4 ms·

Sacrifice is a choice in this scenario. I think, I agree with the OP above, that one chooses to not to make that sacrifice (e.g. lifestyle change). Just the val

by kredd 3y ago

Sacrifice is a choice in this scenario. I think, I agree with the OP above, that one chooses to not to make that sacrifice (e.g. lifestyle change). Just the value of the sacrifice has been getting lower and lower every year for younger people.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
The value of the sacrifice hasn’t changed, just the perceived value.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  The amount one must sacrifice is rising, regardless of the pay off. Everyone has their own threshold, yet the minimum needed to birth and raise kids is going up while buying power is decreasing.
nonethewiser 3y ago
My point is people are choosing kids because of a deeper responsibility and meaning. Not because the experience of raising kids is more fun than hanging out with friends or other alternatives. The parent in this scenario is not maximizing their enjoyment or personal satisfaction in the way someone choosing their hobbies is. That distinction did not seem observed when comparing the choice to raise children with the choice to spend free time other ways.
- devbent 3y ago
  I think your entire thesis is wrong. People are not having kids because they have good alternatives now. International travel is affordable for more and more people, regularly going to fine dining establishments is something accessible to most American software engineers, and the people left having kids are the ones either too poor to afford those good things anyways, or people who are knowingly giving them up in exchange for expected joy from raising a child.
  - ido 3y ago
    International travel and fine dining is absolutely not comparable to having kids in terms of the returns you get on these activities. I don't mean quantitatively, but qualitatively - you don't get the same kind of satisfaction from both. The only thing I'd say is somewhat qualitatively comparable is being a in a loving relationship.
    - devbent 3y ago
      > International travel and fine dining is absolutely not comparable to having kids in terms of the returns you get on these activities. The returns are guaranteed, whereas a child can end up having negative returns at an almost endless scale. The potential downsides to having a child are endless, the upside is limited and finite. Also w/o children retiring early is doable for the financially responsible, whereas having even a single child makes that difficult. Being financially independent at 40 or so allows for a lot of options for self fulfillment. An almost endless array of meaningful causes around the world are in dire need of help. The tl;dr is that for a lot of people the choice comes down to "travel the world and have sex on beaches while eating fine food" or "unknown baby that might bring joy or potentially ruin your life." Is it any wonder rational people are choosing the path that allows them to travel, eat well, be financially stable, and find meaningful hobbies and activities? Again, I believe what it comes down to now is that people have a choice. It isn't "get married -> have kids" but rather "find partner, figure out what to do next". Heck marriage rates are also plummeting (which IMHO is bad news for social stability). The lack of social support certainly makes the choice of having kids harder, but my #1 ask isn't government funded daycare, it would be a world where having a large familial support structure is the norm. Honestly the hardest part of having a kid is that without family nearby, there is no down time. Government programs can't help that capitalism spread families to the winds.
      - ido 3y ago
        I'm ok with people choosing not having children & it's good that there's a choice. I'm just pointing out (from personal experience, an experience someone who doesn't have kids doesn't have) that it's not a float happiness with traveling the world adding +1.5f and a child +4.3f. It's not comparable, not in the colloquial sense that one is a much bigger value than the other but literally in the sense that it's not the same quality/feeling/satisfaction. It's true that you don't know what you're going to get (e.g. children with disabilities are a lot more challenging that healthy kids) but I think the materialistic approach ("should I take 4 vacation or raise 1 child?") is not conductive to finding happiness in life. I agree regarding the challenges in our current system & government/societal support.
- ido 3y ago
  I won't talk for my entire generation, but I (40 years old) have 2 kids for absolutely selfish reasons - I feel love for them and having my kids makes me deeply happy[0] in a way that nothing else really did (not my career nor my hobbies or friends). The only thing that comparably increased my happiness is having a long term romantic partner. [0] even if there are plenty instances where they also annoy me
- sho_hn 3y ago
  That's not the comparison I was originally making, though. I was specifically not talking about moment-to-moment sensations of pleasure. What I meant to capture originally is that some people at least somewhat more habitually choose to spend their time in ways that involve sacrifice and delayed gratification, or are OK with activities that are e.g. (time-wise) 90% build-up for 10% release, or however you want to put it. For example, a long climb for a quick descent. Or a long march to see something first-hand. Some people treat those activities as aspirational. And in my experience - which is of course anecdotal - that seems to correlate with whether they can get onboard with the idea of child-rearing. It's something about the effort-pleasure ratio and where your cut-off is, or your idea of how much hardship something special is worth, and perhaps whether you value cultivating an attitude about it.

by kredd 3y ago

mensetmanusman 3y ago

The value of the sacrifice hasn’t changed, just the perceived value.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
The amount one must sacrifice is rising, regardless of the pay off. Everyone has their own threshold, yet the minimum needed to birth and raise kids is going up while buying power is decreasing.

nonethewiser 3y ago

My point is people are choosing kids because of a deeper responsibility and meaning. Not because the experience of raising kids is more fun than hanging out with friends or other alternatives. The parent in this scenario is not maximizing their enjoyment or personal satisfaction in the way someone choosing their hobbies is. That distinction did not seem observed when comparing the choice to raise children with the choice to spend free time other ways.

devbent 3y ago
I think your entire thesis is wrong. People are not having kids because they have good alternatives now. International travel is affordable for more and more people, regularly going to fine dining establishments is something accessible to most American software engineers, and the people left having kids are the ones either too poor to afford those good things anyways, or people who are knowingly giving them up in exchange for expected joy from raising a child.
- ido 3y ago
  International travel and fine dining is absolutely not comparable to having kids in terms of the returns you get on these activities. I don't mean quantitatively, but qualitatively - you don't get the same kind of satisfaction from both. The only thing I'd say is somewhat qualitatively comparable is being a in a loving relationship.
  - devbent 3y ago
    > International travel and fine dining is absolutely not comparable to having kids in terms of the returns you get on these activities. The returns are guaranteed, whereas a child can end up having negative returns at an almost endless scale. The potential downsides to having a child are endless, the upside is limited and finite. Also w/o children retiring early is doable for the financially responsible, whereas having even a single child makes that difficult. Being financially independent at 40 or so allows for a lot of options for self fulfillment. An almost endless array of meaningful causes around the world are in dire need of help. The tl;dr is that for a lot of people the choice comes down to "travel the world and have sex on beaches while eating fine food" or "unknown baby that might bring joy or potentially ruin your life." Is it any wonder rational people are choosing the path that allows them to travel, eat well, be financially stable, and find meaningful hobbies and activities? Again, I believe what it comes down to now is that people have a choice. It isn't "get married -> have kids" but rather "find partner, figure out what to do next". Heck marriage rates are also plummeting (which IMHO is bad news for social stability). The lack of social support certainly makes the choice of having kids harder, but my #1 ask isn't government funded daycare, it would be a world where having a large familial support structure is the norm. Honestly the hardest part of having a kid is that without family nearby, there is no down time. Government programs can't help that capitalism spread families to the winds.
    - ido 3y ago
      I'm ok with people choosing not having children & it's good that there's a choice. I'm just pointing out (from personal experience, an experience someone who doesn't have kids doesn't have) that it's not a float happiness with traveling the world adding +1.5f and a child +4.3f. It's not comparable, not in the colloquial sense that one is a much bigger value than the other but literally in the sense that it's not the same quality/feeling/satisfaction. It's true that you don't know what you're going to get (e.g. children with disabilities are a lot more challenging that healthy kids) but I think the materialistic approach ("should I take 4 vacation or raise 1 child?") is not conductive to finding happiness in life. I agree regarding the challenges in our current system & government/societal support.
ido 3y ago
I won't talk for my entire generation, but I (40 years old) have 2 kids for absolutely selfish reasons - I feel love for them and having my kids makes me deeply happy[0] in a way that nothing else really did (not my career nor my hobbies or friends). The only thing that comparably increased my happiness is having a long term romantic partner. [0] even if there are plenty instances where they also annoy me
sho_hn 3y ago
That's not the comparison I was originally making, though. I was specifically not talking about moment-to-moment sensations of pleasure. What I meant to capture originally is that some people at least somewhat more habitually choose to spend their time in ways that involve sacrifice and delayed gratification, or are OK with activities that are e.g. (time-wise) 90% build-up for 10% release, or however you want to put it. For example, a long climb for a quick descent. Or a long march to see something first-hand. Some people treat those activities as aspirational. And in my experience - which is of course anecdotal - that seems to correlate with whether they can get onboard with the idea of child-rearing. It's something about the effort-pleasure ratio and where your cut-off is, or your idea of how much hardship something special is worth, and perhaps whether you value cultivating an attitude about it.