 2300$ ?!? What do you do during this WE, snort coke with hookers and badly lose at poker or what ? I mean 50$ of gas to reach some forest, beach or mountain, 50$ in BBQ coal, food and booze, 10$ to sleep in a tent on some campground, 0$ to hike, climb or swim. Double those prices depending on local price of life but if 2300$, you are doing it wrong.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[apoc.famine]

If you sin and RTFA, you'll see that that amount is for the "perfect getaway", and includes $500 for tickets to the amusement park, $350 in food, and $1500 in travel costs.
 
So, clickbait as normal.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Jfetjunky]

Definitely.

The issue is now the outside world is competing for kids attention. The days of walking around and finding that "perfect stick" to be your sword or staff or whatever, then wielding it with friends for hours of fun has to compete with killer graphics and MMO gameplay essentially doing the same exact thing.

Except one of them teaches kids socialization and gets them active while one keeps them sedentary and exposes them to a twisted version of socialization with no real cause and effect dynamic.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[computational super]

my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer

And these days, my wife goes into hysterics if our kids set foot outside the house because she's convinced somebody will kidnap them. When I tell her I spent every single day of every single summer outside from the time I was 10 to the time I was old enough to drive she just insists that "times were different back then".

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Jzanu]

Cost includes for all assets required. Perhaps unknown to you is the fact that people are very different than your apparently limited imagination allows you to know. Those who live in apartment face limited physical space, and can not stow items used a few times per year. This means they must purchase all items to be used in an outing. For your camping idea you must consider also lost wages which the poorest can not afford outright, which again creates more cost from lost income.

Throughout Germany in the cities I have known more people without a snow shovel than with one. You think, oh well, it is cheap, and easy to store, so it is their moral fault, eh? But, that ignores the reality they face and the reality is the choices on their use of space are the correct ones for their environment. I'm sure this applies equally well to cities throughout the world, and more more so in the denser areas.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[gfxguy]

Yeah.... we'd be gone all day and only come home around dinner time... and then go back to our friends houses or the parks and come home for bedtime. My wife sounds a lot like yours. I point out there's no difference, just more ubiquitous media scare tactics, but it doesn't work.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Aighearach]

I'm about to walk to the park, it is totally free and open all year.

People don't travel for the weekend in order to look at their screens, so the alternative to looking at a screen might be on the same time scale as a TV show or movie. It might even be available without leaving their private property for most people!

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Aighearach]

Sounds like bullshit clickbait, I'll pass.

And for the record, an amusement park is full of screens.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Aighearach]

Times were very different back then. Crime was a lot higher, including kidnapping. It wasn't safe like it is now!

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Jzanu]

The problem is one of supervision in environments rife with gang activity and/or drug trade. This is not limited to cities or developed areas. Why do you think there are Appalachian methamphetamine addicts? All the open wild desirable, and yet people find drugs. And in that environment as in all others, kids unsupervised are more prone to manipulative influence to use them. This applies to every other "worry" which has a real basis, and is in contrast to the new practice of digital exploration done by kids. That is, endless worlds for them to explore and interact within. The remaining problem is physical fitness, which is best solved through exercise regimens.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[tattood]

when summer hit you couldn't keep us inside. I'm pretty sure a lot of kids today are the same really...

No.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[Cro Magnon]

Pretty much the same with me. Of course back then the only screen was on a small B&W TV.

Re:$2300/weekend??

[painandgreed]

Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).

Illegal in many states. Leaving a pre-teen unsupervised is against the law. Now kids used to be left to do as they pleased and things are a lot safer now than they were, however, I've yet to see any study if there is causation or correlation between the two.

Too expensive

[whoozwah]

A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328.

What are these people doing on the weekend? Holy crap.

Re:Too expensive

[gfxguy]

They are getting away... not going to some local park or a movie theater. Have you had to pay for your whole family to travel somewhere for a few nights? Hotels, travel expenses, restaurants.... and then you are typically paying for what you're going to, like theme parks or something. In a post above I described taking my family from GA to Universal Theme Parks in Orlando... we drove, we stayed on site, went to the park for two full days. It easily cost a lot more than that "average." Could you do things more cheaply? Of course! But they are giving an average, not the cheapest price you could possibly do something for. I could visit my parents (also in Florida, near the beach) for a lot less - stay with them for free. I'd only have travel expenses.... but then my family has to deal with my parents, which sucks the fun out of everything.

Sci-Fi novels

[OrangeTide]

There are dozens of Sci-Fi novels that predicted that we'd all be mindless slugs staring at screens all day.

Thralls, enjoy your new system of government that is about to be imposed on you. Hopefully Twitter explains it to you after the fact.

Re:Sci-Fi novels

[Aighearach]

Timothy Leary said in the 1980s that many people already are vegetoid octopus slugs with their noses pressed to an aquarium glass called a television.

Re:Sci-Fi novels

[OrangeTide]

And it bears repeating.

Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[Shag]

"All things factored in" includes what - airfare, five-star hotels and four-diamond restaurants, hookers and blow?

Even if I were tired of all the green spaces, parks, wildlife refuges, etc. etc. in my own area, $60 in gas will get me and my family a round-trip to somewhere 300 miles away, and I'm not sure how I'm going to spend $2,268 more.

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[apoc.famine]

I clicked for your sins, and that's the cost of a 'perfect weekend' which apparently involves flying to Disney World. Clickbait summary.

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[gfxguy]

$60 will get you a round trip 300 miles away... for an entire weekend? That is impressive. I need to point out, again, they are talking about an "average" cost, not a bare minimum you could get away with cost, for a weekend getaway. Yes, you can spend a lot less; you can also spend a lot more. That's why it's an "average" they have somehow come up with for a family to travel somewhere for a weekend (which one would assume would be at least two nights). I'm not trying to argue with anybody - we have a park nearby that I have an annual parking pass to that I can use to go hiking whenever I want at no additional cost, but that's not what they are talking about.

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[Aighearach]

I'm not sure which part of "getaway" you're so confused about that it sends you into an argumentative hipster rage, but "get away" doesn't say anything about blowing a bunch of money trying to look like you're spending lots of money on a vacation. All you have to do is get, and keep getting until you're away!

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[gfxguy]

You don't have to blow a lot of money, but unless your definition of "weekend family getaway" is driving 300 miles, your whole family sleeping in the car and not eating any food the whole time, I'm suggesting you're not going to do it for $60. The larger point I'm arguing is that nobody said you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, they are saying it that's what it could average. Immediately everybody jumps on that to point out how you could do it a lot less.... yes, you could. You could do it for a lot more, too. That's why it's an average.

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[Jzanu]

This fellow who argues won't understand. Slashdot has lost its users with basic numeracy faster than those with basic literacy, which is a deplorable rate in itself.

Re:Yeah - $2,328 for a weekend?

[Aighearach]

While you are dickwaving your gigantic numeracy you might want to consider upgrading your literacy, because your statement was not self-consistent.

Cost seems odd

[Gilgaron]

Year long memberships to the zoo, museum, campground, pool, etc etc don't add up to that, let alone one weekend.

Re:Cost seems odd

[Aighearach]

Yeah, when I was a kid a campground cost $6, now it costs $14!

Unbelievable. Who could afford to camp anymore?!

Re: 1/3

[Z00L00K]

And the screen time has changed from TV to computer, so nothing has changed in reality.

Screen time != indoor time

[Kjella]

Before I would read a book while getting a tan... now I can surf the net, play Angry Birds or read an e-book if I still want that.

It's dangerous outside

[Macdude]

Can you blame kids for not wanting to go outdoors when they are in serious danger of being shot by the police for walking down the street?
http://thefreethoughtproject.c...

Re:It's dangerous outside

[Cro Magnon]

The police are afraid to step into my neighborhood.

You know what's cheaper than 2000$ family outing ?

[aepervius]

A modern boardgame , a good one like pandemic, battlestar galactica, dead of winter etc... Either coop or with a traitor, played out in the garden or in a parc. And it is reusable. For "$2,328" you can even try a few different one until you find something the family click in.

76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck

[rsilvergun]

It's about all I can afford. I'm not going to do any travel. I can't afford it. I could wander around the neighborhood or go to a park I suppose, but the kid's a bit old for that. A trip down to one of the lakes burns gas and puts miles on my old car. So yeah, "staycation" it is.

Re:1/3

[computational super]

I'll say. For the average to be 1/3, there have to be two people that don't look at their screens at all to balance me out.

Re:This is moronic

[gfxguy]

I agree, but they are not talking about going to a park, they are talking about a weekend "getaway." That means travel expenses, restaurants, hotels, and paying for whatever you're visiting (like theme parks or museums or whatever you are doing). You can do it for a lot less than the "average" they give, but you could do it a lot more expensively (a LOT more expensively). That's why it's an "average," and not a bare minimum.

Re:This is moronic

[computational super]

Walk to the local park

Yeah, that's what I do. I walk to the local park so they can play on the swings while I stare at my iPhone.

Re: 1/3

[Aighearach]

I agree with Timothy Leary on this one: if you control the pixels that are on your screen, then it is very different! Then it is you creating your own reality. Which is good. And as he said in the 80s, it is more effective to control pixels to create your reality than to take psychedelics! They used drugs in the 60s to create their reality because they didn't have personal computers.

If you don't run ad blockers, then it is the same. If you allow a social media "feed" that is controlled by a company to select your pixel values, then it is perhaps even more insidious than TV.

Don't be a vegetoid octopus slug passively consuming an imposed reality.

"Who controls the screen you look at controls your mind. The upside of that is that you've got to control the screens you look at." -- Timothy Leary

Glued to the screen

[jbmartin6]

Groupon asked 1,000 U.S. parents how much time their families plan to spend on their electronic devices this summer

So a website which encourages people to be glued to the screen trawling for bargains discovers its users are glued to the screen.

Wait, what?

[dragon-file]

Only 150 hours playing video games? Kids these days, such slackers. Back in my day, kids would easily rack up 150 hours in 2-3 weeks.

Going to local parks

[future assassin]

just means bigger targets for terrorists and possible fights between families for park green space. Better just watch some tv and play SNES.

Millennials will be in charge soon

[OrangeTide]

Nope. And since the Gen-X cohort is so small, there won't be enough of Gen-X to operate leadership positions in industry and government. So the reins of power will transfer from the Baby Boomers to the Millennials, skipping a generation.

I expect a 35 year old Millennial to run for President in 2020.

Is this the new normal for humanity?

[DRJlaw]

What do you think about this state of affairs?

There's a question that tends to generate thoughtful and introspective answers...

Should parents do more to limit screen time for themselves and their children during summer?

Thinly-veiled "Do you think that other people should do more to limit screen time," which is sure to bring out the maladjusted perfectionists, the hypocrites, and anyone otherwise desperate for attention.

The answer is no. You're not qualified, you don't have reliable information, you know little or nothing about those other people, and goddamnit, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Is this the new normal for humanity?

Two income families, a general resistance to the idea of year-around school (even if only180-200/yrs instruction with multi-week breaks), and the threat of arrest/child protective services if you let your child out of your sight on public property?

Hell yes. And some appear to want to blame the parents.

Re: Is this the new normal for humanity?

[phantomfive]

It's hard to look down on people for it when I'm reading this on a 'screen'

Unintended consequences...

[Fringe]

Long long ago, we would...

• Run around outside playing cowboys & indians.
  • Only now, that's racist and violent and will get you locked up.
• Roam around the countryside with our friends.
  • Only now, that's an abdication of parenting, and results in HHS taking kids from parents.
• Play random games of dodgeball.
  • Only now, that's violent and gets you sent to counselling.
• Played soccer or competitive (organized) sports.
  • Only now, those are judgemental, because there are winners and losers, so they've over-burdened them with rules and awards to where they're no longer fun enough to do.
• Goofed off in one of our parents' backyards.
  • Only now, any minor injury results in a lawsuit, so you can't risk your neighbor kids coming over to play.
  • When younger, have birthday parties with our besties.
    • Only now, that's exclusionary and the school forbids parents from having non-school related parties at all.
  • Each our brown-bagged lunches, mostly peanut butter & jelly, together outside at recess, except for the kids who luckily brought the chips and candy.
    • Only now, peanut butter is banned. And so are candy and chips. One is dangerous and the other is, well, dangerous but slower.

  Geez, and you wonder why the kids hide from everything?

Re:Unintended consequences...

[mjwx]

Great, another long winded post from some baby boomer with rose tinted glasses.

Geez, and you wonder why the kids hide from everything?

Kids aren't hiding from having fun, they're hiding from you because they don't want to listen to another boring story about the "good old days" and how kids have it too easy these days. I'm old enough to remember scraping half my face off playing around with bike jumps constructed of whatever detritus we could find. I also vividly remember getting a giant fuck-off needle jag up my arse because of it.

So kids these days like video games, maybe you could try something as radical as trying to engage with your grand children instead of berating them about not living in your white picket fence fantasy that never existed in the real world.

Also, cops and robbers (as we called it in the commonwealth) has not been banned, kids still play British bulldog too, despite what the Daily Fail likes to tell you. So yeah, I'll get off your lawn now, its full of weeds and I'm afraid that your form of Miserable C*nts Syndrome is transmissible.

Or you could just parent...

[WolfgangVL]

Off the couch boy. It aint rainin, go play in traffic. Oh and if I catch you on that roof again I'm gonna harvest parts outta yer goddamn xbox, NOW GIT BEFORE I PUT YOU TO WORK!

But dad, my K:D is finally evening out.....

THAT'S IT! GO MOW THE FUCKING LAWN!

There's parks

[rsilvergun]

if you don't live in Detroit. If you live in a poor neighborhood they're not that green and there's drug dealers around. But besides that you're looking at travel. That means gas and a reliable car that can get you to and fro. Me? I've been stuck with a beater for years since everytime I get some money saved something blows up in my face. It's all I can do to stay out of debt. And I live a pretty modest life (no drink, no smokes, aforementioned beater car, don't eat out much, wear cheap cloths) and I make a lot more than the median. But my rent alone is 30% of my income (again, not that nice a place in not that nice a city).

Face it, income inequality is catching up with America. It's never been far behind. The difference is we have cheap electronics & telecom so we can see it coming and pretend it doesn't exist. That might or might not be an improvement on the days when we just didn't know about it.

To make matters worse

[mcswell]

"Worse"? What is this "worse"?