4 ms·
> Why is it assumed that this isn't a more attractive proposition compared the alternative. Certainly there would be many, if not most or all, that would be wil
by notahacker 5y ago
> Why is it assumed that this isn't a more attractive proposition compared the alternative. Certainly there would be many, if not most or all, that would be willing to make this choice.
I'm not sure why you're asking me this when your opening post in this exchange starts by noting low fertility amongst highly educated women. Smart women generally aren't short of offers from smart men to make babies with them (and the smart men are usually pretty wealthy). If "many, if not most or all" wanted to have lots and lots of kids instead of being academics or lawyers or rocket scientists, they'd already be doing it.
I don't think a creepy eugenics foundation that's obsessed with the IQ of their kids makes the proposition more attractive even if they're paying enough for a slightly bigger mansion and the husband to afford to retire too.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoThe little secret is that the highly successful do have many children. Like, Elon Musk has six kids. It's only a class of upper-middle-class workers who, like high-ranking court eunuchs, valorize work over family.
- notahacker 5y agoSome highly successful people have lots of children. But Elon Musk is a little bit too rich to make his decisions on partners and kids based on whether some poorer billionaire offers a stipend. My point is upper middle classes intellectuals won't be interested trading those decisions for the money either
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoYeah, the billionaire stipend idea isn't realistic. I assume it wasn't supposed to be. Seems to me that the upper middle class is motivated at least as much by prestige as they are by money, family, or anything else.