12 ms·

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 th

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.

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.