4 ms·

I suspect the economy plays a large role. If you can't afford a house or don't have much financial security in general, that makes the idea of adding another la

by ilaksh 4y ago

I suspect the economy plays a large role. If you can't afford a house or don't have much financial security in general, that makes the idea of adding another large expense less interesting.

bell-cot 4y ago
THIS. "It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville (political strategist for Bill Clinton) But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.
- ss108 4y ago
  >But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve. lol that none of us can know for sure which party you think is which, since one could reasonably launch both criticisms at either
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Making shit worse for the 99% is the only point of bipartisan agreement... where would we be without the oligarchy?
    - ss108 4y ago
      I definitely would not take it that far or call it an "oligarchy", but there is no doubt that neither option seems particularly great or inspiring at the moment.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    > none of us can know [...] which party you think is which [...] That was kinda the point.
- willeum 4y ago
  On the contrary, I don't think it's the economy... it's your last paragraph. People just don't feel very encouraged to have children in such a toxic culture
Pandaburgers 4y ago
The actual root causes are economic but there's a psychological feedback loop at play as well. I lived in Germany for a few years and got culture shocked when I attended a 40th birthday and realised that I was the only parent in attendance. When society gets itself into a situation where not having kids is that normalised, it gets fairly easy to validate the choice not to have one.
wolongong942 4y ago
Even if they did want a family it might be difficult or impossible to find a partner for lower income men. Western women with degrees and careers aren't exactly fawning over your average forklift driver, and i think a lot of low income men understand this and are just opting to focus on themselves.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  Not everyone with low income is blue collar. Some of us make startups.
wahern 4y ago
What's changed are expectations. 50 years ago, as long as you could get a job at a warehouse or restaurant, people would have 1 or 2 children without severe economic anxiety, even if they couldn't afford a house. Today, anxiety is through the roof even among professionals and other high earners whose finances look downright unfathomable to half the population from 50 years ago. If your only prospects are working at a warehouse or restaurant, this makes you all but destitute, and according to the calculus of modern popular culture it would be irresponsible to bear and raise children. Objectively speaking, it's easier today for even the poorest of households to raise well-educated and healthy children. Traditionally, shelter, food, clothing, and then in the 20th century, education, were all that mattered. In 21st century America, access to all of those things is basically guaranteed, especially for people with children. (Yes, there are people who are unable to navigate the system and fall through the cracks. But those things are available. The people who fall through the cracks today would have had a much worse time of things 50+ years ago, notwithstanding that public programs cannot fully replace the more extensive family relationships that were once more common.) But because the scope of peer group identification has expanded both geographically (basically, the entire country) and across socio-economic strata, now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves. And the emphasis has shifted. It's no longer about shelter, food, clothing, and formal education; it's about one's ability to spend quality time with the kids, to afford private schools or exclusive public school districts, tutoring, extracurriculars, etc. The goal posts have shifted.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Even if this were true, we still need to understand what caused such a shift.
  - yucky 4y ago
    The answer is in the post: "now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves." Social media.

by ilaksh 4y ago

I suspect the economy plays a large role. If you can't afford a house or don't have much financial security in general, that makes the idea of adding another large expense less interesting.

bell-cot 4y ago

THIS. "It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville (political strategist for Bill Clinton) But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.

ss108 4y ago
>But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve. lol that none of us can know for sure which party you think is which, since one could reasonably launch both criticisms at either
- klyrs 4y ago
  Making shit worse for the 99% is the only point of bipartisan agreement... where would we be without the oligarchy?
  - ss108 4y ago
    I definitely would not take it that far or call it an "oligarchy", but there is no doubt that neither option seems particularly great or inspiring at the moment.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > none of us can know [...] which party you think is which [...] That was kinda the point.
willeum 4y ago
On the contrary, I don't think it's the economy... it's your last paragraph. People just don't feel very encouraged to have children in such a toxic culture

Pandaburgers 4y ago

The actual root causes are economic but there's a psychological feedback loop at play as well. I lived in Germany for a few years and got culture shocked when I attended a 40th birthday and realised that I was the only parent in attendance. When society gets itself into a situation where not having kids is that normalised, it gets fairly easy to validate the choice not to have one.

wolongong942 4y ago

Even if they did want a family it might be difficult or impossible to find a partner for lower income men. Western women with degrees and careers aren't exactly fawning over your average forklift driver, and i think a lot of low income men understand this and are just opting to focus on themselves.

ilaksh 4y ago
Not everyone with low income is blue collar. Some of us make startups.

wahern 4y ago

What's changed are expectations. 50 years ago, as long as you could get a job at a warehouse or restaurant, people would have 1 or 2 children without severe economic anxiety, even if they couldn't afford a house. Today, anxiety is through the roof even among professionals and other high earners whose finances look downright unfathomable to half the population from 50 years ago. If your only prospects are working at a warehouse or restaurant, this makes you all but destitute, and according to the calculus of modern popular culture it would be irresponsible to bear and raise children. Objectively speaking, it's easier today for even the poorest of households to raise well-educated and healthy children. Traditionally, shelter, food, clothing, and then in the 20th century, education, were all that mattered. In 21st century America, access to all of those things is basically guaranteed, especially for people with children. (Yes, there are people who are unable to navigate the system and fall through the cracks. But those things are available. The people who fall through the cracks today would have had a much worse time of things 50+ years ago, notwithstanding that public programs cannot fully replace the more extensive family relationships that were once more common.) But because the scope of peer group identification has expanded both geographically (basically, the entire country) and across socio-economic strata, now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves. And the emphasis has shifted. It's no longer about shelter, food, clothing, and formal education; it's about one's ability to spend quality time with the kids, to afford private schools or exclusive public school districts, tutoring, extracurriculars, etc. The goal posts have shifted.

philosopher1234 4y ago
Even if this were true, we still need to understand what caused such a shift.
- yucky 4y ago
  The answer is in the post: "now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves." Social media.