7 ms·

(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 becau

(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
    The other thing is ability to control the amount of children. Knowledge of contraception and its availabity. Because even if you are stay at home and committed to be, things are much simpler with 4 kids then with 9.
mikewarot 4y ago
As Peter Zeihan puts it: When you have kids on the farm, they are free labor, and you have as many as you can. If you move into the city, they become noisy, expensive hobbies, and people aren't stupid, they have fewer of them.
- cdelsolar 4y ago
  Hmm. Well I have an awesome open source app / side project that I have very little time to work on, and my plan for it has always been to create enough kids to code on it for free
IanCal 4y ago
> 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? I strongly disagree with this. It's a fair question, but humans are social creatures and find pleasure in more than just base things. We describe things as rewarding. Why play sports when you could sit down comfortably? If you play sports, why not play against the easiest opponent? Play all games on easy mode, why make it harder? Why go and find a romantic partner in life, wouldn't it be easier to sit at home and masturbate all day? Why study and learn new topics, why not just do the bare minimum to earn enough money to sit and watch tv. People even volunteer. That's working for free. This doesn't mean everyone has to find them rewarding, but there's far more to it than "I just feel I need to have kids".
misja111 4y ago
I think that another part of the explanation is, that most couples who do have kids, only have one or two. That sort of ticks the box for life fulfillment goal 'kids', you don't need to have three or more for that.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  The reason most Westerners have only two kids is because they don't have a social support group which can take turns raising the extra children. The practical limit for a two-parent household is two kids if they are of a similar age and one partner is taking care of the kids full time. Beyond two kids you're pretty much going to start having to neglect someone some of the time simply because each kid demands so much attention and there is a limit to how much time you have preparing things for them and mitigating disasters. For three or more kids to work generally you need a stronger family support network which is able and willing to devote time to taking care of your children.
  - benji-york 4y ago
    As someone with four children who lived most of their early lives a thousand miles away from any established support network, I didn't find this to be true. On the contrary, the marginal cost of each child decreased with increased help from their siblings. Perhaps the given scenario is true in "helicopter parenting" modes, but we don't generally employ those.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      How many years apart are the kids?
      - benji-york 4y ago
        4, 2, and 4.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      Right, but now the older children are being parentized and have to do some of the child-rearing instead of just being care-free kids themselves. Not everyone wants that for their children.
roenxi 4y ago
> 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. What, the state that raises its funds by draining resources from families? The state paying for childcare can't make it cheaper to raise children; it just means everyone is living with the costs that they were already going to have to pay. On average, if the cost of raising kids is high people still won't be able to afford them. If you walk through the logic more deeply; it is unlikely that the state paying for childcare can make it cheaper to raise children. Who is supposed to pay for the costs? People who were already willing and available to help before the state got involved! And if the state mucks up any part of its policy, it will make it even more expensive by spending the money in sub-optimal ways.
- hansbo 4y ago
  It's cheaper to raise kids since you would already have paid the cost in taxes if you didn't get kids. The important metric is the difference in cost of having kids vs not having kids, and since daycare is heavily subsidized, the difference is small. Same things go for schools, food in schools, universities, et.c., they are all "free", as in paid for by everyone in proportion to their wealth, instead of individually by the parent.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    If we start with the assumption that the cost of childcare is costly enough that it would lead to an unacceptable drop in living standards for the average couple, and then force them to pay that cost anyway (regardless of whether they actually have children) it is unlikely that the follow up is going to be the couple having kids. They'll probably be busy desperately working to get their living standard up to a state that is bearable. It isn't cheaper to raise kids. They're actually losing more under the socialised system because they still have to give up enough resources to raise the kids and now also to cover inefficiencies in the government program. On average everyone would be worse off. Or you're going to be taxing grandma so instead of her providing helpful childcare services she has to go and work at McDonalds to make up the difference or something. Society is geared towards supporting children already - routing the resources through the state or through the family can't make it easier. Men work to support families, women work to support families, grandparents have nothing better to do than support families. The resources were already tagged to support families. The government can't magic more resources into existence if raising kids is expensive. They'd be taxing families so instead of using the resources to support their families, the resources are being ... handed out to support families. There are no gains, so it isn't going to help. State spending can reallocate; I can see some potential success in using childcare to free up high performing parents. But if the problem is median experience, reallocation can't do much. Postscript The taxes in these countries are no joke. Young families are losing a lot more to the tax system than the "free" childcare makes up for. If you traded the free childcare for paid childcare and low taxes, they'd likely be in a much better position to have kids. [Taxes] approx. = [Cost of Services] + [Admin Costs] + [Cost of Rorts]. That isn't making it easier to fund a family.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
Women in the west are guilt tripped into having careers now and looked down on for being stay at home parents full time. Men have always been in this boat. Why would they have more kids when neither parent has time for the ones they already have? So we see them end up with 1-2 kids instead of many
- sharemywin 4y ago
  It's not just guilt but social status. and material gains.

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
  The other thing is ability to control the amount of children. Knowledge of contraception and its availabity. Because even if you are stay at home and committed to be, things are much simpler with 4 kids then with 9.

mikewarot 4y ago

As Peter Zeihan puts it: When you have kids on the farm, they are free labor, and you have as many as you can. If you move into the city, they become noisy, expensive hobbies, and people aren't stupid, they have fewer of them.

cdelsolar 4y ago
Hmm. Well I have an awesome open source app / side project that I have very little time to work on, and my plan for it has always been to create enough kids to code on it for free

IanCal 4y ago

> 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? I strongly disagree with this. It's a fair question, but humans are social creatures and find pleasure in more than just base things. We describe things as rewarding. Why play sports when you could sit down comfortably? If you play sports, why not play against the easiest opponent? Play all games on easy mode, why make it harder? Why go and find a romantic partner in life, wouldn't it be easier to sit at home and masturbate all day? Why study and learn new topics, why not just do the bare minimum to earn enough money to sit and watch tv. People even volunteer. That's working for free. This doesn't mean everyone has to find them rewarding, but there's far more to it than "I just feel I need to have kids".

misja111 4y ago

I think that another part of the explanation is, that most couples who do have kids, only have one or two. That sort of ticks the box for life fulfillment goal 'kids', you don't need to have three or more for that.

orangepurple 4y ago
The reason most Westerners have only two kids is because they don't have a social support group which can take turns raising the extra children. The practical limit for a two-parent household is two kids if they are of a similar age and one partner is taking care of the kids full time. Beyond two kids you're pretty much going to start having to neglect someone some of the time simply because each kid demands so much attention and there is a limit to how much time you have preparing things for them and mitigating disasters. For three or more kids to work generally you need a stronger family support network which is able and willing to devote time to taking care of your children.
- benji-york 4y ago
  As someone with four children who lived most of their early lives a thousand miles away from any established support network, I didn't find this to be true. On the contrary, the marginal cost of each child decreased with increased help from their siblings. Perhaps the given scenario is true in "helicopter parenting" modes, but we don't generally employ those.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    How many years apart are the kids?
    - benji-york 4y ago
      4, 2, and 4.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    Right, but now the older children are being parentized and have to do some of the child-rearing instead of just being care-free kids themselves. Not everyone wants that for their children.

roenxi 4y ago

> 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. What, the state that raises its funds by draining resources from families? The state paying for childcare can't make it cheaper to raise children; it just means everyone is living with the costs that they were already going to have to pay. On average, if the cost of raising kids is high people still won't be able to afford them. If you walk through the logic more deeply; it is unlikely that the state paying for childcare can make it cheaper to raise children. Who is supposed to pay for the costs? People who were already willing and available to help before the state got involved! And if the state mucks up any part of its policy, it will make it even more expensive by spending the money in sub-optimal ways.

hansbo 4y ago
It's cheaper to raise kids since you would already have paid the cost in taxes if you didn't get kids. The important metric is the difference in cost of having kids vs not having kids, and since daycare is heavily subsidized, the difference is small. Same things go for schools, food in schools, universities, et.c., they are all "free", as in paid for by everyone in proportion to their wealth, instead of individually by the parent.
- roenxi 4y ago
  If we start with the assumption that the cost of childcare is costly enough that it would lead to an unacceptable drop in living standards for the average couple, and then force them to pay that cost anyway (regardless of whether they actually have children) it is unlikely that the follow up is going to be the couple having kids. They'll probably be busy desperately working to get their living standard up to a state that is bearable. It isn't cheaper to raise kids. They're actually losing more under the socialised system because they still have to give up enough resources to raise the kids and now also to cover inefficiencies in the government program. On average everyone would be worse off. Or you're going to be taxing grandma so instead of her providing helpful childcare services she has to go and work at McDonalds to make up the difference or something. Society is geared towards supporting children already - routing the resources through the state or through the family can't make it easier. Men work to support families, women work to support families, grandparents have nothing better to do than support families. The resources were already tagged to support families. The government can't magic more resources into existence if raising kids is expensive. They'd be taxing families so instead of using the resources to support their families, the resources are being ... handed out to support families. There are no gains, so it isn't going to help. State spending can reallocate; I can see some potential success in using childcare to free up high performing parents. But if the problem is median experience, reallocation can't do much. Postscript The taxes in these countries are no joke. Young families are losing a lot more to the tax system than the "free" childcare makes up for. If you traded the free childcare for paid childcare and low taxes, they'd likely be in a much better position to have kids. [Taxes] approx. = [Cost of Services] + [Admin Costs] + [Cost of Rorts]. That isn't making it easier to fund a family.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

Women in the west are guilt tripped into having careers now and looked down on for being stay at home parents full time. Men have always been in this boat. Why would they have more kids when neither parent has time for the ones they already have? So we see them end up with 1-2 kids instead of many

sharemywin 4y ago
It's not just guilt but social status. and material gains.