3 ms·

I believe OP is making the general case that our commitment to nuclear family living raises the cost of raising a family as there are no economies of scale comp

I believe OP is making the general case that our commitment to nuclear family living raises the cost of raising a family as there are no economies of scale compared to multi-generational living. A moments thought about it, and he's clearly correct

divbzero 4y ago
I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    What is an evolved state? I assume almost all people live in multi generational households because they cannot afford not to. My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
    - hunglee2 4y ago
      Evolved as in the true meaning of the term - Darwinian evolution. Homo Sapiens have live and grow and die in extended kinship groups, this has been the case for 99.9% of the time we have been around - and if we go further back to pre-human times, we likely lived in those kinship groups too. We only collapsed this structure since industrialisation / urbanisation - last hundred, maybe two hundred years
  - cs137 4y ago
    Cities have always been population reducers: below replacement fertility, with migrants from the countryside increasing the population. This was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. It's hard to say for sure why this is, but I'd imagine it's that urban people have more awareness of economic inequality. Rural people suffer from it, but they don't see it on a daily basis, so they aren't constantly reminded of the disadvantages that 99% of them will inherit in the way urban people are. These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.
- mattgreenrocks 4y ago
  I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.
  - corrral 4y ago
    There's a lot of tension between an economic environment that rewards high levels of mobility, and desire to live near/in a strong local web of friends and relatives who can help support you.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
I think a big component of rising opportunity cost for raising families is simply the fact that women now have opportunities. A lot of societies are about to find out the burden women were implicitly carrying simply because they had no choice, either due to lack of financial independence, birth control, or civil rights.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yes, this is absolutely true. Hans Rosling did one his most well know presentations on the the impact of female education to the eradication of poverty via two mechanism - female entry into the market economy + reduction in the number of births. That said though, all developed economies are now so far down this road that we are below the replacement rate and will die out in a few generations without a course correction
  - yoyohello13 4y ago
    What is that course correction going to be? Unfortunately, it seems like the US is choosing to reduce opportunities for women, rather that reducing the economic burden of raising a family.
    - hunglee2 4y ago
      no idea, there have been no examples of any country successfully reversing declining fertility rate. In fact, it seems only massive unplanned societal disruption - famine, war, invasion - increases the rate. Iraq for instance has had a population boom since the two US led invasions, 50% of its population are now under the age of 15.
      - watwut 4y ago
        Iraq is country where women don't get to say how many children they have. Husband decides that and has power to force what he wants.
      - Jolter 4y ago
ayngg 4y ago
I'm not sure if it is the case that there is a commitment to nuclear family structure as it seems things are trending even further towards the atomized scale with more single parent households and many people delaying marriage and a family or even going child free. I can't speak for elsewhere, but American society seems to incentivize against the factors that allow for high fertility. I think it is also apparent in Asia with the Sampo/ Satori generation phenomenon in Korea and Japan respectively.

divbzero 4y ago

I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  What is an evolved state? I assume almost all people live in multi generational households because they cannot afford not to. My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    Evolved as in the true meaning of the term - Darwinian evolution. Homo Sapiens have live and grow and die in extended kinship groups, this has been the case for 99.9% of the time we have been around - and if we go further back to pre-human times, we likely lived in those kinship groups too. We only collapsed this structure since industrialisation / urbanisation - last hundred, maybe two hundred years
- cs137 4y ago
  Cities have always been population reducers: below replacement fertility, with migrants from the countryside increasing the population. This was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. It's hard to say for sure why this is, but I'd imagine it's that urban people have more awareness of economic inequality. Rural people suffer from it, but they don't see it on a daily basis, so they aren't constantly reminded of the disadvantages that 99% of them will inherit in the way urban people are. These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.
- corrral 4y ago
  There's a lot of tension between an economic environment that rewards high levels of mobility, and desire to live near/in a strong local web of friends and relatives who can help support you.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

I think a big component of rising opportunity cost for raising families is simply the fact that women now have opportunities. A lot of societies are about to find out the burden women were implicitly carrying simply because they had no choice, either due to lack of financial independence, birth control, or civil rights.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes, this is absolutely true. Hans Rosling did one his most well know presentations on the the impact of female education to the eradication of poverty via two mechanism - female entry into the market economy + reduction in the number of births. That said though, all developed economies are now so far down this road that we are below the replacement rate and will die out in a few generations without a course correction
- yoyohello13 4y ago
  What is that course correction going to be? Unfortunately, it seems like the US is choosing to reduce opportunities for women, rather that reducing the economic burden of raising a family.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    no idea, there have been no examples of any country successfully reversing declining fertility rate. In fact, it seems only massive unplanned societal disruption - famine, war, invasion - increases the rate. Iraq for instance has had a population boom since the two US led invasions, 50% of its population are now under the age of 15.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Iraq is country where women don't get to say how many children they have. Husband decides that and has power to force what he wants.
    - Jolter 4y ago

ayngg 4y ago

I'm not sure if it is the case that there is a commitment to nuclear family structure as it seems things are trending even further towards the atomized scale with more single parent households and many people delaying marriage and a family or even going child free. I can't speak for elsewhere, but American society seems to incentivize against the factors that allow for high fertility. I think it is also apparent in Asia with the Sampo/ Satori generation phenomenon in Korea and Japan respectively.