5 ms·

In a sort of backwards way, it's almost like people in their 30s need to be offered a secure mini-retirement to feel like it's reasonable to have kids. (Not to

In a sort of backwards way, it's almost like people in their 30s need to be offered a secure mini-retirement to feel like it's reasonable to have kids. (Not to mention housing being a pain.)

rbanffy 5y ago
Kids are frighteningly expensive. If I had none, I’d live in a bigger house, have more free time and would be much more free to move to pursue better opportunities than I am now. In many places your first consideration when looking for a house is which school your kids are going to.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I explain it to people of reproductive age as such: Kids cost roughly $270k (2022 inflation adjusted from earlier USDA data) to raise from birth to 18. Each child. Can you afford a Supercar or a fancy boat? If not, how can you afford a kid? And more than one? Good. Luck.
  - digisign 5y ago
    Could probably afford one with a 18 year installment plan. ;-) Also, hand-me-downs.
  - eigen 5y ago
    > Kids cost roughly $270k (2022 inflation adjusted from earlier USDA data) to raise from birth to 18. Each child. Can you afford a Supercar or a fancy boat? If not, how can you afford a kid? an 18 year auto loan sounds like a bad idea. but $15k (nominal) per year is less than state university tuition.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Back out from current housing, healthcare, food, fuel and other non discretionary costs to what wage/income you’d need to be in the black including the cost of children. Last I checked, the math doesn’t pencil out until you’re hitting ~$50k-$60k/year, a bit below median income ($67k/year), and you’re cutting it really close. Reasoning from first principles is depressing sometimes. https://www.zippia.com/research/should-i-have-a-baby/ https://www.zippia.com/research/should-i-have-a-baby/
- TOMDM 5y ago
  > If I had none, I’d live in a bigger house This alone says a lot. If you were to step outside society and design something from the ground up, one of your easiest assumptions would be "larger families should have easier access to larger housing", wherein reality the exact opposite is true. An aggressive federal housing construction plan targeting families would do an untold amount of good.
mindslight 5y ago
This was basically what women being stay at home mothers and full time homemakers was. And it is certainly a good thing that women are no longer socially forced into that role. But rather than adjusting to the doubling of the labor force, the government continued to maintain this policy of full time employment being 40 hours per week. Economic feedback then made sure that having two incomes was no longer a choice, with most of the surplus being channeled upwards as housing rent. Looking at the big picture, modern full time employment should actually be somewhere around 15 hours per week.

In a sort of backwards way, it's almost like people in their 30s need to be offered a secure mini-retirement to feel like it's reasonable to have kids. (Not to mention housing being a pain.)

rbanffy 5y ago

Kids are frighteningly expensive. If I had none, I’d live in a bigger house, have more free time and would be much more free to move to pursue better opportunities than I am now. In many places your first consideration when looking for a house is which school your kids are going to.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I explain it to people of reproductive age as such: Kids cost roughly $270k (2022 inflation adjusted from earlier USDA data) to raise from birth to 18. Each child. Can you afford a Supercar or a fancy boat? If not, how can you afford a kid? And more than one? Good. Luck.
- digisign 5y ago
  Could probably afford one with a 18 year installment plan. ;-) Also, hand-me-downs.
- eigen 5y ago
  > Kids cost roughly $270k (2022 inflation adjusted from earlier USDA data) to raise from birth to 18. Each child. Can you afford a Supercar or a fancy boat? If not, how can you afford a kid? an 18 year auto loan sounds like a bad idea. but $15k (nominal) per year is less than state university tuition.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Back out from current housing, healthcare, food, fuel and other non discretionary costs to what wage/income you’d need to be in the black including the cost of children. Last I checked, the math doesn’t pencil out until you’re hitting ~$50k-$60k/year, a bit below median income ($67k/year), and you’re cutting it really close. Reasoning from first principles is depressing sometimes. https://www.zippia.com/research/should-i-have-a-baby/ https://www.zippia.com/research/should-i-have-a-baby/
TOMDM 5y ago
> If I had none, I’d live in a bigger house This alone says a lot. If you were to step outside society and design something from the ground up, one of your easiest assumptions would be "larger families should have easier access to larger housing", wherein reality the exact opposite is true. An aggressive federal housing construction plan targeting families would do an untold amount of good.

mindslight 5y ago

This was basically what women being stay at home mothers and full time homemakers was. And it is certainly a good thing that women are no longer socially forced into that role. But rather than adjusting to the doubling of the labor force, the government continued to maintain this policy of full time employment being 40 hours per week. Economic feedback then made sure that having two incomes was no longer a choice, with most of the surplus being channeled upwards as housing rent. Looking at the big picture, modern full time employment should actually be somewhere around 15 hours per week.