4 ms·

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of children is. I’ll be a bit provocative and say that I think that they are largely status symbols - they need to go t

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of children is. I’ll be a bit provocative and say that I think that they are largely status symbols - they need to go to good schools and onto high status careers in order to bring as much prestige to the family as possible. There are only a few years of their lives where they need constant care but the costs of all their education will be enormous later in their lives and so a couple that has two earners will be able to out compete a single earner household for all the expensive late-childhood/early-adulthood expenses that will come up.

bee_rider 3y ago
I don’t disagree that some people treat kids as status symbols, but that’s basically a pathology in our society IMO. The point of having kids should be to raise some happy, well-adjusted people. Education is important but for their enrichment, not as some silly high-score focused game. Education—there’s the cost of providing it, and then there’s the zero-sum competitive component. As far as I can tell we seem to be re-investing all that extra money into deans, administrative staff, and fancy facilities, so I think we should just not play that game.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  > so I think we should just not play that game I don't think there's any way out of that particular game other than not having children; they're going to need to go onto careers, and as much as the education system might suck, it's less grim than the careers they'd face without a degree. My cousin's (I don't have a lot of cousins but we've actually been close our whole lives; we've lived in the same city and I actually consider them my college friends because we also went to the same school) daughter's 3rd birthday is coming up. His ask - no presents, just college contributions please. I myself opted out of the game early on, and upon a lot of reflection of late, I think this is a significant reason I did although I would have had a hard time articulating it when I was younger.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Individually we can’t opt out of it, but collectively we could do things like putting greater emphasis on the state-funded education systems.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      I think it's the opposite actually; only individuals can really opt out. As a long time observer of the US (having lived in it my entire life), I'd say it's a highly anti-collectivist country. Socialized education is under attack as unfree and lacking choice. I find it instructive to think about if libraries did not exist and someone proposed creating them today - can you imagine the screams of "socialism!" and the attacks on such an idea as collective ownership of books? And we're the only developed country that lacks a universal healthcare system. I feel that I've voted my entire life for more collective solutions to problems (what else is government for?) though imperfect the purveyors of such solutions may be (let's be real, as fashionable as it is to say that both sides are bad, the Democratic party are the only ones trying to actually improve things). But it seems that enough voters go the other direction that we have decided against such solutions. I am truly sorry for the state of things and that children today will inherit these problems.
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Private and subscription libraries were a thing even in the Gilded Age - and the working class used them too (hence the Pratt "Free" Library to contrast it)
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
The education costs are high, but not THAT high. We're on a forum for tech workers and their corresponding suits: that kind of salary can comfortably send 2 kids to any university they fancy on a single income. We're talking about saving up about three quarter million by the time the second kid hits college. Faaaarr from impossible on a 1500-200k salary.
nerdbert 3y ago
My lazy kids are terrible status symbols but they are excellently suited for their actual purposes which are to laugh at my dad jokes and keep me honest about snacking. Seriously though I don't know anyone who has kids as status symbols. That seems quite weird.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  And how much laziness are you willing to accept from them? Would you be ok with them living with you when they are in their 30’s?
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    If they remain pleasant, carry their weight around the house, and don't mind that we are going to be moving somewhere much warmer the day they both finish high school, then sure! I like them.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      It does sound like you have a few qualifications there at least, not that I can blame you. I wonder - what do you feel does give you status within your community if not your children?
      - nerdbert 3y ago
        I think most of my local status, such as it is, comes from being generally amiable and having helped out at least half the people on the street with repair/lifting/moving tasks at some point. Also I suppose living in a desirable neighborhood indicates status to outsiders maybe? I'm not sure what, if any, benefits that perception confers on me. I may be a little broken in that I don't see the value of status signalling. If I'm nice to people, they're nice to me. That system has suited me increasingly well for decades. I dress for practical comfort, don't have high-ranking frequent flyer membership tier, and routinely get upgrades at the airport because I am sympathetic to the agents' pressures. People recommend me for jobs because I didn't make them feel shitty at work and make a point of boosting other people's contributions. Between that, and trying to signal something with expensive sneakers or a sports car, I much prefer the approach that makes me feel happy inside, and builds people up rather than trying to make them jealous.

bee_rider 3y ago

I don’t disagree that some people treat kids as status symbols, but that’s basically a pathology in our society IMO. The point of having kids should be to raise some happy, well-adjusted people. Education is important but for their enrichment, not as some silly high-score focused game. Education—there’s the cost of providing it, and then there’s the zero-sum competitive component. As far as I can tell we seem to be re-investing all that extra money into deans, administrative staff, and fancy facilities, so I think we should just not play that game.

hotpotamus 3y ago
> so I think we should just not play that game I don't think there's any way out of that particular game other than not having children; they're going to need to go onto careers, and as much as the education system might suck, it's less grim than the careers they'd face without a degree. My cousin's (I don't have a lot of cousins but we've actually been close our whole lives; we've lived in the same city and I actually consider them my college friends because we also went to the same school) daughter's 3rd birthday is coming up. His ask - no presents, just college contributions please. I myself opted out of the game early on, and upon a lot of reflection of late, I think this is a significant reason I did although I would have had a hard time articulating it when I was younger.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Individually we can’t opt out of it, but collectively we could do things like putting greater emphasis on the state-funded education systems.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I think it's the opposite actually; only individuals can really opt out. As a long time observer of the US (having lived in it my entire life), I'd say it's a highly anti-collectivist country. Socialized education is under attack as unfree and lacking choice. I find it instructive to think about if libraries did not exist and someone proposed creating them today - can you imagine the screams of "socialism!" and the attacks on such an idea as collective ownership of books? And we're the only developed country that lacks a universal healthcare system. I feel that I've voted my entire life for more collective solutions to problems (what else is government for?) though imperfect the purveyors of such solutions may be (let's be real, as fashionable as it is to say that both sides are bad, the Democratic party are the only ones trying to actually improve things). But it seems that enough voters go the other direction that we have decided against such solutions. I am truly sorry for the state of things and that children today will inherit these problems.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Private and subscription libraries were a thing even in the Gilded Age - and the working class used them too (hence the Pratt "Free" Library to contrast it)

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

The education costs are high, but not THAT high. We're on a forum for tech workers and their corresponding suits: that kind of salary can comfortably send 2 kids to any university they fancy on a single income. We're talking about saving up about three quarter million by the time the second kid hits college. Faaaarr from impossible on a 1500-200k salary.

nerdbert 3y ago

My lazy kids are terrible status symbols but they are excellently suited for their actual purposes which are to laugh at my dad jokes and keep me honest about snacking. Seriously though I don't know anyone who has kids as status symbols. That seems quite weird.

hotpotamus 3y ago
And how much laziness are you willing to accept from them? Would you be ok with them living with you when they are in their 30’s?
- nerdbert 3y ago
  If they remain pleasant, carry their weight around the house, and don't mind that we are going to be moving somewhere much warmer the day they both finish high school, then sure! I like them.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    It does sound like you have a few qualifications there at least, not that I can blame you. I wonder - what do you feel does give you status within your community if not your children?
    - nerdbert 3y ago
      I think most of my local status, such as it is, comes from being generally amiable and having helped out at least half the people on the street with repair/lifting/moving tasks at some point. Also I suppose living in a desirable neighborhood indicates status to outsiders maybe? I'm not sure what, if any, benefits that perception confers on me. I may be a little broken in that I don't see the value of status signalling. If I'm nice to people, they're nice to me. That system has suited me increasingly well for decades. I dress for practical comfort, don't have high-ranking frequent flyer membership tier, and routinely get upgrades at the airport because I am sympathetic to the agents' pressures. People recommend me for jobs because I didn't make them feel shitty at work and make a point of boosting other people's contributions. Between that, and trying to signal something with expensive sneakers or a sports car, I much prefer the approach that makes me feel happy inside, and builds people up rather than trying to make them jealous.