3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoYou 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