3 ms·

Maybe one of the reasons people are not having kids is that it has gotten too difficult and expensive to raise them. Probably because there are too many people.

Maybe one of the reasons people are not having kids is that it has gotten too difficult and expensive to raise them. Probably because there are too many people. Expensive housing, energy, food, transportation are mostly due to the large numbers of people vying for those resources. The resources don't care that majority of them are older and becoming less productive. There are not to few humans - only too few young humans to support the large number of older ones. There was a time when a single income could support a middle class family. That is simply no longer the case for most people in urban situations. Now if you are Elon Musk and do not intend to actually care for those children yourself and can afford alternatives 11 seems to be the limit so far or 12 for Nick Canon. I eagerly await the X child;)

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Maybe one of the reasons people are not having kids is that it has gotten too difficult and expensive to raise them. An interesting theory, but it is an indisputable fact that somewhere else, someone's raising not just one child, but many, on income you'd call pocket change. Countries that attempt to provide financial incentives quickly discover that these incentives don't seem to cause fertility rates to budge. While even I freely admit that there must be some number at which you could convince the childless to have a baby and raise it, that number's large enough that no government could hope to afford incentivizing children. > There was a time when a single income could support a middle class family. Sure. But when you look at the square footage for those homes... many of them are still standing, after all, pick any year you like back in the 1950s or whatever, you see they're all crackerboxes. 1100sqft. That's what the family of four lived in. Depending on the era, their big electronics purchase was the 13" black and white tv. How many nights a month do you eat out, really? How many days do you end up eating out, twice, lunch and dinner? Did those people back in the 1950s eat out once a month, and it was a big deal for them? I don't think you'd like their "single income could support a middle class family" lifestyle. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with that.
- candiodari 3y ago
  > I don't think you'd like their "single income could support a middle class family" lifestyle. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with that. If only there had been 50 years of progress since then ...
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    There has. Have you checked how many extra people there are though? It's a little paradoxical, I know, but you never buy things. You only get to bid on them at auction, an auction invisible to most people. And there are twice as many bidders as before. But this isn't some contradiction of the topic's premise. Many, many of those people weren't born here. Your government sent all those industries overseas, then brought into people from those same places to underbid you on all the crappy service jobs that remained. Told you that you were bigoted and hateful if you objected. Everyone got the progress they voted for, I guess.
  - strangattractor 3y ago
    I am not advocating for a lifestyle. The fact a single income is insufficient regardless of lifestyle is my point. There can be stay at home dads or 2 income families that can afford child care for example. The pay for 2 young people during their prime is not enough to get it done in urban areas. It is more doable in rural areas with less people. The wealth has shifted to older people that do not reproduce.
- jayski 3y ago
  > but it is an indisputable fact that somewhere else, someone's raising not just one child, but many, on income you'd call pocket change. This is true, but there's also been 50 years of not progress, but a concentrated effort to turn us all into hyper-consumerists. Media, government, corporations, have prioritized growth for decades. Predictably we now have a population that cares more about buying disposable trinkets than having a family. Ironically, declining population is now hurting economic growth.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  Few facts concerning people are indisputable. I don't think you can convince people to have children. They either want to or they do not want to. The people that are inclined to want children have a decision to make before they do. This is a long term project and involves the well being of others - not yourself. Most people take that seriously. They want a situation where they can be successful for 18 yrs or more. 18 years of steady income and medical care. 18 years of a place to live and 18 years of help from another individual that you depend on. If you do not have a large enough income failure of any one or more of those things is much more likely and hard to recover from. I am not advocating a return to the 50s. Nor am advocating any lifestyle solution. It is my OPINION the article is in some ways wrong or incorrect about what the problem is.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Maybe one of the reasons people are not having kids is that it has gotten too difficult and expensive to raise them. An interesting theory, but it is an indisputable fact that somewhere else, someone's raising not just one child, but many, on income you'd call pocket change. Countries that attempt to provide financial incentives quickly discover that these incentives don't seem to cause fertility rates to budge. While even I freely admit that there must be some number at which you could convince the childless to have a baby and raise it, that number's large enough that no government could hope to afford incentivizing children. > There was a time when a single income could support a middle class family. Sure. But when you look at the square footage for those homes... many of them are still standing, after all, pick any year you like back in the 1950s or whatever, you see they're all crackerboxes. 1100sqft. That's what the family of four lived in. Depending on the era, their big electronics purchase was the 13" black and white tv. How many nights a month do you eat out, really? How many days do you end up eating out, twice, lunch and dinner? Did those people back in the 1950s eat out once a month, and it was a big deal for them? I don't think you'd like their "single income could support a middle class family" lifestyle. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with that.

candiodari 3y ago
> I don't think you'd like their "single income could support a middle class family" lifestyle. I don't think anyone here would be comfortable with that. If only there had been 50 years of progress since then ...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  There has. Have you checked how many extra people there are though? It's a little paradoxical, I know, but you never buy things. You only get to bid on them at auction, an auction invisible to most people. And there are twice as many bidders as before. But this isn't some contradiction of the topic's premise. Many, many of those people weren't born here. Your government sent all those industries overseas, then brought into people from those same places to underbid you on all the crappy service jobs that remained. Told you that you were bigoted and hateful if you objected. Everyone got the progress they voted for, I guess.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  I am not advocating for a lifestyle. The fact a single income is insufficient regardless of lifestyle is my point. There can be stay at home dads or 2 income families that can afford child care for example. The pay for 2 young people during their prime is not enough to get it done in urban areas. It is more doable in rural areas with less people. The wealth has shifted to older people that do not reproduce.
jayski 3y ago
> but it is an indisputable fact that somewhere else, someone's raising not just one child, but many, on income you'd call pocket change. This is true, but there's also been 50 years of not progress, but a concentrated effort to turn us all into hyper-consumerists. Media, government, corporations, have prioritized growth for decades. Predictably we now have a population that cares more about buying disposable trinkets than having a family. Ironically, declining population is now hurting economic growth.
strangattractor 3y ago
Few facts concerning people are indisputable. I don't think you can convince people to have children. They either want to or they do not want to. The people that are inclined to want children have a decision to make before they do. This is a long term project and involves the well being of others - not yourself. Most people take that seriously. They want a situation where they can be successful for 18 yrs or more. 18 years of steady income and medical care. 18 years of a place to live and 18 years of help from another individual that you depend on. If you do not have a large enough income failure of any one or more of those things is much more likely and hard to recover from. I am not advocating a return to the 50s. Nor am advocating any lifestyle solution. It is my OPINION the article is in some ways wrong or incorrect about what the problem is.