11 ms·

And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one par

And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one parent in the picture.

Barrin92 4y ago
throw the nuclear family back into the dumpster where it belongs. The most straightforward answer how two working parents raise a kids is, they don't. At least alone. It takes a village as the proverb goes. If you have your grandparents and your uncles, aunts and other folks around as I was lucky enough to have growing up you're never bored, and they're never bored.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  I agree it takes a village, and like you I was lucky to grow up with lots of aunts, uncles, and grandparents around all the time. But I don’t like the idea that it we need a village so both parents of the child can work full time. The first couple years of a kid’s life are formative, and fleeting. Why only spend a small portion of each day together? It takes more than that to form a good bond. Plus, grandparents might have all the free time, but aren’t as able to do everything as someone in the next younger generation. But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical? The sooner we get away from 5 8s the better IMO, so we can start living richer, balanced lives. At least the commute is going, which really makes it more like 5 10s on average.
  - phil21 4y ago
    > But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical? They do. In functional families everyone still works but because you have a dozen+ people to split the "chores" of life with, someone is typically available or can make themselves available at any given time. It's also a family, so it's not just "aunts and uncles" but everyone from grandparents down to nieces and nephews. Lots of people at different stages of life able to contribute different things. The working-age folks tend to bring in money, and those who aged out or are too young contribute in other ways offloading tasks from those working a standard job. The American nuclear family unit along with suburbanization in my opinion will destroy the country at a societal level. Thought this for a very long time. Humans are not meant to be isolated efficiency machines.
- watwut 4y ago
  Related expectation is that in that setup, you are expected to help grandparents, uncles and aunts too. It also means the other family members have a say into how you run your own house, what you do, what your kids do and so on. As in, a lot of independence people cherish goes out of window. In particular, it could mean that you cant move to SV for better job, because some relative depends on you.
- locustous 4y ago
  There is no adequate alternative to loving parents. "The village" can only help or hinder, not replace. The primary factor to success and happiness in life is your family structure and having their loving guidance and support. Today, the village mostly hinders. Few people have experience with children anymore and most are self centered. Their "help" mostly consists of direct criticism, or indirect criticism in calling the authorities.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  I don't particularly live near any of my relatives though (the closest ones I could rely on are four hours away). Many people are in my situation of having moved for a better job, which necessarily leaves those other people behind.
misja111 4y ago
In Scandinavia there is free daycare. It works great, gender inequality in the workplace is amongst the lowest in the world. There is no stigma on bringing your kids to the daycare, like in some traditional Western countries; it is actually the opposite, people feel it's good for kids to be with others of their same age. However birth rates are dropping there as much as in all the other rich countries. So the problem with population decline and dropping birthrates seems to be somewhere else.
- shrikant 4y ago
  (I often try and struggle to explain my thoughts on this, but I'll try again.) I keep hearing here in the UK that the reason people aren't having kids is because it's so expensive, and I do what you do -- point people at the stats in Scandinavia where a huge chunk of childcare costs is borne by the state, and yet the birth rates are dropping. My theory on this, and one that I personally felt as well, is that there's just no compelling reason to have kids outside of some biological imperative. Having kids is seen as a big life-changing decision that rocks a relatively comfortable boat of material comforts and some light hedonism. Why bother with this when you can coast comfortably through life?
  - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 4y ago
    Poor people are still having a lot of kids, it's the developed world that has a problem. I think the decline is birthrate is much better explained by material wealth and the corresponding education of women that goes along with it as causes of the drop.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      If you are having a substantial amount of kids at least one partner's income is entirely eaten up by childcare expenses so it is cheaper to simply not work and take care of the kids full time.
      - watwut 4y ago
HPsquared 4y ago
I think it comes down to incentives. Traditionally the economic benefit of children was that they would basically work for you, including supporting you into old age. This made the enormous investment a lot more worthwhile. Also the childcare obligations were much less (a 12 year old could be pretty much self sufficient by working). With pensions, no child labour, etc, the trade-off is not like that any more in economic terms. Having children is basically a total economic loss and a rational person would tend to avoid it. It's seen as a luxury nowadays, something most can't afford.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  Who’s getting pensions these days? I doubt anyone under 50 right now will have much of a retirement to look forward to.
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    Military, police, postal service, and some state jobs too (US).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsoweiners 4y ago
    I’m under 50 and have one. Just about every government job does.

And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one parent in the picture.

Barrin92 4y ago

throw the nuclear family back into the dumpster where it belongs. The most straightforward answer how two working parents raise a kids is, they don't. At least alone. It takes a village as the proverb goes. If you have your grandparents and your uncles, aunts and other folks around as I was lucky enough to have growing up you're never bored, and they're never bored.

sixstringtheory 4y ago
I agree it takes a village, and like you I was lucky to grow up with lots of aunts, uncles, and grandparents around all the time. But I don’t like the idea that it we need a village so both parents of the child can work full time. The first couple years of a kid’s life are formative, and fleeting. Why only spend a small portion of each day together? It takes more than that to form a good bond. Plus, grandparents might have all the free time, but aren’t as able to do everything as someone in the next younger generation. But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical? The sooner we get away from 5 8s the better IMO, so we can start living richer, balanced lives. At least the commute is going, which really makes it more like 5 10s on average.
- phil21 4y ago
  > But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical? They do. In functional families everyone still works but because you have a dozen+ people to split the "chores" of life with, someone is typically available or can make themselves available at any given time. It's also a family, so it's not just "aunts and uncles" but everyone from grandparents down to nieces and nephews. Lots of people at different stages of life able to contribute different things. The working-age folks tend to bring in money, and those who aged out or are too young contribute in other ways offloading tasks from those working a standard job. The American nuclear family unit along with suburbanization in my opinion will destroy the country at a societal level. Thought this for a very long time. Humans are not meant to be isolated efficiency machines.
watwut 4y ago
Related expectation is that in that setup, you are expected to help grandparents, uncles and aunts too. It also means the other family members have a say into how you run your own house, what you do, what your kids do and so on. As in, a lot of independence people cherish goes out of window. In particular, it could mean that you cant move to SV for better job, because some relative depends on you.
locustous 4y ago
There is no adequate alternative to loving parents. "The village" can only help or hinder, not replace. The primary factor to success and happiness in life is your family structure and having their loving guidance and support. Today, the village mostly hinders. Few people have experience with children anymore and most are self centered. Their "help" mostly consists of direct criticism, or indirect criticism in calling the authorities.
CydeWeys 4y ago
I don't particularly live near any of my relatives though (the closest ones I could rely on are four hours away). Many people are in my situation of having moved for a better job, which necessarily leaves those other people behind.

misja111 4y ago

In Scandinavia there is free daycare. It works great, gender inequality in the workplace is amongst the lowest in the world. There is no stigma on bringing your kids to the daycare, like in some traditional Western countries; it is actually the opposite, people feel it's good for kids to be with others of their same age. However birth rates are dropping there as much as in all the other rich countries. So the problem with population decline and dropping birthrates seems to be somewhere else.

shrikant 4y ago
(I often try and struggle to explain my thoughts on this, but I'll try again.) I keep hearing here in the UK that the reason people aren't having kids is because it's so expensive, and I do what you do -- point people at the stats in Scandinavia where a huge chunk of childcare costs is borne by the state, and yet the birth rates are dropping. My theory on this, and one that I personally felt as well, is that there's just no compelling reason to have kids outside of some biological imperative. Having kids is seen as a big life-changing decision that rocks a relatively comfortable boat of material comforts and some light hedonism. Why bother with this when you can coast comfortably through life?
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 4y ago
  Poor people are still having a lot of kids, it's the developed world that has a problem. I think the decline is birthrate is much better explained by material wealth and the corresponding education of women that goes along with it as causes of the drop.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    If you are having a substantial amount of kids at least one partner's income is entirely eaten up by childcare expenses so it is cheaper to simply not work and take care of the kids full time.
    - watwut 4y ago

HPsquared 4y ago

I think it comes down to incentives. Traditionally the economic benefit of children was that they would basically work for you, including supporting you into old age. This made the enormous investment a lot more worthwhile. Also the childcare obligations were much less (a 12 year old could be pretty much self sufficient by working). With pensions, no child labour, etc, the trade-off is not like that any more in economic terms. Having children is basically a total economic loss and a rational person would tend to avoid it. It's seen as a luxury nowadays, something most can't afford.

seanp2k2 4y ago
Who’s getting pensions these days? I doubt anyone under 50 right now will have much of a retirement to look forward to.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  Military, police, postal service, and some state jobs too (US).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsoweiners 4y ago
  I’m under 50 and have one. Just about every government job does.