5 ms·

Yes, it’s always been the simplest answer and breathtakingly obvious but older generations of policymakers continue to act incredulous regarding root cause.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
I wonder what number or set of numbers could describe this? The world has never been wealthier than it is at the moment, so clearly, there is a different metric to make this connection.
- tarboreus 4y ago
  Kids used to be a backloaded financial asset, essentially low cost labor. Now they're a major financial liability. If you are middle class and have four kids, you're probably not really middle class anymore. Also, the stuff related to making kids expensive (school, housing, medical care) is working out of a completely different economy than the cheap TV economy that makes us the richest of all time. Medical care is far more an expensive by proportion of household income than it was in, say, 1955, as is school and housing. Add to that the breakdown in social structures that means you won't get family to take care of your kids and it just doesn't look that hot to have a kid these days, even if you want one.
- vidarh 4y ago
  It's pretty clear that specific crises can have a short term impact in driving fertility rates down, but long term all the evidence also is very clear that increased wealth correlates pretty strongly with reduced fertility rates. That contradicts those who thinks dropping fertility rates is due to worsening economic strain, but it does not invalidate the claim in the article, though, which is not that falling rates are due to economic strain, beyond specific crises like the 2008 recession, but due to people feeling more worried. Part of that may well be that peoples expectations rise, both for what they want to be able to afford for themselves and what they'd expect to spend on a child. E.g. I've easily spent more money on my 13yo son so far than the total my parents spent - inflation adjusted - on me and my brother combined until we were 18.
anon291 4y ago
What about the economy? the economy was much worse in living memory and people had more kids. The economy cannot possibly be it.
- realce 4y ago
  https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco... where are you gonna put your kids? You see a long line of stability there, allowing you to store your children at home, since space in homes are affordable against the avg income. However, now space in homes is no longer affordable, and you must store these children in a premium warehouse (daycare) because you must work more to afford the same space at home and you cannot supervise them for as many hours as before. As another outcome, this means that communities fall apart since less people own less space and also spend less time at the homes they can afford. Do you want your kids playing in a neighborhood full of families with 30 year mortgages, or ones full of renters who move every year because the rental market changed the makeup of who could afford housing in your neighborhood? that's "what" about the economy.
  - anon291 4y ago
    If one parent stays home (or only works part time), then you don't need to pay for daycare, and there's lots of cheap homes. The median male salary for 25-35 year old men is 50k. That means you can afford a house up to 200-225k depending on interest rate. Looking in my own HCOL city of Portland, there are many apartments and condos going for that price, which would be perfectly adequate for one or two children. If you're willing to drive out to the burbs, there's plenty of options. Elizabeth Warren's the two income trap goes into the reasons of why two working spouses is significantly more expensive than one working spouse. I have never understood why this isn't obvious to everyone. Also, communities started falling apart well before the cost of living. > do you want your kids playing in a neighborhood full of families with 30 year mortgages, or ones full of renters who move every year because the rental market changed the makeup of who could afford housing in your neighborhood? I am indifferent realistically. Having done both, both are fine. Part of the problem with my own generation is that we're the 'instagram' generation. Everything has to be pinterest perfect before anyone's willing to do anything. Sad.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Then there's all the people who point out how birth rates are higher amongst poorer people as if its a valid counter argument.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
They don't want to admit it.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

I wonder what number or set of numbers could describe this? The world has never been wealthier than it is at the moment, so clearly, there is a different metric to make this connection.

tarboreus 4y ago
Kids used to be a backloaded financial asset, essentially low cost labor. Now they're a major financial liability. If you are middle class and have four kids, you're probably not really middle class anymore. Also, the stuff related to making kids expensive (school, housing, medical care) is working out of a completely different economy than the cheap TV economy that makes us the richest of all time. Medical care is far more an expensive by proportion of household income than it was in, say, 1955, as is school and housing. Add to that the breakdown in social structures that means you won't get family to take care of your kids and it just doesn't look that hot to have a kid these days, even if you want one.
vidarh 4y ago
It's pretty clear that specific crises can have a short term impact in driving fertility rates down, but long term all the evidence also is very clear that increased wealth correlates pretty strongly with reduced fertility rates. That contradicts those who thinks dropping fertility rates is due to worsening economic strain, but it does not invalidate the claim in the article, though, which is not that falling rates are due to economic strain, beyond specific crises like the 2008 recession, but due to people feeling more worried. Part of that may well be that peoples expectations rise, both for what they want to be able to afford for themselves and what they'd expect to spend on a child. E.g. I've easily spent more money on my 13yo son so far than the total my parents spent - inflation adjusted - on me and my brother combined until we were 18.

anon291 4y ago

What about the economy? the economy was much worse in living memory and people had more kids. The economy cannot possibly be it.

realce 4y ago
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco... where are you gonna put your kids? You see a long line of stability there, allowing you to store your children at home, since space in homes are affordable against the avg income. However, now space in homes is no longer affordable, and you must store these children in a premium warehouse (daycare) because you must work more to afford the same space at home and you cannot supervise them for as many hours as before. As another outcome, this means that communities fall apart since less people own less space and also spend less time at the homes they can afford. Do you want your kids playing in a neighborhood full of families with 30 year mortgages, or ones full of renters who move every year because the rental market changed the makeup of who could afford housing in your neighborhood? that's "what" about the economy.
- anon291 4y ago
  If one parent stays home (or only works part time), then you don't need to pay for daycare, and there's lots of cheap homes. The median male salary for 25-35 year old men is 50k. That means you can afford a house up to 200-225k depending on interest rate. Looking in my own HCOL city of Portland, there are many apartments and condos going for that price, which would be perfectly adequate for one or two children. If you're willing to drive out to the burbs, there's plenty of options. Elizabeth Warren's the two income trap goes into the reasons of why two working spouses is significantly more expensive than one working spouse. I have never understood why this isn't obvious to everyone. Also, communities started falling apart well before the cost of living. > do you want your kids playing in a neighborhood full of families with 30 year mortgages, or ones full of renters who move every year because the rental market changed the makeup of who could afford housing in your neighborhood? I am indifferent realistically. Having done both, both are fine. Part of the problem with my own generation is that we're the 'instagram' generation. Everything has to be pinterest perfect before anyone's willing to do anything. Sad.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

Then there's all the people who point out how birth rates are higher amongst poorer people as if its a valid counter argument.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

They don't want to admit it.