3 ms·

Expectations are important and are missing from the equation here. Not everyone needs children, a fat pension or a large house to be fulfilled. It is also perfe

by liftsh 3y ago

Expectations are important and are missing from the equation here. Not everyone needs children, a fat pension or a large house to be fulfilled. It is also perfectly fine to be with the same group of people, have the same routines and the same hobbies for your entire life. The less you want, the fewer milestones you need to hit. I used to think my dad was boring because he never really wanted to do anything. Worked the same mid-level job for 30+ years, had no friends--just took care of us. A couple years back he passed away, smile on his face. Told me he did everything he ever wanted. Told me not to work so hard. I think about this all the time whenever I'm stressed about claiming my "ownership in society."

leoedin 3y ago
That's a good point. Trying to attain milestones because of some absorbed societal pressure is a recipe for unhappiness. But that's not really what this article says. If they had someone who said "I thought I needed kids, then I didn't and I'm totally happy with it" that would be aligned with that message. But to have someone who says "I didn't have kids until I was 50" is a bit dishonest, because biological realities make that almost impossible (for women, anyway). It's really uplifting to show lots of examples of people who took a different path and found happiness in a less conventional way. It's less uplifting to show lots of examples of people who did the conventional stuff, but later in life, because statistically that is unlikely to be possible for most people who leave those things until later. It feels more like building false hope.
- comfypotato 3y ago
  The article presents kids as an option after 50 for men, not women, and that’s reasonable. It’s a popular thing to do to draw similarities between decreases in fertility between men and women, but it’s not helpful. There’s a plethora of risks that increase for men, but they all go from “negligable” to “slightly less negligable”.
itairall 3y ago
Expectations go both ways too. Literally like an itch, the more you scratch the more it will itch after the most transient moment of relief. People tend to foolishly believe that their wants and desires are in some static container that once filled will lead to satiation as opposed to the reality that the more the container is filled, the bigger the container gets and at the same time it gets harder and harder to add to the container.
- ip26 3y ago
  Which suggests one excellent play could be learning to find satiation in the act of filling the container.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> The less you want, the fewer milestones you need to hit. Doesn't feel like a good answer to the complaint that young people today can't possibly hit all the milestones their parents did, and their grandparents took for granted. The same amount of life, the same amount of effort and dedication, in a seemingly improving and more advanced world, still buys you less life milestones than it did for your elders. If anything, this sounds like a social analogue of a textbook case of inflation.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  In 1970, a US couple might have an “imaginarily fair” claim on 1/100Mth of America. Now, that same age couple might only have a claim on about 1/167Mth of America. That’s about 40% less land or share of other inherently-constrained resources per American. Other countries have had more pressure on their populations. It’s no surprise that “buying a big lot with a freestanding house” was a lot more attainable when there were 40% fewer people chasing that dream. Part of it is inescapable math.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Huh, I never thought about it this way. I'm not 100% convinced this is valid math, but I can't find any obvious fault with it. Thanks, I have something to think through. EDIT: in the 50 years since 1970s the US economy wasn't still - technology made huge leaps across all industries, and lots of wealth has been created. One would think this would offset the population growth, but it seems that it didn't.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      Yeah, but people aren't satisfied with just any land. They want the same land everybody else wants in the big cities. They want to be near the population center, but the land there was already relatively filled back then. The computation naturally pushes the prices up to levels that most cannot afford it. This makes housing into a lucrative investment, which probably drives prices up even further. Nobody wants to see the value of their investment fall, so they fight against anything nearby that would decrease it (NIMBY).
rounakdatta 3y ago
Hard agree. There's this amazing tweet I want to share on this context: https://twitter.com/Nithin0dha/status/1655557936868102146?t=3sT-QT66XMMq5k-I1X3cig&s=19 https://twitter.com/Nithin0dha/status/1655557936868102146?t=...
wnolens 3y ago
My dad can be described the exact same way (though still alive). I didn't inherent his tranquil mind. My life just looks so much different than his.

by liftsh 3y ago

leoedin 3y ago

That's a good point. Trying to attain milestones because of some absorbed societal pressure is a recipe for unhappiness. But that's not really what this article says. If they had someone who said "I thought I needed kids, then I didn't and I'm totally happy with it" that would be aligned with that message. But to have someone who says "I didn't have kids until I was 50" is a bit dishonest, because biological realities make that almost impossible (for women, anyway). It's really uplifting to show lots of examples of people who took a different path and found happiness in a less conventional way. It's less uplifting to show lots of examples of people who did the conventional stuff, but later in life, because statistically that is unlikely to be possible for most people who leave those things until later. It feels more like building false hope.

comfypotato 3y ago
The article presents kids as an option after 50 for men, not women, and that’s reasonable. It’s a popular thing to do to draw similarities between decreases in fertility between men and women, but it’s not helpful. There’s a plethora of risks that increase for men, but they all go from “negligable” to “slightly less negligable”.

itairall 3y ago

Expectations go both ways too. Literally like an itch, the more you scratch the more it will itch after the most transient moment of relief. People tend to foolishly believe that their wants and desires are in some static container that once filled will lead to satiation as opposed to the reality that the more the container is filled, the bigger the container gets and at the same time it gets harder and harder to add to the container.

ip26 3y ago
Which suggests one excellent play could be learning to find satiation in the act of filling the container.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> The less you want, the fewer milestones you need to hit. Doesn't feel like a good answer to the complaint that young people today can't possibly hit all the milestones their parents did, and their grandparents took for granted. The same amount of life, the same amount of effort and dedication, in a seemingly improving and more advanced world, still buys you less life milestones than it did for your elders. If anything, this sounds like a social analogue of a textbook case of inflation.

sokoloff 3y ago
In 1970, a US couple might have an “imaginarily fair” claim on 1/100Mth of America. Now, that same age couple might only have a claim on about 1/167Mth of America. That’s about 40% less land or share of other inherently-constrained resources per American. Other countries have had more pressure on their populations. It’s no surprise that “buying a big lot with a freestanding house” was a lot more attainable when there were 40% fewer people chasing that dream. Part of it is inescapable math.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Huh, I never thought about it this way. I'm not 100% convinced this is valid math, but I can't find any obvious fault with it. Thanks, I have something to think through. EDIT: in the 50 years since 1970s the US economy wasn't still - technology made huge leaps across all industries, and lots of wealth has been created. One would think this would offset the population growth, but it seems that it didn't.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Yeah, but people aren't satisfied with just any land. They want the same land everybody else wants in the big cities. They want to be near the population center, but the land there was already relatively filled back then. The computation naturally pushes the prices up to levels that most cannot afford it. This makes housing into a lucrative investment, which probably drives prices up even further. Nobody wants to see the value of their investment fall, so they fight against anything nearby that would decrease it (NIMBY).

rounakdatta 3y ago

Hard agree. There's this amazing tweet I want to share on this context: https://twitter.com/Nithin0dha/status/1655557936868102146?t=3sT-QT66XMMq5k-I1X3cig&s=19 https://twitter.com/Nithin0dha/status/1655557936868102146?t=...

wnolens 3y ago

My dad can be described the exact same way (though still alive). I didn't inherent his tranquil mind. My life just looks so much different than his.