3 ms·
There are quite a few comments here about "you need money to raise kids". There are similar statements made about housing size, cost, etc. and those end up on "
by bane 3y ago
There are quite a few comments here about "you need money to raise kids". There are similar statements made about housing size, cost, etc. and those end up on "but you don't need 8,000 sq ft to live!"
These are, frankly IMHO, bizarre arguments that seem conditioned on socio-commercial training along the lines of "you need a diamond to propose!".
Absolutely none of these are true:
- People had sex and stable relationships before diamond mines existed.
- You, strictly speaking, don't need any amount of square footage to live. You might be cold, wet, and miserable, but you'll be alive.
- Children existed for millions of years before money and will alarmingly, and generally, grow and learn regardless of what you do. You may not be happy with the outcome, but it'll happen.
A friend of mine is recently pregnant and focused on giving birth, but the medical expenses and doctor visits are becoming a burden. I mentioned to her that my grandmother gave birth to 12 children without a doctor on a farmhouse table at zero cost and no doctor visits. What she's paying for is not having a baby, but reducing child and mother mortality.
I have loads of family in South Korea, a country in near terminal population decline, and the reason I've always heard is "it's expensive to raise a child". But the real reason is, it's expensive to train a child to get into a top-3 university. Raising a child to adulthood is possible even in abject poverty.
We (us), as a civilization(s), are fundamentally dishonest about what our problems are, and it makes it difficult to reason about our solutions. "Children are expensive" turns into "have less kids" rather than "the road to top-3 universities are expensive" -> "let's be okay with kids getting into lesser schools or not any school at all" or "let's figure out how to make higher education more accessible".
We don't understand what we're even paying for, and why, and we need to relearn it and rethink it.
- seydor 3y ago> are fundamentally dishonest about what our problems are It's more like, we make up excuses because we don't know our real motives or don't want to outright say we dont want kids because it's societally unacceptable. I believe statistics show there is a rise in childlessness , but people having kids have on average the same kids as a few decades ago.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoThe number of extremely rude comments my wife has received for having more than the acceptable 2 is disgusting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- theshrike79 3y ago> I have loads of family in South Korea, a country in near terminal population decline, and the reason I've always heard is "it's expensive to raise a child". But the real reason is, it's expensive to train a child to get into a top-3 university. Raising a child to adulthood is possible even in abject poverty. Isn't the fact that mothers are expected to drop their career and 100% focus on their children also a factor? Women instead decide not to have babies at all so they can have a career of their own.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoAnd incomes wouldn't have stagnated if we hadn't doubled the workforce by telling women they would actually be happier if the didn't have kids but instead had a career.
- aylmao 3y agoI don't think it's bizarre. I'd attribute it to a common and timeless sentiment applied to the modern age. I have no reason to believe maternal/paternal love, expressed as the desire that your kids live a better life than you, is a particularly modern idea. IMO that's why its common to see declining fertility rate in countries with large economies and countries with declining economies. It's heartbreaking to think your child will live a life that's worse than yours. In a poor country, even if you don't have much money, it's easy to think they could do better and live happier than you. In a rich country, even if you have all the means to give them a "good enough" life, it's not as easy to think this. This is definitely a cultural issue. It happens to be the case rich countries got rich by placing a lot of value in "success", wealth, high achievement and individuality, not in meeting base necessities and being content/grateful with what one has. Which is exactly what you allude to: > But the real reason is, it's expensive to train a child to get into a top-3 university. Raising a child to adulthood is possible even in abject poverty. I'm not South Korean, but what I've gathered from friends and media is that it's a hyper-capitalist society that's very, very invested into certain ideals of "success" (academic, beauty, economic, etc). I'm thus not surprised that, if associate that with happiness, the idea of rising a child to be happy is daunting.
- aposticknit 3y ago>You, strictly speaking, don't need any amount of square footage to live I'd argue that you do, considering it's -4 to -22F outside for half of the year, and historically have gone as low as -58F
- defrost 3y agoI disagree. Not only do we not see those tempretures here, we stopped using Farenheit before I was born and the locals lived happily for several tens of thousands of years semi nomadically with minimal shelter requirements. You might have missed the global part of the discussion topic and of the HN forum.
- aposticknit 3y ago>You might have missed the global part of the discussion topic and of the HN forum. Indeed, because it's a global discussion it's important to point out that the point is not globally applicable, because there are lots of areas where people indeed do need shelter to survive. Just because it's possible in some downtown with favorable external conditions doesen't make it very viable generally
- bane 3y agoIt's free to walk to warmer weather.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> What she's paying for is not having a baby, but reducing child and mother mortality. True. But in fact, most of us will pay a lot for those things.