5 ms·

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

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.
- qqqwerty 3y ago
  As a new-ish parent in a HCOL area, this actually makes sense to me. Before children, we needed two incomes just to afford a relatively modest but comfortable lifestyle (both STEM related jobs, but not anywhere near FAANG salaries). But childcare is expensive and there are not a lot of affordable resources to lean on when things go haywire, for example when the child is sick and needs to stay home from daycare (a week of short notice babysitting can cost as much as an entire month of daycare). It has been extremely stressful and everyone around us that seems to be making it work either makes a lot more money than us (and can pay for a lot more help) or have a lot more help from relatives (or both). In LCOL areas, single income households are more realistic. And retired grandparents and relatives are more likely to be able to afford the area and help out with childcare. So it is not really about "affording" the kids, it is really more about how much help you can get. Certainly food and diapers cost money, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to child care. EDIT: Also, in terms of number of kids, there are some subtle influences there as well. A couple on FAANG salaries can easily afford 4-5 kids in a HCOL area. But modern car seats are massive and to shuttle that many kids around you would need a large SUV. But driving one of those around in an urban-ish area is a nightmare. It is little things like this that push down the fertility rates in these areas. Big rural open settings are great places for popping out kids. Expensive, high cost, high density environments are not.
tivert 3y ago
> For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else. In a developed country? Even the US (hardly a socialist paradise) has extensive programs to keep children fed. I think that issue is pretty well covered.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  Speaking of the US alone, which already has an incredibly stigma on relying on handouts, those programs can be tricky to qualify for. A couple with one child can only qualify for WIC with an household income under 45k in California. But stepping back, I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. I don't think people are actively abstaining from having children like the OP is, but I don't think you are treating people as capable of making responsible, informed decisions. How do you arrive at the calculus that, in the US, someone would desperately desire children so much that they would opt to go on government assistance? Who is that person to you?
anthonypasq 3y ago
poor people have more kids so your entire argument is nonsense
- nemothekid 3y ago
  I don't understand, is your reasoning that South Korea should become a poor country? Yes poor people have more babies, but those poor people are becoming a smaller set in South Korea. You now need to analyze why, specifically, SK's (and many other country's) middle class aren't having children.
  - anthonypasq 3y ago
    umm no, im saying your argument that the reason people dont have kids is because they cant afford them is exactly wrong. The number of children people have is perfectly inversely correlated by how wealthy they are, and many of the countries with the best socialized child care and other government programs to help poor people (northern europe) have some of the lowest birth rates in the world.

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.
qqqwerty 3y ago
As a new-ish parent in a HCOL area, this actually makes sense to me. Before children, we needed two incomes just to afford a relatively modest but comfortable lifestyle (both STEM related jobs, but not anywhere near FAANG salaries). But childcare is expensive and there are not a lot of affordable resources to lean on when things go haywire, for example when the child is sick and needs to stay home from daycare (a week of short notice babysitting can cost as much as an entire month of daycare). It has been extremely stressful and everyone around us that seems to be making it work either makes a lot more money than us (and can pay for a lot more help) or have a lot more help from relatives (or both). In LCOL areas, single income households are more realistic. And retired grandparents and relatives are more likely to be able to afford the area and help out with childcare. So it is not really about "affording" the kids, it is really more about how much help you can get. Certainly food and diapers cost money, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to child care. EDIT: Also, in terms of number of kids, there are some subtle influences there as well. A couple on FAANG salaries can easily afford 4-5 kids in a HCOL area. But modern car seats are massive and to shuttle that many kids around you would need a large SUV. But driving one of those around in an urban-ish area is a nightmare. It is little things like this that push down the fertility rates in these areas. Big rural open settings are great places for popping out kids. Expensive, high cost, high density environments are not.

tivert 3y ago

> For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else. In a developed country? Even the US (hardly a socialist paradise) has extensive programs to keep children fed. I think that issue is pretty well covered.

nemothekid 3y ago
Speaking of the US alone, which already has an incredibly stigma on relying on handouts, those programs can be tricky to qualify for. A couple with one child can only qualify for WIC with an household income under 45k in California. But stepping back, I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. I don't think people are actively abstaining from having children like the OP is, but I don't think you are treating people as capable of making responsible, informed decisions. How do you arrive at the calculus that, in the US, someone would desperately desire children so much that they would opt to go on government assistance? Who is that person to you?

anthonypasq 3y ago

poor people have more kids so your entire argument is nonsense

nemothekid 3y ago
I don't understand, is your reasoning that South Korea should become a poor country? Yes poor people have more babies, but those poor people are becoming a smaller set in South Korea. You now need to analyze why, specifically, SK's (and many other country's) middle class aren't having children.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  umm no, im saying your argument that the reason people dont have kids is because they cant afford them is exactly wrong. The number of children people have is perfectly inversely correlated by how wealthy they are, and many of the countries with the best socialized child care and other government programs to help poor people (northern europe) have some of the lowest birth rates in the world.