'Baby Bust': Why Fewer Young People Expect to Become Parents (2013)(knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu)
knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
'Baby Bust': Why Fewer Young People Expect to Become Parents (2013)
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/stew-friedman-new-work-family-choices-men-women/
274 comments
This is the usual argument people make - that having children is harder and less affordable than before - but the highest fertility rates are pretty consistently recorded in impoverished and conflict-torn countries, where raising a child requires sacrifices much greater than it does in the West. And conversely, increasing standards of living and having more disposable income is the #1 predictor of dropping fertility rates. You see it in Europe, in Asia, in America.
The problem isn't that people in the West need to make greater sacrifices than their ancestors did. It's that they no longer want to make small ones. The price tag you mention is what you pay if you don't want to make any lifestyle changes. Not moving closer to one's parents, so that they could provide child care. Not cutting down discretionary spending, not giving up on career goals.
I'm not saying this to judge people, but I think the fallacy here is that we assume things would improve if we offered longer parental leaves, child subsidies, state-run childcare, or whatever - but in every country where such programs are implemented, they don't really make any difference. There may be other reasons to do it, but I guess the only tried and true way to fix fertility is famine and war...
The problem isn't that people in the West need to make greater sacrifices than their ancestors did. It's that they no longer want to make small ones. The price tag you mention is what you pay if you don't want to make any lifestyle changes. Not moving closer to one's parents, so that they could provide child care. Not cutting down discretionary spending, not giving up on career goals.
I'm not saying this to judge people, but I think the fallacy here is that we assume things would improve if we offered longer parental leaves, child subsidies, state-run childcare, or whatever - but in every country where such programs are implemented, they don't really make any difference. There may be other reasons to do it, but I guess the only tried and true way to fix fertility is famine and war...
In many non-western countries the social framework is completely different.
- People have kids as retirement plans.
- There's religious and instituional pressures to have more kids. Most people don't think about how they're brainwashed by instituions that have a political motive to expand their group size. The end result is that someone that doesn't have kids is heavily scrutinized. Made even worse in societies where your 'face' and reputation are everything since things like the legal system might not be as strong.
- The minimums for raising a kid in the west is much different. You simply can't just have 8 kids and send them off their chimney sweeping jobs when they turn 12. You can't just have the kids, and wander off to the bar all night while their 13 year old sibling watches them.
- Western countries also put a lot of emphasis on sex education and provide resources like contraceptives.
- People have kids as retirement plans.
- There's religious and instituional pressures to have more kids. Most people don't think about how they're brainwashed by instituions that have a political motive to expand their group size. The end result is that someone that doesn't have kids is heavily scrutinized. Made even worse in societies where your 'face' and reputation are everything since things like the legal system might not be as strong.
- The minimums for raising a kid in the west is much different. You simply can't just have 8 kids and send them off their chimney sweeping jobs when they turn 12. You can't just have the kids, and wander off to the bar all night while their 13 year old sibling watches them.
- Western countries also put a lot of emphasis on sex education and provide resources like contraceptives.
There’s more than just a bare price tag here though.
It’s also about risk. In developed societies, it’s still somewhat reasonable (though this is starting to wane) for a couple with dual incomes to be able to establish themselves well enough that the risk of being put out on the street is minimal. Once even a single kid enters the picture however, this changes; the required income level for both parents to both provide the desired quality of care for the child and achieve reasonable insurance against financial disaster is quite high and well above the earning potential of a huge percentage (probably the majority) of the population. How much the parents are willing to sacrifice has little bearing on this.
The impoverished aren’t as affected by this because they’re already living on knife’s edge, and having kids won’t change that much. A poorer population boosts birthrates but making people poorer is not how nations should go about fixing their population problems.
Aside from that, I feel that it’s a mischaracterization to pose giving up on who a person had been prior to becoming a parent (career goals, etc) as “small”. It’s anything but minor and among the biggest course changes a person can make, and in a well functioning society one shouldn’t need to choose between the two — one should be able to continue to pursue their goals mostly unencumbered and be a parent, and the only reason this isn’t possible now I believe comes down to the benefits of the vast productivity improvements of the past several decades only being reaped by a select few at the top.
It’s also about risk. In developed societies, it’s still somewhat reasonable (though this is starting to wane) for a couple with dual incomes to be able to establish themselves well enough that the risk of being put out on the street is minimal. Once even a single kid enters the picture however, this changes; the required income level for both parents to both provide the desired quality of care for the child and achieve reasonable insurance against financial disaster is quite high and well above the earning potential of a huge percentage (probably the majority) of the population. How much the parents are willing to sacrifice has little bearing on this.
The impoverished aren’t as affected by this because they’re already living on knife’s edge, and having kids won’t change that much. A poorer population boosts birthrates but making people poorer is not how nations should go about fixing their population problems.
Aside from that, I feel that it’s a mischaracterization to pose giving up on who a person had been prior to becoming a parent (career goals, etc) as “small”. It’s anything but minor and among the biggest course changes a person can make, and in a well functioning society one shouldn’t need to choose between the two — one should be able to continue to pursue their goals mostly unencumbered and be a parent, and the only reason this isn’t possible now I believe comes down to the benefits of the vast productivity improvements of the past several decades only being reaped by a select few at the top.
> but the highest fertility rates are pretty consistently recorded in impoverished and conflict-torn countries.
The difference is that (in addition to birth control) in those situations having children does not really make a material difference (barring extreme food shortages). There's no career to heed, usually no mortgage or daycare to pay, there's no cars so no need to worry about getting that SUV, education is also not always a primary concern. The family just makes do with where they would have lived and pack in a few more kids. The main extra cost is feeding a few more mouths, which is usually manageable. But sometime down the line the children can help around the house or supplement family income.
The difference is that (in addition to birth control) in those situations having children does not really make a material difference (barring extreme food shortages). There's no career to heed, usually no mortgage or daycare to pay, there's no cars so no need to worry about getting that SUV, education is also not always a primary concern. The family just makes do with where they would have lived and pack in a few more kids. The main extra cost is feeding a few more mouths, which is usually manageable. But sometime down the line the children can help around the house or supplement family income.
> but the highest fertility rates are pretty consistently recorded in impoverished and conflict-torn countries
Lack of birth control.
> The problem isn't that people in the West need to make greater sacrifices to raise children.
The problem is that the standard that you’re expected to meet in raising a child is significantly higher. Is it biologically required that you have full time coverage of someone watching your toddler? No. Is it legally required? Yes. Do most grandparents want to be live in caretakers to young children? No, they have better things to do. Do you have to pay a fortune for the service? Yes.
Is it biologically required to meet a certain standard of living to raise a child, a standard that generally requires 2 parents salaries in the west? No. Is it legally required? No, but you might sets them up for failure later in life, and means they’ll struggle too when they get to be your age.
The whole thing is people who want to be parents have a drive to make sure their kids live at least as good a life as they did (or at least should).
If that seems financially hopeless in the west… we have effective birth control and can delay until it is possible.
Sometimes the point in time when you are financially stable enough to have children is also the point at which you are biologically unable to have them (everything is more difficult after ~35 or so). If there’s no promise of financial stability any time is as good as any other.
Fixing the “problem”is a complicated mix of social/psychological problems and financial problems related to wealth inequality. Blaming millennials or whoever for being selfish is a bad take.
Lack of birth control.
> The problem isn't that people in the West need to make greater sacrifices to raise children.
The problem is that the standard that you’re expected to meet in raising a child is significantly higher. Is it biologically required that you have full time coverage of someone watching your toddler? No. Is it legally required? Yes. Do most grandparents want to be live in caretakers to young children? No, they have better things to do. Do you have to pay a fortune for the service? Yes.
Is it biologically required to meet a certain standard of living to raise a child, a standard that generally requires 2 parents salaries in the west? No. Is it legally required? No, but you might sets them up for failure later in life, and means they’ll struggle too when they get to be your age.
The whole thing is people who want to be parents have a drive to make sure their kids live at least as good a life as they did (or at least should).
If that seems financially hopeless in the west… we have effective birth control and can delay until it is possible.
Sometimes the point in time when you are financially stable enough to have children is also the point at which you are biologically unable to have them (everything is more difficult after ~35 or so). If there’s no promise of financial stability any time is as good as any other.
Fixing the “problem”is a complicated mix of social/psychological problems and financial problems related to wealth inequality. Blaming millennials or whoever for being selfish is a bad take.
> Do most grandparents want to be live in caretakers to young children? No, they have better things to do.
It’s also often not feasible even in cases where grandparents (or other relatives) are willing, due to the modern necessity for people to move to where employment prospects (and/or other economic factors, e.g. housing costs) are best, separating families with great distances.
It’s also often not feasible even in cases where grandparents (or other relatives) are willing, due to the modern necessity for people to move to where employment prospects (and/or other economic factors, e.g. housing costs) are best, separating families with great distances.
> Blaming millennials or whoever for being selfish is a bad take
The OP did not blame them or call them selfish. He just pointed out that we have tried a lot of proposals to make it easier for parents and they have not solved the problem. People over focus on the financial side without taking into account the emotional side.
(OP quote: "I'm not saying this to judge people, but I think the fallacy here is that we assume things would improve")
The OP did not blame them or call them selfish. He just pointed out that we have tried a lot of proposals to make it easier for parents and they have not solved the problem. People over focus on the financial side without taking into account the emotional side.
(OP quote: "I'm not saying this to judge people, but I think the fallacy here is that we assume things would improve")
> where raising a child requires sacrifices much greater than it does in the West
This part ain't correct, if you actually traveled properly in such places you would find much better community/family support for raising kids compared to typical western young couple situation. I ain't saying every single young family is better off like this, but on average the difference is often staggering.
What I mean - for us, both having high intensity jobs that required 17+ years of hard studies and moving across various parts of Europe, going from couple/married but without children into having 2 small kids a massive shock in every single aspect of life since we raise them largely on our own, families are very far. Families in such places face on average significantly less shock in such situation, mostly they continue in their lives as before (the guy) and women take care of kids for some time as is expected. Of course this is slowly changing into that western model as people get better white collar jobs in big cities.
This part ain't correct, if you actually traveled properly in such places you would find much better community/family support for raising kids compared to typical western young couple situation. I ain't saying every single young family is better off like this, but on average the difference is often staggering.
What I mean - for us, both having high intensity jobs that required 17+ years of hard studies and moving across various parts of Europe, going from couple/married but without children into having 2 small kids a massive shock in every single aspect of life since we raise them largely on our own, families are very far. Families in such places face on average significantly less shock in such situation, mostly they continue in their lives as before (the guy) and women take care of kids for some time as is expected. Of course this is slowly changing into that western model as people get better white collar jobs in big cities.
> if we offered longer parental leaves, child subsidies, state-run childcare, or whatever - but in every country such programs are implemented, they don't really make any difference
Exactly, countries like Sweden have implemented a lot of policies to help parents. The current fertility rate is 1.8 (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SWE/sweden/fertility-r...).
Exactly, countries like Sweden have implemented a lot of policies to help parents. The current fertility rate is 1.8 (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SWE/sweden/fertility-r...).
the current fertility rate is falling, though: https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-insights/why-ar...
also, take in account that immigrants from poorer countries can usually boost fertility rate of their new country... but the general trend reverts to the local (previous) average as soon as the new citizens get accustomed to the local society and habits.
also, take in account that immigrants from poorer countries can usually boost fertility rate of their new country... but the general trend reverts to the local (previous) average as soon as the new citizens get accustomed to the local society and habits.
> where raising a child requires sacrifices much greater than it does in the West
Does it? I would argue that, in societies where a woman is not expected to work anyway (either due to cultural limitations or lack of jobs or both), the relative sacrifice required to raise a child is less than in the West.
Add to that that it's more common in those societies to have multi-generational households, with readily available (and also jobless) grandparents.
The expectations of what should be provided to a child are also much smaller, for better or for worse.
Does it? I would argue that, in societies where a woman is not expected to work anyway (either due to cultural limitations or lack of jobs or both), the relative sacrifice required to raise a child is less than in the West.
Add to that that it's more common in those societies to have multi-generational households, with readily available (and also jobless) grandparents.
The expectations of what should be provided to a child are also much smaller, for better or for worse.
High rates in poor places are easily explained by lack of birth control.
The thing to compare is societies with birth control and higher rates of reproduction vs those with lower. Comparing with or without easily accessed birth control doesn’t tell us much.
Why, for example, is South Korea’s birth rate so much lower than France or the USA?
Very authoritarian cultures that forbid birth control are also less relevant.
The thing to compare is societies with birth control and higher rates of reproduction vs those with lower. Comparing with or without easily accessed birth control doesn’t tell us much.
Why, for example, is South Korea’s birth rate so much lower than France or the USA?
Very authoritarian cultures that forbid birth control are also less relevant.
In impoverished and conflict torn countries, there isn't much worse that the situation could get with kids and the mortality rate is higher, so there's less interest in family planning. On top of that, most such countries are ones where there is significant cultural pressure to have children early.
This also translates to other things, if people are having families in their early 20s, the third generation has relatively young grandparents. If they're having them in the late 20s, early 30s, the third generation has grandparents who are in their 60s and not as capable of chasing after toddlers all day.
Being expected to give up on career goals also comes down to the same issue, when you're primarily focused on staying afloat, your career goals are also just to not have things get worse.
Famine or war would not reverse this in the West, unless it was at apocalyptic levels such as to cause a total cultural reset back to a society where women are seen as child factories first.
This also translates to other things, if people are having families in their early 20s, the third generation has relatively young grandparents. If they're having them in the late 20s, early 30s, the third generation has grandparents who are in their 60s and not as capable of chasing after toddlers all day.
Being expected to give up on career goals also comes down to the same issue, when you're primarily focused on staying afloat, your career goals are also just to not have things get worse.
Famine or war would not reverse this in the West, unless it was at apocalyptic levels such as to cause a total cultural reset back to a society where women are seen as child factories first.
> It's that they no longer want to make small ones.
Moralization of having kids (and birth control) also has a large impact on this—it's not uncommon to hear younger folks say they don't believe it's ethical to have kids.
Moralization of having kids (and birth control) also has a large impact on this—it's not uncommon to hear younger folks say they don't believe it's ethical to have kids.
[deleted]
> the only tried and true way to fix fertility is
It's funny that you describe fertility as something which needs to be fixed. I see it as a very fortunate thing that humanity is voluntarily choosing to stop expanding its population in a situation of global ecological overshoot.
It's funny that you describe fertility as something which needs to be fixed. I see it as a very fortunate thing that humanity is voluntarily choosing to stop expanding its population in a situation of global ecological overshoot.
There are two groups of people who consistently have children: People who can afford it, and people who have nothing to lose by not affording it.
In the middle is a group who would actually lose a lot by having children, so they don't.
In the middle is a group who would actually lose a lot by having children, so they don't.
My colleague went out on maternity leave and never came back, because it just didn't make financial sense to hire daycare when her husband could support the whole family without her income. She's also happier than she's ever been in her life and loves her baby far more than she ever cared about her job.
[deleted]
As someone without kids I typically see my coworkers who do have kids be granted special allowances and bond with upper management over the experience of being a parent, etc
This is the most frustrating part. I have so many team members who drag their feet on tons of projects and blame it on their parental obligations with seemingly endless levels of understanding from everyone, but if I were to say "I am really burnt out and want to take the day off to go skiing" once in a while, I become the team pariah.
I think this is less blame on the parents and more blaming on society’s lack of understanding of human mental health. It’s just when it comes to parents, the trauma and misery of raising a child is more well known and therefore more understanding is granted. It’s also why people without children can be viewed as overly judgmental of flawed parenting— they are kind of being the guy who goes “what, you’re not over it already” to someone who was assaulted or similar.
> if I were to say "I am really burnt out and want to take the day off to go skiing" once in a while, I become the team pariah.
Find a better team—that's not normal behavior.
Find a better team—that's not normal behavior.
Yes it has taken me a while to realize this now, as I had bought into the "well kids are a valid excuse, so who am I to complain?" propaganda for too long. I'm starting the leetcode grind / github "resume" update since the start of this month for that reason.
> "I am really burnt out and want to take the day off to go skiing" once in a while, I become the team pariah.
I'm gonna say to my 7 year old daughter "hey I read this comment on hackernews .. so sorry daddy won't be there to deal with you.. cause I'm like burnt out, so I'm gonna go skiing, take care of yourself"
I'm gonna say to my 7 year old daughter "hey I read this comment on hackernews .. so sorry daddy won't be there to deal with you.. cause I'm like burnt out, so I'm gonna go skiing, take care of yourself"
This is exactly the "holier than thou" attitude I was talking about. This is the 21st century and except in extremely rare situations (for which I can't even come up with an example, tbh), kids are a choice. Having the responsibility to take care of kids is a consequence of that choice.
It's not a bad choice, but treating the consequences of that choice as a reason for slacking at work as being more valid than others when the outcome to the team is the same (i.e. less time doing work) is the issue.
It's not a bad choice, but treating the consequences of that choice as a reason for slacking at work as being more valid than others when the outcome to the team is the same (i.e. less time doing work) is the issue.
Your job is just as important to you as your daughter?
I had a young coworker blow a fuse because of allowances given to parents not available to others. But I’m so old and have seen it so many times I just shrugged and told him to get used to it. It is what it is.
That's absolutely true - you become a member of a global club and can bond with people who will be walled away from you otherwise. Your own parents also make a reappearance in your life.
Parenting the next generation it vitally important to the continued existence of the human race.
> that's post-tax, because our politicians love talking about the problems but no solutions in sight
Maybe you don't have a solution "in sight" because by eliminating tax analysis you're conspicuously skipping the Child Tax Credit[1], which is pretty clearly aimed right at this issue.
It doesn't make children into a revenue source or anything, but it's a real and tangible action taken by "our politicians" to address exactly the problem you claim they're ignoring.
[1] Also the Child and Dependent Care Credit, also any of the various state policies in the same realm, also the deductability of child care expenses, etc... Basically tax policy IS THE MECHANISM by which government tries to address this problem. And you totally missed it!
Maybe you don't have a solution "in sight" because by eliminating tax analysis you're conspicuously skipping the Child Tax Credit[1], which is pretty clearly aimed right at this issue.
It doesn't make children into a revenue source or anything, but it's a real and tangible action taken by "our politicians" to address exactly the problem you claim they're ignoring.
[1] Also the Child and Dependent Care Credit, also any of the various state policies in the same realm, also the deductability of child care expenses, etc... Basically tax policy IS THE MECHANISM by which government tries to address this problem. And you totally missed it!
What is sad about the child care credit: it’s like half the cost of one kid, and doesn’t scale with the number of kids you have. So ya, it saves you ~$1k-1.5K year in taxes, it’s kind of useless.
How is a thousand dollars "useless"? I'll take it if you don't want it. Again, the point is to make having children less expensive, not to hire people to have kids.
There's room for argument for what the right kind and amount of public assistance for child rearing should be. But blanket statements like "useless" (or no "solution in sight" upthread) seem ridiculous. Clearly there's useful aid for parents in the modern US.
There's room for argument for what the right kind and amount of public assistance for child rearing should be. But blanket statements like "useless" (or no "solution in sight" upthread) seem ridiculous. Clearly there's useful aid for parents in the modern US.
We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childcare expenses. It's not like I'm going to turn it down but if it went away I would not even notice.
> We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childcare expenses
The credit is $2k per kid, plus a $6k cap for the CADC credit. If you're spending $144k on care[1] this credit isn't for you. That's just ridiculous. Don't ask the federal government to pay you a 4x urban minimum wage just to have kids, that's not a good use of my tax dollars (and I say that as a fellow parent).
But a few thousand dollars to help out folks on the margin can absolutely keep people in the workforce and out of poverty. Just don't expect your boutique day care in Sunnyvale or whatever to be a free ride.
[1] You clearly aren't. You're just confused about the generosity of this benefit, or more likely make too much and are on the phase-out schedule for high income taxpayers.
The credit is $2k per kid, plus a $6k cap for the CADC credit. If you're spending $144k on care[1] this credit isn't for you. That's just ridiculous. Don't ask the federal government to pay you a 4x urban minimum wage just to have kids, that's not a good use of my tax dollars (and I say that as a fellow parent).
But a few thousand dollars to help out folks on the margin can absolutely keep people in the workforce and out of poverty. Just don't expect your boutique day care in Sunnyvale or whatever to be a free ride.
[1] You clearly aren't. You're just confused about the generosity of this benefit, or more likely make too much and are on the phase-out schedule for high income taxpayers.
The DCFSA is tax free contribute, so you are only saving taxes, not the entire amount of the benefit. But I see you are talking about other things?
The CADC goes down based on income, and I think it is superseded by the DCFSA at higher incomes, although that magic always alludes me in TurboTax.
The CADC goes down based on income, and I think it is superseded by the DCFSA at higher incomes, although that magic always alludes me in TurboTax.
I don't get it then. Is this all just a whine about progressive taxation? If you make a tech salary you don't get this benefit, it's not for you. No one wants to pay for FAANG scions in their taxes and they never will.
That doesn't obviate the point that the US federal government provides really quite reasonable (if not super generous by western standards) child care benefits, and thus all the hyperbole above ("no solution", "useless", etc...) is basically wrong.
That doesn't obviate the point that the US federal government provides really quite reasonable (if not super generous by western standards) child care benefits, and thus all the hyperbole above ("no solution", "useless", etc...) is basically wrong.
It’s not a whine about progressive taxation. It is just stating that the tax benefits are not meaningful incentives to have more kids, especially for middle class and above. It’s like, “thanks, but this doesn’t really move any needles in significant directions.”
So techies are even less likely to reproduce, because as you say, no one is interested in encouraging them and the HCOL areas they live in have wicked child care costs. So maybe we should just be happy with our below replacement birth rate, and figure out other ways to live in a world worth increasingly fewer people?
So techies are even less likely to reproduce, because as you say, no one is interested in encouraging them and the HCOL areas they live in have wicked child care costs. So maybe we should just be happy with our below replacement birth rate, and figure out other ways to live in a world worth increasingly fewer people?
I guess the main confusion here was what was meant by no-op, as in "no-op in deciding whether to have more kids or not."
Oh it’s fine. But it would still be $1500 or so if I had a second kid, or a third. It’s also like 15% of my overall yearly childcare expenses for one kid who is already in elementary school (and was much less when was in preschool). Just increase the child tax credit by $1500 and be done with it.
And many employers offer Flex Savings Accounts for child/dependent care, which I believe are capped at $5,000 per year.
So the child tax care credit is $2,000 cash for each kid, then $5,000 of your child care costs are pre-tax. Criticize that all you want, but why lie about it? Or be ignorant and sanctimonious?
So the child tax care credit is $2,000 cash for each kid, then $5,000 of your child care costs are pre-tax. Criticize that all you want, but why lie about it? Or be ignorant and sanctimonious?
> And that's post-tax, because our politicians love talking about the problems but no solutions in sight.
It's not just post-tax for you, daycare providers also pay taxes so it's a double whammy. Most European countries give you a tax credit (which would help a lot more than tax deductions) and have special generous tax schemes for the providers themselves to ensure they get licensed & declare their revenues. Without these schemes, you end up with the current situation where upper-class folks hire nannies under the table and essentially stiff the government instead.
France had the same issue and fought it successfully in the 80s by making sure providers make more money by being declared and licensed. It would not that hard with enough federal government intervention. Which will likely not happen because white Americans still think more like German people ("why would you be a working mom") than French people ("why would you stay at home").
It's not just post-tax for you, daycare providers also pay taxes so it's a double whammy. Most European countries give you a tax credit (which would help a lot more than tax deductions) and have special generous tax schemes for the providers themselves to ensure they get licensed & declare their revenues. Without these schemes, you end up with the current situation where upper-class folks hire nannies under the table and essentially stiff the government instead.
France had the same issue and fought it successfully in the 80s by making sure providers make more money by being declared and licensed. It would not that hard with enough federal government intervention. Which will likely not happen because white Americans still think more like German people ("why would you be a working mom") than French people ("why would you stay at home").
Financial issues aside, it brings a lot of uncertainties and responsibilities in your everyday routine. For good and bad, your mind is never truly alone for the rest of your life. The child gets sick and nothing else matters at that moment. You must be able to deal graciously with all kinds of mood emotional states ranging from stubbornness, through laziness, to exhilaration.
You must have reserves and be mobilised like a warrior in every aspect – financially, mentally, physically.
You must have reserves and be mobilised like a warrior in every aspect – financially, mentally, physically.
How many direct workers per infant are there in daycare, and what's the big source of overhead above that?
In the US child-to-teacher ratios have maximum limits usually set and enforced at the State or municipal level. This ratio also varies by age level with lower child to teacher ratios for infants than for toddlers.
In Georgia the ratio is 6:1 for infants. However there is a national daycare certification group NAEYC which has stricter ratios. The daycare where my kids went was NAEYC certified and the ratio was 4:1 for infants.
In Georgia the ratio is 6:1 for infants. However there is a national daycare certification group NAEYC which has stricter ratios. The daycare where my kids went was NAEYC certified and the ratio was 4:1 for infants.
4:1 seems pretty low, people who have triplets are getting close to that when caring for their kids alone during their partner's work day. Is that accounting for cross coverage during lunch breaks and stuff, or 4:1 at all times?
4:1 at all times in my state.
If you've not had an infant with a cold, let alone a room full of them, even 4:1 is cutting pretty close. Sure, when all are healthy and happy, you can maybe go up in ratio. But when things are going not so well then infants need pretty constant care. And things are usually not going well in the winter time.
If RSV or covid is going around, even 1:1 care is pushing it. Our daycare had four in the PICU after a bout of RSV went through. Some are still on a canula, months later. That amount of phlegm really messes with the little ones.
If you've not had an infant with a cold, let alone a room full of them, even 4:1 is cutting pretty close. Sure, when all are healthy and happy, you can maybe go up in ratio. But when things are going not so well then infants need pretty constant care. And things are usually not going well in the winter time.
If RSV or covid is going around, even 1:1 care is pushing it. Our daycare had four in the PICU after a bout of RSV went through. Some are still on a canula, months later. That amount of phlegm really messes with the little ones.
> In the US child-to-teacher ratios have maximum limits usually set and enforced at the State or municipal level.
As someone who has a partner who spent years working in a wide variety of childcare (from "high end" to "low end"), these ratios are _routinely_ ignored. There's also significant pressure to come in when sick. She was very sick - "Well, good thing there's a bathroom in your room, huh?"
On the rare occasions they really couldn't meet staffing levels and didn't open for the day? Congratulations, everyone gets the day off! Unpaid, of course! Why, yes, we're still billing families the normal weekly/monthly rate...
As someone who has a partner who spent years working in a wide variety of childcare (from "high end" to "low end"), these ratios are _routinely_ ignored. There's also significant pressure to come in when sick. She was very sick - "Well, good thing there's a bathroom in your room, huh?"
On the rare occasions they really couldn't meet staffing levels and didn't open for the day? Congratulations, everyone gets the day off! Unpaid, of course! Why, yes, we're still billing families the normal weekly/monthly rate...
What about this take: having a child is a responsibility. An expensive and serious one. Why should others pay for your choice?
> Why should others pay for your choice?
Procreation is a choice on an individual level but on a societal level it is not a choice at all, it is absolutely mandatory. So, someone's got to do it, and if you're not going to do it, then it's not unreasonable for you to contribute to others who are doing it.
Furthermore, if you benefit from future workers in any way in the future without having kids of your own, if you did not help pay for those kids then you're effectively benefiting from something you didn't do shit for: namely raising those kids who became workers who ended up paying for your pension, keeping the lights on, keeping your ETFs growing, paying for your healthcare, etc., etc... So you should pay, or you should have kids.
Procreation is a choice on an individual level but on a societal level it is not a choice at all, it is absolutely mandatory. So, someone's got to do it, and if you're not going to do it, then it's not unreasonable for you to contribute to others who are doing it.
Furthermore, if you benefit from future workers in any way in the future without having kids of your own, if you did not help pay for those kids then you're effectively benefiting from something you didn't do shit for: namely raising those kids who became workers who ended up paying for your pension, keeping the lights on, keeping your ETFs growing, paying for your healthcare, etc., etc... So you should pay, or you should have kids.
> Procreation is a choice on an individual level but on a societal level it is not a choice at all, it is absolutely mandatory.
It absolutely is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov...
It absolutely is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov...
that sort of movement is thankfully incredibly niche. anyone serious about that sort of crazy should start with themselves.
That just means that whatever society believes that will go extinct, and other societies will take over their resources. But sure, some society can commit suicide if it wants.
Just to play an argument out:
Your future living situation may be in part dependent on the economic strength of the nation you're living in, and thus there's collective onus on ensuring that future. It's reasonable to believe that one ingredient in a vibrant economy is people, sufficiently many doing sufficiently interesting and valuable things. At the end of the day, the only way to have future people is to have children now. Thus, collectively, we should be interested in supporting the work of building future generations to be sufficiently populous, vibrant, and motivated, even if we are motivated only by our own future wellbeing.
And I suppose you can magnify this argument to the degree that you feel collective responsibility toward our shared civilizations. And negate it to the degree that you believe we'll someday within your practical lifespan achieve miraculous technology like functional and practical immortality.
Your future living situation may be in part dependent on the economic strength of the nation you're living in, and thus there's collective onus on ensuring that future. It's reasonable to believe that one ingredient in a vibrant economy is people, sufficiently many doing sufficiently interesting and valuable things. At the end of the day, the only way to have future people is to have children now. Thus, collectively, we should be interested in supporting the work of building future generations to be sufficiently populous, vibrant, and motivated, even if we are motivated only by our own future wellbeing.
And I suppose you can magnify this argument to the degree that you feel collective responsibility toward our shared civilizations. And negate it to the degree that you believe we'll someday within your practical lifespan achieve miraculous technology like functional and practical immortality.
Because raising children is essential to the survival of human society.
If we're going to be brutually economic about it: Are you invested in stocks or bonds at all? If our population collapsed, so would those. Today's investors' wealth is tied to the success of future generations.
If we're going to be brutually economic about it: Are you invested in stocks or bonds at all? If our population collapsed, so would those. Today's investors' wealth is tied to the success of future generations.
> If we're going to be brutually economic about it: Are you invested in stocks or bonds at all? If our population collapsed, so would those. Today's investors' wealth is tied to the success of future generations.
That's brutally market-oriented. The brutal economics looks like starvation.
That's brutally market-oriented. The brutal economics looks like starvation.
Maintaining the global temperature within a certain range also seems important to the survival of human society, but we seem to be deadset on cranking up the thermostat regardless of the consequences. I suppose whatever will be, will be, but almost no aspect of modern life feels particularly rational; having children included. It's post-modernism all the way down, and if you want to have kids for whatever reason, then have them. If not, then don't. But I suspect very few people consider the perpetuation of society as high on the list of reasons to have them; that's too abstract while being woken up at 2AM is anything but abstract.
It's an interesting take...
If you're a 12 year old teenager who doesn't know anything about society and economics.
If you apply this logic to any resource that is being paid for collectively (like roads or maybe safety/rescue service), but not being used by everyone at all times, it becomes very evident why "others" pay for something that benefits the collective.
If you're a 12 year old teenager who doesn't know anything about society and economics.
If you apply this logic to any resource that is being paid for collectively (like roads or maybe safety/rescue service), but not being used by everyone at all times, it becomes very evident why "others" pay for something that benefits the collective.
Because we really do live in a society. Believe it or not you were once someone's expensive and serious responsibility that others had to pay for. And in the future those expensive and serious responsibilities are going to be the tax base that's forced to pay for your care.
The future of our society depends on it? The same reason we have taxes for any common good, whether it applies to you individually or not.
A basic function of societies is caring for the young (and old) and I believe socializing the costs of early rearing of children is beneficial to literally everyone. Right now you may not want to help, but when you're old and decrepit you'll want to be living in a functioning economy run by the children you contributed some money to help grow into contributing members of the economy.
I think having a healthy community where children can grow to be well-educated, good citizens benefit everyone in the long run. And it is not like zero-sum game, I think there might be very cheap solutions with good ROI. Solutions can be found if there is a will and concerted effort. I don't live in US, this is the model in my mind.
People raising children now are raising your future retirement financial future, in the form of nurses, paramedics, social safety nets, and governmental tax basis. They are raising people who will be lifting you and bathing you when you cannot yourself.
Perhaps this is not the most charitable take, but "because civilization is basically a tautology" isn't convincing this one that it needs to be perpetuated by my descendants. If it gives other people reason though, then I guess it's something.
If you don’t want to participate in society, then don’t. But don’t be using tech you certainly didn’t build to be debating about if it’s particularly “compelling” to live in a cooperative species.
Nobody else should have to pay for the choice.
But there is no reason for the cost of childcare to go up and up. Literally just enable better pregnancy/parenthood laws and create an abundance of childcare centers so that costs can go lower.
But there is no reason for the cost of childcare to go up and up. Literally just enable better pregnancy/parenthood laws and create an abundance of childcare centers so that costs can go lower.
You can’t just magically have enough childcare workers willing to staff that abundance of childcare centers. It’s a free job market, and wages have to be competitive, given a tight labor market. We help run a preschool at the moment, and salaries are the vast majority of the budget, the facility is a very small part. It’s extremely hard to keep it staffed without blowing the budget.
If you want childcare to be cheaper for parents it must be subsidized, or we need higher unemployment to make childcare a more attractive field (though I’d argue you don’t want people caring for your kids out of desperation for a job), or we must make housing cheaper/less competitive so that people can afford to do this out of passion.
If you want childcare to be cheaper for parents it must be subsidized, or we need higher unemployment to make childcare a more attractive field (though I’d argue you don’t want people caring for your kids out of desperation for a job), or we must make housing cheaper/less competitive so that people can afford to do this out of passion.
Personally I’d be more than happy to have my taxes go up to subsidize childcare. It’s probably what, max 10-20$ for me individually? I’d even happily pay 100$ annually. Probably way more is used to fund my government’s surveillance program :(
Hm I’m not sure if the numbers pencil out there, daycare can be $2k/mo or more, especially in cities. If we wanted parents to have 80% subsidized daycare, assuming $1k/mo cost and $20/mo per adult, we’re looking at 40 adults per young kid. Not sure if that’s enough. Maybe not too far off, though? And could play with the percentage subsidy, even much less would be far better than it is now.
I think it’s worth it from a societal standpoint, though.
I think it’s worth it from a societal standpoint, though.
How many children to a carer, 15? I don't think their salary is $360,000 so obviously most of that money is going somewhere other than what you'd expect to be the largest single expense. It's probably going to landlords and shareholders, because that's where most excess money goes.
I used to know these ratios better when I was reworking staffing, but I’m pretty sure state mandated child:teacher ratios are lower than that for preschool, lower still for toddler care, and something like 4:1 for infant care, and they must be met at all times to function, so you need backup/slack for eg teacher sickness. And in preschool, the teachers typically need non-licensed assistants to help with eg potty accidents that would otherwise pull them away from the main group.
There is also a surprisingly significant administrative burden, so you typically need administrators to handle things like state licensing compliance (including surprise inspections), parent communication, teacher scheduling, billing, payroll and all that entails, cleaners, scheduling and contracts for photographers and activities, new enrollment, tours, marketing efforts, insurance, etc. These are typically older teachers, so they’re not the most technically savvy group, and perhaps less productive when tech is involved than you might think. And parents expect to be able to text them, pay online, etc nowadays, so they have to use some tech. But the upshot is sometimes they can pinch-hit to meet your ratios.
SaaS has gotten surprisingly expensive, too, that was sucking a big hole in our budget when I first started helping out, and while I’ve trimmed it significantly, it’s still surprising how greedy they are compared to eg 5 years ago (looking at you, Gusto). Ditto thinks like online payments with credit cards, had to put a stop to that asap.
The school I help with is a nonprofit, so there are no shareholders, and the building is a little more than 10% of our operating budget, so it’s not landlords. There is no “excess money” for us, but maybe there is in one of the corporate operations.
There is also a surprisingly significant administrative burden, so you typically need administrators to handle things like state licensing compliance (including surprise inspections), parent communication, teacher scheduling, billing, payroll and all that entails, cleaners, scheduling and contracts for photographers and activities, new enrollment, tours, marketing efforts, insurance, etc. These are typically older teachers, so they’re not the most technically savvy group, and perhaps less productive when tech is involved than you might think. And parents expect to be able to text them, pay online, etc nowadays, so they have to use some tech. But the upshot is sometimes they can pinch-hit to meet your ratios.
SaaS has gotten surprisingly expensive, too, that was sucking a big hole in our budget when I first started helping out, and while I’ve trimmed it significantly, it’s still surprising how greedy they are compared to eg 5 years ago (looking at you, Gusto). Ditto thinks like online payments with credit cards, had to put a stop to that asap.
The school I help with is a nonprofit, so there are no shareholders, and the building is a little more than 10% of our operating budget, so it’s not landlords. There is no “excess money” for us, but maybe there is in one of the corporate operations.
[deleted]
Human labor isn’t going to be more affordable, and child care is the one field where productivity is mandated to not improve via required student/teacher ratios. In fact productivity has gone down since regulatory agencies keep lowering those minimum required ratios.
Yeah, bureaucratic requirements on schools and childcare centers are pretty onerous, and the increased costs, fewer childcare workers, and stressed parental budgets aren’t a good combo.
I generally think early childhood care should be better subsidized in the US.
I generally think early childhood care should be better subsidized in the US.
I think we will need to make it more productive, we don’t have the people who will do it (eventually we run out of saints and immigrants). Some ideas: intelligent automated surveillance (to help a provider take care of more kids at a time), diaper changing robots (you know this is coming in the next 20 years), child labor (kids aide in taking care of younger kids, like it was in the 1950s). Creativity is needed to achieve safety and avoid excessive screen time (we already know screens can pretty much take care of most kids over 2, but the opportunity cost is huge).
If that's your opinion, then fine, but you don't get to complain about birth rates, immigration, "the great replacement", or the unsustainability of the social security fund at the same time.
Because your choice will eventually generate the hundreds of thousands in tax revenue necessary to pay their Medicare and social security bills
Biological systems where the cost of reproduction increases without an increase in the available resources cease to exist. How could it be otherwise?
People often consider their desires to be prime movers, when there they are perfectly aligned with the systems of incentives they inhabit.
People often consider their desires to be prime movers, when there they are perfectly aligned with the systems of incentives they inhabit.
Does not explain why more affluent families tend to have fewer children, or why TFR decreases as nations become wealthier.
If you have something to lose, you will be far more cautious about all aspects of life than someone with nothing. Sex is one of those primal drives that are easy to ignore when there are other things to pay attention to, and easy to indulge in without thinking much when everything has gone to shit. It's not exactly hard to understand that people with options will plan their lives much more intensively than those who don't know if they will be able to eat tomorrow.
Reproduction can be said to be incentivized in low-income groups as children can often participate in the tasks (typically manual labor) performed by the family. Meanwhile, in high-income groups, children take away resources that could be invested into the parents' career progression and wealth management.
Of course low-income groups also suffer from lack of access to contraception, so it's not as straightforward, but that is the birds' eye overview of how it typically works.
Of course low-income groups also suffer from lack of access to contraception, so it's not as straightforward, but that is the birds' eye overview of how it typically works.
Back in the olden days when the majority of human labor was agricultural, having more children meant more hands to work the farm, so having more children actually improved your resource situation. Humans on some level have a biological drive to procreate as well, but if the incentives against having children become strong enough the humans will prioritize short term survival, or maintenance of their standard of living which can feel like survival if slipping for even one month means homelessness.
Free time might be a prime causal factor here. Both the wealthy and working poor may have too little leisure to achieve above-replacement birthrates. That would explain why there are places on Earth with high birthrates yet low GDP per capita.
I'm also suspicious that "wealthier" countries are subjected to more substances which disrupt fertility than poorer countries.
I'm also suspicious that "wealthier" countries are subjected to more substances which disrupt fertility than poorer countries.
> People often consider their desires to be prime movers, when there they are perfectly aligned with the systems of incentives they inhabit
This is the true lesson of malthus' principle of population, not the narrow take that humans exhaust the planet and therefore doomed to extinction.
This is the true lesson of malthus' principle of population, not the narrow take that humans exhaust the planet and therefore doomed to extinction.
Anecdotally, I've noticed that it has a lot to do with women having the sense of security and freedom to say they don't want children. About half of the women in my friend group do not want children despite their husbands wanting them. It has life long physical side effects on women, pregnancy isn't very fun, giving birth can be traumatic and painful, and there are all too many societal expectations placed on the mom. Almost every parenting book I read seemed to be assuming only the mom would read the book. Networking with other parents seems to need to occur primarily through moms, breastfeeding is endlessly pushed and shifts a great deal of the work required early in the child's life onto the mother, possibly carrying over into habits that are maintained afterwards. People don't even talk about any of these things beforehand, but I'd honestly be surprised if most women would want children after learning about these things.
This isn't to mention the fact that having children completely upends your time. Hobbies and free time are seldom available after children. This affects both parents, and it feels like people really don't want to give these things up these days. Really, short of parents constantly pushing you to have kids, there doesn't seem to be a lot of motivation to have kids.
This isn't to mention the fact that having children completely upends your time. Hobbies and free time are seldom available after children. This affects both parents, and it feels like people really don't want to give these things up these days. Really, short of parents constantly pushing you to have kids, there doesn't seem to be a lot of motivation to have kids.
I wonder why the same set of people would be happy for years of unpaid and costly education, to get a job with overtime expectations and have significant motivation for career growth.
At least children will be yours. Whatever you do on your job will belong to somebody else. Somebody else is going to reap all that career growth of yours. You will get an insignificant amount of money for the effort, that you will be forced to spend on way overpriced things.
At least children will be yours. Whatever you do on your job will belong to somebody else. Somebody else is going to reap all that career growth of yours. You will get an insignificant amount of money for the effort, that you will be forced to spend on way overpriced things.
People aren't choosing to work for free rather than having children. They're choosing to work more now to either have more stuff now or work less later.
Both options seem irrational. For starters, coffins don't have pockets. Spending free time during youth beats having nothing to do during seniority years.
If you need to work more in your prime working years, you can work more. If you need to work more in your elderly years, you die early and miserably. That's what people are trying to prevent.
all of this was a big driving factor behind my decision to not have children. couldn't have said it better myself. (i'm a 36yo male.)
Note this article is 11 years old.
Everyone in my generation X generation said they wouldn’t have children. We still laugh about that at the toddler play dates. We are older than our parents when we had kids. But you get to a point where the things that drive you earlier in your career make less a difference once you’ve achieved them, and life takes priority over changing the world in some way. You realize the world overall can be changed during working hours, but the most impact you’ll ever have is in the world of the children in your life. Finally you realize 72 hours of work a week isn’t more effective than 35 hours balanced with a human life on the rest.
Everyone in my generation X generation said they wouldn’t have children. We still laugh about that at the toddler play dates. We are older than our parents when we had kids. But you get to a point where the things that drive you earlier in your career make less a difference once you’ve achieved them, and life takes priority over changing the world in some way. You realize the world overall can be changed during working hours, but the most impact you’ll ever have is in the world of the children in your life. Finally you realize 72 hours of work a week isn’t more effective than 35 hours balanced with a human life on the rest.
> generation X [...] toddler play dates.
You must either be right at the tail end of Gen X, or you had kids REALLY late. I'm in the middle of Gen X, didn't have a kid until I was 35, and my kid is about to turn 18.
You must either be right at the tail end of Gen X, or you had kids REALLY late. I'm in the middle of Gen X, didn't have a kid until I was 35, and my kid is about to turn 18.
Yes I waited pretty late and mine is 9, not quite a toddler. However when she was a toddler I expected all the other parents to be much younger than me given how late I was. But they weren’t.
I’m mid gen X and my kid is 7. But my wife is a millennial, so it somehow works out. We are thinking about kid 2, it’s a bit more risky now.
How is having kids necessarily going to change the world? Is there something totally unique about the way you're raising them, like training them from birth to be ninja assassins and infiltrating government institutions with them? Or are you just trying to change the world by doing the same thing as everybody else by raising them to be healthy and happy and educated and letting them grow up and make their own decisions, like sitting around all day playing video games and doom scrolling and social networking on their mobile phones?
“The world” is defined by experiences of individuals. By shaping and being an integral part of the world as a single human being experiences it changes the world - as experienced by someone - dramatically more than building an online dry cleaning service. You shape the nuanced perceptions of everything in that life, you become a primal force that defines every moment of their life, to their last breath. There’s no greater impact to be had on “the world.”
The broader sense of the world is an intellectual exercise. The world is a spinning ball of uncaring rock covered in a crust of self replicating carbon structures. You might slightly perturb the movements of that crust in some remote way, they might even shape some rocks to look like your long gone carbon structure, but you don’t change anything at that scale.
At a certain point your local experience and the present matter more. Particularly the stronger influence you’ve had on the world at large the more empty it feels in the end, because you are still you, you still only live 24 hours a day, there is no score, no game over you won screen, and the impact that matters most to you is the way your children look at you as you take your last breath.
The broader sense of the world is an intellectual exercise. The world is a spinning ball of uncaring rock covered in a crust of self replicating carbon structures. You might slightly perturb the movements of that crust in some remote way, they might even shape some rocks to look like your long gone carbon structure, but you don’t change anything at that scale.
At a certain point your local experience and the present matter more. Particularly the stronger influence you’ve had on the world at large the more empty it feels in the end, because you are still you, you still only live 24 hours a day, there is no score, no game over you won screen, and the impact that matters most to you is the way your children look at you as you take your last breath.
Online dry-cleaning might impact a single person orders of magnitude less than being their parent, but it impacts many more people, possibly by the same orders of magnitude. Certainly the creation of Hacker News (just the website, not even Y Combinator) has had much more impact on the world than one parent raising any reasonable number of children.
Yes - but the people you impact in having kids is two - you and your child. Your world is your experience. Everyone impacted by online dry cleaning are never a part of your experience beyond an intellectual experience. But your parenthood extends to the entirety of your world, and the world of another. The magnitudes aren’t orders - they’re infinite, as the life of someone in another city is as far as another universe.
By all means make the world better for all man. But realize for you it’s nothing, literally. For your own world, there is no greater impact than your child.
By all means make the world better for all man. But realize for you it’s nothing, literally. For your own world, there is no greater impact than your child.
Tell that to Hattie Louise and Thomas Midgley Sr, whose child had an enormous impact on the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
>His legacy is one of inventing the two chemicals that did the greatest environmental damage. Environmental historian J. R. McNeill stated that he "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." Author Bill Bryson remarked that he possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny." Science writer Fred Pearce described him as a "one-man environmental disaster".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
>His legacy is one of inventing the two chemicals that did the greatest environmental damage. Environmental historian J. R. McNeill stated that he "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." Author Bill Bryson remarked that he possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny." Science writer Fred Pearce described him as a "one-man environmental disaster".
Everyone is someone's child. Attributing all the deeds anyone does to their parent is ridiculously reductive.
I'm 38 and have had the opposite experience. Of all the friends I remember saying they wouldn't have kids, I don't think any of them changed their tune. I do have friends who used to say they wanted kids, but probably never will.
In those 11 years fertility has fallen near universally. Speaking as a millennial, I never saw my career as a means towards changing the world or some life mission driven by passion; I just wanted to find stable employment to hopefully find some financial security and keep my ass in health insurance (I foolishly contracted a childhood condition that left me somewhat disabled). Graduating into the great recession and trying to stay on the treadmill of employment as I flee one layoff or another hasn't left much space in life for a lot else.
I actually feel quite fortunate these days (for a number of reasons) that I never wanted children (also for a number of reasons); if I had I can imagine that it would be quite a disappointment at how it has become ever more infeasible.
I actually feel quite fortunate these days (for a number of reasons) that I never wanted children (also for a number of reasons); if I had I can imagine that it would be quite a disappointment at how it has become ever more infeasible.
Except the correlate isn’t as people propose here poverty but wealth, as wealth increased fertility has decreased. I would note that having kids doesn’t mean having a brood like people did in the past. One or two children is by far the norm in my cohort and I have one. Growing up families were not uncommon with 4-6 kids, now it’s unheard of.
I think the change the world mentality is distinctly GenX, and arguably we did pretty profoundly. I know my career changed a lot of things for many people. But you hear time and time again from people who had great careers or impacted the world in some way that the changes that mattered most to them were the ones they made at home with their family.
I think the change the world mentality is distinctly GenX, and arguably we did pretty profoundly. I know my career changed a lot of things for many people. But you hear time and time again from people who had great careers or impacted the world in some way that the changes that mattered most to them were the ones they made at home with their family.
I believe the biggest correlate is actually religion, and I've suspected for some time now that Nietzsche was really onto it quite early with the whole "Death of God" thing.
That said, I can say that while I may in theory be able to afford a kid today, I couldn't after a layoff, which does happen to me sometimes. Frankly, I like my current employment, but I'm starting to get some bad vibes sadly. The thing is that kids need support for like 2 decades and it's hard to imagine a job lasting that long. I always remember the scene from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" where the dad walks in and tells the kids he can't afford them anymore so he's going to sell them to science, and I can at least find it all pretty amusing.
That said, I can say that while I may in theory be able to afford a kid today, I couldn't after a layoff, which does happen to me sometimes. Frankly, I like my current employment, but I'm starting to get some bad vibes sadly. The thing is that kids need support for like 2 decades and it's hard to imagine a job lasting that long. I always remember the scene from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" where the dad walks in and tells the kids he can't afford them anymore so he's going to sell them to science, and I can at least find it all pretty amusing.
So you’re saying the Japanese are godless ubermench and they were Christian they wouldn’t be seeing population decline?
My grandmother lived in a family of five kids and her parents were unemployed (her father was disabled in a factory accident in the 1920’s) during the Great Depression and homeless. Most of the world is considerably poorer yet have more children. You can afford to have children, they’re only expensive if you lavish wealth on them. That’s not strictly necessary, education is free. What people usually mean is they don’t want to sacrifice their standard of living or disrupt their way of life. That’s fair - but literally everyone can afford to have kids, that’s why so many kids are born into poverty yet reach adulthood. :-)
My grandmother lived in a family of five kids and her parents were unemployed (her father was disabled in a factory accident in the 1920’s) during the Great Depression and homeless. Most of the world is considerably poorer yet have more children. You can afford to have children, they’re only expensive if you lavish wealth on them. That’s not strictly necessary, education is free. What people usually mean is they don’t want to sacrifice their standard of living or disrupt their way of life. That’s fair - but literally everyone can afford to have kids, that’s why so many kids are born into poverty yet reach adulthood. :-)
Christian or apparently anything else; the specific religion doesn't seem all that relevant actually (which says some things about religion I think).
I suppose I am currently mildly homeless which does tend to make the thought a bit harder. Also, as a man, I am not able to make children no matter how much money I'm given; there are other things necessary that I do not have. Anyway, the idea really just does seem infeasible for a few reasons - money is just one of them.
I suppose I am currently mildly homeless which does tend to make the thought a bit harder. Also, as a man, I am not able to make children no matter how much money I'm given; there are other things necessary that I do not have. Anyway, the idea really just does seem infeasible for a few reasons - money is just one of them.
I suspect wealth is the causal agent for lack of religion - not just wealth concentrated in a few and the rest in extreme poverty. Being an opiate for the masses, it’s important to have god when life is essentially not worth living. As the median wealth increases opiates are less necessary to forestall abject misery. Likewise, the need to have many children decreases.
But, there is nothing quite like raising a new life, one that for whom you loom as large as your parents loom for you, for better or worse. Your choice as to which. Maybe your parents were worse. But you can be better. That’s powerful stuff man, and worth it.
I am profoundly sorry to hear about your struggles. I have had my own that are enough to curl anyone’s hair. A king once called a Buddhist monk and ordered him to give him the most valuable treasure that can be. The monk took the crown off his head and inscribed in it “this too shall pass.”
But, there is nothing quite like raising a new life, one that for whom you loom as large as your parents loom for you, for better or worse. Your choice as to which. Maybe your parents were worse. But you can be better. That’s powerful stuff man, and worth it.
I am profoundly sorry to hear about your struggles. I have had my own that are enough to curl anyone’s hair. A king once called a Buddhist monk and ordered him to give him the most valuable treasure that can be. The monk took the crown off his head and inscribed in it “this too shall pass.”
The increasingly toxic politics (arguably by design) emerging around school board elections is very recent addition to disincentives. I live in a Midwest city where suburban school districts that previously wooed young professionals away from urban core now frequently feature nasty culture war fights, book banning, etc. It's notable for impacting generally wealthier households that could bear the expense of relocating to suburban municipalities with higher cost of living/taxes to access better schools.
I wonder why all of troublemakers are not ejected from the system? You would think any "komsomol" types would be flushed by democratic system whereas they would be retained in assignments based system. Are there parents who genuinely want culture wars / book banning types deciding how their children study?
Increasingly, the troublemakers are gaining overwhelming support from the electorate. We used to rely on the fact that the belligerent, crazy, culture wars / book burning folks were a tiny minority, kept powerless by the democratic system. As their numbers grow, the democratic system starts to work for them. Many places (at least in the USA) have crossed the rubicon demographic wise, and the inmates are now running the asylum.
An underlying motivation to this new power-mongering in school district politics is that education is typically the 2nd largest budget item in most US states. The "troublemakers" despite their theatrics also as a category tend to overwhelmingly support schemes that divert education funds to private entities, e.g. vouchers, tax-credit scholarships.
So instead of helping the vulnerable groups get education, they will try to divert as much funds as possible from that goal?
I alao thought that getting education outside of public one-size-fits-all school was a conservative thing (religious schools, private schools) - especially if enabled by a voucher. Is that is what politics are about?
I alao thought that getting education outside of public one-size-fits-all school was a conservative thing (religious schools, private schools) - especially if enabled by a voucher. Is that is what politics are about?
I was born in the early '60s and I have no children.
Economical concerns are surely part of the equation but I also suspect that in Western Culture adults tend to have a more individualistic stance and this could also be a factor.
What I mean is: as soon as we start getting some sort of economic independence we tend to focus on our own hobbies, travels, interests. Those of us who are lucky enough in being in a long lasting relationship would hopefully do this together... but we are always aware that the moment a child enters our life, we can forget most of it, at least for a decade.
Economical concerns are surely part of the equation but I also suspect that in Western Culture adults tend to have a more individualistic stance and this could also be a factor.
What I mean is: as soon as we start getting some sort of economic independence we tend to focus on our own hobbies, travels, interests. Those of us who are lucky enough in being in a long lasting relationship would hopefully do this together... but we are always aware that the moment a child enters our life, we can forget most of it, at least for a decade.
I feel like this is a common misconception about having kids, that your life somehow ends, and you have to give up everything you care about in favor of them. We’ve been traveling with our kids since the first was 4 months old, and it’s been great fun introducing them to our hobbies, and doing them with them. Seeing them pick this stuff up and in some ways surpass us is incredibly gratifying.
It's not a misconception if you choose your family style to be "prioritize time with kids and follow their interests". To implement that in our family meant adjusting our budget to allow one parent to stay at home. Adjusting our budget like that had consequences on our previous hobbies of travels, etc.
C'est la vie, and la vie est belle.
C'est la vie, and la vie est belle.
yes, but I do not think this is something that people really discusses rationally, either.
I.e. I doubt that couples who decide to go childless sit down and say "listen, if we have children our current life is over, just look at Jack and Laura - they disappeared from the Lindy classes and had to cancel their spa subscription".
It is probably both a subconscious thing that - along with other factors - will make you postpone the decision until it is either too late, or your spouse somehow puts you in front of an ultimatum.
As I said in another message I have living proof that things can work out fine among relatives and friends both, so I am sure that it could be done. Neither me nor my MSO (Most Significant Other) were really into the idea of having children though, so we passed.
It is probably both a subconscious thing that - along with other factors - will make you postpone the decision until it is either too late, or your spouse somehow puts you in front of an ultimatum.
As I said in another message I have living proof that things can work out fine among relatives and friends both, so I am sure that it could be done. Neither me nor my MSO (Most Significant Other) were really into the idea of having children though, so we passed.
i'm not a parent, but from observing the parents i know, i think you're incredibly lucky to be able to travel with your child and have it not be a burden. the norm seems to be "add an hour and hundreds of dollars for every activity you do with kids, and add unbounded levels of stress if you're the mom"
We’re certainly very lucky in many ways, but besides the financial aspect, a lot of it is just practicing it with the kids and getting them used to it, which is the case with many other things in their lives, and part of it is changing our own expectations about traveling. We go a lot slower than we used to, with more and longer stops on road trips, and give ourselves a lot more time/wiggle room at each place. If we need to drive 9 hours, we might break that into three days, and visit places that are about 3 hours apart. If we fly somewhere and it’s long, we try to go to immediately go to a hotel as close as possible to the airport so that we can all conk out if we need to. When we’re not stressed about timetables, it’s much easier for us all to have a good time. We don’t spend so much of our time at the destination, but that’s fine, there’s lots of cool stuff to see on the way, generally. We keep our schedule at the destination similarly sparse. Also, we take turns with everything, it’s not on mom. Don’t know how she’d handle that on her own.
It takes work and energy, and we do some things differently than we used to, we’ve had to relearn some things, but it’s not putting the fun parts of life on pause for 10 years. You adapt, and still have a lot of fun, and you get to see these little people learn and grow, which is amazing. Ours are in a pun-making phase, which is hilarious and terrible.
It takes work and energy, and we do some things differently than we used to, we’ve had to relearn some things, but it’s not putting the fun parts of life on pause for 10 years. You adapt, and still have a lot of fun, and you get to see these little people learn and grow, which is amazing. Ours are in a pun-making phase, which is hilarious and terrible.
> We’re certainly very lucky in many ways, but besides the financial aspect,
Your observations are valid, but you can't just sidestep the financial aspect of it, my dude. This is, like, 70% of the hardship of having kids from what I've found. Like this:
> If we need to drive 9 hours, we might break that into three days, and visit places that are about 3 hours apart. If we fly somewhere and it’s long, we try to go to immediately go to a hotel as close as possible to the airport so that we can all conk out if we need to.
Is straight up not possible for a family of 3 or more with a total household income of less than $150k in the US. On-premise airport hotels that aren't complete chaos are usually $200/night and many people in the US get hardly any vacation time (which is a whole other problem in its own right).
Your observations are valid, but you can't just sidestep the financial aspect of it, my dude. This is, like, 70% of the hardship of having kids from what I've found. Like this:
> If we need to drive 9 hours, we might break that into three days, and visit places that are about 3 hours apart. If we fly somewhere and it’s long, we try to go to immediately go to a hotel as close as possible to the airport so that we can all conk out if we need to.
Is straight up not possible for a family of 3 or more with a total household income of less than $150k in the US. On-premise airport hotels that aren't complete chaos are usually $200/night and many people in the US get hardly any vacation time (which is a whole other problem in its own right).
If one of your kids required extensive medical care for some reason or other, would it put a cramp in your lifestyle?
I’m sure, but that’s true of one of us requiring extensive medical care, too. Living is risky.
I'm quite aware of the risk; I have a rare childhood disorder that will likely require ever more medical care as I age. Trying to keep my own ass covered by medical insurance is enough challenge for me.
Sorry you’ve had to go through that. But rare childhood disorders are rare, right? Most kids are healthy, so most parents don’t have to cover that. Many people seem to think that having kids means an end to their having fun, my point is that that’s not a given. It’s not to say that everyone is in a good position to have kids.
Mine is indeed quite rare; I'd put money on you never having heard of it because the average doctor barely has. The thing is I know tons of people with some rare condition or other; collectively it seems rare conditions are common. I've personally seen some truly heinous conditions affect children; far worse than what I went through. Certainly there are no givens, to borrow another's HN comment - kids are like a reverse lottery ticket.
> It’s not to say that everyone is in a good position to have kids.
Yes, I'd say that it's up to each individual to determine that, and it seems that more and more are deciding that they are not.
> It’s not to say that everyone is in a good position to have kids.
Yes, I'd say that it's up to each individual to determine that, and it seems that more and more are deciding that they are not.
We’re child free (and intend to remain as such) and in our 30s, to be honest we do wonder what it’ll be like in 30 years.
I’ve never wanted children (vehemently so) but my SO needed some convincing and it’s something I struggle with, I’m not sure if it’s really what she wants or my desires are just too strong. We’ve had this conversation between us of course and she’s not really sure either, she thinks she’ll be fine though.
I’d love to hear your perspective.
Do you feel like you’ve accomplished more than your peers? Led a more fulfilling and liberating life that allowed you to focus on yourselves? Or did that get old past age 40?
I’ve never wanted children (vehemently so) but my SO needed some convincing and it’s something I struggle with, I’m not sure if it’s really what she wants or my desires are just too strong. We’ve had this conversation between us of course and she’s not really sure either, she thinks she’ll be fine though.
I’d love to hear your perspective.
Do you feel like you’ve accomplished more than your peers? Led a more fulfilling and liberating life that allowed you to focus on yourselves? Or did that get old past age 40?
"Do you feel like you’ve accomplished more than your peers? Led a more fulfilling and liberating life that allowed you to focus on yourselves? Or did that get old past age 40?"
I often feel that I did not manage to accomplish enough, personally. But:
- I know people who are immensely more affluent than me (high school fellows) who did not have any child, either, and did not need to work. For me they accomplished even less than me.
- On the other hand, both my sister (who is 3 years older and has a son) and another friend of mine (former colleague) I would say made good use of their time and resources, because they lived what to me looks like a full life, managed to pursuit their interests, cultivate hobbies etc... and also raised a decent human adult on top, which is quite an achievement in itself.
What I am trying to say is "if I had won scientific or sport prizes or written a successful book... maybe I could say this would have been impossible if I had to take care of one (or more probably more than one) child". And I cannot even say that I decided to not have children because I was focused on winning a Nobel (or developing my startup, or become a renowned martial artist...) and yet EVEN WITHOUT THE CHILD I failed for some other reason.
I have a normal life, some stuff I did may seem huge to others (assuming they share some of my interests) but while I can dream of having the money of my former schoolmate and say "boy, what I could have done if I were in his place" I am pretty sure that nobody is thinking "wow, if I had lived a childen-free adulthood like Pamar...".
I am not regretting it (maybe I'll soon do when it is time to retire, will keep you posted) but I would never say to anyone "if you want to live your life to the fullest, like me, forget having children", either.
I often feel that I did not manage to accomplish enough, personally. But:
- I know people who are immensely more affluent than me (high school fellows) who did not have any child, either, and did not need to work. For me they accomplished even less than me.
- On the other hand, both my sister (who is 3 years older and has a son) and another friend of mine (former colleague) I would say made good use of their time and resources, because they lived what to me looks like a full life, managed to pursuit their interests, cultivate hobbies etc... and also raised a decent human adult on top, which is quite an achievement in itself.
What I am trying to say is "if I had won scientific or sport prizes or written a successful book... maybe I could say this would have been impossible if I had to take care of one (or more probably more than one) child". And I cannot even say that I decided to not have children because I was focused on winning a Nobel (or developing my startup, or become a renowned martial artist...) and yet EVEN WITHOUT THE CHILD I failed for some other reason.
I have a normal life, some stuff I did may seem huge to others (assuming they share some of my interests) but while I can dream of having the money of my former schoolmate and say "boy, what I could have done if I were in his place" I am pretty sure that nobody is thinking "wow, if I had lived a childen-free adulthood like Pamar...".
I am not regretting it (maybe I'll soon do when it is time to retire, will keep you posted) but I would never say to anyone "if you want to live your life to the fullest, like me, forget having children", either.
The usual suspects: high cost of living, corp jobs sucking people dry, fear of uncertain future, all seem reasonably valid.
But no one seems willing to suggest that maybe people today are just so self centered, that they don't want such a distraction from minecraft/halo/call of doodoo.
If people can't manage to look out of the windshield of the car they're driving for more than 11 seconds at a stretch, because it's distracting from their cell phone usage, when their life is literally endangered, why would they choose to take on a lifelong commitment to another child besides themselves?
But no one seems willing to suggest that maybe people today are just so self centered, that they don't want such a distraction from minecraft/halo/call of doodoo.
If people can't manage to look out of the windshield of the car they're driving for more than 11 seconds at a stretch, because it's distracting from their cell phone usage, when their life is literally endangered, why would they choose to take on a lifelong commitment to another child besides themselves?
With a 6 year old around you can play so much Minecraft your eyes will bleed.
As a parent of 3 in Switzerland, I always laugh (sadly) at these threads. Cost of daycare? Make a sliding scale. Cost of housing? Accept smaller living space, but count on your community to give you other safe, comfortable and fun public spaces. Pay parents to have kids? Yup (1500 at birth, 200 a month until school is done, even up to bachelor degree). Cost of education? Free public universities.
If a society wants healthy familles it can choose to have them.
If a society wants healthy familles it can choose to have them.
And yet what is Switzerland’s birth rate? 1.46 is better than South Korea, but not as good as the USA’s 1.64.
> If a society wants healthy familles it can choose to have them.
So what is Switzerland doing wrong that it needs to fix so it can do better than the USA at least?
> If a society wants healthy familles it can choose to have them.
So what is Switzerland doing wrong that it needs to fix so it can do better than the USA at least?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigrati...
Immigration.
Not necessarily wrong but why some countries have higher birth rates. Subsidize current citizens costs for more natural born citizens. More people/workers - immigration.
Immigration.
Not necessarily wrong but why some countries have higher birth rates. Subsidize current citizens costs for more natural born citizens. More people/workers - immigration.
Switzerland has more immigrants than the USA in a per capita basis, so by that reasoning, should have a higher birth rate, not lower. Switzerland also admits plenty of immigrants from high birth rate countries (Africa, the Middle East).
Lots of fun info on the demographics between the two and many others but both are below the 2.1 replacement fertility rate.
Maybe this would be a better link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replace...
I was trying to answer to the reply and not denigrate Switzerland in any way. Expensive travel magnets though.
Maybe this would be a better link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replace...
I was trying to answer to the reply and not denigrate Switzerland in any way. Expensive travel magnets though.
I think the Swiss do much better than the USA on the points OP mentioned (I lived in Lausanne for 2 years), but it still doesn’t move the needle up on birth rate, which I think is just stuck at rising wealth = fewer kids. Social spending has little effect here for some reason.
In many Asian countries the kids live with their parents and if they move out after marriage it’s to a house on the property with the parents or very closely nearby for support.
Getting together regularly with family or friends is usually very healthy. I suggest people watch the documentary “Happy” 2012 by Roko Belic. It was introduced in a class to help with stress among many other supportive topics.
Getting together regularly with family or friends is usually very healthy. I suggest people watch the documentary “Happy” 2012 by Roko Belic. It was introduced in a class to help with stress among many other supportive topics.
Cost of housing
In Sydney you'd need around 72% of a minimal wage to cover your rent. And you need food, transportation, clothes & etc ...
So to begin thinking about having kids you'd need to make a few very hard choices: 1. forget of owning a home in your life time based on a regular salary 2. earn at least +1.5K AUD/month per child
Sometimes it's easier for a parent to stay at home and usually it's the woman, because when the children are small they are better taken care by her. So it's at least 1 - 1.5 year off work. After that before children grow at least to 3-4 years old it's always going to a doctor or needing time to stay at home with the child. This disadvantages the career of a person staying at home and you need that second income to pay for the childcare.
People aren't stupid, that's why when the going gets tough they don't want to have additional problems to worry about.
So to begin thinking about having kids you'd need to make a few very hard choices: 1. forget of owning a home in your life time based on a regular salary 2. earn at least +1.5K AUD/month per child
Sometimes it's easier for a parent to stay at home and usually it's the woman, because when the children are small they are better taken care by her. So it's at least 1 - 1.5 year off work. After that before children grow at least to 3-4 years old it's always going to a doctor or needing time to stay at home with the child. This disadvantages the career of a person staying at home and you need that second income to pay for the childcare.
People aren't stupid, that's why when the going gets tough they don't want to have additional problems to worry about.
In the USA there are affordable 55+ no kids allowed housing developments near job centers. Why can’t we build or subsidize similar developments for families with kids.
Plus folks are graduating with a lot more debt.
Cost of literally everything. Housing, food, health insurance, education, child care, etc... all while wages are stagnant. Our society is sick and the people in charge are wildly out of touch with the reality most people face.
Housing is the biggest one here, though, because it hits in two key ways: people need bigger houses to have kids but also they need childcare, and the cost of real estate makes that brutal because people need daycare to be close enough to be practical travel-wise and it’s a labor-intensive business without great economies of scale so all of the workers also need to be able to make rent in the area.
This is a classic area where government support would make a huge difference: don’t have a bunch of small businesses competing with Starbucks on rent, and have things like healthcare paid for out of a huge pool of employees.
This is a classic area where government support would make a huge difference: don’t have a bunch of small businesses competing with Starbucks on rent, and have things like healthcare paid for out of a huge pool of employees.
I mean, cost of many things but yeah housing is an enormous factor. If you're not certain you can settle down somewhere with enough room to have a family (or even to live on your own, in some cases) you're going to put off having one, sometimes indefinitely.
Dad of 4, feel a ton of empathy for double income families. Just today my (stay at home) wife cheerfully and idly answered, "That's my job!" to a breakfast request while I was reading this thread ....
So that being said, barring childcare (and major health problems which are very rare), my kids are almost completely subsidized by the US government.
They cost me (by my own estimate) about $30,000 in marginal non-discretionary spending - housing, clothing, food, transportation, medical visits, etc.
(There's also lessons, vacations, arts and crafts, holiday gifts and the like, but those are highly variable and my own choice.)
My tax burden without 4 dependents is nearly $28,000 higher than with them.
Just anecdata (I also call major shenanigans on the "$1 million" needed to raise a kid" meme ... so far I've racked up 42 "kid-years" on ~ $1 million total net income And I'm doing a lot better financially than I was when I first became a dad....)
So that being said, barring childcare (and major health problems which are very rare), my kids are almost completely subsidized by the US government.
They cost me (by my own estimate) about $30,000 in marginal non-discretionary spending - housing, clothing, food, transportation, medical visits, etc.
(There's also lessons, vacations, arts and crafts, holiday gifts and the like, but those are highly variable and my own choice.)
My tax burden without 4 dependents is nearly $28,000 higher than with them.
Just anecdata (I also call major shenanigans on the "$1 million" needed to raise a kid" meme ... so far I've racked up 42 "kid-years" on ~ $1 million total net income And I'm doing a lot better financially than I was when I first became a dad....)
>Friedman: One of the pieces of what I see as good news in this story is that more people, women and men, are willing and able to say, “I don’t want to have children.” For women especially, I see this as a kind of social progress in human evolution. In every generation prior to the current one, women have been normatively sanctioned to think of themselves as mothers. There’s almost a mindless march into motherhood throughout history. That question hasn’t really been raised. Today, young women are saying, “I don’t feel a need to do that.”
Mr. Friedman should interview the women after their biological window has closed, and see if there answers have changed. Not doing so is ignoring the full picture of how we conceptualize an idea like having children over the course of our entire lives.
Mr. Friedman should interview the women after their biological window has closed, and see if there answers have changed. Not doing so is ignoring the full picture of how we conceptualize an idea like having children over the course of our entire lives.
I bought my first apartment in my mid twenties, like my parents did. Let's measure it in Porsches. Their place was newer than mine and cost them less than a run down Porsche. My tiny apartment cost me about the same as a new 911 with multiple extras.
If you want something to happen, pay people to do it. If someone wants there to be more babies, they need to pay for them.
At least the baby shortage will help with the teacher shortage.
At least the baby shortage will help with the teacher shortage.
Interestingly, something like this was proposed by a group of radical feminists in the 1970s [0].
You'd have to pay a lot of individuals to have babies and then become full-time parents. Not only is that expensive, it seems inefficient. Our society structures childrearing like that only because women used to have a lower status and had to perform unpaid labor and bear children whether they wanted to or not (edit: and then later, it was still unthinkable not to have children; only now has that sentiment been becoming less common).
It reminds me of how the American South had an economy that was inefficient because they relied on slavery. They wouldn't have been able to pay all those slaves the full value of their labor anyway, so after slavery ended, they had to find some other ways to get that labor (e.g. sharecropping) and also restructure their whole economy over the course of a hundred years to become more industrialized.
I predict that either we'll find some way to make people want to have babies and raise kids intrinsically again, or we'll restructure the whole economy to pay people for the labor of childrearing and bearing children, integrating it into the market-based economy somehow.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework
You'd have to pay a lot of individuals to have babies and then become full-time parents. Not only is that expensive, it seems inefficient. Our society structures childrearing like that only because women used to have a lower status and had to perform unpaid labor and bear children whether they wanted to or not (edit: and then later, it was still unthinkable not to have children; only now has that sentiment been becoming less common).
It reminds me of how the American South had an economy that was inefficient because they relied on slavery. They wouldn't have been able to pay all those slaves the full value of their labor anyway, so after slavery ended, they had to find some other ways to get that labor (e.g. sharecropping) and also restructure their whole economy over the course of a hundred years to become more industrialized.
I predict that either we'll find some way to make people want to have babies and raise kids intrinsically again, or we'll restructure the whole economy to pay people for the labor of childrearing and bearing children, integrating it into the market-based economy somehow.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework
Black Death led to a great leap in productivity, freed the serfs, and eventually led to the renaissance.
Could you elaborate? Are you implying that depopulation will spur the next economic upheaval (again)? It seems plausible, but I'm not sure if I fully understand you.
Yes. It’s a very common topic in European history, see https://clas.ucdenver.edu/nhdc/sites/default/files/attached-...
It’s a bit controversial, since there was at the same time an opposite effect in central/Eastern Europe:
> The decline of serfdom in Western Europe has sometimes been attributed to the widespread plague epidemic of the Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347 and caused massive fatalities, disrupting society.[2] Conversely, serfdom grew stronger in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "second serfdom").
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
It’s a bit controversial, since there was at the same time an opposite effect in central/Eastern Europe:
> The decline of serfdom in Western Europe has sometimes been attributed to the widespread plague epidemic of the Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347 and caused massive fatalities, disrupting society.[2] Conversely, serfdom grew stronger in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "second serfdom").
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Paying people directly to have children seems like a horrible policy because it will have disproportionate effect on people who are less likely to be good and responsible parents.
Instead of cash payments having considerable services like in home care, free goods like formula and diapers, parenting support and education, childcare, etc. would go a long way to making parenthood easier for people of all classes.
100% agree. "Tax credits", cash payments, and the like are all wrong imo. Free public education (aka free daycare) got us to where we are. Let's extend this and make free public education go as low as 6mo old or even include newborn care (might as well).
Universal health care would also be a huge boon, the costs of providing health care are quite high.
In the past our society seemed a lot more inclined to share and pool resources to raise the next generation... now it feels like society will only do the bare minimum to prevent kids from dying, but other than that isn't eager to take on a communal parenting role, instead forcing the entire burden on parents.
Universal health care would also be a huge boon, the costs of providing health care are quite high.
In the past our society seemed a lot more inclined to share and pool resources to raise the next generation... now it feels like society will only do the bare minimum to prevent kids from dying, but other than that isn't eager to take on a communal parenting role, instead forcing the entire burden on parents.
Who says they want it to be for all classes?
Right now, the rich are disproportionately punished for having children while the poor are basically paid for it. How about flip flopping that?
Right now, the rich are disproportionately punished for having children while the poor are basically paid for it. How about flip flopping that?
That’s a serious citation needed: if you think there are lavish social payments which reward poor people for having kids, the 80s called and want Reagan’s campaign mythology back. The United States makes parenting expensive but the richer you are the easier time you’ll have dealing with it.
The rich are just fine, it's the middle class that's getting squeezed out. We used to pass programs to make it easier for the middle class to have kids. But the liberation of Black people in America has caused so much racial resentment that the rich were able to exploit it to make us think we were fighting over scarce resources in the richest nation in history... meanwhile we have billionaires quietly and not so quietly tilting the playing field in their favor. As racism towards Black people declined somewhat, we're being sold another racist lie that illegal immigrants are the reason America is ill...
If the poor have it so good why don’t the rich simply become poor?
Hey, thanks for reminding me of Ruben Bolling's classic (it's been 20+ years, that qualifies as "classic" right?) comic character "Lucky Ducky".
https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2002/12/21
https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2002/12/21
The rich can absolutely afford as many children as they want.
Whom you are talking about are upstart "upper middle" who have a good wage but no capital of their own, and the rich are generally happy to have them thrown under the bus rather than face them as equals.
The method of throwing under the bus is have them overwork for a wage and then second job to waste that wage on "fueling economic growth". Not turning these into anything permanent.
Whom you are talking about are upstart "upper middle" who have a good wage but no capital of their own, and the rich are generally happy to have them thrown under the bus rather than face them as equals.
The method of throwing under the bus is have them overwork for a wage and then second job to waste that wage on "fueling economic growth". Not turning these into anything permanent.
Instead of paying cash directly, give large tax breaks or other incentives that encourage staying productive members of society.
Isn't this literally the case in the US? You list dependents on your tax form.
Facts. I remember daycare costs almost equalling mortgage payments back in the early 2000s, for 2 kids. It's wildly expensive to have kids in the US.
Even with employer-subsidized daycare, it was more than our mortgage. Watching what people who couldn’t make that work had to do really pushed me solidly into the camp of seeing free government-provided daycare as a basic right. Even if you’re a total sociopath who doesn’t care about the stress, there’s like a century of research showing that things like stable & supportive early years set children up to be more successful for the rest of their lives, and the challenges of finding and paying for daycare put a ton of stress on most parents, hitting the poorest the hardest.
I imagine that in this kind of scheme they would be paid for production, someone else would handle finishing, and another would do quality control. The final product would be packaged and delivered to the customer, who would distribute internally according to the budget.
We have been doing this in the UK for at least the past two decades. Your theory has been proved correct.
As dumb as it sounds I think the solution is to only pay high income earners to have kids. Not for any kind of moralistic reason but because every time it's surveyed high income earners believe the minimum "lifestyle" required to ethically raise a child is much higher than people with lower incomes. So people living comfortably as DINKs will only raise a child if they can give their kid the same comfortable life they enjoy and often times they can't once you account for high healthcare, daycare and private school costs.
You can be like "well then they shouldn't have such high expectations, expect and accept a lifestyle drop, and send their kids to public school" but you're yelling at a river to change course.
You can be like "well then they shouldn't have such high expectations, expect and accept a lifestyle drop, and send their kids to public school" but you're yelling at a river to change course.
just increase the tax credit for kids, even make it progressive so you get bigger tax credits for more kids so higher income families have more reason to have more kids. The welfare cliff as it currently stands will doom our country, in my friends and family group the ones who are unemployed or work low income jobs have more kids than the rest combined and no reason to strive to do better because unless they make 6 figures they are better off doing the minimum.
systems are about incentives and our current system in the US has us in a death spiral, immigration is used as a short-term stopgap to reduce impact of low birth rates but just accelerates the death spiral in the long term
systems are about incentives and our current system in the US has us in a death spiral, immigration is used as a short-term stopgap to reduce impact of low birth rates but just accelerates the death spiral in the long term
This will just lead to more people having kids for the paycheck they provide. Parents who view their kids as a source of income, instead of as a life they are responsible for nurturing, are generally not great parents. A bunch of bad parents with bad motivations leads to a generation of dysfunctional people.
How many people do you think actually do that? Please cite sources.
So you expected to find a way of increasing quality of kids while increasing quantity of kids at the same time?
People saw kids as a source of income through all the history. It's just that the modern ethical liberal sees somebody else's kids in that role.
People saw kids as a source of income through all the history. It's just that the modern ethical liberal sees somebody else's kids in that role.
Why make procreation appealing through economic safety and optimism, when you can just make contraception and abortion harder to acquire or straight up illegal? Something, something, America.
On the other hand Iran, Indonesia and Nigeria have no problem with reproduction.
In Muslim countries/societies there's usually a very strong pressure to have a lot of kids from the religious authorities.
Another reason is they just get married earlier. Probably a plot of average age of first marriage and TFR would be negatively correlated.
Different family structures as well. It's a lot harder to take care of children with two adults rather than in a multi-generational household with grandparents, siblings, cousins, etc. Communities and expectations of childhood autonomy are also different - people won't call the cops if they see kids playing without adult supervision in most non-US countries.
Politically this is the more palatable choice, as well. Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion, and abhor the idea of giving people who aren’t corporations any kind of financial benefits.
Could you name some of these conservatives that love the idea of limiting access to contraception?
As an initial datapoint for you, here are the 195 members of the House that voted against H.R. 8373 (aka the Right to Contraception Act) in 2022.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385
I'm sure you can find more data yourself, Google search isn't that far gone yet.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385
I'm sure you can find more data yourself, Google search isn't that far gone yet.
This does seem like the best example so far, but I think on it's own it falls short of the original goalpost of Conservatives "love the idea of limiting access to contraception."
Steelmanning, it would be interesting to hear from the opposition why they don't support the bill. For example, I could see an opponent argue that this is not something that should be done at the Federal level, and such an argument would not make that person "love[s] the idea of limiting access to contraception" as GP has asserted. I could also see some unease about defining it as a "right" because that can have significant legal implications.
Steelmanning, it would be interesting to hear from the opposition why they don't support the bill. For example, I could see an opponent argue that this is not something that should be done at the Federal level, and such an argument would not make that person "love[s] the idea of limiting access to contraception" as GP has asserted. I could also see some unease about defining it as a "right" because that can have significant legal implications.
Well, I don't think you're necessarily going to find anyone who says they "love" the idea of limiting contraception access, so I may have been guilty of inadvertently signaling that I agree with the choice of phrase there.
Is... this sealioning? It's one of the easiest things to find endless examples of. I won't assume you are arguing in bad faith here, so, what have you done in an attempt to find the answer to that question?
Thank you, and no this is not sealioning. Every thing I found was related to abortion in some way, which is a little more nuanced than just general access to contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills. GP (who I asked the question to) seems to agree with me that abortion isn't quite the same as "contraceptives":
> Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion
It's obvious that Conservatives are mostly against abortion, but what about contraception in general? Are there some non-fringe Conservatives that are coming out in favor of legal restrictions on condoms or birth control pills or similar?
> Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception and abortion
It's obvious that Conservatives are mostly against abortion, but what about contraception in general? Are there some non-fringe Conservatives that are coming out in favor of legal restrictions on condoms or birth control pills or similar?
Did you see the link someone suggested: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h385 ?
A lot of things in politics can be murky. US republican votes on certain issues, is not one of them. If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception.
A lot of things in politics can be murky. US republican votes on certain issues, is not one of them. If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception.
> If this stuff is obvious to me, and I don't even live there, I have to wonder how it is you can be so under-informed to genuinely think that Republican legislators are not against the restriction of contraception.
If this stuff is obvious to you, and you don't even live here, then perhaps you're oversimplifying the issue and making some unsubstantiated conclusions.
What are some of the arguments against the bill that you evaluated before you concluded that they "love the idea of limiting access to contraception?" Did you actually look at those arguments before you concluded that there couldn't possibly be any other reason for opposing the bill than that they love limiting access?
I would agree that there probably are some of them who do want to limit access, but the original claim of "Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception" needs a lot more substantiation than what we've been given, and clearly has burden of proof on it.
If this stuff is obvious to you, and you don't even live here, then perhaps you're oversimplifying the issue and making some unsubstantiated conclusions.
What are some of the arguments against the bill that you evaluated before you concluded that they "love the idea of limiting access to contraception?" Did you actually look at those arguments before you concluded that there couldn't possibly be any other reason for opposing the bill than that they love limiting access?
I would agree that there probably are some of them who do want to limit access, but the original claim of "Conservatives love the idea of limiting access to contraception" needs a lot more substantiation than what we've been given, and clearly has burden of proof on it.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that Republicans are against contraception?
In the House, it was voted for by 100% of Democrats, and voted against by 96% of Republicans. The text, in full, if you want to read it is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr8373/text
It's not very long. I've read it. It is the answer to what you want to know, straight from the horses mouth. There is no uncertainty or middle-man telling you how to interpret things. Just read it, and then consider that 96% of Republicans did not wish for that bill to go to congress.
You can then try to surmise what plausible reasoning they might have had to object. Just be somewhat critical, otherwise you'll just reaffirm what you already wanted to believe.
Don't know what else I can suggest on this matter.
In the House, it was voted for by 100% of Democrats, and voted against by 96% of Republicans. The text, in full, if you want to read it is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr8373/text
It's not very long. I've read it. It is the answer to what you want to know, straight from the horses mouth. There is no uncertainty or middle-man telling you how to interpret things. Just read it, and then consider that 96% of Republicans did not wish for that bill to go to congress.
You can then try to surmise what plausible reasoning they might have had to object. Just be somewhat critical, otherwise you'll just reaffirm what you already wanted to believe.
Don't know what else I can suggest on this matter.
I never read the text before, but ignoring the findings and other boilerplate, the only substantive language in there is section 4(a):
> A person has a statutory right under this Act to obtain contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and a health care provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.
The outcome of the vote is pretty clear and convincing evidence of how the Republican Party feels about this issue.
> A person has a statutory right under this Act to obtain contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and a health care provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.
The outcome of the vote is pretty clear and convincing evidence of how the Republican Party feels about this issue.
I looked at the way the law defines "contraceptive", and the definition to me sure seems like it includes a right to access and provide an abortion:
> (1)Contraception
> The term contraception means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
Abortion is an action taken to prevent pregnancy, so to me this law includes a right to an abortion. Again, if you think abortion is equivalent to birth control pills or condoms, then sure the conclusion that republicans just love the idea of restricting "contraception" seems clear. But if you see any difference or nuance between the two, which I think is pretty reasonable, then there's a pretty good explanation of why they voted against it: They think abortion is murder. They are against murder. You can disagree with them that it's murder, but it's quite disingenuous to suggest that they just love restricting contraception unless you also clarify that by "contraception" you mean "abortion."
> (1)Contraception
> The term contraception means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
Abortion is an action taken to prevent pregnancy, so to me this law includes a right to an abortion. Again, if you think abortion is equivalent to birth control pills or condoms, then sure the conclusion that republicans just love the idea of restricting "contraception" seems clear. But if you see any difference or nuance between the two, which I think is pretty reasonable, then there's a pretty good explanation of why they voted against it: They think abortion is murder. They are against murder. You can disagree with them that it's murder, but it's quite disingenuous to suggest that they just love restricting contraception unless you also clarify that by "contraception" you mean "abortion."
> Abortion is an action taken to prevent pregnancy
Nonsense. The literal meaning of the word "contraception" is "to prevent conception." Abortion, by definition, takes place after conception (i.e., pregnancy), and that's the whole reason anti-abortionists have concerns about it. Don't conflate the two concepts to suit your own ends.
The real reason that conservatives want to restrict access to contraception are far more sinister than this, but I won't get into that in a public forum.
Nonsense. The literal meaning of the word "contraception" is "to prevent conception." Abortion, by definition, takes place after conception (i.e., pregnancy), and that's the whole reason anti-abortionists have concerns about it. Don't conflate the two concepts to suit your own ends.
The real reason that conservatives want to restrict access to contraception are far more sinister than this, but I won't get into that in a public forum.
> Why is it so hard for you to believe that Republicans are against contraception?
Because I try very, very hard not to believe things without evidence, and I haven't seen any evidence yet. From my sibling comment on this law, this bill would have guaranteed the right to an abortion because the way they define contraceptive includes abortion. This then seems like evidence that Conservatives love the idea of restricting abortion (which they absolutely do). It is a fallacy of composition to say they favor restricting contraceptives. If you do that, you may as well broaden the category more and say they love restricting health care, or that they love to restrict free market transactions, though such is clearly not warranted because generally speaking conservatives hate the idea of restricting free market transactions (unless they're jailing people simply for ingesting plants (an allusion to the war on drugs, which they definitely seem to love, but I digress)).
Because I try very, very hard not to believe things without evidence, and I haven't seen any evidence yet. From my sibling comment on this law, this bill would have guaranteed the right to an abortion because the way they define contraceptive includes abortion. This then seems like evidence that Conservatives love the idea of restricting abortion (which they absolutely do). It is a fallacy of composition to say they favor restricting contraceptives. If you do that, you may as well broaden the category more and say they love restricting health care, or that they love to restrict free market transactions, though such is clearly not warranted because generally speaking conservatives hate the idea of restricting free market transactions (unless they're jailing people simply for ingesting plants (an allusion to the war on drugs, which they definitely seem to love, but I digress)).
> From my sibling comment on this law, this bill would have guaranteed the right to an abortion because the way they define contraceptive includes abortion
Nonsense. The two terms are clearly defined in the bill and neither of them are defined as any acts, drugs, or devices that would take place or be utilized after conception (i.e., pregnancy).
(1)
Contraception
The term contraception means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
(2)
Contraceptive
The term "contraceptive" means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.
Nonsense. The two terms are clearly defined in the bill and neither of them are defined as any acts, drugs, or devices that would take place or be utilized after conception (i.e., pregnancy).
(1)
Contraception
The term contraception means an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.
(2)
Contraceptive
The term "contraceptive" means any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other contraceptives.
The expression "you can only lead a horse to water" doesn't really cut it. The horse is neck deep. We've been spoon feeding it. Tried IV hydration. Not even a bucket of water with apples made a difference. A sealion doesn't have to be self aware of the fact. I'm out.
Just be careful as to not collapse into a black hole.
[deleted]
I have a feeling you already know there's a conservative movement to roll back access to contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?), but if you needed any further proof, mainstream far-right conservative Clarence Thomas explicitly wrote in the Dobbs opinion:
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents"'
and many sibling posts have cover the current legislative initiatives to restrict birth control.
So yes, the far-right does want to roll back access to birth control, the right to marriage equality, the right to privacy between consenting adults. The American far-right wants a big brother government enforcing their personal morality on the whole country, right into our bedrooms and bathrooms.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in concurrence. “Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents"'
and many sibling posts have cover the current legislative initiatives to restrict birth control.
So yes, the far-right does want to roll back access to birth control, the right to marriage equality, the right to privacy between consenting adults. The American far-right wants a big brother government enforcing their personal morality on the whole country, right into our bedrooms and bathrooms.
The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be.
I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.
I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.
Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
The government regulates the hell out of employers for the common good. There's nothing special about contraception versus other required benefits *unless you oppose contraception*.
As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
Fair point, but another nuance present in this case is religious opposition. Hobby Lobby are Christians and believe that abortion is murder, and that things like Plan B are abortion. We can ridicule this opinion all we want as being absurd, but at the end of the day in the US there's a clear right to freedom of religion. We even exempt Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably others) from required military service during times of draft and such, so there is definitely precedent of not forcing people to take actions that violate their religious faith.
So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."
So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."
Basically, any official in power who refuses to allow teachers to provide sex education classes that include contraception discussions - or parents or other concerned citizens who try to pressure them against it. Knowledge is an effective prerequisite to access.
Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores?
Following this line of thought though, does this mean that if someone is against teachers providing gun education classes, then they are in favor of restricting or eliminating gun rights? There would definitely be some overlap, probably even mostly, but I could see someone arguing that gun rights are important but school isn't the most appopriate place for that to be taught.
Following this line of thought though, does this mean that if someone is against teachers providing gun education classes, then they are in favor of restricting or eliminating gun rights? There would definitely be some overlap, probably even mostly, but I could see someone arguing that gun rights are important but school isn't the most appopriate place for that to be taught.
> Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Is this Kindergarten kids or is this College Sophomores?
I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who won't argue in good faith. There's obviously a middle ground here that starts at puberty that you purposely chose to ignore.
I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who won't argue in good faith. There's obviously a middle ground here that starts at puberty that you purposely chose to ignore.
The age group is relevant, because the Florida law that many people point to was about younger children.
But regardless, my second point doesn't depend at all on the age group. So sure, ad hominem is an easy way to avoid having to reconcile uncomfortable logic.
But regardless, my second point doesn't depend at all on the age group. So sure, ad hominem is an easy way to avoid having to reconcile uncomfortable logic.
First, I wasn't talking about a Florida law. Attempts to restrict sex education happen all over the country, and have been happening since at least the 1980s. I remember having to take a permission slip home to my parents during the Reagan years to be present when the subject was taught.
Your second point was a ridiculous attempt to bring guns into the conversation. "Gun rights" are a uniquely American concept and have nothing to do with understanding one's own body, sexuality and reproduction. These concepts are not just universal human concerns; they are core to the functioning of the animal kingdom.
Your second point was a ridiculous attempt to bring guns into the conversation. "Gun rights" are a uniquely American concept and have nothing to do with understanding one's own body, sexuality and reproduction. These concepts are not just universal human concerns; they are core to the functioning of the animal kingdom.
Samuel Alito, Amy Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett "I won't overturn Roe v. Wade" Kavanaugh, Clarence "my wife is an insurrectionist but I don't care" Thomas.
Roe v. Wade is about abortion, not contraception in general. It's a fallacy of composition to suggest that someone against abortion is "against contraception." While some people do use abortion as contraception, that doesn't mean contraception == abortion.
Can you name a Republican who has positively stated their support for women’s access to contraception? People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all. You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception.
This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
> People have pointed out numerous examples of conservative groups acting against contraception, and you have dismissed them all.
Nobody has pointed out any examples that are for contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills, but don't include abortions. All the examples have lumped in abortions as "contraceptives," which is a fallacy of composition (contraceptives is a much broader category than abortion is). Yes, conservatives are generally speaking very much against abortion because they believe it is murder. They do love to restrict murder. They do not (at least not that I've seen any evidence for) love to restrict condoms or birth control pills.
> You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. > This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
No, I'm not claiming that at all. I don't think (at a public/policy level) most conservatives give a rats ass for or against condoms or birth control pills.
Nobody has pointed out any examples that are for contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills, but don't include abortions. All the examples have lumped in abortions as "contraceptives," which is a fallacy of composition (contraceptives is a much broader category than abortion is). Yes, conservatives are generally speaking very much against abortion because they believe it is murder. They do love to restrict murder. They do not (at least not that I've seen any evidence for) love to restrict condoms or birth control pills.
> You seem to be implying that conservatives support contraception. > This is not what evidence shows. Should you have some showing otherwise, though, please provide it.
No, I'm not claiming that at all. I don't think (at a public/policy level) most conservatives give a rats ass for or against condoms or birth control pills.
Interesting that Putin's regime follows similar philosophy - they recently started a big campaign against abortions, including forbidding abortions in private clinics.
Russia demographics was terrible even 10 years ago because of all the past wars, starvation and past migration waves, etc. You can check out this video with subtitles from 6 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGfNZiCWW7c
It's in Russian, but subtitles with auto translation work great. And you can just check this website:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/
https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/
Even before current war Russia had almost 1,000,000 death tall to COVID-19 and now likely close to 1M people left the country in recent migration waves and a lot of them will never come back. And war loses just tip of the iceberg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGfNZiCWW7c
It's in Russian, but subtitles with auto translation work great. And you can just check this website:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/
https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/
Even before current war Russia had almost 1,000,000 death tall to COVID-19 and now likely close to 1M people left the country in recent migration waves and a lot of them will never come back. And war loses just tip of the iceberg.
I kinda agree. Some countries already do that (eg Poland), but I really think it ought to be a tax relief instead of actual direct payment.
I can’t speak to the accuracy of this, as it was just something I was told from a co-worker (in the US), but he had 9 kids and told me he paid 0 income tax and got $15k back on his taxes, due to his kids.
He (probably) wasn't doing that for $$$ reasons, he (probably) was doing it for religious reasons. It's not a rational trade at all. As religiosity dies down, the government will have to rely on making it rational to have kids again instead of relying on priests pounding their pulpit and telling young people it's their duty.
Paying people to have kids has some interesting side effects. Raising a kid in a big city costs a lot more than raising a kid out in the country. So if the government offers a fixed subsidy per kid the insensitive to have kids is a lot stronger in the country. People out in the country vote differently than people in a big city.
Don’t Singapore and Japan have some kind of incentives for couple to have babies with limited success?
It’ll be interesting to see what China does when their demographic crunch comes. Mao famously claimed any decimation by the USSR, would be countered by Chinese women pumping out massive amounts of new babies to compensate.
It’ll be interesting to see what China does when their demographic crunch comes. Mao famously claimed any decimation by the USSR, would be countered by Chinese women pumping out massive amounts of new babies to compensate.
>Don’t Singapore and Japan have some kind of incentives for couple to have babies with limited success?
From what I understand, the success has been very limited.
The Mao claim sounds like classic Mao logic. Did he plan for toddler division to spearhead the counter attack?
From what I understand, the success has been very limited.
The Mao claim sounds like classic Mao logic. Did he plan for toddler division to spearhead the counter attack?
We basically do that now with dependent tax incentives
But who's to pay?
I observe there isn't a clear answer as to who's to pay.
Let me help there. Everyone's to pay. But let's make that clear as the statement implied whoever is demanding higher demography would fund it, by some miracles.
I'm not myself against funding the future of the civilization our lineage built. But we are already taxed significantly, more so to fund wars from what I see. already gave up properly financing a solid health care and education system.
Let me help there. Everyone's to pay. But let's make that clear as the statement implied whoever is demanding higher demography would fund it, by some miracles.
I'm not myself against funding the future of the civilization our lineage built. But we are already taxed significantly, more so to fund wars from what I see. already gave up properly financing a solid health care and education system.
They could just not tax (or refund previous year) new parents.
This will never fly because blah blah reasons blah blah inequity, etc. But seems would help incentivize productive parents.
This will never fly because blah blah reasons blah blah inequity, etc. But seems would help incentivize productive parents.
When certain people don’t need to pay taxes, someone else still has to pay. Either taxes need to go up for others, or the deficit grows accordingly, which is kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
> the deficit grows accordingly, which is kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
So, the same as today basically? It's been this way nearly my entire life and I'm middle aged.
I’d personally rather fund more children and new families, then whatever the hell happened in the past five years with the deficit. More people means more future tax payers as well.
So, the same as today basically? It's been this way nearly my entire life and I'm middle aged.
I’d personally rather fund more children and new families, then whatever the hell happened in the past five years with the deficit. More people means more future tax payers as well.
We had a balanced budget at the turn of the century. What produced the deficit we have now was rich people deciding that their past tax cuts weren’t enough and several wars of choice with expensive occupations, not investing in future citizens.
I guess the money should come out of state pensions because that's who's going to benefit most!
I can't speak for others but at least for me, I have an irrational desire for a family. I'm well aware of the costs, the setbacks to your career and other penalties but at the end of the day my attitude is: "I don't give a shit, I want a family"
Odd to hear you describe it as irrational.
I had the same feeling, once meeting the right person. You can’t help when it happens.
Well, if it's rational, what is the rationale?
Humans are social animals, and evolution has conditioned us to reap significant happiness and wellness rewards from our offspring.
I can't speak for anyone besides myself, but my anecdote is: I was a DINK (Dual-Income; No Kids) for a long time. Both the wife and I earned well. I thought I didn't want kids (I didn't not want kids either). Wife got preggers, she quit her job to be a SAHM. This cut our household income in half. We have to live on a strict budget now, but, given the option, I would never want more money and fewer kids. I want many more kids.
I can't speak for anyone besides myself, but my anecdote is: I was a DINK (Dual-Income; No Kids) for a long time. Both the wife and I earned well. I thought I didn't want kids (I didn't not want kids either). Wife got preggers, she quit her job to be a SAHM. This cut our household income in half. We have to live on a strict budget now, but, given the option, I would never want more money and fewer kids. I want many more kids.
I want children, I'll never be able to afford it.
I remember as a kid when I first had the realization that I do have to have my own kids when I'm a grownup, and from that day decided that I don't want to have kids. When I was 25 (about 8 years ago) I got a vasectomy and I haven't had any regrets yet. I'm not one of those toxic "Child-free" douchebags on Reddit [1]; I do like kids, I enjoy playing with my nieces and nephew, but I also really like having money and less responsibility.
It's absurdly expensive to raise kids, especially before they're school age, and I spent a lot of 2023 unemployed. I am very happy that I didn't have to worry about an infant while also looking for a job.
[1] I'm sure not all of them are bad but what I saw was calling kids "cum goblins" and the like, acting like they're some kind of blight on the world.
It's absurdly expensive to raise kids, especially before they're school age, and I spent a lot of 2023 unemployed. I am very happy that I didn't have to worry about an infant while also looking for a job.
[1] I'm sure not all of them are bad but what I saw was calling kids "cum goblins" and the like, acting like they're some kind of blight on the world.
Hot take time.
Not having children, thus decreasing future population actually solves a decent amount of problems:
Less pressure on the housing market, so maybe owning a home becomes actually feasible for regular people. Hopefully, prices come down enough so that renting stops being a thing.
Lowers labor supply, thus increasing competition for it, especially, hopefully, in the lower salary bracket. Or maybe, even better, less of human life would be wasted mopping floors and what not, because hiring some sucker is cheaper than buying a robot or whatever.
Less people means less pollution and general toll on the surroundins (less water used for irrigation, less overfishing and so on).
Hopefully motivating people to get children includes making raising them suck less for those, who decide to have them.
Less disposable lives means higher cost and lower probability of armed conflicts.
Obviously it brings problems of it's own. Thing is, people not having children has probably more to do with some sort of societal crisis, than with better access to contraception, sex ed and what not. Population has exploded in the last 100 years, maybe it was a bubble of sorts all along, and now it's starting to burst?
Anyways, fine by me. We either make living suck less, or make less people go through that. Seems like a win-win to me.
Less pressure on the housing market, so maybe owning a home becomes actually feasible for regular people. Hopefully, prices come down enough so that renting stops being a thing.
Lowers labor supply, thus increasing competition for it, especially, hopefully, in the lower salary bracket. Or maybe, even better, less of human life would be wasted mopping floors and what not, because hiring some sucker is cheaper than buying a robot or whatever.
Less people means less pollution and general toll on the surroundins (less water used for irrigation, less overfishing and so on).
Hopefully motivating people to get children includes making raising them suck less for those, who decide to have them.
Less disposable lives means higher cost and lower probability of armed conflicts.
Obviously it brings problems of it's own. Thing is, people not having children has probably more to do with some sort of societal crisis, than with better access to contraception, sex ed and what not. Population has exploded in the last 100 years, maybe it was a bubble of sorts all along, and now it's starting to burst?
Anyways, fine by me. We either make living suck less, or make less people go through that. Seems like a win-win to me.
Lower population seems like the only way to solve most environment issues since convincing people to consume less and reduce their lifestyle is pretty much impossible.
tl;dr: Money.
People with moderate incomes can barely afford to house and feed themselves, even with a partner. Introduce a dependent child into the mix and the subsequent ~30% increase in fixed expenses and it is easy to see why fewer and fewer people are having children.
Personally I wouldn’t want children because of the increasingly bleak outlook for humanity. Climate change is looking increasingly dire, and fascism is seeing a frightening upswing.
People with moderate incomes can barely afford to house and feed themselves, even with a partner. Introduce a dependent child into the mix and the subsequent ~30% increase in fixed expenses and it is easy to see why fewer and fewer people are having children.
Personally I wouldn’t want children because of the increasingly bleak outlook for humanity. Climate change is looking increasingly dire, and fascism is seeing a frightening upswing.
I don’t buy this at all. The poorest people have the most kids. Yes if you want an upper middle class kid with daycare, a math tutor and piano lessons, it’s going to be expensive.
But the actual cost of having a child is food off your plate, second hand clothes, and a stay at home parent.
The problem is that is probably not the lifestyle upper middle class people want.
But the actual cost of having a child is food off your plate, second hand clothes, and a stay at home parent.
The problem is that is probably not the lifestyle upper middle class people want.
I was shocked to learn, just a few days ago, that an old school friend of mine is paying roughly $9,000/month for private school for his two young children. (Ages 14 and 8.)
The guy is doing okay -- his income is somewhere over $200k/year -- but this expense is a _big_ fraction of his total income. For him, childcare costs are basically the difference between leasing a new Ferrari and living in a mansion, and buying clothes from Ross and begging his parents for money. (Which, I've learned, he does.)
There are two factors in play. First, he lives in a large and diverse American city, and wants to insulate his children from bad influences. Second, he's under a great deal of, essentially, peer pressure to "Keep up with the Joneses" -- in other words, to keep up appearances relative to other members of his social group.
It's insanity, of course.
But, in his position, it would be difficult to raise a child cheaply. The outcomes might be quite poor. So, either way, there's difficulty and worry.
There are also the opportunity costs of parenting, which are considerable, but that's a different matter.
The guy is doing okay -- his income is somewhere over $200k/year -- but this expense is a _big_ fraction of his total income. For him, childcare costs are basically the difference between leasing a new Ferrari and living in a mansion, and buying clothes from Ross and begging his parents for money. (Which, I've learned, he does.)
There are two factors in play. First, he lives in a large and diverse American city, and wants to insulate his children from bad influences. Second, he's under a great deal of, essentially, peer pressure to "Keep up with the Joneses" -- in other words, to keep up appearances relative to other members of his social group.
It's insanity, of course.
But, in his position, it would be difficult to raise a child cheaply. The outcomes might be quite poor. So, either way, there's difficulty and worry.
There are also the opportunity costs of parenting, which are considerable, but that's a different matter.
I assure you sending my kid to private school in a diverse city has nothing to do with "insulating her from bad influences" (diversity is good, not bad) and everything to do with ensuring she has motivated and happy teachers who will pay attention to her needs... not a super high bar but America loves underpaying its teachers and starving public education. There's a few magnet public schools that offer this, but getting admission is difficult. All public schools should be magnet schools...
"Keeping up with the joneses" doesn't come into play at all.
"Keeping up with the joneses" doesn't come into play at all.
wow this hits very close to home. I live in Dallas, and my wife and I struggled with the private school question. If you live in an urban area you pretty much have to budget for private school or roll the dice on getting in to highly competitive magnet schools.
For elementary school we rented an apartment for 6 months to get an address in a decent school, it wasn't a guaranteed ticket but a risk we took because it was cheaper than private school. We were able to get in and worked closely with the school and our kids to make sure they were learning what they needed to get to the next school. They both got to a magnet middle school thankfully which was goal #2 but I mean even the magnet school is still like a zoo (sex in bathrooms, drugs, etc). Again, we work closely with the school and our boys, teaching them a lot of the skills they're not getting at school (it's very time consuming and basically a second job for me and my wife). My oldest is now in 8th grade and tested recently for the top magnet STEM HS in DFW. He feels pretty confident about it but we find out March 1 if he got it, that's goal number #3.
Looking back, my wife and I both strongly agree just moving 45 miles north to suburbs with actual functioning public schools would have been so much better. Yeah sure, we live in a hot neighborhood (north oak cliff), downtown, uptown, and deep ellum are < 3 miles away but we never go down there anymore anyway. Suburbs with good schools and other amenities geared toward families are where it's at.
For elementary school we rented an apartment for 6 months to get an address in a decent school, it wasn't a guaranteed ticket but a risk we took because it was cheaper than private school. We were able to get in and worked closely with the school and our kids to make sure they were learning what they needed to get to the next school. They both got to a magnet middle school thankfully which was goal #2 but I mean even the magnet school is still like a zoo (sex in bathrooms, drugs, etc). Again, we work closely with the school and our boys, teaching them a lot of the skills they're not getting at school (it's very time consuming and basically a second job for me and my wife). My oldest is now in 8th grade and tested recently for the top magnet STEM HS in DFW. He feels pretty confident about it but we find out March 1 if he got it, that's goal number #3.
Looking back, my wife and I both strongly agree just moving 45 miles north to suburbs with actual functioning public schools would have been so much better. Yeah sure, we live in a hot neighborhood (north oak cliff), downtown, uptown, and deep ellum are < 3 miles away but we never go down there anymore anyway. Suburbs with good schools and other amenities geared toward families are where it's at.
[deleted]
I am not at that stage of life and have a few question.
What was your biggest concern about school? That they would become involved in bad behavior? Or that they wouldn’t be educated?
My experience from public school is that it’s basically worthless. Could you treat it as social time and make up for the school in your own?
What was your biggest concern about school? That they would become involved in bad behavior? Or that they wouldn’t be educated?
My experience from public school is that it’s basically worthless. Could you treat it as social time and make up for the school in your own?
> What was your biggest concern about school? That they would become involved in bad behavior? Or that they wouldn’t be educated?
school performance and education which correlates to behavior. Obviously, when you drop your kids off at school you want to be confident they're going to be ok so behavior is important. My wife and I have found that low teacher rollover is also a good indicator of a school's quality. The top magnet schools in the district have the lowest teach rollover which is another vote for that metric.
We do a lot of educating at home but it's a tough row to hoe. You're basically homeschooling and the last thing my kids want to do when they get home from school all day is more work.
school performance and education which correlates to behavior. Obviously, when you drop your kids off at school you want to be confident they're going to be ok so behavior is important. My wife and I have found that low teacher rollover is also a good indicator of a school's quality. The top magnet schools in the district have the lowest teach rollover which is another vote for that metric.
We do a lot of educating at home but it's a tough row to hoe. You're basically homeschooling and the last thing my kids want to do when they get home from school all day is more work.
Thanks for the advice.
> and a stay at home parent
That's the big issue. Middle class households today need both parents working to afford a decent home, 2 cars, and health insurance.
Of course many could downsize to a smaller home, 1 car, fewer vacations, etc. But those are the financial trade offs that increasingly fewer couples seem to want to make.
That's the big issue. Middle class households today need both parents working to afford a decent home, 2 cars, and health insurance.
Of course many could downsize to a smaller home, 1 car, fewer vacations, etc. But those are the financial trade offs that increasingly fewer couples seem to want to make.
Agreed, the level of comfort and social status is more important to them.
Were those families of 6 living for 30k happy families?
Something tells me not.
Something tells me not.
Happiest families I know. 2 of their sons now have phds from Ivy League.
That's wonderful. The thing is that I know quite a few people who raised plenty of children on low incomes and if those kids even finished community college, they were exceptional. I guess our experience is quite different.
Time and care from capable parents are more effective than money. However many people who are poor do not have those skill. Upper middle class just prefer to use money instead of time. The upper class does not outsource parenting lightly.
Why should the burden of the next generation fall entirely on new parents? It's not like they're the only beneficiaries of our country having another generation. Seems like they're just being rationally "selfish" in response to the rest of the nation being equally, if not more selfish.
I agree, the lower working class always have a lot of kids. I think it's the trend where young people think kids are just going to prevent them from all these grand accomplishments they think are right around the corner. Ironic, that the handful of people i know who have a stable relationship but chose to not have kids for these reasons are still doing the same job and watching the same tv they were when they were 20 yet, now in their 40s, still talk about the company they're going to create or, in one case, the ground breaking art they're going to produce.
> The poorest people have the most kids
And why is this is a question we should answer. Inability to afford birth control? Sex as the one redeeming "happy" thing after slaving away for a guy who wears a suit 5 days per week? Religion also plays a part -- lots of mainstream religions eschew birth control such as condoms and lots of poor people are religious. Are they poor because they have so many kids?
And why is this is a question we should answer. Inability to afford birth control? Sex as the one redeeming "happy" thing after slaving away for a guy who wears a suit 5 days per week? Religion also plays a part -- lots of mainstream religions eschew birth control such as condoms and lots of poor people are religious. Are they poor because they have so many kids?
I read an article a long time ago that was a series of interviews with poorer women who had multiple kids asking the same question. The answer surprised and stuck with me. The women had children they could not afford because it gave them status (a role to play in society) and meaning. They were Moms, and Moms had a degree of respect in their communities that single childless women did not have. Also - their children loved them, and with their children they were not alone and unloved. In an economic scenario where their prospects were unlikely to change having children provided them with love and status / a role in society.
I'm reasonably certain that it is not just the poor who have children as status symbols.
Every assumption in this post sounds out of touch.
Perhaps lower and middle class people want upper middle class children.
They certainly do. But not enough to do it themselves.
It’s not that simple. Birth rates are also down in European countries where having a child is not a significant financial burden.
Here’s an interesting recent interview on the topic with a leading Finnish demographer: (Financial Times, paywall)
https://www.ft.com/content/500c0fb7-a04a-4f87-9b93-bf65045b9...
Twenty years ago, Finland appeared to have it all. The birth rate was rising and the proportion of women in the labour force was high. Policymakers from around the world, including the UK and east Asia, came to learn about the Nordic model behind it: world class maternity care; generous parental leave; a right to pre-school childcare.
But maybe they got it wrong. Despite all the support offered to parents, Finland’s fertility rate has fallen nearly a third since 2010. It is now below the UK’s, where the social safety net is more limited, and only slightly above Italy’s, where traditional gender roles persevere.
“The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what’s going on. The policy responses are untried because it’s a new situation. It’s not primarily driven by economics or family policies. It’s something cultural, psychological, biological, cognitive.”
At the Family Federation, Rotkirch oversees a unique series of surveys, which ask young people not just how many children they are planning to have, but how many they would ideally like to have.
Her findings suggest that children do not fit into many millennials’ life plans. Once it was a sacrifice not to have children; now starting a family means sacrificing independence. “In most societies, having children was a cornerstone of adulthood. Now it’s something you have if you already have everything else. It becomes the capstone.”
Here’s an interesting recent interview on the topic with a leading Finnish demographer: (Financial Times, paywall)
https://www.ft.com/content/500c0fb7-a04a-4f87-9b93-bf65045b9...
Twenty years ago, Finland appeared to have it all. The birth rate was rising and the proportion of women in the labour force was high. Policymakers from around the world, including the UK and east Asia, came to learn about the Nordic model behind it: world class maternity care; generous parental leave; a right to pre-school childcare.
But maybe they got it wrong. Despite all the support offered to parents, Finland’s fertility rate has fallen nearly a third since 2010. It is now below the UK’s, where the social safety net is more limited, and only slightly above Italy’s, where traditional gender roles persevere.
“The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what’s going on. The policy responses are untried because it’s a new situation. It’s not primarily driven by economics or family policies. It’s something cultural, psychological, biological, cognitive.”
At the Family Federation, Rotkirch oversees a unique series of surveys, which ask young people not just how many children they are planning to have, but how many they would ideally like to have.
Her findings suggest that children do not fit into many millennials’ life plans. Once it was a sacrifice not to have children; now starting a family means sacrificing independence. “In most societies, having children was a cornerstone of adulthood. Now it’s something you have if you already have everything else. It becomes the capstone.”
> European countries where having a child is not a significant financial burden
I'm sorry, but which part of Europe would that be? People cannot afford a house and rents are going up like crazy, energy is expensive, taxes are high..?
I'm sorry, but which part of Europe would that be? People cannot afford a house and rents are going up like crazy, energy is expensive, taxes are high..?
Europe certainly isn’t uniform. The story I linked is about Finland. Here rents are stagnant or down. Energy prices are much more reasonable and predictable after a 1,600 MW nuclear plant came online last year. The new government has even made tax cuts.
But the overall trend of shrinking fertility is unmistakable over a substantially longer period than just the past few years. There isn’t a direct link to the economy, as the Finnish demographic researcher explains in the interview I linked.
But the overall trend of shrinking fertility is unmistakable over a substantially longer period than just the past few years. There isn’t a direct link to the economy, as the Finnish demographic researcher explains in the interview I linked.
> Birth rates are also down in European countries where having a child is not a significant financial burden.
I dont know about for whole EU, but I have friends in Germany / Spain and even people who are both working on some middle IT positions can hardly afford 2 bedroom appartment and a car after taxes. Situation is much worse in poorer countries like Poland or expensive one like Switzerland.
Also I lived in UK and have family there. It's not quite EU, but rich country nontheless. And a lot people struggle there just to pay their mortage because with high interest rates their repayments also spiked almost 2x.
Friends of mine are on high IT salaries that when average Joe with non-IT offline job making 30% less money. And job market is brutal there too - if you lose your job it's possible to find new one, but you'll land on lower salary.
I dont know about for whole EU, but I have friends in Germany / Spain and even people who are both working on some middle IT positions can hardly afford 2 bedroom appartment and a car after taxes. Situation is much worse in poorer countries like Poland or expensive one like Switzerland.
Also I lived in UK and have family there. It's not quite EU, but rich country nontheless. And a lot people struggle there just to pay their mortage because with high interest rates their repayments also spiked almost 2x.
Friends of mine are on high IT salaries that when average Joe with non-IT offline job making 30% less money. And job market is brutal there too - if you lose your job it's possible to find new one, but you'll land on lower salary.
Thank you for posting this, I went looking as soon as I saw the first reply to the topic saying the reason was money.
I think I read an article about Korea that attributed the precipitous drop in birthrate to an advertising campaign that equated children to being a burden in order to lower what was at the time a very high birthrate.
To my mind, the most likely reason is that for most people having kids is not a priority. Need more money, worried about climate change/terrorism/fear-in-vogue, etc.
I have two kids, they were born when I was in my 30's. I wish that I could have had them earlier...you are able to recover more when you are younger.
I think I read an article about Korea that attributed the precipitous drop in birthrate to an advertising campaign that equated children to being a burden in order to lower what was at the time a very high birthrate.
To my mind, the most likely reason is that for most people having kids is not a priority. Need more money, worried about climate change/terrorism/fear-in-vogue, etc.
I have two kids, they were born when I was in my 30's. I wish that I could have had them earlier...you are able to recover more when you are younger.
Was the actual purpose of Finland's policies to support parents or to increase overall fertility? I've always considered similar policies' goal to be supporting the parents meaning that a declining birthrate wouldn't mean the "got it wrong", it would simply mean fewer people want kids. As long as those that do receive support, I'd call the system a success.
> European countries where having a child is not a significant financial burden.
Beg your pardon? Have you seen the price of real estate/child care/energy/... in Europe?
Beg your pardon? Have you seen the price of real estate/child care/energy/... in Europe?
I have two children. I live in Finland and previously we lived in New York.
The cost of having and raising a child in Finland is minimal compared to the U.S.
The cost of having and raising a child in Finland is minimal compared to the U.S.
1. You're comparing with one of the most expensive city in the US; how would it be in e.g. Rapid City or Cincinnati?
2. That's cool for Finland, but Finland is not necessarily representative of Europe as a whole;
3. And even though, ‶better than the US for a someone who's socially high enough to be able to work in NY″ is probably not representative of the average Finn, and still does not make it ‶great″.
2. That's cool for Finland, but Finland is not necessarily representative of Europe as a whole;
3. And even though, ‶better than the US for a someone who's socially high enough to be able to work in NY″ is probably not representative of the average Finn, and still does not make it ‶great″.
I would think that parenthood has now become a choice that many young people no longer want
Less money, more microplastics. End of story.
So if you're looking at income, for 2 kids, your break-even for stay-at-home is north of 100k per year. That's absurdly high.
Combine that with infant kid rearing coinciding with the most expensive purchase of one's life (housing) and you see how impossiblly punishing it is for someone not making 200k+ in yearly income