4 ms·

I am in constant fear of losing my job not being able to pay my mortgage and becoming homeless. Why would anyone have babies under these circumstances?

by hi41 7y ago

tehlike 7y ago
People do adapt, situation does get better. You can afford a mortgage, that is huge. Most people are not lucky to have their own shelter and they are renting. Noone said child is an economical decision. It is the worst economical decision in fact.
golemotron 7y ago
To pay for a social safety net.
saiya-jin 7y ago
Why would you take a mortgage, probably the biggest investment in your life, if you don't plan to have kids? Even in places where its actually cheaper to pay mortgage compared to renting there are so many negative aspects to committing to strict payment regime for next 20+ years to a single place, that it doesn't make any logical sense. In no kids scenario is much better to rent, adapt your place of live to your current situation/market/plans, when retiring just move someplace dirt cheap and awesome. If you have kids, its a huge value that you can pass to them, if done smartly (if not, it will probably destroy offspring's relationships between them for life).
- neonIcon 7y ago
  That last line can be especially true..
- hi41 7y ago
  In my forties now. Bought it few years back when things weren’t looking so bad. I have two jobs since then.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  If you have a mortgage, your rent payment is locked in. If you rent, you're subject to annual increases in rent (which can be steep, and higher than inflation). There are many factors that determine if buying or renting is better for your scenario. Below is a calculator the NY Times publishes which lets you adjust variables to provide an answer based on inputs. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calc... (NY Times: Is It Better to Rent or Buy?)
francisofascii 7y ago
I wouldn't. But fortunately for us, our ancestors did.
death-is-easier 7y ago
Suicide is the preferrable option to investing any effort in a world that blocks all paths to fulfillment. Consider your own choice of death as the only thing left up to you. And even modern medicine would try to take that away from you, leaving you to a solitary life as a cubicle drone. Time to die.
Frost1x 7y ago
I'd like to see data on fertility rates compared across all the socioeconomic space, over time. I suspect you're not much different than most people: they may want/desire children but due to the ongoing economic climate, are forgoing children. That trend would be a bit more evident if most those in the higher socioeconomic were comparatively either increasing fertility rates or remaining relatively constant over time to those at the lower end of the spectrum. There are of course many other factors to look at but that would be a good start. If fertility rates across the entire socioeconomic spectrum is at a reasonable decline, then overall (assuming there isn't some huge epidemic we're unaware of), it's probably a good thing. Population saturation points should not be artificially set by our current economic system since it's pretty flawed across the board in most aspects, I can't imagine its a useful constraint for determining genetic diversity and growth for humanity.

I am in constant fear of losing my job not being able to pay my mortgage and becoming homeless. Why would anyone have babies under these circumstances?

by hi41 7y ago

I am in constant fear of losing my job not being able to pay my mortgage and becoming homeless. Why would anyone have babies under these circumstances?

tehlike 7y ago

People do adapt, situation does get better. You can afford a mortgage, that is huge. Most people are not lucky to have their own shelter and they are renting. Noone said child is an economical decision. It is the worst economical decision in fact.

golemotron 7y ago

To pay for a social safety net.

saiya-jin 7y ago

Why would you take a mortgage, probably the biggest investment in your life, if you don't plan to have kids? Even in places where its actually cheaper to pay mortgage compared to renting there are so many negative aspects to committing to strict payment regime for next 20+ years to a single place, that it doesn't make any logical sense. In no kids scenario is much better to rent, adapt your place of live to your current situation/market/plans, when retiring just move someplace dirt cheap and awesome. If you have kids, its a huge value that you can pass to them, if done smartly (if not, it will probably destroy offspring's relationships between them for life).

neonIcon 7y ago
That last line can be especially true..
hi41 7y ago
In my forties now. Bought it few years back when things weren’t looking so bad. I have two jobs since then.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
If you have a mortgage, your rent payment is locked in. If you rent, you're subject to annual increases in rent (which can be steep, and higher than inflation). There are many factors that determine if buying or renting is better for your scenario. Below is a calculator the NY Times publishes which lets you adjust variables to provide an answer based on inputs. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calc... (NY Times: Is It Better to Rent or Buy?)

francisofascii 7y ago

I wouldn't. But fortunately for us, our ancestors did.

death-is-easier 7y ago

Suicide is the preferrable option to investing any effort in a world that blocks all paths to fulfillment. Consider your own choice of death as the only thing left up to you. And even modern medicine would try to take that away from you, leaving you to a solitary life as a cubicle drone. Time to die.

Frost1x 7y ago

I'd like to see data on fertility rates compared across all the socioeconomic space, over time. I suspect you're not much different than most people: they may want/desire children but due to the ongoing economic climate, are forgoing children. That trend would be a bit more evident if most those in the higher socioeconomic were comparatively either increasing fertility rates or remaining relatively constant over time to those at the lower end of the spectrum. There are of course many other factors to look at but that would be a good start. If fertility rates across the entire socioeconomic spectrum is at a reasonable decline, then overall (assuming there isn't some huge epidemic we're unaware of), it's probably a good thing. Population saturation points should not be artificially set by our current economic system since it's pretty flawed across the board in most aspects, I can't imagine its a useful constraint for determining genetic diversity and growth for humanity.