5 ms·

I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. Even a

I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. Even after the point where contraception became readily available, people were having children with far fewer resources than anyone alive today. What I hear when people say 'We can't afford to have children' is an additional '...and maintain our current standard of living'. It seems there's a lot of expectations that we heap on parents. My kids must have their own room. Must go to a prestigous private school. Must participate in expensive sports. Must travel. Must attend a top university, on and on. Kids don't have to have any of that (ok, own room is pretty important after a certain age). The truth is parents need to chill out of this evolutionary arms race to make sure little timmy has every possible advantage even if they run themselves ragged getting there.

boeingUH60 3y ago
I think the reason is that people feel guilty if they can't provide their kids equal or better lifestyles than they got.
- goethes_kind 3y ago
  Yes, but at the same time you also don't want to rob a child of their childhood and adolescence. Who cares if by age 20 they aren't a virtuoso in violin and who cares if they haven't already won 5 random bogus academic awards?
nine_zeros 3y ago
> I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. To add to your list of reasons, for me, I feel like I am bringing a child only to feed the capitalist system - saddled with debt, and living with less freedoms than me. I feel like my dearest loved one will not be able to thrive in this world. They could, sure, but the chances of thriving are low. And that thought pains me deeply.
nemothekid 3y ago
It might be fair to assume that you are relatively upperclass tech worker; I think your perceptions of what people can do is colored by your social circle. For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else. I'm surprised none of your expectations include basic child care - food, shelter, care. If you are just scraping by on two incomes how do you expect someone to feed another human on one income? For many young adults that still live with their own parents, they aren't worried about their kids having their own room, they are worried about having their own place to stay. It's very pompous to assume that most people aren't having kids because they won't be able to afford to send them to Phillips Exeter when a record number of single people in South Korea live with their parents because they can't afford homes. Sure, the people in your social circle may be eschewing having kids because they can't afford to give their kids the same lifestyle they grew up with, in private schools or don't want to give up traveling, but people who can afford those luxuries in the first place aren't representative of the broader population.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  It might be fair to assume op is as well. Beyond that, people have 'afforded' kids since there have been people, and this includes the worst deprivations at the beginning of the industrial age. Birth rates are actually inversely correlated with income, and this cuts across industrial and agrarian societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
  - nemothekid 3y ago
    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. As income rises and your children are unable (or disallowed) to start working for themselves, the calculus on child rearing changes. It's different when your 8 year old can start collecting eggs. I don't buy that as income rises people would rather go to Italy than have children. OP mentions they can't afford it - the people who I've met who say that really can't afford it. The ones that are DINK, are proudly DINK. My broader point is that globally, these issues are less about couples wanting maintain their summer vacations to Italy, and more that people who want to have children are unable to responsibly do so. Telling people, in the US at least, that they should have kids because of the government safety net would be considered irresponsible advice.
jwells89 3y ago
Well, kids can technically be raised on almost nothing but that doesn’t mean they should be, because there are consequences for doing that which will stay with the adults those children become for the rest of their lives. Probably, the ideal point is somewhere in the middle, as it is with most things. Even so, kids are a large sustained expense that can’t be opted out of once they exist and are one of the most common strains on relationships both financially and emotionally — even just one kid can take a couple from thriving to struggling depending on their circumstances. In short, kids are risky, and it’s easy to see why many couples don’t particularly care to take that risk. Following that, if governments want more people having kids, they should be throwing all they have into de-risking raising a family.
waveBidder 3y ago
children went from around an 8 year burden on resources and then immediate source of labor to approximately 18-24 year drain on resources. what you're describing is the result of getting 1 bet instead of 7. It's unsurprising many in the (downwardly mobile) middle class or upwardly mobile lower class have fewer children in those conditions.
tippytippytango 3y ago
Back then children were viewed as a source of cheap labor that could contribute to the household. Developed countries have changed their expectations as you have noted. You can't produce a farm hand that can contribute cheap labor directly to the household at an early age. Now we have to produce skilled workers that can contribute to the society. Skilled workers that may not even do their own laundry before 18. As a result, the household just sees children as a large expense, where the benefits go to the society. There's a significant incentive to defect from this arrangement. Not to say the experience of raising a child isn't intrinsically valuable. But, the value of that experience is only enough to incentivize some people to have 1-2 children, and as we are learning now, not enough of an incentive to keep birth rates above replacement in advanced economies. We probably don't need to make children a net economic positive again, as the intrinsic rewards of the experience are enough of an incentive, it could be net neutral or slightly net negative and still get us above replacement. But, advanced economies will need to change the math if they want to fix this.

boeingUH60 3y ago

I think the reason is that people feel guilty if they can't provide their kids equal or better lifestyles than they got.

goethes_kind 3y ago
Yes, but at the same time you also don't want to rob a child of their childhood and adolescence. Who cares if by age 20 they aren't a virtuoso in violin and who cares if they haven't already won 5 random bogus academic awards?

nine_zeros 3y ago

> I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. To add to your list of reasons, for me, I feel like I am bringing a child only to feed the capitalist system - saddled with debt, and living with less freedoms than me. I feel like my dearest loved one will not be able to thrive in this world. They could, sure, but the chances of thriving are low. And that thought pains me deeply.

nemothekid 3y ago

It might be fair to assume that you are relatively upperclass tech worker; I think your perceptions of what people can do is colored by your social circle. For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else. I'm surprised none of your expectations include basic child care - food, shelter, care. If you are just scraping by on two incomes how do you expect someone to feed another human on one income? For many young adults that still live with their own parents, they aren't worried about their kids having their own room, they are worried about having their own place to stay. It's very pompous to assume that most people aren't having kids because they won't be able to afford to send them to Phillips Exeter when a record number of single people in South Korea live with their parents because they can't afford homes. Sure, the people in your social circle may be eschewing having kids because they can't afford to give their kids the same lifestyle they grew up with, in private schools or don't want to give up traveling, but people who can afford those luxuries in the first place aren't representative of the broader population.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
It might be fair to assume op is as well. Beyond that, people have 'afforded' kids since there have been people, and this includes the worst deprivations at the beginning of the industrial age. Birth rates are actually inversely correlated with income, and this cuts across industrial and agrarian societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- nemothekid 3y ago
  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. As income rises and your children are unable (or disallowed) to start working for themselves, the calculus on child rearing changes. It's different when your 8 year old can start collecting eggs. I don't buy that as income rises people would rather go to Italy than have children. OP mentions they can't afford it - the people who I've met who say that really can't afford it. The ones that are DINK, are proudly DINK. My broader point is that globally, these issues are less about couples wanting maintain their summer vacations to Italy, and more that people who want to have children are unable to responsibly do so. Telling people, in the US at least, that they should have kids because of the government safety net would be considered irresponsible advice.

jwells89 3y ago

Well, kids can technically be raised on almost nothing but that doesn’t mean they should be, because there are consequences for doing that which will stay with the adults those children become for the rest of their lives. Probably, the ideal point is somewhere in the middle, as it is with most things. Even so, kids are a large sustained expense that can’t be opted out of once they exist and are one of the most common strains on relationships both financially and emotionally — even just one kid can take a couple from thriving to struggling depending on their circumstances. In short, kids are risky, and it’s easy to see why many couples don’t particularly care to take that risk. Following that, if governments want more people having kids, they should be throwing all they have into de-risking raising a family.

waveBidder 3y ago

children went from around an 8 year burden on resources and then immediate source of labor to approximately 18-24 year drain on resources. what you're describing is the result of getting 1 bet instead of 7. It's unsurprising many in the (downwardly mobile) middle class or upwardly mobile lower class have fewer children in those conditions.

tippytippytango 3y ago

Back then children were viewed as a source of cheap labor that could contribute to the household. Developed countries have changed their expectations as you have noted. You can't produce a farm hand that can contribute cheap labor directly to the household at an early age. Now we have to produce skilled workers that can contribute to the society. Skilled workers that may not even do their own laundry before 18. As a result, the household just sees children as a large expense, where the benefits go to the society. There's a significant incentive to defect from this arrangement. Not to say the experience of raising a child isn't intrinsically valuable. But, the value of that experience is only enough to incentivize some people to have 1-2 children, and as we are learning now, not enough of an incentive to keep birth rates above replacement in advanced economies. We probably don't need to make children a net economic positive again, as the intrinsic rewards of the experience are enough of an incentive, it could be net neutral or slightly net negative and still get us above replacement. But, advanced economies will need to change the math if they want to fix this.