4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by hnbad 4y ago

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.