4 ms·

I don’t buy this at all. The poorest people have the most kids. Yes if you want an upper middle class kid with daycare, a math tutor and piano lessons, it’s goi

I don’t buy this at all. The poorest people have the most kids. Yes if you want an upper middle class kid with daycare, a math tutor and piano lessons, it’s going to be expensive. But the actual cost of having a child is food off your plate, second hand clothes, and a stay at home parent. The problem is that is probably not the lifestyle upper middle class people want.

jquery 3y ago
Why should the burden of the next generation fall entirely on new parents? It's not like they're the only beneficiaries of our country having another generation. Seems like they're just being rationally "selfish" in response to the rest of the nation being equally, if not more selfish.
awskinda 3y ago
[dead]
SXX 3y ago
Were those families of 6 living for 30k happy families? Something tells me not.
- bsdpufferfish 3y ago
  Happiest families I know. 2 of their sons now have phds from Ivy League.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    That's wonderful. The thing is that I know quite a few people who raised plenty of children on low incomes and if those kids even finished community college, they were exceptional. I guess our experience is quite different.
    - bsdpufferfish 3y ago
      Time and care from capable parents are more effective than money. However many people who are poor do not have those skill. Upper middle class just prefer to use money instead of time. The upper class does not outsource parenting lightly.
A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
I was shocked to learn, just a few days ago, that an old school friend of mine is paying roughly $9,000/month for private school for his two young children. (Ages 14 and 8.) The guy is doing okay -- his income is somewhere over $200k/year -- but this expense is a _big_ fraction of his total income. For him, childcare costs are basically the difference between leasing a new Ferrari and living in a mansion, and buying clothes from Ross and begging his parents for money. (Which, I've learned, he does.) There are two factors in play. First, he lives in a large and diverse American city, and wants to insulate his children from bad influences. Second, he's under a great deal of, essentially, peer pressure to "Keep up with the Joneses" -- in other words, to keep up appearances relative to other members of his social group. It's insanity, of course. But, in his position, it would be difficult to raise a child cheaply. The outcomes might be quite poor. So, either way, there's difficulty and worry. There are also the opportunity costs of parenting, which are considerable, but that's a different matter.
- jquery 3y ago
  I assure you sending my kid to private school in a diverse city has nothing to do with "insulating her from bad influences" (diversity is good, not bad) and everything to do with ensuring she has motivated and happy teachers who will pay attention to her needs... not a super high bar but America loves underpaying its teachers and starving public education. There's a few magnet public schools that offer this, but getting admission is difficult. All public schools should be magnet schools... "Keeping up with the joneses" doesn't come into play at all.
- chasd00 3y ago
  wow this hits very close to home. I live in Dallas, and my wife and I struggled with the private school question. If you live in an urban area you pretty much have to budget for private school or roll the dice on getting in to highly competitive magnet schools. For elementary school we rented an apartment for 6 months to get an address in a decent school, it wasn't a guaranteed ticket but a risk we took because it was cheaper than private school. We were able to get in and worked closely with the school and our kids to make sure they were learning what they needed to get to the next school. They both got to a magnet middle school thankfully which was goal #2 but I mean even the magnet school is still like a zoo (sex in bathrooms, drugs, etc). Again, we work closely with the school and our boys, teaching them a lot of the skills they're not getting at school (it's very time consuming and basically a second job for me and my wife). My oldest is now in 8th grade and tested recently for the top magnet STEM HS in DFW. He feels pretty confident about it but we find out March 1 if he got it, that's goal number #3. Looking back, my wife and I both strongly agree just moving 45 miles north to suburbs with actual functioning public schools would have been so much better. Yeah sure, we live in a hot neighborhood (north oak cliff), downtown, uptown, and deep ellum are < 3 miles away but we never go down there anymore anyway. Suburbs with good schools and other amenities geared toward families are where it's at.
pton_xd 3y ago
> and a stay at home parent That's the big issue. Middle class households today need both parents working to afford a decent home, 2 cars, and health insurance. Of course many could downsize to a smaller home, 1 car, fewer vacations, etc. But those are the financial trade offs that increasingly fewer couples seem to want to make.
- bsdpufferfish 3y ago
  Agreed, the level of comfort and social status is more important to them.
hotpotamus 3y ago
Perhaps lower and middle class people want upper middle class children.
- bsdpufferfish 3y ago
  They certainly do. But not enough to do it themselves.
galleywest200 3y ago
> The poorest people have the most kids And why is this is a question we should answer. Inability to afford birth control? Sex as the one redeeming "happy" thing after slaving away for a guy who wears a suit 5 days per week? Religion also plays a part -- lots of mainstream religions eschew birth control such as condoms and lots of poor people are religious. Are they poor because they have so many kids?
- bsdpufferfish 3y ago
  Every assumption in this post sounds out of touch.
- angmarsbane 3y ago
  I read an article a long time ago that was a series of interviews with poorer women who had multiple kids asking the same question. The answer surprised and stuck with me. The women had children they could not afford because it gave them status (a role to play in society) and meaning. They were Moms, and Moms had a degree of respect in their communities that single childless women did not have. Also - their children loved them, and with their children they were not alone and unloved. In an economic scenario where their prospects were unlikely to change having children provided them with love and status / a role in society.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    I'm reasonably certain that it is not just the poor who have children as status symbols.
chasd00 3y ago
I agree, the lower working class always have a lot of kids. I think it's the trend where young people think kids are just going to prevent them from all these grand accomplishments they think are right around the corner. Ironic, that the handful of people i know who have a stable relationship but chose to not have kids for these reasons are still doing the same job and watching the same tv they were when they were 20 yet, now in their 40s, still talk about the company they're going to create or, in one case, the ground breaking art they're going to produce.

jquery 3y ago

Why should the burden of the next generation fall entirely on new parents? It's not like they're the only beneficiaries of our country having another generation. Seems like they're just being rationally "selfish" in response to the rest of the nation being equally, if not more selfish.

awskinda 3y ago

[dead]

SXX 3y ago

Were those families of 6 living for 30k happy families? Something tells me not.

bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Happiest families I know. 2 of their sons now have phds from Ivy League.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  That's wonderful. The thing is that I know quite a few people who raised plenty of children on low incomes and if those kids even finished community college, they were exceptional. I guess our experience is quite different.
  - bsdpufferfish 3y ago
    Time and care from capable parents are more effective than money. However many people who are poor do not have those skill. Upper middle class just prefer to use money instead of time. The upper class does not outsource parenting lightly.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

I was shocked to learn, just a few days ago, that an old school friend of mine is paying roughly $9,000/month for private school for his two young children. (Ages 14 and 8.) The guy is doing okay -- his income is somewhere over $200k/year -- but this expense is a _big_ fraction of his total income. For him, childcare costs are basically the difference between leasing a new Ferrari and living in a mansion, and buying clothes from Ross and begging his parents for money. (Which, I've learned, he does.) There are two factors in play. First, he lives in a large and diverse American city, and wants to insulate his children from bad influences. Second, he's under a great deal of, essentially, peer pressure to "Keep up with the Joneses" -- in other words, to keep up appearances relative to other members of his social group. It's insanity, of course. But, in his position, it would be difficult to raise a child cheaply. The outcomes might be quite poor. So, either way, there's difficulty and worry. There are also the opportunity costs of parenting, which are considerable, but that's a different matter.

jquery 3y ago
I assure you sending my kid to private school in a diverse city has nothing to do with "insulating her from bad influences" (diversity is good, not bad) and everything to do with ensuring she has motivated and happy teachers who will pay attention to her needs... not a super high bar but America loves underpaying its teachers and starving public education. There's a few magnet public schools that offer this, but getting admission is difficult. All public schools should be magnet schools... "Keeping up with the joneses" doesn't come into play at all.
chasd00 3y ago
wow this hits very close to home. I live in Dallas, and my wife and I struggled with the private school question. If you live in an urban area you pretty much have to budget for private school or roll the dice on getting in to highly competitive magnet schools. For elementary school we rented an apartment for 6 months to get an address in a decent school, it wasn't a guaranteed ticket but a risk we took because it was cheaper than private school. We were able to get in and worked closely with the school and our kids to make sure they were learning what they needed to get to the next school. They both got to a magnet middle school thankfully which was goal #2 but I mean even the magnet school is still like a zoo (sex in bathrooms, drugs, etc). Again, we work closely with the school and our boys, teaching them a lot of the skills they're not getting at school (it's very time consuming and basically a second job for me and my wife). My oldest is now in 8th grade and tested recently for the top magnet STEM HS in DFW. He feels pretty confident about it but we find out March 1 if he got it, that's goal number #3. Looking back, my wife and I both strongly agree just moving 45 miles north to suburbs with actual functioning public schools would have been so much better. Yeah sure, we live in a hot neighborhood (north oak cliff), downtown, uptown, and deep ellum are < 3 miles away but we never go down there anymore anyway. Suburbs with good schools and other amenities geared toward families are where it's at.

pton_xd 3y ago

> and a stay at home parent That's the big issue. Middle class households today need both parents working to afford a decent home, 2 cars, and health insurance. Of course many could downsize to a smaller home, 1 car, fewer vacations, etc. But those are the financial trade offs that increasingly fewer couples seem to want to make.

bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Agreed, the level of comfort and social status is more important to them.

hotpotamus 3y ago

Perhaps lower and middle class people want upper middle class children.

bsdpufferfish 3y ago
They certainly do. But not enough to do it themselves.

galleywest200 3y ago

> The poorest people have the most kids And why is this is a question we should answer. Inability to afford birth control? Sex as the one redeeming "happy" thing after slaving away for a guy who wears a suit 5 days per week? Religion also plays a part -- lots of mainstream religions eschew birth control such as condoms and lots of poor people are religious. Are they poor because they have so many kids?

bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Every assumption in this post sounds out of touch.
angmarsbane 3y ago
I read an article a long time ago that was a series of interviews with poorer women who had multiple kids asking the same question. The answer surprised and stuck with me. The women had children they could not afford because it gave them status (a role to play in society) and meaning. They were Moms, and Moms had a degree of respect in their communities that single childless women did not have. Also - their children loved them, and with their children they were not alone and unloved. In an economic scenario where their prospects were unlikely to change having children provided them with love and status / a role in society.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I'm reasonably certain that it is not just the poor who have children as status symbols.

chasd00 3y ago

I agree, the lower working class always have a lot of kids. I think it's the trend where young people think kids are just going to prevent them from all these grand accomplishments they think are right around the corner. Ironic, that the handful of people i know who have a stable relationship but chose to not have kids for these reasons are still doing the same job and watching the same tv they were when they were 20 yet, now in their 40s, still talk about the company they're going to create or, in one case, the ground breaking art they're going to produce.