First US Census Bureau Report on Growing Childless Older Adult Population(census.gov)
census.gov
First US Census Bureau Report on Growing Childless Older Adult Population
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/childless-older-adult-population.html
168 comments
Picture a tree. At every instant, every branch tip in the tree makes a decision: keep growing linearly, spawn a new branch, or stop growing altogether. How the tip makes the decision is unknown, but in the end the tree is perfectly balanced. Had excessively many tips decided to branch (“all my ancestor tips branched, if I don’t then all their work was for nothing”), the tree would be far too tangled and nutrients would be wasted developing far too many branches which all must compete against each other to secure more nutrients. On the contrary, if too many tips decide not to develop (“this dismal nitch is is devoid of all nourishment, progressing further would be a waste of resources, I should just end it now”), the tree has no chance of persisting through a thick undercoat to reach the riches above.
Point is, every individual entity “goes with their gut” and the final product is beauty. Too many try to meta-analyze it, maximize their own gains, etc, and the final product cripples.
Idk, maybe I’m just stoned at the nail salon. :)
Point is, every individual entity “goes with their gut” and the final product is beauty. Too many try to meta-analyze it, maximize their own gains, etc, and the final product cripples.
Idk, maybe I’m just stoned at the nail salon. :)
> the final product is beauty
IMO statements like these are meaningless platitudes. To you it may be beauty, to me it's arbitrary generations of reproduction. It's not good or bad, it just is. Some people go with their gut and rob or kill people, some people go with their gut and run charities. Is that beautiful? I don't think so, it's just reality.
IMO statements like these are meaningless platitudes. To you it may be beauty, to me it's arbitrary generations of reproduction. It's not good or bad, it just is. Some people go with their gut and rob or kill people, some people go with their gut and run charities. Is that beautiful? I don't think so, it's just reality.
Modernity, although it would have also shaped your personality.
Nevertheless, in the time and place I live, I doubt that my male ancestors would have done any better in my place. Narcissism and self-centeredness are so normalized that the kind of man I am doesn't really belong. I think there are many men and women like I am who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex in the form that they tend to take in modern civilization. I was just recently talking to a female relative of mine who has a similar perspective.
People are also less visually attractive in general. I've been at the beach a few times recently, crowded ones, and I noticed that there were virtually no attractive, beautiful, or sexy people like I remember. My standards are not extraordinarily high, btw. Over half of people were overweight or obese and the minority that were even close to being in shape weren't wearing anything particularly flattering. By the way, this is in California, not the middle of nowhere. I've met foreigners who believe that Los Angeles is full of hot people, and that was somewhat true at one point. Now, I'm not so sure.
Believe me, I appreciate body diversity, but everyone being fat and slovenly (i.e. unhealthy) isn't diversity or a positive thing.
Anyway, I think that people are just less attracted to each other in general. They've either abused their bodies to the point where they look a decade or more older than they should or they just dress like slobs. Or they dress in ways that signal that they aren't interested in any sort of serious relationship.
There's also just the general perception of globalized craziness. On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime? Why would I want anyone to live under technological tyranny? Or the consequences of humans abusing the environment?
People point to the "mouse utopia" experiment, but I don't think it's that. Technological inertia is what is bringing us to this point. Besides a little bit of HN and the occasional episode of 80's TV, I've pretty much disconnected from it all, and more people I know are disengaging. It's both a good sign and a bad one. If people are disengaging, that doesn't really mean that society itself is correcting itself. We're wincing at the wall we are about to crash through.
Nevertheless, in the time and place I live, I doubt that my male ancestors would have done any better in my place. Narcissism and self-centeredness are so normalized that the kind of man I am doesn't really belong. I think there are many men and women like I am who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex in the form that they tend to take in modern civilization. I was just recently talking to a female relative of mine who has a similar perspective.
People are also less visually attractive in general. I've been at the beach a few times recently, crowded ones, and I noticed that there were virtually no attractive, beautiful, or sexy people like I remember. My standards are not extraordinarily high, btw. Over half of people were overweight or obese and the minority that were even close to being in shape weren't wearing anything particularly flattering. By the way, this is in California, not the middle of nowhere. I've met foreigners who believe that Los Angeles is full of hot people, and that was somewhat true at one point. Now, I'm not so sure.
Believe me, I appreciate body diversity, but everyone being fat and slovenly (i.e. unhealthy) isn't diversity or a positive thing.
Anyway, I think that people are just less attracted to each other in general. They've either abused their bodies to the point where they look a decade or more older than they should or they just dress like slobs. Or they dress in ways that signal that they aren't interested in any sort of serious relationship.
There's also just the general perception of globalized craziness. On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime? Why would I want anyone to live under technological tyranny? Or the consequences of humans abusing the environment?
People point to the "mouse utopia" experiment, but I don't think it's that. Technological inertia is what is bringing us to this point. Besides a little bit of HN and the occasional episode of 80's TV, I've pretty much disconnected from it all, and more people I know are disengaging. It's both a good sign and a bad one. If people are disengaging, that doesn't really mean that society itself is correcting itself. We're wincing at the wall we are about to crash through.
I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around. The other reply didn’t say it well, but they might have been onto something when they suggested you might be (understandably) depressed. I have dealt with depression and some of the ideas in your comment remind me of certain bleak perspectives I have had at various moments. I also remember having plenty of clever intellectual rationalizations for these feelings.
It’s pretty crazy when your mood shifts and you are looking at the exact same situation and no longer feel the negative assessment of it. I’ve had lots of ups and downs as I learned to deal with difficult emotions and pain that apparently were hidden within me.
Edit: Of course, it is just an idea. I don’t know you or your situation. You might not be depressed at all :) It’s objectively true that there are more obese people nowadays, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
It’s pretty crazy when your mood shifts and you are looking at the exact same situation and no longer feel the negative assessment of it. I’ve had lots of ups and downs as I learned to deal with difficult emotions and pain that apparently were hidden within me.
Edit: Of course, it is just an idea. I don’t know you or your situation. You might not be depressed at all :) It’s objectively true that there are more obese people nowadays, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
I appreciate your empathy, and will think about what you have said. I'd rather not comment extensively on it since thoughts that may stem from a depressed mind are more easily dismissed than those from an overly happy and optimistic one. As much as I do appreciate yours and others' thoughts on my mental state, I'm not sure I should entertain it or even justify myself for that reason.
> I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around.
It depends quite a bit on the neighborhood. You'll see more people on the Westside who are magazine material than say the Van Nuys. I still stand by my subjective experience that there has been an overall reduction in general attractiveness, but I'm totally open to counter-evidence. (yes, I mean men and women, and in ways that were at least once somewhat agreed upon)
> It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me. I used to be in the obese category and I've known other people who are or were. The way the public treats the obese and the skinny is like night and day. If the obesity rate continues to climb, that sure seems like something that would help the population. Beyond attractiveness, the obese are more at risk for having trouble conceiving.
> I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around.
It depends quite a bit on the neighborhood. You'll see more people on the Westside who are magazine material than say the Van Nuys. I still stand by my subjective experience that there has been an overall reduction in general attractiveness, but I'm totally open to counter-evidence. (yes, I mean men and women, and in ways that were at least once somewhat agreed upon)
> It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me. I used to be in the obese category and I've known other people who are or were. The way the public treats the obese and the skinny is like night and day. If the obesity rate continues to climb, that sure seems like something that would help the population. Beyond attractiveness, the obese are more at risk for having trouble conceiving.
> > It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
> Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me.
You remind me of myself. Your observations remind me of what my natural observations tend to be. I’m originally from LA and think I’d agree with what you’ve written above.
With that said, here’s a defense of the GP willfully ignoring data in this case (and possibly in general).
It’s attractive to be positive. Not just to romantic partners, but to friends, coworkers, managers, reportees, strangers, etc. I think it’s fine to have standards for physical attractiveness, but they should be in line with what you can achieve. Similarly, I think positivity is attractive and negativity not so much, though I naturally think critically. Over time I’ve learned that others perceive me as a negative person. So erring on the side of positive might mean ignoring data. It might mean being blind to trends, but if it also means being happier, it’s how I would prefer to live.
> Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me.
You remind me of myself. Your observations remind me of what my natural observations tend to be. I’m originally from LA and think I’d agree with what you’ve written above.
With that said, here’s a defense of the GP willfully ignoring data in this case (and possibly in general).
It’s attractive to be positive. Not just to romantic partners, but to friends, coworkers, managers, reportees, strangers, etc. I think it’s fine to have standards for physical attractiveness, but they should be in line with what you can achieve. Similarly, I think positivity is attractive and negativity not so much, though I naturally think critically. Over time I’ve learned that others perceive me as a negative person. So erring on the side of positive might mean ignoring data. It might mean being blind to trends, but if it also means being happier, it’s how I would prefer to live.
I don't really think your experience applies to most people. I don't know if it's your situation but perhaps you could consider reducing your pornography intake.
That's valid, although I don't believe I claimed that it applies to most people. Something can be relatively common and have a significant effect without meaning that a majority would be subject to it.
I don't appreciate your suggestion, though. Even though you i-don't-know-if-but it, what you say suggests that my viewpoint comes from a dark place of loneliness and pornography intake, which I don't think is fair unless you substantiate that somehow.
I don't appreciate your suggestion, though. Even though you i-don't-know-if-but it, what you say suggests that my viewpoint comes from a dark place of loneliness and pornography intake, which I don't think is fair unless you substantiate that somehow.
Oh, I didn't mean it that way at all, and I'm sorry I made you feel attacked --- what I mean is that I feel that pornography consumption in excess (or even in general, sometimes) can sometimes warp our sense of what is attractive or not.
No worries. Yes, it totally can twist what attractiveness means to someone.
stagger87(4)
With regards to modernity, I think specifically we are in a time where it is both much easier to not have a child, while also much more difficult to raise a child because of relative economic and social pressures of this period. My peer group mostly mirrors yours in that all but one are childless, with most not looking to have children at all.
There are many birth control options and views on abortion have changed significantly as well as education which has improved, which means much fewer people keep unplanned pregnancies. Simultaneously, working and middle classes in western developed nations have continuously been squeezed within our the lifetimes of people who should be settling down, 2 severe economic contractions combined with the pandemic on top of preexisting job, wage and other social insecurities makes the financial and social burden of having a child much more difficult to bear.
There are many birth control options and views on abortion have changed significantly as well as education which has improved, which means much fewer people keep unplanned pregnancies. Simultaneously, working and middle classes in western developed nations have continuously been squeezed within our the lifetimes of people who should be settling down, 2 severe economic contractions combined with the pandemic on top of preexisting job, wage and other social insecurities makes the financial and social burden of having a child much more difficult to bear.
If you feel like this now, I suggest having a kid before it’s “too late,” otherwise you may have regret later. Am noting that for a male, too late is a very flexible thing.
Yep, and the downside of having a kid is very low. Basically, if one decide to go with public education system, the expense is low. And one has the choice to divorce or engage less with the child if he does not want to be with them. Although morally that's quite bad behavior.
And when they grow into high school, they'll actively drive the parents out of their social circles.
Finally in college, you are free...
And when they grow into high school, they'll actively drive the parents out of their social circles.
Finally in college, you are free...
I think if you are planning to neglect your child, you should think again about your choice of having children.
No matter what anyone plans, having children is
enough of a reset.
> Although morally that's quite bad behavior.
Clearly HN commentators seldom read...
Clearly HN commentators seldom read...
Do you have a child? You sound bitter. Want to talk about it?
I am about as bitter as a successful startup founder looking his company grows bigger...
Only non parent can ask questions like this...
Edit: Kids are those things that you wholeheartedly want them never happen, but also wholeheartedly believe being the best possible in your life, often at different moments and switching so suddenly that one often questions their own sanity...
Am I bitter, sure, sometimes, I hate my kids like the the farmer hating the snake, who was bitten by the snake he just rescued.
But that is just a tiny part of the parenting life.
Only non parent can ask questions like this...
Edit: Kids are those things that you wholeheartedly want them never happen, but also wholeheartedly believe being the best possible in your life, often at different moments and switching so suddenly that one often questions their own sanity...
Am I bitter, sure, sometimes, I hate my kids like the the farmer hating the snake, who was bitten by the snake he just rescued.
But that is just a tiny part of the parenting life.
Not sure if this is comforting or mind-blowing (or both), but if you expand it out, every man who has children but no son is the last in a line of thousands of men with sons, and every woman who has kids but no daughters is the last in a line of thousands of women with daughters.
Though if you take say the man, if he has a brother who has a son, then you can't say the line of the mans father has ended. I think over all it looks a bit more like pruning a bush, if you back track there is a continuing line somewhere.
I also find fascinating that as our lineage: parents, grand parents etc, expands in powers of two as we go back, the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
I also find fascinating that as our lineage: parents, grand parents etc, expands in powers of two as we go back, the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
> Though if you take say the man, if he has a brother who has a son
Very true. It only applies to brotherless men and sisterless women.
> the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
Isn't there something like only 20 matrilineal lines in the world or something?
Very true. It only applies to brotherless men and sisterless women.
> the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
Isn't there something like only 20 matrilineal lines in the world or something?
> Everyone in my close friend group (5-8 people) and their spouses are all childless, for various different reasons. I've never been good at romance or relationships, so I feel the clock ticking as well.
What is the age range here?
What is the age range here?
The youngest is 29 and the oldest is 38. But most of us, including myself, are early 30's.
I was childless until the age of 38. I'll be 40 when my third is born. My wife is 37. We didn't decide to have children when I was 37, we'd been together for a decade at that point. Still a lot of time for some perspective change in your group.
Having a biological child is one way to influence future life. What are some others that might feel like time well spent?
I was ambivalent about being a parent. I have one child and the experience has changed me more than I anticipated; shedding indulgent hobbies, valuing sleep more, going without more luxuries, being willing to just observe my surroundings, practicing perspective-taking (I readily do this with other animals, harder with people), singing more, feeling like I have a sense of purpose. I used to teach math and science to groups of students, and now with the one student who is also family I don’t know what the relative positive influence of on life on earth will be my actions. I suspect greater, given the changes that might have taken much longer to materialize, if at all.
I’d guess that adoption and fostering, relationships that increase one’s responsibility for others, would have had similar effects on my life.
I was ambivalent about being a parent. I have one child and the experience has changed me more than I anticipated; shedding indulgent hobbies, valuing sleep more, going without more luxuries, being willing to just observe my surroundings, practicing perspective-taking (I readily do this with other animals, harder with people), singing more, feeling like I have a sense of purpose. I used to teach math and science to groups of students, and now with the one student who is also family I don’t know what the relative positive influence of on life on earth will be my actions. I suspect greater, given the changes that might have taken much longer to materialize, if at all.
I’d guess that adoption and fostering, relationships that increase one’s responsibility for others, would have had similar effects on my life.
There are no children in my immediate family, it will stop with my generation. In my extended family of 8 first cousins none of the 4 males have children.
My social circle has quite a few children. One couple had children then met several other couples through childbirth classes and added them to the group.
My social circle has quite a few children. One couple had children then met several other couples through childbirth classes and added them to the group.
> if I do not have children, I will be the end of a direct line that stretches back four billion years
You could do this kind of analysis for any mammal (and most animals) to be honest. Yet we still wage war, eat meat and destroy ecosystems.
You could do this kind of analysis for any mammal (and most animals) to be honest. Yet we still wage war, eat meat and destroy ecosystems.
[deleted]
Do you live in the Bay Area?
I do not, but I do live in a major metropolitan area and I work in tech. I think it would be fair to draw some parallels.
> And, I will be the first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a son.
Why focus on just the male side?
Why focus on just the male side?
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. We're trying to avoid those.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Because he himself is male, and got the Y chromosome that makes him biologically male through the biological male line.
His X chromosome from the mother could have come from either her maternal or paternal lineage, so it seems less "direct".
Edit: I presume a biological focus given the other comment on how by not having children, he becomes a dead end of 4 billion years of reproduction.
His X chromosome from the mother could have come from either her maternal or paternal lineage, so it seems less "direct".
Edit: I presume a biological focus given the other comment on how by not having children, he becomes a dead end of 4 billion years of reproduction.
Sure, but why not Mitochondrial DNA? It just struck me as weird to gender it.
I will hold my tongue on the romance point.
I will hold my tongue on the romance point.
Gender has nothing to do with it.
He has no chance of passing on his mitochondrial DNA, whether or not he has children. On the other hand, should he choose not to have children, he will represent a change of behavior that has lasted as long as the Y chromosome has- he is the end of the line.
The same would be true if by chance he only passed on his X chromosome, but at least then the attempt was made, and he could keep trying as long as he had willing partner(s).
He has no chance of passing on his mitochondrial DNA, whether or not he has children. On the other hand, should he choose not to have children, he will represent a change of behavior that has lasted as long as the Y chromosome has- he is the end of the line.
The same would be true if by chance he only passed on his X chromosome, but at least then the attempt was made, and he could keep trying as long as he had willing partner(s).
Well, it’s not weird, it’s predictable and an inherent outcome of many current societies overwriting the female lineage with their male mate’s. I do agree with the point you’re trying to make, but, it’s just a patrilineal mindset. Not weird, but problematic all the same. I find it’s best to be plain and direct about these things so that everyone else is on the same page about your beliefs, as otherwise we all end up in arguing about rhetoric instead of reevaluating unconsidered beliefs.
He's talking about tracing your male lineage. So if you just follow the male side of your family tree -- your father, his father, his father, his father, etc. Everyone one of these men by definition had a son.
Sure, and every parent had a child. Just weird to gender it.
I gendered it because I am male. If I were female I would write how I would be the first in a direct line not to have a daughter.
It isn't weird to gender it, I think you still don't understand what they are saying.
Who mentioned gender? He's talking, very literally, about sex.
[deleted]
If OP is a man and has no sisters, then he can't say "first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a daughter" because his parents had no daughters either.
Not surprised by this:
>” Childless adults as a group were more educated than parents.”
A little surprised by this:
>”Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parents.”
>” Childless adults as a group were more educated than parents.”
A little surprised by this:
>”Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parents.”
I'm 43 and have children who are 23 and 20.
Having had kids really early in life forced me into taking steadier work than I might otherwise have. While I am grateful for that-- it's both easier to make money by programing computers than by playing music as well as all the goodness of having adult children-- it certainly pushed me into different situations.
I have a lot of friends in their late 20s and early 30s and they are in situations where they are, say, climbing rocks for 6 months at a time before settling briefly in a place. It's likely that they are going to have a much different professional situation when they are my age.
That seems to be the case with the 50-year-old former ski bums I know, at least.
Having had kids really early in life forced me into taking steadier work than I might otherwise have. While I am grateful for that-- it's both easier to make money by programing computers than by playing music as well as all the goodness of having adult children-- it certainly pushed me into different situations.
I have a lot of friends in their late 20s and early 30s and they are in situations where they are, say, climbing rocks for 6 months at a time before settling briefly in a place. It's likely that they are going to have a much different professional situation when they are my age.
That seems to be the case with the 50-year-old former ski bums I know, at least.
I suspect this has a lot to do with it. If having kids got you on the steady job train, and you stick with it after they leave (at 55+, I assume most children are at least not counted in household size for poverty income levels), then continuing the job when they leave will probably have you above poverty income.
Not in response to your post, but on the general topic, there is a persistent issue in US statistics of using income levels to declare wealthiness. To me, having poverty level income only implies poverty if the person also has no savings. If the person has a lot of savings/investments and can retire and live off return of capital from 55-70, that may look like 15+ years of poverty in an older adult to statisticians looking at income number, but could be a very nice early retirement. Income is an easy number to get, because of mandatory reporting in dollars, but a single annual value doesn't tell a complete story.
Not in response to your post, but on the general topic, there is a persistent issue in US statistics of using income levels to declare wealthiness. To me, having poverty level income only implies poverty if the person also has no savings. If the person has a lot of savings/investments and can retire and live off return of capital from 55-70, that may look like 15+ years of poverty in an older adult to statisticians looking at income number, but could be a very nice early retirement. Income is an easy number to get, because of mandatory reporting in dollars, but a single annual value doesn't tell a complete story.
I agree that income is far from wealth.
I make a good income doing what I do, but I have a six-figure student loan (which largely went to raising my step daughter and son). I don't expect any sympathy for that.
Nor do I expect sympathy for living in small town with a crazy real-estate market.
But between those, it's likely I'll never retire and will die in debt.
But hey, I do plan to take up paragliding and climbing bigger mountains, so whatever. I guess.
But hey, I also funnel a lot of cash to my kiddo who is getting all-As and is a Junior in a well-respected Mechanical Engineering program.
These are generational problems. I suspect that regardless of how you slice it, that fact about student loans (or lack of professional options for unsettled late-millenials) and real-estate is closer to the truth for most of the people I know who didn't settle down in their 20s and have kids.
My climbing partner, who just got priced out of this town, might look like he's living in poverty, as he's living in a car. But it's a lexus and he's climbing rocks full time... so maybe he's just "retired" temporarilly.
Who knows. I can't tell the difference between hobos and kings anymore.
I make a good income doing what I do, but I have a six-figure student loan (which largely went to raising my step daughter and son). I don't expect any sympathy for that.
Nor do I expect sympathy for living in small town with a crazy real-estate market.
But between those, it's likely I'll never retire and will die in debt.
But hey, I do plan to take up paragliding and climbing bigger mountains, so whatever. I guess.
But hey, I also funnel a lot of cash to my kiddo who is getting all-As and is a Junior in a well-respected Mechanical Engineering program.
These are generational problems. I suspect that regardless of how you slice it, that fact about student loans (or lack of professional options for unsettled late-millenials) and real-estate is closer to the truth for most of the people I know who didn't settle down in their 20s and have kids.
My climbing partner, who just got priced out of this town, might look like he's living in poverty, as he's living in a car. But it's a lexus and he's climbing rocks full time... so maybe he's just "retired" temporarilly.
Who knows. I can't tell the difference between hobos and kings anymore.
Honestly many countries don't charge (or at least as excessively) for education. Student loans are a product of a system that should be far more subsidized than it is today.
Many of the politicians who rant about "personal responsibility" themselves didn't have to worry about an out of control real-estate market (that they probably voted in favor of) and $2k 1bdrm rents. Cost of college was cheaper back then too.
No one should have to die in debt.
Many of the politicians who rant about "personal responsibility" themselves didn't have to worry about an out of control real-estate market (that they probably voted in favor of) and $2k 1bdrm rents. Cost of college was cheaper back then too.
No one should have to die in debt.
To say nothing of regionally adjusted poverty rates. The Bay Area is filled with highly educated who live as paupers compared to those in less expensive housing markets. Economic insecurity is known to be the cause of declining birth rates. We are increasingly urban and educated population. One can sort of “do the math.” Hard to raise a family paying $3200 a month to rent a small studio in the “trendyloin.”
I don't think it's that surprising. I know that If I didn't have a kid I definitely wouldn't have focused as much on getting raises over the years. If no one depended on me, I would have quit a few jobs for petty reasons, or even just because I wanted a break for a few months.
> A little surprised by this
It seems to me that not birthing children when one is not financially safe makes sense; having children is, in some ways, a luxury now that a two-incomes household is the norm.
It seems to me that not birthing children when one is not financially safe makes sense; having children is, in some ways, a luxury now that a two-incomes household is the norm.
It makes sense, but people have always had kids that they couldn't afford. The statistic matches up with what I've experienced at work and with friends, where older people without children aren't as concerned with being responsible with their money because nobody depends on them for support, while the older people with kids are much more diligent about monitoring the amount of money they spend.
Poor people with kids also qualify for a lot more government benefits than poor people without kids.
Although a lot of those benefits punish the parents for being married, i.e. if you want to maximize benefits it's better to be unmarried and maybe also not living together.
Although a lot of those benefits punish the parents for being married, i.e. if you want to maximize benefits it's better to be unmarried and maybe also not living together.
> Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parent
Not surprising... Children won't let their parents become destitute
Not surprising... Children won't let their parents become destitute
Adult children of senior citizens can help with light care that might otherwise require very expensive home health aids or senior care facilities.
Combined with the higher education levels of the childless older adults, that’s even more surprising at first glance.
But after a bit more thought, having someone 20-40 years younger than you who feels a strong obligation to you when you’re not quite as sharp as you used to be could make a lot of difference in your finances.
But after a bit more thought, having someone 20-40 years younger than you who feels a strong obligation to you when you’re not quite as sharp as you used to be could make a lot of difference in your finances.
Seems to me like they did the math when they were younger. If they were below the poverty line as young adults, having children would have pushed them down further.
I see a lot of older homeless around, and they don't seem to have children in tow.
You may be confusing "in poverty" with merely "poor."
You may be confusing "in poverty" with merely "poor."
Women with children are highly prioritized for housing assistance. That's why most homeless are men without children.
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, I graphed the childless ratio for all ages based on their data: https://mod.ifies.com/f/210831_childless_ratio_by_age.png
Eyeballing, it looks like 55-64 is more childless than 40-54, but I haven't done any deeper analysis to be able to project how the curve might change in the future.
Data from here:
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/data/datasets/2...
Graph is made with their example pandas pandas code with the TCEB (total children ever born/fathered) column added, then:
Eyeballing, it looks like 55-64 is more childless than 40-54, but I haven't done any deeper analysis to be able to project how the curve might change in the future.
Data from here:
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/data/datasets/2...
Graph is made with their example pandas pandas code with the TCEB (total children ever born/fathered) column added, then:
(df[df['TCEB']==0].groupby('TAGE').size().div(df.groupby('TAGE').size())).plot(); plt.show()I'm going to be joining that cohort one day. I've never wanted children. I wonder to what extent this is a function of me being a single guy? Bringing a child into this world is a huge responsibility. I have no faith in my ability to protect and raise a child to adulthood without failing them in some way.
Even if I somehow managed to raise a healthy, well adjusted child, there is also the specter of climate change. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world, when they will slowly watch the world they live in be slowly decimated by heat, drought, and rising seas?
People have told me that I will regret my decision in old age. Maybe that's true, but if I ever get the urge to have kids, I'll simply volunteer, adopt or foster them. If they're already here on this earth, hopefully I can have a positive impact, and my conscience is clear.
Even if I somehow managed to raise a healthy, well adjusted child, there is also the specter of climate change. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world, when they will slowly watch the world they live in be slowly decimated by heat, drought, and rising seas?
People have told me that I will regret my decision in old age. Maybe that's true, but if I ever get the urge to have kids, I'll simply volunteer, adopt or foster them. If they're already here on this earth, hopefully I can have a positive impact, and my conscience is clear.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted - this seems like a pretty reasonable comment that explores one person's current thinking on the topic.
I don't intend to have kids. I grew up in an abusive home, and I'm still working on attachment issues and CPTSD in my mid 30s. My rationale: this shit stops with me. Awareness and desire to address these issues isn't enough when I know I'm still exhibiting behaviors that I don't fully understand, and I won't propagate what my parents taught me.
While I haven't 100% closed myself to the possibility of kids, I've decided (and accepted) that I will not pursue it without major personal progress, which currently has its own timetable, meaning the door is probably closed.
I don't intend to have kids. I grew up in an abusive home, and I'm still working on attachment issues and CPTSD in my mid 30s. My rationale: this shit stops with me. Awareness and desire to address these issues isn't enough when I know I'm still exhibiting behaviors that I don't fully understand, and I won't propagate what my parents taught me.
While I haven't 100% closed myself to the possibility of kids, I've decided (and accepted) that I will not pursue it without major personal progress, which currently has its own timetable, meaning the door is probably closed.
Divorce rates in America indicate that many people don’t consider this. Let’s say you don’t like interacting with certain people that often, then having a kid is kind of a reckless decision. You’ll need the help of your parents, your spouse’s parents, siblings, neighbors, etc to give the kid the optimal upbringing. Some people literally go ‘well I don’t like my partner anymore, so fuck this nuclear family shit’. If you have that in you, stay clear of parenthood.
> You’ll need the help of your parents, your spouse’s parents, siblings, neighbors, etc
This touches on a really important factor for people like me with families like mine. Their involvement in the parenting process could be nothing negative and stressful. I'd never feel comfortable leaving my kids in their care.
This is not just a pessimistic fear, but a reality I see in my siblings and their own interactions with our parents.
This further complicates things, because I think one could argue that people with my background need more support than average, but we're less likely to have access to that support given our origins.
This touches on a really important factor for people like me with families like mine. Their involvement in the parenting process could be nothing negative and stressful. I'd never feel comfortable leaving my kids in their care.
This is not just a pessimistic fear, but a reality I see in my siblings and their own interactions with our parents.
This further complicates things, because I think one could argue that people with my background need more support than average, but we're less likely to have access to that support given our origins.
Not having kids is totally valid. I have two and prefer it that way, can't imagine a life without them, as Jeff explains here[1]. Having a second one is no different (for me) than having only one, actually it's a tad better. So if the joy increases with # of kids around, why not have three then, why not four? And if you backtrack this idea, not having any kids is not bad at all. Just a different life.
[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood/
[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood/
Hear, hear. I've also found cultivating love and care for my chosen family of friends to fill the space where I feel people seek maternal/paternal satisfaction. You don't need to have a blood relation / dependent relation with someone to invest yourself in their joys and successes and be there for the rest.
The added benefit is, some of these folks in my circle will likely have kids and being an unofficial aunt sounds like a good deal to me.
The added benefit is, some of these folks in my circle will likely have kids and being an unofficial aunt sounds like a good deal to me.
How about asking older people (having had children/childless) what they think about their own situation ?
Humans have a tendency to post rationalize their choices. Once you’re stuck with the consequences of your actions you justify it in a way that’s psychologically acceptable to you.
Okay, then let have a study with elderly people, comparing percentage of childless people regretting their choice against percentage of those regretting having had children.
“Among childless adults ages 55 and older, 85.2% were White alone; 79.0% were non-Hispanic White; 9.2% were Black alone; 3.4% were Asian alone; 2.2% were all other races or reported multiple races; and 6.5% were Hispanic”
This is a significant disparity based on race
This is a significant disparity based on race
This probably maps on wealth and education.
as a single person, living far from family, and basically friendless, I'm recognizing there is probably a big market for having someone to fall back on. I used to have my now ex girlfriend as an emergency contact, but rn I have no one who I would miss me or likely to come help me if I were, say, hospitalized. I'd feel far more comfortable if I had someone on retainer to fill this risk gap.
Why wouldn’t you list your family as emergency contacts? Sorry about the friend situation though, it’s tough these days
They live in another country. I mean I do actually list my mother as my emergency contact. But it's not like she'd be able to do anything besides cry and maybe get to me in 3-4 days time if it was really critical.
Raising kids is a very expensive but fun process. Raising kids teaches you patience, humility and selflessness.
I read a quote somewhere that people don't change mind they die. Kids are the future. They will change the world, they will bring new ideas, new technologies, explore new planets, advance the race. We should not shrink away from the work involved.
It is kind of selfish to be raised by past generation but not paying it back by raising the next generation.
I read a quote somewhere that people don't change mind they die. Kids are the future. They will change the world, they will bring new ideas, new technologies, explore new planets, advance the race. We should not shrink away from the work involved.
It is kind of selfish to be raised by past generation but not paying it back by raising the next generation.
Maybe it's a good thing the selfish people aren't having kids.
Having kids used to be a positive economic decision as 150 years ago, most people were farmers. Extra children meant extra help on the farm and kids quickly provided a positive return on investment. Now having kids is a mostly privatized cost with socialized benefit.
I went to public school but other than that, the cost of raising me was put primarily on my mom's back. Now, as a 30 year old, I'm pretty sure I've paid enough taxes to pay back the public several times over. I'll never be able to payback my mom in any sense.
We absolutely need a future generation as our deaths are guaranteed. That being said, the self selection process may be filtering out some potentially awful parents as there's no longer money to be made by having kids.
Having kids used to be a positive economic decision as 150 years ago, most people were farmers. Extra children meant extra help on the farm and kids quickly provided a positive return on investment. Now having kids is a mostly privatized cost with socialized benefit.
I went to public school but other than that, the cost of raising me was put primarily on my mom's back. Now, as a 30 year old, I'm pretty sure I've paid enough taxes to pay back the public several times over. I'll never be able to payback my mom in any sense.
We absolutely need a future generation as our deaths are guaranteed. That being said, the self selection process may be filtering out some potentially awful parents as there's no longer money to be made by having kids.
> It is kind of selfish to be raised by past generation but not paying it back by raising the next generation.
What would you say to those who consider having children the selfish decision?
What would you say to those who consider having children the selfish decision?
It never even occurred to me that there are people who think not having kids is selfish, but I guess it makes sense - we are all protagonists in our own stories.
How do you reconcile the effect overpopulation has on this planet that said kids are going to inherit with the personal choice of having them? Climate change, plastic and chemical pollution, deforestation and subsequent erosion, factory farming, etc are all linked with the population and its consumption. I think currently each additional person is a net negative to the environment. This might be outweighed by them being a net positive to the society, but it's certainly not a slam dunk.
From my observation in my social circle, there are two pressures that forcing not having kid or more kids. One is support system and second financial stability to take care or kids.
First, with both partner working & almost no one to support(from relatives/close family) during first 3-5 years of kids. It's super exhausting and one starts having second thoughts about having more kids.
Second, People want good future for kids. Daycare expenses, school, college etc. general thinking is if I can support one child really well and not two then its better to have just one.
In my experience I have not seen anyone who genuinely dont like kids or regretted having kid even at their emotionally lowest point. It just above two primary forces, pushing them towards not have anymore kids.
First, with both partner working & almost no one to support(from relatives/close family) during first 3-5 years of kids. It's super exhausting and one starts having second thoughts about having more kids.
Second, People want good future for kids. Daycare expenses, school, college etc. general thinking is if I can support one child really well and not two then its better to have just one.
In my experience I have not seen anyone who genuinely dont like kids or regretted having kid even at their emotionally lowest point. It just above two primary forces, pushing them towards not have anymore kids.
Totally agree with you.
In the 60's when I grew up, there was one mother on our street who had a "great" job, some mothers worked full time jobs, some worked out of the house (ironing, babysitting, etc), but most with younger kids did not work.
Each decade, women shifted more toward working outside the house, full time, and having good jobs on par with men. This has continued to where potential grandmothers also work, so cannot help with kids like they used to.
Working has given women a lot more options than they used to have since they are not as financially dependent on men, but somebody still has to take care of houses and raise kids, and now that both parents usually work, this is a lot more difficult.
We used to be able to have a decent family life on one income. Not so much a possibility now.
In the 60's when I grew up, there was one mother on our street who had a "great" job, some mothers worked full time jobs, some worked out of the house (ironing, babysitting, etc), but most with younger kids did not work.
Each decade, women shifted more toward working outside the house, full time, and having good jobs on par with men. This has continued to where potential grandmothers also work, so cannot help with kids like they used to.
Working has given women a lot more options than they used to have since they are not as financially dependent on men, but somebody still has to take care of houses and raise kids, and now that both parents usually work, this is a lot more difficult.
We used to be able to have a decent family life on one income. Not so much a possibility now.
I am really not surprised. I'm under 30, about to get married have a decent paying job but the uncertainty of a lot of things (Healthcare, inflation, global warming, just to name a few) has both me and my SO still unsure if we want kids. It also might be that some people are realizing they would not be good parents and thus choosing to not have kids.
Those are all tractable problems. I don't mean overall, but the impact of all of those things on you is something you can control.
It's possible that society has imposed ridiculously stringent "requirements" for raising children (apparently families are buying a second washing machine just for their baby's clothes) that raising children responsibly is viewed as financially unachievable for most.
It's possible that society has imposed ridiculously stringent "requirements" for raising children (apparently families are buying a second washing machine just for their baby's clothes) that raising children responsibly is viewed as financially unachievable for most.
Healthcare and Inflation have always been something to worry about.
[deleted]
So, from the beginning of humans (or well before really) until sometime in the mid-60's (or a little later depending on the area), the primary determinant of whether or not you had children is whether or not you were in a sexual relationship. Not that this was all that mattered, but it was the primary filter.
In the last few decades, the primary determinant is whether or not you want children. Again, it's not the only reason, but it's the primary filter.
So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were true you would see declining self-reports of how often people are having sex. Don't look up the data on that, btw.
In the last few decades, the primary determinant is whether or not you want children. Again, it's not the only reason, but it's the primary filter.
So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were true you would see declining self-reports of how often people are having sex. Don't look up the data on that, btw.
> Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were true you would see declining self-reports of how often people are having sex.
It's only been one generation. You'd need to wait a few 100 years before you see any change.
It's only been one generation. You'd need to wait a few 100 years before you see any change.
> So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Why would you assume this? The only reason you'd assume this is that you have a preconceived notion that those of us who want lots of kids don't want sex. That's ridiculous.
I'm a pretty traditional catholic, and it's pretty clear from my own life and my interactions with other traditional catholic men that we really like sex. In fact, given the stats, we and our wives like sex more than most people [1]. We also like the babies that come out. That's part of the fun.
People like to group us religious people as sex-averse. It's quite the opposite. We just follow the normal ethics one would come up with (religious or not) if you viewed children as part of the natural results of sex (because.... they are). In that framework, religious exhortations like 'Don't have sex unless you're in a publicly recognized and blessed committed relationship (i.e., marriage)' become as obvious as 'don't have sex with people who don't want it'.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/paeekv/why-conservatives-hav...
Why would you assume this? The only reason you'd assume this is that you have a preconceived notion that those of us who want lots of kids don't want sex. That's ridiculous.
I'm a pretty traditional catholic, and it's pretty clear from my own life and my interactions with other traditional catholic men that we really like sex. In fact, given the stats, we and our wives like sex more than most people [1]. We also like the babies that come out. That's part of the fun.
People like to group us religious people as sex-averse. It's quite the opposite. We just follow the normal ethics one would come up with (religious or not) if you viewed children as part of the natural results of sex (because.... they are). In that framework, religious exhortations like 'Don't have sex unless you're in a publicly recognized and blessed committed relationship (i.e., marriage)' become as obvious as 'don't have sex with people who don't want it'.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/paeekv/why-conservatives-hav...
Given what I've seen over the past decade, I think the first part of Idiocracy was prophetic.
Living in the Bay Area is probably the leading cause. Wish they focused more on political/regional correlates. (I’ve only read the summaries so far.)
Well as a catholic who lived in the bay area for many years the Catholics there have well above the average number of children.
Well they literally have God helping them out. Many in the Bay Area or other expensive urban areas do not.
Bay area only has 7.7M people. US has 333M.
This appears to be a faster growing segment than can be explained by infertility alone, though the recorded rates are also increasing over time.
https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(98)00103-4/full...
https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(98)00103-4/full...
Those people having children now are creating remarkable wealth for themselves in the future.
I’d like to see a little more data on these long term single people. It takes a village to raise another member of society. How big is one’s social circle, trustworthy friends/family, role models? I bet the monkey sphere is smaller for these people, so it feels a lot scarier to embark upon this milestone.
Once upon a time it might be normal to rely on neighbors or large extended families for support, but the more isolated we get, the less safety net there is.
If you didn’t work to build that network, you are pretty much handicapped in terms of giving the child the best chance possible.
In other words, this demographic group might be making an extremely responsible decision.
Once upon a time it might be normal to rely on neighbors or large extended families for support, but the more isolated we get, the less safety net there is.
If you didn’t work to build that network, you are pretty much handicapped in terms of giving the child the best chance possible.
In other words, this demographic group might be making an extremely responsible decision.
This feels like a huge problem. You hear about inverted population pyramids and what it costs to have a small young working population support the larger old population. But there's a big difference between 10 couples that had 1 kid each; and 5 couples that had 2 while 5 couples had 0. It dawns upon me that I don't know any elderly childless people.
The social cost of supporting someone who is completely alone vs. someone who has a kid they can depend on, even if only infrequently across large geographies, is probably a lot higher.
The social cost of supporting someone who is completely alone vs. someone who has a kid they can depend on, even if only infrequently across large geographies, is probably a lot higher.
Any mirrors? Seems this is only for US viewers.
"Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/childless..." on this server. Reference #18.ce7519b8.1630427505.a68f250"
"Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/childless..." on this server. Reference #18.ce7519b8.1630427505.a68f250"
It's expensive to have kids these days. Many would-be parents are holding off, and for good reason - at the same time, income inequality is at an all-time high since the great depression.
The government should fix this in tax laws or directly assist if they want more kids (at a moderate salary, the child credit disappears and AMT calc essentially kills your deductions).
The government should fix this in tax laws or directly assist if they want more kids (at a moderate salary, the child credit disappears and AMT calc essentially kills your deductions).
how long until we see a tax credit for pets?
Why would the government incentive pets?
This is relevant: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/pet-project-biden...
I can see this being adopted in the future as therapy for regular patients and then for everybody.
I can see this being adopted in the future as therapy for regular patients and then for everybody.
Because their constituents want it
no reason, but politicians want votes and proportion of childless pet owners relative to general population will continue to increase
Pets can already predict the outcome of major sporting events, so they would probably be good government leaders as well.
Before you fret about this, imagine if we had the opposite problem and population was growing the way it was in the US frontier days. If that were the case we really would be facing a "Soylent Green" future.
I'll take the problems caused by a shrinking population over that.
I'll take the problems caused by a shrinking population over that.
What age is too late for men to have children?
For the sake of your sanity, do not google "male virginity rates after introduction of the smartphone"
The cost of living and costs of raising a child have both increased dramatically while wages are flat, of course people are having fewer kids. We could increase government childcare aid, but that involves taxing wealthy people, which isn't popular. We could reduce some of the future productivity loss with immigration, but many people don't like that idea either. Instead, childless adults are called selfish and blamed for eating too much avocado toast because that's easier than addressing the real problems.
> We could reduce some of the future productivity loss with immigration
This assumes you can reach the same level of productivity. Not all immigration is created equal I'm afraid.
This assumes you can reach the same level of productivity. Not all immigration is created equal I'm afraid.
“Of all adults ages 55 to 64, 19.6% were childless, compared to 15.9% of those ages 65 to 74, and 10.9% of those 75 years and older.”
According to this linear trend the last child in America will be born in 2045 [1]
[1] https://xkcd.com/605/
According to this linear trend the last child in America will be born in 2045 [1]
[1] https://xkcd.com/605/
Childfree
> The report refers to childless adults as those who have no biological children
> Childfree is the term used generally for those who have chosen not to have kids while Childless is for those who would love them but can’t have them. [0]
This survey didn't ask if people chose to not have children. It merely asked if they didn't have biological children. The term "childfree" isn't accurate in this usage.
[0] https://womensagenda.com.au/life/why-terms-like-childless-vs...
> Childfree is the term used generally for those who have chosen not to have kids while Childless is for those who would love them but can’t have them. [0]
This survey didn't ask if people chose to not have children. It merely asked if they didn't have biological children. The term "childfree" isn't accurate in this usage.
[0] https://womensagenda.com.au/life/why-terms-like-childless-vs...
The report isn't using the Australian English definition that you sourced
The report is drawing no distinction, while you are saying both terms are a subset of “adults with no children”.
Just helping you notice that, since you made a distinction the the US Federal Government is not making a distinction on in an attempt to correct me
The report is drawing no distinction, while you are saying both terms are a subset of “adults with no children”.
Just helping you notice that, since you made a distinction the the US Federal Government is not making a distinction on in an attempt to correct me
The report isn't defining "childfree." It's defining "childless" as "adults with no children." It's not even remotely talking about why these adults do not have children.
This has nothing to do with Australia[0]. But by trying to say all childless adults are "childfree", you're basically ignoring infertility, which I think is inconsiderate, at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness
This has nothing to do with Australia[0]. But by trying to say all childless adults are "childfree", you're basically ignoring infertility, which I think is inconsiderate, at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness
> But by trying to say all childless adults are “childfree”
I didn't try to say that at all
You did though, which is interesting
The point about talking about your source is the your entire response seemed haphazard and creating contexts that neither I or the report said, contexts that didn't fit at all while pretending to be consensus on terms. Which it isn't.
In any case, you did find my main point, where the language and adjectives used in the childless context assumes an affliction. It assumes there is a problem, such as the infertility that you care about and are sensitive to.
I think it is equally inconsiderate to not acknowledge people that just don't want children, as opposed to an explanation. Simply writing Childfree apparently illuminates that so well. So, its a two-way street, where everyone feels invalidated. Glad we could make that obvious.
I didn't try to say that at all
You did though, which is interesting
The point about talking about your source is the your entire response seemed haphazard and creating contexts that neither I or the report said, contexts that didn't fit at all while pretending to be consensus on terms. Which it isn't.
In any case, you did find my main point, where the language and adjectives used in the childless context assumes an affliction. It assumes there is a problem, such as the infertility that you care about and are sensitive to.
I think it is equally inconsiderate to not acknowledge people that just don't want children, as opposed to an explanation. Simply writing Childfree apparently illuminates that so well. So, its a two-way street, where everyone feels invalidated. Glad we could make that obvious.
I will die alone and forgotten by the world but at least I will be carbon neutral
How are you offsetting all those farts?
By inhaling them, of course. Positive feedback loop.
One issue is that the childless will wind up requiring more state care as they age (since they won't have family to care for them). A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference.
Childless people already pay more taxes since they don't have dependents to claim
Child tax deductions don’t even come close to canceling out the lost revenue of a potential future taxpayer over their lifetime. Especially given today’s near zero interest rate environment.
Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
Helping to support people who have children is a pretty popular policy I think. People like public schools, right? Let's just do that, but more.
Punishing people for not having kids is obviously ridiculous.
Punishing people for not having kids is obviously ridiculous.
But I (happening to have two kids) consume government services now in addition to creating the linked supply and demand for government services that my kids represent.
It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
Hmm... That's a fair point. The wrinkle is not all government services scale linearly with users. For example, if there were twice as many Americans we probably wouldn't need twice the defense budget.
They also pay more taxes because they pay for schools and lots of services that those who have children take advantage of.
And that they themselves took advantage of, even the childless were children
The child tax credit is completely irrelevant compared to the cost you incur or social benefits you share by having a child.
"Because you have no family to rely on and your savings are insufficient to care for yourself we (the state) have to care for you. Therefore, we will tax you and people like you more in order to further reduce your savings and make you even more dependent on the state in your dotage."
That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.
That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.
It’s because from the start it was never set up as a “savings account”. You didn’t just get your contribution plus interest minus overhead.
What are you responding to? I really am having trouble parsing your reply.
What was never set up as a savings account?
My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes.
The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state.
I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
What was never set up as a savings account?
My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes.
The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state.
I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
> A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference.
Not getting dependent/child tax credits already does this.
Not getting dependent/child tax credits already does this.
I already pay more income tax because I don't have dependents. A good portion (most?) of my property taxes go to schools I will never utilize. If anything, not having children is an altruistic choice that should be rewarded with lower taxes. Perhaps it will if carbon taxes ever become a thing.
These children will carry the tax torch when you retire.
My non-existent children won't cost the taxpayer anything in government services, so I guess we're even?
Yeah it should work out.
It is better to treat these as separate issues. Some people need additional assistance from the state as they age. We should decide how much support we'd like to provide, and provide it without bias.
We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents.
It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.
We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents.
It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.
I really don't know how much of this can be attributed to modernity or personality. A man not having children is apparently the norm throughout human history.
I do find it fascinating, though, that if I do not have children, I will be the end of a direct line that stretches back four billion years to the dawn of life itself. And, I will be the first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a son. It's simple, but amazing, to realize that I am the son of a father, his father, his father, ... etc all the way back to when sexual reproduction began.