4 ms·

> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are having l

> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are having less children than we want. Answer in 3 words: Real estate prices. If you're a couple in the developed world you probably want to give your kids living standards to match. Fat chance doing that unless you and your partner aren't high earners

ethbro 8y ago
Among other things. Ability to "provide for children" seems highly subjective, according to our surrounding conditions. Having 2 goats in a town with no goats = able to provide. Having a McMansion in a town with bigger McMansions = worried about ability to provide.
- zepto 8y ago
  Depends if you took out a mortgage for the goats.
saiya-jin 8y ago
That's far from the only reason. Lives were very different 100 years ago, women stayed at home, kids were raised without any high expectation, just running around, doing errands and luckier going to school. How would modern urban family manage to raise 10 kids? Young people usually jump quickly into parenthood, then are overwhelmed by the continuous drain that you can't escape from. Women are exhausted long after giving birth. How do you want to drive around with >3 kids? Organize their activities? And actually have a full-time job that pays it all? Even if property/rental prices would be good for many-bedroom places (they usually aren't), the rest is quite an effective blocker for most.
toasterlovin 8y ago
That ain’t it. Until you get to the 1%, families who make more money have less kids. This holds true even if you cut upper middle class incomes in half (to simulate stay at home mom) and compare to lower class.
kazinator 8y ago
It's not just real estate prices. It's also that grown-ups basically continue to be children; they want to just play with more expensive toys. Or chase after other things like careers. Some people still don't have children, though well past the point of being able to afford them.

ethbro 8y ago

Among other things. Ability to "provide for children" seems highly subjective, according to our surrounding conditions. Having 2 goats in a town with no goats = able to provide. Having a McMansion in a town with bigger McMansions = worried about ability to provide.

zepto 8y ago
Depends if you took out a mortgage for the goats.

saiya-jin 8y ago

That's far from the only reason. Lives were very different 100 years ago, women stayed at home, kids were raised without any high expectation, just running around, doing errands and luckier going to school. How would modern urban family manage to raise 10 kids? Young people usually jump quickly into parenthood, then are overwhelmed by the continuous drain that you can't escape from. Women are exhausted long after giving birth. How do you want to drive around with >3 kids? Organize their activities? And actually have a full-time job that pays it all? Even if property/rental prices would be good for many-bedroom places (they usually aren't), the rest is quite an effective blocker for most.

toasterlovin 8y ago

That ain’t it. Until you get to the 1%, families who make more money have less kids. This holds true even if you cut upper middle class incomes in half (to simulate stay at home mom) and compare to lower class.

kazinator 8y ago

It's not just real estate prices. It's also that grown-ups basically continue to be children; they want to just play with more expensive toys. Or chase after other things like careers. Some people still don't have children, though well past the point of being able to afford them.