4 ms·

People bang on and on about the money aspect, but the reality is that the income bracket to go from just covering the bills in urban areas to being wealthy enou

People bang on and on about the money aspect, but the reality is that the income bracket to go from just covering the bills in urban areas to being wealthy enough to be able to foster a child and not take a serious haircut on quality of life (and yes, with space and other concerns taken into account) is quite large.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
Do you have kids? Because the reality is that if you did and you lived in an urban area, you are friends with many couples with kids, and no one is going past two, because they cant afford it without critical haircut to QoL. And often this is families making 3x mean wages . with at least 1 parent working as an engineer or FAANG job. I ask again. Are you a parent?
- superchroma 3y ago
  I think we agree?
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  We’re not “going past two”, but it’s not money holding us back. I’m the sole earner in my household, which consists of myself, my wife, and our two daughters. My income puts us right at 4x the mean household income for the county where we live. My wife is already primarily a homemaker, and even with the two kids I have to move things around for work to pitch in when there are scheduling conflicts. The problem isn’t money - it’s time and energy. For us to have more children, we’d almost have to hire domestic help.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
    Correct. And that happens to be our situation too. isnt that dependent on money?
    - medvezhenok 3y ago
      It's dependent on expectations. You could raise kids in the past with much less money + time because they would be expected to entertain themselves (and probably would spend a bunch of time outdoors getting into trouble). Today you would get CPS called on you for that. Given current expectations for raising kids, yes, it's a time+money sink. Then again, I think America over-parents on the whole, so altering expectations can also help.
      - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        You are making my point. Parent did that too. The latter said "almost as if we would need domestic help" its exactly a factor of money. Lets not kid ourselves. There is no education that is happening in the timesink that is food prep, showering, securing and hustling kids to and fro activities. Rural kids are far more independent, better prepared and more likely to eat better than their urban counterparts. The elders, in fact, help each other and the younger ones,and therefore make the large family a force multiplier in the rural areas. Add on top of that the lack of cheap living space for a large family, and its a death sentence for the large family in an urban setting. You cannot multiply a driver. Or a car. Or another room for a 3rd child. And if you could scale it up, it comes down to money anyway. Time is money. A large family is just more money.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

Do you have kids? Because the reality is that if you did and you lived in an urban area, you are friends with many couples with kids, and no one is going past two, because they cant afford it without critical haircut to QoL. And often this is families making 3x mean wages . with at least 1 parent working as an engineer or FAANG job. I ask again. Are you a parent?

superchroma 3y ago
I think we agree?
Ancapistani 3y ago
We’re not “going past two”, but it’s not money holding us back. I’m the sole earner in my household, which consists of myself, my wife, and our two daughters. My income puts us right at 4x the mean household income for the county where we live. My wife is already primarily a homemaker, and even with the two kids I have to move things around for work to pitch in when there are scheduling conflicts. The problem isn’t money - it’s time and energy. For us to have more children, we’d almost have to hire domestic help.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  Correct. And that happens to be our situation too. isnt that dependent on money?
  - medvezhenok 3y ago
    It's dependent on expectations. You could raise kids in the past with much less money + time because they would be expected to entertain themselves (and probably would spend a bunch of time outdoors getting into trouble). Today you would get CPS called on you for that. Given current expectations for raising kids, yes, it's a time+money sink. Then again, I think America over-parents on the whole, so altering expectations can also help.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
      You are making my point. Parent did that too. The latter said "almost as if we would need domestic help" its exactly a factor of money. Lets not kid ourselves. There is no education that is happening in the timesink that is food prep, showering, securing and hustling kids to and fro activities. Rural kids are far more independent, better prepared and more likely to eat better than their urban counterparts. The elders, in fact, help each other and the younger ones,and therefore make the large family a force multiplier in the rural areas. Add on top of that the lack of cheap living space for a large family, and its a death sentence for the large family in an urban setting. You cannot multiply a driver. Or a car. Or another room for a 3rd child. And if you could scale it up, it comes down to money anyway. Time is money. A large family is just more money.