4 ms·

Raising children is the ultimate expense. It makes zero economic sense, it only makes biological sense. Biological, as in a people with no children ceases to ex

by pacala 10y ago

Raising children is the ultimate expense. It makes zero economic sense, it only makes biological sense. Biological, as in a people with no children ceases to exist in a historical blip. Our metrics and the policies they drive are solely concerned with improving the economy. The gradient is stronger in the more expensive place, thus more noticeable. Hence pieces in NYT.

redditmigrant 10y ago
People, or most people atleast, dont have kids for biologically progressing their clan. They have kids because it brings them emotional fulfillment and happiness. Its gives people a sense of family. So even though it makes little raw economic sense, it makes lot of sense if you start valuing your happiness and your happiness depends on a sense of family.
- shostack 10y ago
  Having kids for emotional fulfillment vs economic assistance (free labor) is a relatively new concept in the history of civilization and America though. Unfortunately the last couple of generations had economic factors that enabled this attitude, but now the current crop of potential parents are finding all the pressure and drive to mimic their childhood but a distinctly worse economic climate. I foresee a weakening of the concept of the traditional family if it keeps up.
- kelnos 10y ago
  One could argue that happiness being so traditionally tied to a sense of family is a part of the biological imperative, or at the very least strongly encoded in our social and cultural mores. People get pressured by their friends and extended family to get settle down, get married, and have kids. If you look at a place like Japan, they're starting to lose that social pressure. It's worrisome for their economy and for care of the elderly in the longer term, but I find it fascinating to see what people do (and don't do) when societal pressures change or go away.
rpcope1 10y ago
> It makes zero economic sense, This is patently false in the bigger economic picture, and dubious still thinking about it from a microeconomic view. Japan is perhaps our leading indicator of why having less (or no kids) has a huge impact economically. Fundamentally, because our economy is at it's core driven by growth, if the number of consumers doesn't increase (or even stay stagnant), the economy will fall flat on its face, and we'll have a huge glut of older peak (again like Japan) with no one to carry the torch forward (or even to take card of the elderly).
- pacala 10y ago
  It makes zero economic sense [at the individual level]. As a society, we've largely resigned to care about of the future of the native population and instead propose immigration to solve the "children are too damn expensive" problem.

by pacala 10y ago

redditmigrant 10y ago

People, or most people atleast, dont have kids for biologically progressing their clan. They have kids because it brings them emotional fulfillment and happiness. Its gives people a sense of family. So even though it makes little raw economic sense, it makes lot of sense if you start valuing your happiness and your happiness depends on a sense of family.

shostack 10y ago
Having kids for emotional fulfillment vs economic assistance (free labor) is a relatively new concept in the history of civilization and America though. Unfortunately the last couple of generations had economic factors that enabled this attitude, but now the current crop of potential parents are finding all the pressure and drive to mimic their childhood but a distinctly worse economic climate. I foresee a weakening of the concept of the traditional family if it keeps up.
kelnos 10y ago
One could argue that happiness being so traditionally tied to a sense of family is a part of the biological imperative, or at the very least strongly encoded in our social and cultural mores. People get pressured by their friends and extended family to get settle down, get married, and have kids. If you look at a place like Japan, they're starting to lose that social pressure. It's worrisome for their economy and for care of the elderly in the longer term, but I find it fascinating to see what people do (and don't do) when societal pressures change or go away.

rpcope1 10y ago

> It makes zero economic sense, This is patently false in the bigger economic picture, and dubious still thinking about it from a microeconomic view. Japan is perhaps our leading indicator of why having less (or no kids) has a huge impact economically. Fundamentally, because our economy is at it's core driven by growth, if the number of consumers doesn't increase (or even stay stagnant), the economy will fall flat on its face, and we'll have a huge glut of older peak (again like Japan) with no one to carry the torch forward (or even to take card of the elderly).

pacala 10y ago
It makes zero economic sense [at the individual level]. As a society, we've largely resigned to care about of the future of the native population and instead propose immigration to solve the "children are too damn expensive" problem.