8 ms·

Far more adults don’t want children than previously thought

38 points by akvadrako 5y ago

bszupnick 5y ago
As someone who just had a kid, I can definitely say the healthcare system and daycare are HUGE expenses that would make it financially tough to have another one. We've paid ~$10k in medical expenses up until now, and daycare is ~$2k a month (context; Long Island, NY). The medical expenses PILE UP. Obviously the birth they filled up my wife's deductible, but then (and I should have predicted this) they started filling up our newborn's! Our 3 month old then had a cold so we took him to the doctor who checked for RSV and covid with one swab. We got a bill for $1600. And daycare? You need a VERY flexible job to handle a kid in daycare. LO gets his normal vaccines and springs a fever? He needs to stay home for 2 days. Daycare also took a long memorial day weekend AND the last day of June was off too for "between semesters". Having a kid in daycare is a part-time job with unexpected hours that you pay a ton to have. Thank God I work at a wonderful company that is SUPER understanding because I don't know what we'd do if it didn't.
- fatnoah 5y ago
  It's telling that my first reaction to "~2k a month" in daycare expenses was that it seemed like a pretty good deal. My son's daycare 13 years ago was $2400/month. It's even more telling that there's such a disparity in insurance. I think the entirety of pre and post natal care for my son cost us < $500 out of pocket. I agree that money is a big factor. I graduated college in 1997 with a "large" amount of debt for the time, which was $35k. I was able to pay it off in about 7 years, while still living in a (very, very small apartment) in a city. My wife and I had a fun 4-5 years of living debt-free and enjoying life experiences before settling down and having a kid. Between massive loans and skyrocketing housing costs, it's much harder for the younger generation to do those things as young as I was able to. I think people now are also more OK with prioritizing other life experiences and feeling less pressure to have kids. The "time" part is very tough. We were incredibly fortunate to find a day care that was literally across the street from my wife's office. It didn't reduce days off or need for random pickups, but it did make things a little easier. I'd say that roughly 50% of PTO I've taken was for childcare related things.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    > My son's daycare 13 years ago was $2400/month. If you don't mind me asking, where was this? The average cost in California in 2009 was $940/month.
    - fatnoah 5y ago
      This was in Boston and for a full-time professional day care.
- tibbydudeza 5y ago
  My folks lives about 5m away from us so they could deal with picking them up from school in the midday , doctor visits or the unexpected illness. Without that I don't know how we would have managed.
- aynsof 5y ago
  Why aren't Americans rioting in the streets? I had a kid recently and the entire process of labour was free. We even stayed an extra couple of nights. We had a midwife with us the whole way through the pregnancy, and we still didn't pay a cent. As for leave, I got six weeks at full pay; my partner gets a year (approx 60% at full time pay, 30% at minimum wage, 10% unpaid - that's how she organised it).
  - scarby2 5y ago
    Because they're used to it? There's also a huge disparity in costs of medical/neo-natal care. The poor pay nothing, the lower middle tend to get stuck with a bill that they can end up affording, and the upper middle and above often have insurance plans that give them great care for an out of pocket that they don't really notice (this is a huge generalization and actually varies ) As for leave many Americans take pride in not taking time off. One lady i met was saying that a recent round of maternal leave increases were unnecessary as she was able to go back to work the week after...
  - j7ake 5y ago
    When one factors in children (one or more), the calculus of which country to work/live in quickly favours European countries over North American ones. At one child it’s probably comparable, but with multiple children it clearly favours european countries.
  - 4wsn 5y ago
    Can you elaborate more on _why_ you decided to have a kid? :) I'm definitely in favor of having kids because I'm not sure what sort of end-game a civilization is aiming for if they decide to stop having kids, but I've yet to have a discussion on this topic with a younger native European that actually wants or has kids. The answer is always either "well I want to be able to travel and have fun without caring for a child", or "the world sucks so I don't want to bring a kid into it".
    - aynsof 5y ago
      (I'm Australian for the record.) Over the last few years I've moved away from that mindset that you outline. I was finding that a life of travel, hobbies, and low responsibility was becoming more hollow to me. And the world is a tough place, but it always has been and always will be. I just didn't think that allowed me to absolve myself of responsibility in making it better and doing what a saw was my duty. Also kids are pretty cool. They're like little acid trippers. I didn't want to miss out on the chance to have that experience.
- salawat 5y ago
  >(and I should have predicted this) they started filling up our newborn Look up embedded vs. unembedded deductible/plans. Also, I may be considered an extreme example, because I'm morally opposed to reven trying to rear a child until I can satisfy myself I can maintain stability of a household. Looking after other folks kid@s is fine, but I won't actively attempt procreation til I have the process basics mostly down. Yes, everyone says you'll never pull it off. No, I'm sticking to my guns anyway, because I have a rather large list of things people tell me will never happen, and it gets larger by the day.
- ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago
  If the kid had a cold, what did you expect the doctor to do about it?
  - bszupnick 5y ago
    COVID was a possibility and if that was the case, I wanted to make sure he had medical attention. I couldn't ask him if his taste has diminished. All I knew was he was having sever upper respiratory issues.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago
      Covid tests aren't free or low cost where you are?
mullingitover 5y ago
Seems like a pretty rational decision. - Dual income with no kids is no longer a luxury where you get a free extra income stream, it's pretty much a requirement for middle class lifestyle. All that extra money is hoovered up by... - High childcare costs. You're both working, now you have to put a dollar value on the child care that was handled by one member of the household, and we're discovering that it's very expensive work - Then you get to the extremely costly housing, and between the housing and the childcare that extra income stream for dual incomes is pretty much gone - Finally you get to all the other costs of living that have vastly outpaced inflation: health care, education. So we've made having children, which is already rough (most people report a steep decline in quality of life and huge increase in stress levels after having children), an outright horrible financial decision. No wonder people are reacting rationally. We're probably headed for a Japan situation where population growth flattens, the voting public is outright hostile to immigration, and we end up in decades of economic stagnation. We had a good run.
- rayiner 5y ago
  That explanation doesn’t make sense because people with limited economic circumstances, such as Latino immigrants, have the most children. There’s been a major cultural shift among a particular group of American and that explains the disparity. I don’t think we end up in a Japan situation. The immigration boat as already sailed, and will dilute the cultural changes that are limiting birth rates.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > That explanation doesn’t make sense because people with limited economic circumstances, such as Latino immigrants, have the most children. This actually makes perfect sense - in American culture there's not a huge expectation for children to care for you in your old age. It's expected that you'll have saved for retirement, your children are a 100% drain on your finances. In a lot of other cultures, your children are your retirement plan, and the more of them you have, the better your retirement will be. > The immigration boat as already sailed, and will dilute the cultural changes that are limiting birth rates. Immigration rates seem to have peaked, and they haven't made any significant changes to our slowing population growth. The general political climate is definitely not amenable to increasing immigration any further.
joe_91 5y ago
It's going to get really interesting when the world has 1-2 working aged person for 2-3 retirees... Not sure the old people will be able to riot on the streets or anything but it will be an interesting problem for humanity to solve! Maybe the world will end up with all the Mormons doing everything until they eventually take over since they have such large families.
- telesilla 5y ago
  Wealthy countries will allow for increased immigration to continue access to a working class. We'll be able to pass the problem for a few generations yet.
  - mrkramer 5y ago
    For example Ancient Rome thrived when they accepted immigrants and started to weaken whey they refused them.[0] [0] https://time.com/5850622/rome-immigrants/ https://time.com/5850622/rome-immigrants/
  - nicbou 5y ago
    Someone described skilled immigration as a new form of colonialism, and it's an idea I just can't shake off. Europe gets to import the best from poorer countries, who are left to foot the bill for raising and educating them. Nonetheless, it's indeed an excellent deal for Europe and for the immigrants. I wish that the anti-immigration crowd understood that the people they protest are allowing them to retire and die of old age.
Camillo 5y ago
Or just "than previously"?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
guilhas 5y ago
Or maybe they cannot Afford to even think in wanting. Sometimes when you can't even conceive it as a possibility, you'll say you don't want it Also after thousands of years, the society could be way more supportive and helpful to parents. Parents are so unprepared for pregnancy and to take care of the baby. Me and my girlfriend spent hundreds of hours googling every fart. It is literary another life of things to worry about Not easy but totally worth it
confuseddesi 5y ago
This seems almost akin to the tragedy of the commons. Society needs for various reasons (e.g., to maintain and promulgate culture, to power welfare and labor needs, to generally exist in the next century) for people to have children at least at some level above replacement rates. However, each individual couple has a lot of disincentive to have children. I am not convinced this disincentive is due to a lack of benefits from the state - I don’t see benefit-rich Western Europe doing much better than the austere United States. I think we as a society and as individuals simply don’t value creating and raising children as one of the most rewarding and important activities to be performed enough to outweigh the financial, social, and personal implications.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  Yea it is tragedy of the commons; even people in Medieval Europe understood they need to have a lot of children because agricultural workforce, craftsmen workforce, army size, priesthood size, taxpayers size and like you said in general to exist and inhabit some land. Because land without people was and is attractive prey in the eyes of invaders and conquerors.
  - nicbou 5y ago
    Europe can now suck people up from other countries, and only pick the ones that have potential to pay taxes.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
  If you fold a piece of paper 42 times, it reaches the moon. Exponential growth is not sustainable. You simply cannot have "above replacement rates" of kids forever. The Earth population has doubled in the last 50 years. If we're already worried about our pollution levels right now, I certainly don't think we should double our population again over the next half-century.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > Society needs for various reasons (e.g., to maintain and promulgate culture, to power welfare and labor needs, to generally exist in the next century) for people to have children at least at some level above replacement rates. I'm having a hard time to respond to such a broad statement other than to say that I don't believe society needs a growing population for any of those things. I might change my mind if you were to support your claims though...
mrkramer 5y ago
Children are cute and once they grew up they can help you with stuff in life. Once you get old they can take care of you. And why the hell I would be working non stop if I have no one to pass on wealth that I acquired throughout my life. But some people choose comfort and good life over having kids I'm fine with that but at the times you will feel very lonely.
sillywalk 5y ago
Even the best case scenarios for the future are looking increasingly grim. Some people might not want to bring a child into a dystopian nightmare.
- ianai 5y ago
  This seems closer to reality for me. If society wants kids it needs to step up and feel more like a culture people want to contribute into the future. Instead, having a kid sounds like spinning a life off into a lot of harsh circumstances. That kids going to need to sustain itself someday and society’s clearly trying to automate humans out of any and every productive work.
- jollybean 5y ago
  I really can't fathom these kinds of arguments at all. Do you (did you?) have a relationship with your grandparents? Because if you just listen to their stories you might see how good you have it. It doesn't matter where they are from the probably had it rough and they probably don't even talk like they had it rough. Literally in just 2 generations the world has been immensely better on almost every front. Two full generations ago, most rural people didn't have plumbing. They just got electricity. About 6% went to University. There was no 'Social Security/Insurance'. There was no government supported healthcare. Racism was 'institutional' i.e. 'We don't serve your kind'. Many of my friends relatives died in terrible situations during wars. Almost all Europeans have civilization trauma just two generations ago. Just 3 generations ago, my ancestors were both disowned for marrying one another (Protestant v. Catholic). Infant mortality was 10% in 1900. There were no antibiotics (!) literally cutting yourself with a knife could mean amputation (from infection) and people died of all sorts of things. A whole ton of men died building the Hoover dam. Union workers were shot. Edit: and most people couldn't even vote! Now, the major thing we have to worry about is climate change, and I have no doubt wel'l eventually move past it even while it's a little bit disruptive, it's not going to be existential for most people. There are fewer wars than ever in history, it's too expensive to fight now. Unless you live in China, where the CCP wants to put 100 cameras on you all day ever day, I can't even understand what kinds of people are so existentially cynical. Because I believe it is objectively (mostly) true that life is immensely better and mostly improving ... I'm almost inclined to believe those with views of ultra dystopia might have a version of depression of some kind. We probably need to work on this 'child' issue a big with a multi-pronged approach. Quebec (Canada) instituted 'cheap daycare' (it's fairly socialized) and it actually had an effect. The US of course is not into having consistent healthcare for all citizens, so that might be a stretch in that country.
nicbou 5y ago
Aside from the reasons cited in this thread, I honestly just want to do my own thing. It's the first time I have both time and disposables income - a rare luxury - and I don't feel like using both to have a kid. I want to travel and have fun without answering to anyone. The parent life just isn't for me.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Hey I thought I didn't want kids when I was young. Something about genes and hormones, I don't know. But I've got three grown boys now. It was a blast. It sure helped to move back to the midwest, where everything was easier. Didn't like raising the first two in San Jose. Moved when they were 3 and 5, best decision ever.
pull_my_finger 5y ago
All expense, time and child-raising related concerns aside, I am concerned about the kind of state the world will be in for our future generations. There are a lot of pretty significant dangers to the entire world that seem to be coming to a boil possibly within our time, more probably in there's. Good luck to them, maybe adversity will bring innovation, but seems unfair to them.

38 points by akvadrako 5y ago

As someone who just had a kid, I can definitely say the healthcare system and daycare are HUGE expenses that would make it financially tough to have another one. We've paid ~$10k in medical expenses up until now, and daycare is ~$2k a month (context; Long Island, NY). The medical expenses PILE UP. Obviously the birth they filled up my wife's deductible, but then (and I should have predicted this) they started filling up our newborn's! Our 3 month old then had a cold so we took him to the doctor who checked for RSV and covid with one swab. We got a bill for $1600. And daycare? You need a VERY flexible job to handle a kid in daycare. LO gets his normal vaccines and springs a fever? He needs to stay home for 2 days. Daycare also took a long memorial day weekend AND the last day of June was off too for "between semesters". Having a kid in daycare is a part-time job with unexpected hours that you pay a ton to have. Thank God I work at a wonderful company that is SUPER understanding because I don't know what we'd do if it didn't.

fatnoah 5y ago
It's telling that my first reaction to "~2k a month" in daycare expenses was that it seemed like a pretty good deal. My son's daycare 13 years ago was $2400/month. It's even more telling that there's such a disparity in insurance. I think the entirety of pre and post natal care for my son cost us < $500 out of pocket. I agree that money is a big factor. I graduated college in 1997 with a "large" amount of debt for the time, which was $35k. I was able to pay it off in about 7 years, while still living in a (very, very small apartment) in a city. My wife and I had a fun 4-5 years of living debt-free and enjoying life experiences before settling down and having a kid. Between massive loans and skyrocketing housing costs, it's much harder for the younger generation to do those things as young as I was able to. I think people now are also more OK with prioritizing other life experiences and feeling less pressure to have kids. The "time" part is very tough. We were incredibly fortunate to find a day care that was literally across the street from my wife's office. It didn't reduce days off or need for random pickups, but it did make things a little easier. I'd say that roughly 50% of PTO I've taken was for childcare related things.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  > My son's daycare 13 years ago was $2400/month. If you don't mind me asking, where was this? The average cost in California in 2009 was $940/month.
  - fatnoah 5y ago
    This was in Boston and for a full-time professional day care.
tibbydudeza 5y ago
My folks lives about 5m away from us so they could deal with picking them up from school in the midday , doctor visits or the unexpected illness. Without that I don't know how we would have managed.
aynsof 5y ago
Why aren't Americans rioting in the streets? I had a kid recently and the entire process of labour was free. We even stayed an extra couple of nights. We had a midwife with us the whole way through the pregnancy, and we still didn't pay a cent. As for leave, I got six weeks at full pay; my partner gets a year (approx 60% at full time pay, 30% at minimum wage, 10% unpaid - that's how she organised it).
- scarby2 5y ago
  Because they're used to it? There's also a huge disparity in costs of medical/neo-natal care. The poor pay nothing, the lower middle tend to get stuck with a bill that they can end up affording, and the upper middle and above often have insurance plans that give them great care for an out of pocket that they don't really notice (this is a huge generalization and actually varies ) As for leave many Americans take pride in not taking time off. One lady i met was saying that a recent round of maternal leave increases were unnecessary as she was able to go back to work the week after...
- j7ake 5y ago
  When one factors in children (one or more), the calculus of which country to work/live in quickly favours European countries over North American ones. At one child it’s probably comparable, but with multiple children it clearly favours european countries.
- 4wsn 5y ago
  Can you elaborate more on _why_ you decided to have a kid? :) I'm definitely in favor of having kids because I'm not sure what sort of end-game a civilization is aiming for if they decide to stop having kids, but I've yet to have a discussion on this topic with a younger native European that actually wants or has kids. The answer is always either "well I want to be able to travel and have fun without caring for a child", or "the world sucks so I don't want to bring a kid into it".
  - aynsof 5y ago
    (I'm Australian for the record.) Over the last few years I've moved away from that mindset that you outline. I was finding that a life of travel, hobbies, and low responsibility was becoming more hollow to me. And the world is a tough place, but it always has been and always will be. I just didn't think that allowed me to absolve myself of responsibility in making it better and doing what a saw was my duty. Also kids are pretty cool. They're like little acid trippers. I didn't want to miss out on the chance to have that experience.
salawat 5y ago
>(and I should have predicted this) they started filling up our newborn Look up embedded vs. unembedded deductible/plans. Also, I may be considered an extreme example, because I'm morally opposed to reven trying to rear a child until I can satisfy myself I can maintain stability of a household. Looking after other folks kid@s is fine, but I won't actively attempt procreation til I have the process basics mostly down. Yes, everyone says you'll never pull it off. No, I'm sticking to my guns anyway, because I have a rather large list of things people tell me will never happen, and it gets larger by the day.
ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago
If the kid had a cold, what did you expect the doctor to do about it?
- bszupnick 5y ago
  COVID was a possibility and if that was the case, I wanted to make sure he had medical attention. I couldn't ask him if his taste has diminished. All I knew was he was having sever upper respiratory issues.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago
    Covid tests aren't free or low cost where you are?

mullingitover 5y ago

Seems like a pretty rational decision. - Dual income with no kids is no longer a luxury where you get a free extra income stream, it's pretty much a requirement for middle class lifestyle. All that extra money is hoovered up by... - High childcare costs. You're both working, now you have to put a dollar value on the child care that was handled by one member of the household, and we're discovering that it's very expensive work - Then you get to the extremely costly housing, and between the housing and the childcare that extra income stream for dual incomes is pretty much gone - Finally you get to all the other costs of living that have vastly outpaced inflation: health care, education. So we've made having children, which is already rough (most people report a steep decline in quality of life and huge increase in stress levels after having children), an outright horrible financial decision. No wonder people are reacting rationally. We're probably headed for a Japan situation where population growth flattens, the voting public is outright hostile to immigration, and we end up in decades of economic stagnation. We had a good run.

rayiner 5y ago
That explanation doesn’t make sense because people with limited economic circumstances, such as Latino immigrants, have the most children. There’s been a major cultural shift among a particular group of American and that explains the disparity. I don’t think we end up in a Japan situation. The immigration boat as already sailed, and will dilute the cultural changes that are limiting birth rates.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > That explanation doesn’t make sense because people with limited economic circumstances, such as Latino immigrants, have the most children. This actually makes perfect sense - in American culture there's not a huge expectation for children to care for you in your old age. It's expected that you'll have saved for retirement, your children are a 100% drain on your finances. In a lot of other cultures, your children are your retirement plan, and the more of them you have, the better your retirement will be. > The immigration boat as already sailed, and will dilute the cultural changes that are limiting birth rates. Immigration rates seem to have peaked, and they haven't made any significant changes to our slowing population growth. The general political climate is definitely not amenable to increasing immigration any further.

joe_91 5y ago

It's going to get really interesting when the world has 1-2 working aged person for 2-3 retirees... Not sure the old people will be able to riot on the streets or anything but it will be an interesting problem for humanity to solve! Maybe the world will end up with all the Mormons doing everything until they eventually take over since they have such large families.

telesilla 5y ago
Wealthy countries will allow for increased immigration to continue access to a working class. We'll be able to pass the problem for a few generations yet.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  For example Ancient Rome thrived when they accepted immigrants and started to weaken whey they refused them.[0] [0] https://time.com/5850622/rome-immigrants/ https://time.com/5850622/rome-immigrants/
- nicbou 5y ago
  Someone described skilled immigration as a new form of colonialism, and it's an idea I just can't shake off. Europe gets to import the best from poorer countries, who are left to foot the bill for raising and educating them. Nonetheless, it's indeed an excellent deal for Europe and for the immigrants. I wish that the anti-immigration crowd understood that the people they protest are allowing them to retire and die of old age.

Camillo 5y ago

Or just "than previously"?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

guilhas 5y ago

Or maybe they cannot Afford to even think in wanting. Sometimes when you can't even conceive it as a possibility, you'll say you don't want it Also after thousands of years, the society could be way more supportive and helpful to parents. Parents are so unprepared for pregnancy and to take care of the baby. Me and my girlfriend spent hundreds of hours googling every fart. It is literary another life of things to worry about Not easy but totally worth it

confuseddesi 5y ago

This seems almost akin to the tragedy of the commons. Society needs for various reasons (e.g., to maintain and promulgate culture, to power welfare and labor needs, to generally exist in the next century) for people to have children at least at some level above replacement rates. However, each individual couple has a lot of disincentive to have children. I am not convinced this disincentive is due to a lack of benefits from the state - I don’t see benefit-rich Western Europe doing much better than the austere United States. I think we as a society and as individuals simply don’t value creating and raising children as one of the most rewarding and important activities to be performed enough to outweigh the financial, social, and personal implications.

mrkramer 5y ago
Yea it is tragedy of the commons; even people in Medieval Europe understood they need to have a lot of children because agricultural workforce, craftsmen workforce, army size, priesthood size, taxpayers size and like you said in general to exist and inhabit some land. Because land without people was and is attractive prey in the eyes of invaders and conquerors.
- nicbou 5y ago
  Europe can now suck people up from other countries, and only pick the ones that have potential to pay taxes.
maximus-decimus 5y ago
If you fold a piece of paper 42 times, it reaches the moon. Exponential growth is not sustainable. You simply cannot have "above replacement rates" of kids forever. The Earth population has doubled in the last 50 years. If we're already worried about our pollution levels right now, I certainly don't think we should double our population again over the next half-century.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> Society needs for various reasons (e.g., to maintain and promulgate culture, to power welfare and labor needs, to generally exist in the next century) for people to have children at least at some level above replacement rates. I'm having a hard time to respond to such a broad statement other than to say that I don't believe society needs a growing population for any of those things. I might change my mind if you were to support your claims though...

mrkramer 5y ago

Children are cute and once they grew up they can help you with stuff in life. Once you get old they can take care of you. And why the hell I would be working non stop if I have no one to pass on wealth that I acquired throughout my life. But some people choose comfort and good life over having kids I'm fine with that but at the times you will feel very lonely.

sillywalk 5y ago

Even the best case scenarios for the future are looking increasingly grim. Some people might not want to bring a child into a dystopian nightmare.

ianai 5y ago
This seems closer to reality for me. If society wants kids it needs to step up and feel more like a culture people want to contribute into the future. Instead, having a kid sounds like spinning a life off into a lot of harsh circumstances. That kids going to need to sustain itself someday and society’s clearly trying to automate humans out of any and every productive work.
jollybean 5y ago
I really can't fathom these kinds of arguments at all. Do you (did you?) have a relationship with your grandparents? Because if you just listen to their stories you might see how good you have it. It doesn't matter where they are from the probably had it rough and they probably don't even talk like they had it rough. Literally in just 2 generations the world has been immensely better on almost every front. Two full generations ago, most rural people didn't have plumbing. They just got electricity. About 6% went to University. There was no 'Social Security/Insurance'. There was no government supported healthcare. Racism was 'institutional' i.e. 'We don't serve your kind'. Many of my friends relatives died in terrible situations during wars. Almost all Europeans have civilization trauma just two generations ago. Just 3 generations ago, my ancestors were both disowned for marrying one another (Protestant v. Catholic). Infant mortality was 10% in 1900. There were no antibiotics (!) literally cutting yourself with a knife could mean amputation (from infection) and people died of all sorts of things. A whole ton of men died building the Hoover dam. Union workers were shot. Edit: and most people couldn't even vote! Now, the major thing we have to worry about is climate change, and I have no doubt wel'l eventually move past it even while it's a little bit disruptive, it's not going to be existential for most people. There are fewer wars than ever in history, it's too expensive to fight now. Unless you live in China, where the CCP wants to put 100 cameras on you all day ever day, I can't even understand what kinds of people are so existentially cynical. Because I believe it is objectively (mostly) true that life is immensely better and mostly improving ... I'm almost inclined to believe those with views of ultra dystopia might have a version of depression of some kind. We probably need to work on this 'child' issue a big with a multi-pronged approach. Quebec (Canada) instituted 'cheap daycare' (it's fairly socialized) and it actually had an effect. The US of course is not into having consistent healthcare for all citizens, so that might be a stretch in that country.

nicbou 5y ago

Aside from the reasons cited in this thread, I honestly just want to do my own thing. It's the first time I have both time and disposables income - a rare luxury - and I don't feel like using both to have a kid. I want to travel and have fun without answering to anyone. The parent life just isn't for me.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Hey I thought I didn't want kids when I was young. Something about genes and hormones, I don't know. But I've got three grown boys now. It was a blast. It sure helped to move back to the midwest, where everything was easier. Didn't like raising the first two in San Jose. Moved when they were 3 and 5, best decision ever.

pull_my_finger 5y ago

All expense, time and child-raising related concerns aside, I am concerned about the kind of state the world will be in for our future generations. There are a lot of pretty significant dangers to the entire world that seem to be coming to a boil possibly within our time, more probably in there's. Good luck to them, maybe adversity will bring innovation, but seems unfair to them.