March 21 2024
Phone-based childhood
1 Evidence mounts on harm caused to children by smartphones, social media
2 Blue cities experiment with unconditional cash grants
3 Biden EPA releases new vehicle emission standards
4 Legal status of TX border law in limbo as courts issue rapid fire decisions
3/21/1965 MLK begins the march from Selma to Montgomery
see ad astra on x @greg_loving
1 Evidence mounts on harm caused to children by smartphones, social media
Something went suddenly and horribly wrong for adolescents in the early 2010s. By now you’ve likely seen the statistics: Rates of depression and anxiety in the United States—fairly stable in the 2000s—rose by more than 50 percent in many studies from 2010 to 2019. The suicide rate rose 48 percent for adolescents ages 10 to 19. For girls ages 10 to 14, it rose 131 percent. The problem was not limited to the U.S.: Similar patterns emerged around the same time in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, the Nordic countries, and beyond. By a variety of measures and in a variety of countries, the members of Generation Z (born in and after 1996) are suffering from anxiety, depression, self-harm, and related disorders at levels higher than any other generation for which we have data. The decline in mental health is just one of many signs that something went awry. Loneliness and friendlessness among American teens began to surge around 2012. Academic achievement went down, too. According to “The Nation’s Report Card,” scores in reading and math began to decline for U.S. students after 2012, reversing decades of slow but generally steady increase. PISA, the major international measure of educational trends, shows that declines in math, reading, and science happened globally, also beginning in the early 2010s. As the oldest members of Gen Z reach their late 20s, their troubles are carrying over into adulthood. Young adults are dating less, having less sex, and showing less interest in ever having children than prior generations. They are more likely to live with their parents. They were less likely to get jobs as teens, and managers say they are harder to work with. Many of these trends began with earlier generations, but most of them accelerated with Gen Z.
What happened in the early 2010s that altered adolescent development and worsened mental health? Theories abound, but the fact that similar trends are found in many countries worldwide means that events and trends that are specific to the United States cannot be the main story. I think the answer can be stated simply, although the underlying psychology is complex: Those were the years when adolescents in rich countries traded in their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online—particularly onto social-media platforms designed for virality and addiction. Once young people began carrying the entire internet in their pockets, available to them day and night, it altered their daily experiences and developmental pathways across the board. Friendship, dating, sexuality, exercise, sleep, academics, politics, family dynamics, identity—all were affected. Life changed rapidly for younger children, too, as they began to get access to their parents’ smartphones and, later, got their own iPads, laptops, and even smartphones during elementary school.
Atlantic, Jonathan Haidt
2 Blue cities experiment with unconditional cash grants
Houston is joining dozens of American cities and counties—most led by Democrats—that are experimenting with guaranteed-income programs amid growing wealth inequality in the U.S. The programs are part of a trend at the local and national level toward providing direct, largely unconditional payments to Americans for everything from pandemic relief to child assistance. They reflect a growing sentiment among economists, tech industry leaders and Democrats that distributing money without strings is one of the most effective and least bureaucratic ways to help struggling Americans. Other cities that have experimented with guaranteed-income programs include Stockton, Calif., Birmingham, Ala., Louisville, Ky., and Nashville, Tenn.
Bobbie Hines has been living in her modest home in southeast Houston for 56 years. But these days, she’s struggling more than ever to afford groceries and pay for mounting medical expenses.
When Hines saw a local news report about a pilot program offering $500 monthly payments to low-income residents, she thought it was a hoax. But after consulting with her family, she decided to apply. She says the extra money would change her life. Hines is one of more than 80,000 residents of Harris County, the third most populous county in the U.S., who have applied. The program, which is set to start this spring, has roughly 1,900 spots.
WSJ
3 Biden EPA releases new vehicle emission standards
The Biden administration enacted the strictest-ever rules for tailpipe emissions but also handed the auto industry a significant concession by giving them more time to comply, a recognition that the transition to electric cars will take longer than hoped. The rules released by the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday ratchet up more gradually than regulators originally proposed, pushing the car industry toward majority EV sales by early next decade. That decision is to allow time for Americans to warm to EVs, as more chargers get installed and automakers work to develop supply chains and more-affordable electric models. Auto executives and dealers lobbied hard for a slower implementation as the pace of U.S. EV sales decelerates, following a burst of enthusiasm in recent years. The less-aggressive rollout of the rules is a win for traditional automakers, which had cautioned President Biden that the EPA targets proposed a year ago—to effectively require that fully electric cars account for about 60% of new-vehicle sales by the 2030 model year—would get ahead of consumers.
WSJ
The backlash has already begun
Biden officials are stressing that the new auto greenhouse gas emissions standards they rolled out on Wednesday aren’t an electric-vehicle mandate. But the liberal press and climate lobby don’t buy it, and neither should Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency somewhat eased CO2 emissions requirements through 2030 from its proposal last spring while maintaining essentially the same end-point for 2032. That means gas-powered cars can make up no more than 30% of auto sales by 2032. Make no mistake: This is a coerced phase-out of gas-powered cars.
EVs made up less than 8% of new auto sales last year, and more than half were Teslas. They accounted for less than 4% of General Motors and Ford sales. Foreign luxury auto makers such as BMW (12.5%), Mercedes (11.4%) and Porsche (10%) will have an easier time meeting the Biden mandates because their affluent customers can more easily afford EVs. The average price of a new EV is roughly $50,000, and only two cost less than $40,000 as of December: the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf. Some makers have slashed EV prices to boost sales, but they are also losing money. Ford ran an operating loss of $4.7 billion on its EV business in 2023, equivalent to $64,731 per EV sold. The companies are heavily subsidizing EVs with profits from gas-powered cars. This means middle-class Americans in Fargo are paying more for gas-powered cars so the affluent in Napa Valley can buy cheaper EVs. This cost-shift won’t be financially sustainable as the Biden mandate ramps up, and it may not be politically sustainable either.
WSJ Editorial Board
4 Legal status of TX border law in limbo as courts issue rapid fire decisions
A panel of three federal appeals court judges heard arguments on Wednesday in a bitter legal fight between Gov. Greg Abbott and the Biden administration over Texas’ new migrant arrest law, punctuating a dizzying series of legal developments over the previous 24 hours that left migrants and many law enforcement officials in Texas confused and uncertain. The session had been hastily convened the day before by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, leaving lawyers scrambling to prepare for a hearing that could determine whether one of the nation’s most aggressive state efforts to enforce security on the U.S.-Mexico border should be allowed to become law.
The hearing followed a rapid series of back-and-forth court decisions on Tuesday, including a procedural ruling by the Supreme Court that allowed the law to briefly go into effect for several hours. Then, on Tuesday night, the appeals court panel blocked the law again, ruling in a 2-to-1 decision.
NYT
What is the TX law?
A new Texas law that would allow state and local police to arrest migrants who have entered the state without authorization briefly went into effect this week before it was halted by a federal appeals court. The law would essentially expand Gov. Greg Abbott’s operation in Eagle Pass to the entire state. The Biden administration has said the law would subvert the federal government’s authority to set and enforce border policy. The current federal policy allows Customs and Border Protection officers to process and detain migrants who wish to seek asylum in the United States. In many cases, the agency can admit them into the country with a notice to later appear in court, where a judge will determine whether they can stay. Migrants caught on the border in some parts of Eagle Pass, however, can be arrested for trespassing and jailed, whether or not they are seeking asylum.
NYT
3/21/1965 MLK begins the march from Selma to Montgomery
Thanks for reading!
