5 ms·

What's the resource constraint then if it's not food, energy, or shelter? People want to buy more stuff? Hardly a requirement of years gone by. People want mo

by eloff 8y ago

What's the resource constraint then if it's not food, energy, or shelter? People want to buy more stuff? Hardly a requirement of years gone by. People want more free time? Doubtful, otherwise people would work less and buy less stuff - which we don't see. People keep getting more productive, but they just funnel that into a more expensive lifestyle rather than cutting back on work. I don't think the reasons are simple (or even the same between people) but I don't think it's dominated by resource constraints. I know software engineers with no children and school teachers with four. Very different lifestyles, but all middle class. And I don't think resource constraints factored heavily into their decision making.

chongli 8y ago
The resource constraints now are time and location. It's affordable to buy houses in a lot of places, just not so many that have access to good jobs and schools. So people prioritize the latter and sacrifice their time by commuting for work. Since both parents now work, often with lengthy commutes, there isn't a whole lot of person-hours left to spend with the children. That means people have fewer of them. When the kids get older and it's time to send them to university, well, that's something which has gone backwards in affordability. The cost of a university degree has shot through the roof. How could anyone afford to send 3 kids to university these days, let alone 8?
- eloff 8y ago
  I think both parents (or especially the woman) working is probably the big part of it. But I don't think many people factor the cost of university degrees into their decision (whether they should is another matter)
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    > I think both parents (or especially the woman) Why do you say especially the woman? Not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious.
    - pferde 8y ago
      Because traditionally, staying at home taking care of kids has been usually done by women.
      - eloff 8y ago
        Never mind traditionally, this is still true, even in the most egalitarian countries (Scandinavian countries). Women have to choose between family and career, men don't really have to do that. The biggest driver behind the gender pay gap is the difference between women with children and women without. Somehow we haven't solved the issue that it's a cost borne primarily by women.
Nasrudith 8y ago
I think the current answer is quality - people want the best for their kids including a future or they won't have them otherwise. They may feel that their lifestyle consume too much time, that they can't afford what they need, or just that they and their family situation would make poor parent(s) for whatever reason. And this is peripheral to adoption vs reproduction. Kids have turned from a resource like they were to farm families to an expense and an increasing one at that - and I don't mean in a "kids these days" sort of way - the world changed and not people. Which leaves children to be had by those who want to have them for the sake of having them - some sort of enjoyment or sense of obligation.

by eloff 8y ago

chongli 8y ago

The resource constraints now are time and location. It's affordable to buy houses in a lot of places, just not so many that have access to good jobs and schools. So people prioritize the latter and sacrifice their time by commuting for work. Since both parents now work, often with lengthy commutes, there isn't a whole lot of person-hours left to spend with the children. That means people have fewer of them. When the kids get older and it's time to send them to university, well, that's something which has gone backwards in affordability. The cost of a university degree has shot through the roof. How could anyone afford to send 3 kids to university these days, let alone 8?

eloff 8y ago
I think both parents (or especially the woman) working is probably the big part of it. But I don't think many people factor the cost of university degrees into their decision (whether they should is another matter)
- elliekelly 8y ago
  > I think both parents (or especially the woman) Why do you say especially the woman? Not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious.
  - pferde 8y ago
    Because traditionally, staying at home taking care of kids has been usually done by women.
    - eloff 8y ago
      Never mind traditionally, this is still true, even in the most egalitarian countries (Scandinavian countries). Women have to choose between family and career, men don't really have to do that. The biggest driver behind the gender pay gap is the difference between women with children and women without. Somehow we haven't solved the issue that it's a cost borne primarily by women.

Nasrudith 8y ago

I think the current answer is quality - people want the best for their kids including a future or they won't have them otherwise. They may feel that their lifestyle consume too much time, that they can't afford what they need, or just that they and their family situation would make poor parent(s) for whatever reason. And this is peripheral to adoption vs reproduction. Kids have turned from a resource like they were to farm families to an expense and an increasing one at that - and I don't mean in a "kids these days" sort of way - the world changed and not people. Which leaves children to be had by those who want to have them for the sake of having them - some sort of enjoyment or sense of obligation.