7 ms·

I think the flaw with this explanation is that lots of children are un/under planned. Talk to a teacher at a metropolitan public school sometime in the US for e

I think the flaw with this explanation is that lots of children are un/under planned. Talk to a teacher at a metropolitan public school sometime in the US for example and ask them how many students are from low income areas, it's going to be a lot. So it follows that either everyone is overdramatizing how much it costs to raise a child or that concerns about the cost aren't what's stopping people from having them and by extension it's sure not access to daycare.

whatshisface 3y ago
Most of the cost of raising a child is the things you do to make sure they end up living a life like you did: college and neighborhood.
vinyl7 3y ago
People who are responsible aren't having kids because its too expensive. People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care.
- Noumenon72 3y ago
  Or they know the costs will be picked up by the people paying for Medicaid/CHIP and free school lunch. Those people will now be less able to afford their own children.
  - legutierr 3y ago
    Don't we want people in general to have more kids, not just middle-class people and rich people? And don't we want those kids to have healthcare and lunch at school? Are you saying that middle class people are less able to afford children because they pay too much in taxes? Really? Taxes are a primary consideration, not the cost of housing and education?
    - tomp 3y ago
      Poor and less educated people already have more kids than middle class and more educated people. So there seem to be systematic incentives that skew the desire to have kids. We should work towards counteracting those systemic incentives, by making it easier for middle class, educated people to have kids (an example would be % tax breaks for each child, which would be more money for middle class people).
      - legutierr 3y ago
        > We should work towards counteracting those systemic incentives, by making it easier for middle class, educated people to have kids (an example would be % tax breaks for each child, which would be more money for middle class people). Yes, and we should also reduce poverty as well, no? So that we can make it easier for currently-poor to have kids as well?
    - achates 3y ago
      I pay way more in taxes than I spend on housing or education. I pay more in taxes every year than I paid for 4 years of college. So yeah, taxes are definitely a bigger consideration.
      - legutierr 3y ago
        Congratulations, you really do make a lot of money. Going by the averages, based on the information you shared, and assuming you live in the US, I’d say you make north of $300k per year. Thanks for sharing that with us. Now we know that you are a member of the group that we are talking about here (the middle class and rich). Maybe you can shed some light on how members your demographic actually think about having children. So, am I wrong? Are you avoiding having children primarily because you pay too much in taxes to afford them, and not for some other reason?
- legutierr 3y ago
  > People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care. Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? That seems to be what you are saying. As a general rule, don't we want everyone to have kids—including poor people? What do poor people have to do to have kids "responsibly", in your view?
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. So to answer the question of whether poor people should have children: No, they should not. Absolutely no child deserves to knowingly live a destitute life if it can be helped.
    - Exoristos 3y ago
      All these comments, like this, are hilarious. I grew up below the poverty line, and it was great. Big screen TVs are not what makes life worth living. Something tells me you commenters value belongings so much because they're all you have and are.
      - brailsafe 3y ago
        I was surprised to find such confidently ignorant and repulsive takes. It's one thing to have your own goals for your kids, it's quite another to set some ludicrous standard for others.
      - legutierr 3y ago
        I think you might be missing the point. The apparent concern that these comments show for the well being of children is misdirection and rationalization, hiding the true intent behind anti-natalist perspectives, which are fundamentally eugenicist in nature. At their foundation, these comments presume that there are people who deserve to have children, and that there are people that do not—in other words, that there are children that deserve to be born, and that there are children that do not deserve to be born. Poverty is just a proxy for other qualities that would be much too controversial to articulate explicitly.
- gniv 3y ago
  The assumption that people are irresponsible is too strong. Often all it takes is this: "Mom, if I have a kid will you help me raise it?" - "Of course".
wcarss 3y ago
that is not the logical conclusion; all it needs is people above some wealth line to be the ones who have the means and wherewithal to decide against, and it is their perceived cost of guaranteeing a good childhood home being input to the decision, not the minimum cost necessary to maintain a life. Lots of kids grow up sitting alone with the TV and eating bologna. Lots of parents want tutors and sports equipment and musical instruments, and crucially: free time to spend with their kids. They also want to minimize the impact of that on their other dreams, and if the impact is too high, they'll at least try to wait.
jwells89 3y ago
It’s technically possible to raise kids on almost nothing, but whether or not doing that is a good idea or desirable is another matter. Certainly having children on a shoestring budget involves a lot more struggle than most care to risk, and if someone is thoughtful enough to hold off on having kids until they feel they’re financially ready they probably want their kids to have a rich childhood. So more accurately, what’s unaffordable is the ability to eliminate economical risk while providing for children to the desired degree. People don’t want to be one disaster away from being out on the street and/or to be giving their kids a barebones childhood.
rs999gti 3y ago
I think the attitude is like this because the laptop class and yuppies still don't want to give up their subscription lifestyles to have kids. Kids are a sacrifice regardless of social class. Even rich people deal with the costs of raising children.

whatshisface 3y ago

Most of the cost of raising a child is the things you do to make sure they end up living a life like you did: college and neighborhood.

vinyl7 3y ago

People who are responsible aren't having kids because its too expensive. People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care.

Noumenon72 3y ago
Or they know the costs will be picked up by the people paying for Medicaid/CHIP and free school lunch. Those people will now be less able to afford their own children.
- legutierr 3y ago
  Don't we want people in general to have more kids, not just middle-class people and rich people? And don't we want those kids to have healthcare and lunch at school? Are you saying that middle class people are less able to afford children because they pay too much in taxes? Really? Taxes are a primary consideration, not the cost of housing and education?
  - tomp 3y ago
    Poor and less educated people already have more kids than middle class and more educated people. So there seem to be systematic incentives that skew the desire to have kids. We should work towards counteracting those systemic incentives, by making it easier for middle class, educated people to have kids (an example would be % tax breaks for each child, which would be more money for middle class people).
    - legutierr 3y ago
      > We should work towards counteracting those systemic incentives, by making it easier for middle class, educated people to have kids (an example would be % tax breaks for each child, which would be more money for middle class people). Yes, and we should also reduce poverty as well, no? So that we can make it easier for currently-poor to have kids as well?
  - achates 3y ago
    I pay way more in taxes than I spend on housing or education. I pay more in taxes every year than I paid for 4 years of college. So yeah, taxes are definitely a bigger consideration.
    - legutierr 3y ago
      Congratulations, you really do make a lot of money. Going by the averages, based on the information you shared, and assuming you live in the US, I’d say you make north of $300k per year. Thanks for sharing that with us. Now we know that you are a member of the group that we are talking about here (the middle class and rich). Maybe you can shed some light on how members your demographic actually think about having children. So, am I wrong? Are you avoiding having children primarily because you pay too much in taxes to afford them, and not for some other reason?
legutierr 3y ago
> People who are irresponsible probably aren't calculating the costs..or they don't care. Are you saying that poor people who have children are implicitly irresponsible for having had children? That seems to be what you are saying. As a general rule, don't we want everyone to have kids—including poor people? What do poor people have to do to have kids "responsibly", in your view?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  As a would-be parent, it is your duty to guarantee a comfortable childhood for your child. This means having a reliable and sufficient income stream to provide for a reasonably comfortable life. If you lack that sort of income, it is irresponsible to become a parent. So to answer the question of whether poor people should have children: No, they should not. Absolutely no child deserves to knowingly live a destitute life if it can be helped.
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    All these comments, like this, are hilarious. I grew up below the poverty line, and it was great. Big screen TVs are not what makes life worth living. Something tells me you commenters value belongings so much because they're all you have and are.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      I was surprised to find such confidently ignorant and repulsive takes. It's one thing to have your own goals for your kids, it's quite another to set some ludicrous standard for others.
    - legutierr 3y ago
      I think you might be missing the point. The apparent concern that these comments show for the well being of children is misdirection and rationalization, hiding the true intent behind anti-natalist perspectives, which are fundamentally eugenicist in nature. At their foundation, these comments presume that there are people who deserve to have children, and that there are people that do not—in other words, that there are children that deserve to be born, and that there are children that do not deserve to be born. Poverty is just a proxy for other qualities that would be much too controversial to articulate explicitly.
gniv 3y ago
The assumption that people are irresponsible is too strong. Often all it takes is this: "Mom, if I have a kid will you help me raise it?" - "Of course".

wcarss 3y ago

that is not the logical conclusion; all it needs is people above some wealth line to be the ones who have the means and wherewithal to decide against, and it is their perceived cost of guaranteeing a good childhood home being input to the decision, not the minimum cost necessary to maintain a life. Lots of kids grow up sitting alone with the TV and eating bologna. Lots of parents want tutors and sports equipment and musical instruments, and crucially: free time to spend with their kids. They also want to minimize the impact of that on their other dreams, and if the impact is too high, they'll at least try to wait.

jwells89 3y ago

It’s technically possible to raise kids on almost nothing, but whether or not doing that is a good idea or desirable is another matter. Certainly having children on a shoestring budget involves a lot more struggle than most care to risk, and if someone is thoughtful enough to hold off on having kids until they feel they’re financially ready they probably want their kids to have a rich childhood. So more accurately, what’s unaffordable is the ability to eliminate economical risk while providing for children to the desired degree. People don’t want to be one disaster away from being out on the street and/or to be giving their kids a barebones childhood.

rs999gti 3y ago

I think the attitude is like this because the laptop class and yuppies still don't want to give up their subscription lifestyles to have kids. Kids are a sacrifice regardless of social class. Even rich people deal with the costs of raising children.