6 ms·

The article is heavy on criticism of population decline and light on an argument of why it is so bad. As a parent in the USA I also don’t buy the argument that

The article is heavy on criticism of population decline and light on an argument of why it is so bad. As a parent in the USA I also don’t buy the argument that it is all education and birth control driving these changes. Many of my acquaintances simply cannot afford the costs of multiple children. And for others climate anxiety makes them question the future.

helpfulContrib 3y ago
[dead]
inference-lord 3y ago
The climate change anxiety is super real just most politicians are too old and out of touch to understand it. If we don't turn tide on our fight against climate change dramatically and like, yesterday, there is absolutely no chance my kids will be thinking about having kids. The world will just be a wreck by that point. Want to fix the birth rate? Make people economically and physically more secure.
- ericmcer 3y ago
  What are you picturing climate change looks like in +50 years when you say your kids/grandkids will have horrific lives because of it? Are they wandering a dystopian hellscape in search of water?
timmg 3y ago
> Many of my acquaintances simply cannot afford the costs of multiple children. I can't speak for your friends. But I think that when someone says "can't afford" what they really mean is "I'd rather spend that money on something else". Some people literally can't afford children. But those in the middle class (or better) in the US certainly can. It would just take money away from other parts of their lifestyle: the home the live in; the car they drive; ability to vacation; newest phone model, etc. Generally, the more money you make in the US, the fewer kids you have. So, for most, it's hard to argue that they can't "afford" children. They can't afford children while maintaining their same lifestyle. And that will generally always be true (except for the truly rich).
- ang_cire 3y ago
  > I think that when someone says "can't afford" what they really mean is "I'd rather spend that money on something else". No, what many of us mean is that "We can't afford to give a child the kind of support and resources and opportunities that a responsible parent knows it is their job to provide." Many of us grew up poor, and saw people around us who didn't make it out. Many of them are still poor bordering on destitute, some are in prison, a couple I know are dead. Until I can *reasonably guarantee* that I'm not putting my kid in that position, I'm not going to have a kid.
  - philips 3y ago
    Yes, this is the spirit of what I mean. For many it is wanting to guarantee some level of comfort and support for the kids long term AND have plans to not be a burden yourself financially.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    > We can't afford to give a child the kind of support and resources and opportunities that a responsible parent knows it is their job to provide. that's a lot of subjective terminology delivered as absolute truth. If I disagree with you on the amount of resources, let's say I think it's 10% of what you think, does that make me an irresponsible parent? If I double the resource expenditure for marginal improvement, does that make me more responsible? Your argument is simply not clearly defined. A lot of people may feel that way, I'd argue if it's not clearly defined they're probably wrong. The kind of support and resources a child needs are nutritious food, decent clothing and a mold and leak free dwelling. Those are the only things that cost money. Then, you have to teach them things and make them play a lot. Don't abuse them. All of those are free, unless you treat your life like a corporation that needs to maximize monetary return, then you'll consider the opportunity cost to talking to your kids. I'd say if that's how you approach it you'll damage your kids no matter how much money you throw at them. I have kids, they have good clothes, they eat nutritious food, definitely above average on the nutrition front, they live in a dry, clean, comfortable dwelling with me, and they keep themselves entertained. I'd say in total their expenses cost me less than 500 bucks a month. They don't live in a dysfunctional environment, they learn faster than their peers, they are in good health, they're free to pursue their interests and hone their talents and they are well entertained. Kids aren't that expensive. You grew up poor, I grew up poor. My problem wasn't resources, it was the priorities of my parents, and when I look at the world, in almost every circumstance I see the same thing. You'd have to go to Somalia to find real prominent examples of kids being fucked over by lack of resources, in almost every other case it's the priorities of parents.

helpfulContrib 3y ago

[dead]

inference-lord 3y ago

The climate change anxiety is super real just most politicians are too old and out of touch to understand it. If we don't turn tide on our fight against climate change dramatically and like, yesterday, there is absolutely no chance my kids will be thinking about having kids. The world will just be a wreck by that point. Want to fix the birth rate? Make people economically and physically more secure.

ericmcer 3y ago
What are you picturing climate change looks like in +50 years when you say your kids/grandkids will have horrific lives because of it? Are they wandering a dystopian hellscape in search of water?

timmg 3y ago

> Many of my acquaintances simply cannot afford the costs of multiple children. I can't speak for your friends. But I think that when someone says "can't afford" what they really mean is "I'd rather spend that money on something else". Some people literally can't afford children. But those in the middle class (or better) in the US certainly can. It would just take money away from other parts of their lifestyle: the home the live in; the car they drive; ability to vacation; newest phone model, etc. Generally, the more money you make in the US, the fewer kids you have. So, for most, it's hard to argue that they can't "afford" children. They can't afford children while maintaining their same lifestyle. And that will generally always be true (except for the truly rich).

ang_cire 3y ago
> I think that when someone says "can't afford" what they really mean is "I'd rather spend that money on something else". No, what many of us mean is that "We can't afford to give a child the kind of support and resources and opportunities that a responsible parent knows it is their job to provide." Many of us grew up poor, and saw people around us who didn't make it out. Many of them are still poor bordering on destitute, some are in prison, a couple I know are dead. Until I can *reasonably guarantee* that I'm not putting my kid in that position, I'm not going to have a kid.
- philips 3y ago
  Yes, this is the spirit of what I mean. For many it is wanting to guarantee some level of comfort and support for the kids long term AND have plans to not be a burden yourself financially.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  > We can't afford to give a child the kind of support and resources and opportunities that a responsible parent knows it is their job to provide. that's a lot of subjective terminology delivered as absolute truth. If I disagree with you on the amount of resources, let's say I think it's 10% of what you think, does that make me an irresponsible parent? If I double the resource expenditure for marginal improvement, does that make me more responsible? Your argument is simply not clearly defined. A lot of people may feel that way, I'd argue if it's not clearly defined they're probably wrong. The kind of support and resources a child needs are nutritious food, decent clothing and a mold and leak free dwelling. Those are the only things that cost money. Then, you have to teach them things and make them play a lot. Don't abuse them. All of those are free, unless you treat your life like a corporation that needs to maximize monetary return, then you'll consider the opportunity cost to talking to your kids. I'd say if that's how you approach it you'll damage your kids no matter how much money you throw at them. I have kids, they have good clothes, they eat nutritious food, definitely above average on the nutrition front, they live in a dry, clean, comfortable dwelling with me, and they keep themselves entertained. I'd say in total their expenses cost me less than 500 bucks a month. They don't live in a dysfunctional environment, they learn faster than their peers, they are in good health, they're free to pursue their interests and hone their talents and they are well entertained. Kids aren't that expensive. You grew up poor, I grew up poor. My problem wasn't resources, it was the priorities of my parents, and when I look at the world, in almost every circumstance I see the same thing. You'd have to go to Somalia to find real prominent examples of kids being fucked over by lack of resources, in almost every other case it's the priorities of parents.