5 ms·

>A state in which having more than two children is a mark of social status? Really? I never knew that was a thing.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three-Child-Household-in-Manhattan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three...
shafte 8y ago
It's not. I honestly can't even imagine where the author would get this idea. If anything, having fewer/no children is a mark of status, both globally (higher income countries tend to have lower birth rates) and in the US (vaguely implies both parents are working and have access to contraceptives, etc). To be clear, I don't think that there's much of a status signal either way.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  It is very much a thing in the US. The middle class almost exclusively has 0, 1 or 2 children; only the poor and the rich have more. 21 percent of families earning > $200K had at least 3 kids in 2011, an increase from 15% in 2000. Every other demographic saw their numbers go down. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three-Child-Household-in-Manhattan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three... Anecdotally I see that too. Almost all of my children's classmates come from 2 child families with the occasional single; almost all of my wife's surgeon friends have 0 or >2 children.
  - shafte 8y ago
    You may be right. Although I'd claim that a trend piece + a modest change in demography aren't quite the same as a "mark of social status". I'm applying the following standard: if someone told me that their friend had 3 kids, would I infer something about their social status? At least for me, not really? Like you said, the poor and rich both have >3 children. ymmv of course
anonacct37 8y ago
Yeah. Maybe in the 1800s or within a few already high status circles (being a rich Mormon doctor that can afford to have 6 kids in all the sports).
sp332 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536302 "Three kids — which a generation ago was considered a slightly smaller brood than ideal — now seems aspirational, even decadent."

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three-Child-Household-in-Manhattan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three...

shafte 8y ago

It's not. I honestly can't even imagine where the author would get this idea. If anything, having fewer/no children is a mark of status, both globally (higher income countries tend to have lower birth rates) and in the US (vaguely implies both parents are working and have access to contraceptives, etc). To be clear, I don't think that there's much of a status signal either way.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
It is very much a thing in the US. The middle class almost exclusively has 0, 1 or 2 children; only the poor and the rich have more. 21 percent of families earning > $200K had at least 3 kids in 2011, an increase from 15% in 2000. Every other demographic saw their numbers go down. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three-Child-Household-in-Manhattan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three... Anecdotally I see that too. Almost all of my children's classmates come from 2 child families with the occasional single; almost all of my wife's surgeon friends have 0 or >2 children.
- shafte 8y ago
  You may be right. Although I'd claim that a trend piece + a modest change in demography aren't quite the same as a "mark of social status". I'm applying the following standard: if someone told me that their friend had 3 kids, would I infer something about their social status? At least for me, not really? Like you said, the poor and rich both have >3 children. ymmv of course

anonacct37 8y ago

Yeah. Maybe in the 1800s or within a few already high status circles (being a rich Mormon doctor that can afford to have 6 kids in all the sports).

sp332 8y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17536302 "Three kids — which a generation ago was considered a slightly smaller brood than ideal — now seems aspirational, even decadent."