Do you think rich children stop playing younger than poor children?

[elliejjtiny]

I was watching an old episode of rich holiday poor holiday (don't judge me it's my guilty pleasure!) and there was a little girl, from a rich family who I think was 9 saying that a museum would be boring, but then getting interested and really enjoying it, playing with all the interactive bits etc. The mum said it was great and that she hadn't played like that since she was about 6. I've since noticed that other children in that programme and in real life from wealthy families be more interested in screens and grown up stuff from quite an early age.

We live in a deprived area and the children here, including mine seem to play well into their teens. They aren't glued to phones etc until 16-18ish and when we have friends round to our house the 13/14 year old's are loving the climbing frame, trampoline etc. My nearly 17 year old will have a bit of a moan about a family day out to a museum but when we get there he is really into it. He also loved a trip to the park with his friends. My younger teenagers have their costs on and are standing by the car before you can finish suggesting going out somewhere.

It made me wonder if it's just a coincidence or do children from poorer families carry on playing for longer? I'm also wondering why. One theory I had was that the children of rich families might have better/more exciting phones/games consoles etc. Children of rich families are probably more likely to have a games console each rather than one shared between the family like we do.

I think it's the opposite tbh with the poorer children I know on screens much more from a much younger age, even if they are sharing that screen with siblings (& they are often not. It'll just be a cheaper/older phone or whatever than the middle class kids eventually get).

Also the tennis lessons, music lessons, frequently longer school days, riding lessons etc etc all eat into that time. There's no time for free play amongst all the extra curricular and enrichment activities.

This is not my experience at all.

I think the opposite actually. But then it gets into stereotyping and generalisations!

Poor kids more likely to have tech to keep up with the Jones. Rich kids tend to have more hand-me-down and second hand toys because there is no stigma associated with them.

The parent of poor kids likely to be stressed over money/house/job and less time to direct play. Rich kids are shipped off to after enrichment school activities.

I would also say the opposite
We are neither rich nor poor but my DC went to Private School from Y7 after going to a mixed demographic Primary. They were much more streetwise and less likely to be into "childish" things than their peers at Private
Many of DD's peers in Y6 at State had eyelashes, handbags etc (she didn't) but at Private Smiggle backpacks were still very much De Rigeur.
Similar for DS
I think children from poorer backgrounds grow up faster in general

Interesting, lots of things I hadn't thought of.

My dc who are secondary school age and above have phones, but cheap ones. Only the 18 year old really used his much, although the 11 year old likes to make lists on his and sets multiple alarms for various things. The novelty of having one hasn't worn off yet I think! My 16 year old always has his on and charged in his pocket because he is organised but he only uses his to ring me or his dad to pick him up.

I think it’s down to parenting and life experiences. I’d say we are comfortably well off. My kids play outside. We have huge outdoor spaces for them to play in and 5 acres. They bounce on the trampoline, we have an aerial silk, a slack line, a climbing wall (sounds like a bloody circus school saying that 😂). They swim in the river in the summer. They have currently set up a tank for pet snails and for frog spawn that is now tadpoles. We have chickens and horses. They ride bikes with their friends around the field.

My 7 year old might get a bit grumpy about a museum, if he wasn’t in the right mood, but my 12 year old would be interested. We are a walking stereotype, so we do a lot of National Trust days out, which they enjoy as long as ice cream is involved. My older one certainly does spend time on her phone, though monitored and restricted, but I think it’s also because friends aren’t just next door. I’d have to drive her to friends as we live rurally, so she sees them some days, but they do a lot of messaging and FaceTimeing. Older one also does lots of sports.

But they both definitely play and aren’t overly grown up or spend loads of time on screens. I think that’s down to how we parent and just who they are. BUT it sure helps we have money to afford all the kit and the days out and the activities though and it helps that we are comfortable enough that neither of us works FT, so we’re around and can be engaged. It would be very different if we were both working 50 hours a week and still dead broke to afford all the fun things they currently do. I recognise it’s a very privileged place to be.

I’d say the opposite too. In my experience more well off families are more conscious of screen time, enrichment activities, days out, the benefits of being outside and friendships etc because they can be/ have the time/ have the resource. I don’t know any siblings with x2 VR headsets or x2 X boxes…. Each family has all the things but they are the least preferred on the list (from the parents POV)

I think ( in my experience with my own children!) that poorer children just dont get to do trampoline/museum/ those experiences that much so its more entertaining when they do. My dd has only really been to a museum maybe twice, so she loves going now, but im guessing if you went there every week it would be boring as hell

I think it's absolutely the opposite, and the poorer children grow up a lot quicker

No, I don’t think that.

We are not well off (single parent) but as I grew up in a more wealthy middle class family I have continued that ethos into my parenting. My DC do a range of healthy extra curricular activities which I prioritise out of my limited budget. Our holidays are more of the exploring, hiking, museum, educational type than a fly and flop because I know what is better for them. My DC don't have a lot of tech because it's not a priority for me, DD has a basic smartphone, and DS has kids fire tab and they share a 4 year old switch (which hardly gets touched). That's it. To me I'd rather my money was spent on a day out at a local attraction and tea in cafe or pub because that teaches them more than a newer device. So I don't think it's about your income at all. It's about your priorities as a parent and what you choose to do with your budget, whatever that is.

I think it’s nothing to do with wealth and actually not totally to do with the family either, more the children themselves. I have 4 kids, two who I have to DRAG off smartphones/ tablets, two who are about anything/ everything else. Of all of their friends, some swear by smartphones others don’t. Sometimes the children tell the others to get off their phones. They’re a range and a mix when I thiknk about each of them in terms of wealth

It’s more about the age range at home I think my friend and I have DD same age her DD is youngest of 3 and mine is older of 2, because we have a younger one we still do things for the younger age range like go to parks and they both play but hers was doing more grown up stuff with the older kids.

I agree at work the less well off families tend to have iPads and iPhones in their babies cots. The toddlers are on phones. The more affluent have other things to entertain their children with. Or bring books etc.

I think it varies a lot and you are having that in a tiny sample.

But, one thing that interested me was you saying your kids play on trampoline and climbing frame. I would associate having space for both those things in a garden as being relatively well off - I've often thought our much better off financially nephews are better at playing outside than my kids precisely because they have a big garden with lots of room for ball games and play equipment suitable for older kids, whereas we have a tiny garden which can't take anything other than toddler play stuff and an older child would kick a ball out of.

I think the opposite but this is only from watching the ReesMoggs on telly😂

I think this is not a class thing but a parenting choice. I see both ends of the wealth divide playing outside, and having fun. I would say it’s harder in a city environment, growing up in the country naturally lends itself to vast play spaces regardless of income. Committed parents can replicate that at the weekends if they live in built up areas or create similar spaces in their gardens or balconies. This is a choice all parents have, and for the sake of their children they should be outside roaming as much as possible.

There are so many variables, I don't think it's possible to pin it down to a single reason.

When you say kids on devices a lot, my brain automatically jumps to my nephews, but there are a lot of differences between our families. Our child is a similar age and will watch stuff on tv/youtube but that's about it

Us: two parent, one child family - plenty of adult time/attention, can divide and conquer when needed!
Sister: single parent, 4 kids under 10yrs. She is a great mum but she is spread thin. I have no idea how she does it tbh.

Us: 2x full time working adults
Sister: Not working, on universal credit
Not only do we naturally have more disposable income, we also have a lot of time away from our child and down time is more likely to be spent getting out and doing things as a family because we aren't in switched on parent mode 100% of the time like my sister is.

Us: 2x adults with driving licenses and own cars
Sister: doesn't drive
We think nothing of hopping in the car and going off for a day exploring at the beach, or countryside or wherever (we are NT members too, because we can afford to be), whereas my sister would need to forward plan, budget for and use public transport to get to where she wants to go.

Us: extra curricular activities are no problem, our child does scouts and a sport plus swimming lessons
Sister: older kids are limited to after school enrichment clubs - partly due to finances, partly due to logistics - single parent can't just nip out and pick the eldest up when younger ones need feeding and putting to bed at the same time

There are so many more factors when you drill down into it. We support my sister as much as we can, but she also doesnt live nearby (social housing, had to move away in order to have a roof over her head). Having an only child we will often take my eldest 2 nephews with us on days out in the holidays and they do revert back to being little kids again. We will also look after the younger two so she can do more age appropriate things with the older two. We also pay for swimming lessons.

But she's also a fucking hero in my eyes. 4 kids, on her own, kids dad has fucked off, doesn't see them, certainly doesn't contribute financially. Could I raise 4 kids on my own? Definitely not. Do I judge her for letting her kids spend what I would consider too much time on phones/devices? Absolutely not. I have no doubt that I'd do the same if it was the only way I could guarantee harmony amongst 4 kids in order to get 10 minutes peace!

We live in an area of London which is quite mixed - lots of poorer families, some richer ones.

What I notice is the poorer families living in small flats all have consoles quite young - as young as reception/year 1. When chatting to the parents, they often say that they do this because it's hard to keep kids entertained in a small flat, lack of space for toys/play. Also many have to rely on grandparents to look after their kids more and grandparents appreciate the kids being on tech..

I would say other way round as well, and from a much younger age too - all the playgrounds in the middle class areas round here are packed all the time, the ones on the estates or in more deprived areas are deserted.

I agree this is parenting rather than income but perhaps income dictates parenting… I grew up poor as my mum didn’t work and my dad was low wage; they had lots of time to play with me and not a lot of money to spend on toys/video games. I grew up on a council estate with lots of other kids.

DH and I are very comfortable - we have a combined salary of £160k and live in a nice house but no other children in our road. I work full time and DC’s have hobbies like dancing, sport, scouts so lots of time ferrying them. When I get home I don’t really want to play Barbies or shops! I work in a field adjacent to childhood development so I force myself to do those things but it would be VERY easy to just turn the telly on instead!

I'd say the opposite. Wealthy families tend to have more indoor and outdoor space. If you're crammed into a gloomy little house with almost no garden it's easier to end up using tech.

Opposite

Would class us a middle class, live in the countryside of a small town, own our own business and thankfully I don’t have to check funds if the kids have a school tour or an extra activity that needs paid at school. Now in saying that , we always put kids activities or lessons first , we don’t go out and don’t drink so it frees up extra money . But I think it’s the extra activities that “rich “ families do that hinders actual play time out on the street or even the fact they live in isolated areas where kids don’t play on street