4 ms·

That's a funny way of saying that people are so economically desperate (whether due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc) tha

by hnbad 4y ago

That's a funny way of saying that people are so economically desperate (whether due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc) that they delay having children. I wonder what the % of people currently in a long-term relationship looks like. Those also don't tend to do well under economic duress.

dmix 4y ago
South Koreans are richer than ever, so if that's the problem why aren't they having more kids? > due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc Almost every couple I know who is not having kids makes good $$. It's my friends who make less and are more working class (and work longer hours at that) are the ones having kids. So that sounds like the opposite of what you're suggesting.
- hnbad 4y ago
  > job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc Not everything is about current income. Sure, they make good money but are they able to cut hours to spend more time at home with an infant or toddler? Can one of them take a few years off work and still have their career recover from that? Will they be able to maintain their lifestyle if they have to pay for another human being? There are a lot more considerations than raw money and a higher income doesn't help with that unless you can also build up considerable savings or have a strong support network. It takes a village, and all that.
  - dmix 4y ago
    When you make $100k vs $50k that usually means your skillset is in higher demand and rarer, so you have better long term job security. Working class people don't have that luxury. So yes I think people who earn more have better job security and ability to support a spouse during mat leave. I also live in Canada with liberal mat leave laws so that's not an issue. If anything the biggest pressure on my wealthy urban friends vs working class suburban/small town people is a) cost of housing and b) lack of savings. But OP said "a competitive and maximally efficient society" dissuades kids. First, a competitive economy should generate plenty of housing for people with the $$ to pay for it. Secondly, an efficient economy should provide plenty of ways to save/invest beyond just housing. The public stock market is highly exclusive and controlled. The primary other way (besides housing/stocks) is investing in or starting a small business. New small business rates have declined in recent years. Housing is the only game in town for most people and what politicians spend 90% of focus on incentivizing in capital markets + culturally, but keep supply artificially limited. So if anything regressive policies which prevent competition/efficiency leads to less kids.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  > Almost every couple I know who is not having kids makes good $$. It's my friends who make less and are more working class (and work longer hours at that) are the ones having kids. Those you see making good money, if they intend to have kids, are probably holding off until they feel they're ready (I'm in this group myself). Couples who aren't earning much might feel that someday may never come and have kids since they're going to be somewhat financially stressed either way, plus some in that group have kids as a way to add some meaning and motivation to keep on with the everyday grind. That said, the answer to population problems clearly not to make more people impoverished, but rather to bring the bar of "ready of kids" down to a level that's accessible by more people more quickly.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    If you and your partner want kids and are waiting for some arbitrary financial goal my advice would be don't wait, do it now. We had our first when I was 25 and then seeing all our peers wait until 35+ health wise you're going to cope better when you're younger. Plus you get that much longer when them in your life, and more time being able to play competitive sports with them. But kids are expensive you say? Well they can be, but only if you spend money on them, and most of that spending is school years anyway so you still have time to figure out out.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
South Korea is richer and more successful than most countries on earth. If "economic desperation" was an actual, as opposed to a stated, reason for South Koreans to have fewer babies, the vast majority of humanity would have fewer children still, since their "economic desperation" is objectively much worse.

by hnbad 4y ago

dmix 4y ago

South Koreans are richer than ever, so if that's the problem why aren't they having more kids? > due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc Almost every couple I know who is not having kids makes good $$. It's my friends who make less and are more working class (and work longer hours at that) are the ones having kids. So that sounds like the opposite of what you're suggesting.

hnbad 4y ago
> job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc Not everything is about current income. Sure, they make good money but are they able to cut hours to spend more time at home with an infant or toddler? Can one of them take a few years off work and still have their career recover from that? Will they be able to maintain their lifestyle if they have to pay for another human being? There are a lot more considerations than raw money and a higher income doesn't help with that unless you can also build up considerable savings or have a strong support network. It takes a village, and all that.
- dmix 4y ago
  When you make $100k vs $50k that usually means your skillset is in higher demand and rarer, so you have better long term job security. Working class people don't have that luxury. So yes I think people who earn more have better job security and ability to support a spouse during mat leave. I also live in Canada with liberal mat leave laws so that's not an issue. If anything the biggest pressure on my wealthy urban friends vs working class suburban/small town people is a) cost of housing and b) lack of savings. But OP said "a competitive and maximally efficient society" dissuades kids. First, a competitive economy should generate plenty of housing for people with the $$ to pay for it. Secondly, an efficient economy should provide plenty of ways to save/invest beyond just housing. The public stock market is highly exclusive and controlled. The primary other way (besides housing/stocks) is investing in or starting a small business. New small business rates have declined in recent years. Housing is the only game in town for most people and what politicians spend 90% of focus on incentivizing in capital markets + culturally, but keep supply artificially limited. So if anything regressive policies which prevent competition/efficiency leads to less kids.
kitsunesoba 4y ago
> Almost every couple I know who is not having kids makes good $$. It's my friends who make less and are more working class (and work longer hours at that) are the ones having kids. Those you see making good money, if they intend to have kids, are probably holding off until they feel they're ready (I'm in this group myself). Couples who aren't earning much might feel that someday may never come and have kids since they're going to be somewhat financially stressed either way, plus some in that group have kids as a way to add some meaning and motivation to keep on with the everyday grind. That said, the answer to population problems clearly not to make more people impoverished, but rather to bring the bar of "ready of kids" down to a level that's accessible by more people more quickly.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  If you and your partner want kids and are waiting for some arbitrary financial goal my advice would be don't wait, do it now. We had our first when I was 25 and then seeing all our peers wait until 35+ health wise you're going to cope better when you're younger. Plus you get that much longer when them in your life, and more time being able to play competitive sports with them. But kids are expensive you say? Well they can be, but only if you spend money on them, and most of that spending is school years anyway so you still have time to figure out out.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

South Korea is richer and more successful than most countries on earth. If "economic desperation" was an actual, as opposed to a stated, reason for South Koreans to have fewer babies, the vast majority of humanity would have fewer children still, since their "economic desperation" is objectively much worse.