5 ms·

> procreation a luxury The data actually points in the exact opposite direction. People with the least wealth are the most likely to decide to have more kids.

echelon 3y ago
Procreation is a lower dopamine hit than career growth, travel, dating, hobbies, Instagram, flexibility, mobility. We're always on our phones and the internet. There's no space left for even entertaining the idea of kids. Cellphones took their place. And capitalism filled the gaps to occupy us with entertainment for any spare moment. (Who knew we needed "escape rooms"?) Kids were perfect for the farm and nomadic societies. They were essentially free labor to help around the house. They don't fit very well into today's society, where you might just go on a random trip, go partying late at night, or spend your income on your hobby / pet project. I'm saying all of this both tongue-in-cheek (kids are the future and we need them), but also in earnest. I truly think this is a big driver or component of why people aren't having kids. I think this, more than cost burden, is the reason. We're too into our own thing to let a young infant have space.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  A better way to say it is opportunity cost of children is higher now. It used to be your alternative was simple stuff like socializing or doing some basic hobby. Now you have maximally addictive entertainment at your fingertips, not to mention that people are wealthier so they can travel and do other activities. It’s also the reason why wealthier people have fewer kids.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    It probably makes sense to someone who lives their life 100% online.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    This whole thread of speculation is pretty crap. The history of speculating why poor people have so many kids is extremely crappy. Let's just stick with what the boffins have come up with, yes?
    - echelon 3y ago
      > Let's just stick with what the boffins have come up with, yes? Speaking for myself and my friends (to whom I have talked about this matter), we have too much going on right now. Life is full.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    Who on their phones all day is meeting new people and settling down with them?
  - 7thaccount 3y ago
    There are a lot of people that are now 100% content with streaming services and doom scrolling and don't want to have kids. In the more distant past, it was either a necessity, enforced through social constructs, or was probably seen as a lot more interesting back when entertainment wasn't so all encompassing. During holidays I'll go visit a massive family (my wife's) and she has a bazillion cousins and brothers and almost nobody is getting married. The few that are have no interest in children and it isn't a housing or money problem. They'd just rather live a different lifestyle. I get it for sure, but it's also a bit shocking to see a forecast of how quickly the birthrate is going to drop.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Has japan had smart phones since 1970? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN
  - lmm 3y ago
    Japan was a technological leader in those years; while not smart phones per se, they had plenty of entertainment technology ahead of the rest of the world.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      they had plenty of entertainment technology ahead of the rest of the world. What did they have that the rest of the world didn't?
      - lmm 3y ago
        A bigger bowling boom than elsewhere. The biggest version of the arcade golden age in the world. The Walkman. The first laptops. A stronger service/entertainment culture. Or maybe other countries had a similar fertility decline that was masked by other factors. Did you remember to adjust out the effects of immigration (not just immediately, but in subsequent generations)?
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        To be clear, you think that the consistent country wide drop in japanese fertility for the last 50 years was due to bowling alleys, arcades the walkman and the first laptops? Or maybe other countries had a similar fertility decline that was masked by other factors Or maybe they didn't. You are throwing out nonsensical guesses, I linked you real information. Did you remember to adjust out the effects of immigration (not just immediately, but in subsequent generations)? What are you talking about, I linked you a graph of long term statistics. If you have questions about it, click on the link and read.
        3y ago
- bloomingeek 3y ago
  <Kids were perfect for the farm and nomadic societies. They were essentially free labor to help around the house.> They also mow the yard and help with heavy lifting! All kidding aside, children are also useful/needed in the later life phase of their parents. I watched my wife visit her Mother everyday for the last ten years of her life.
nradov 3y ago
Yes, there is a clear negative correlation between household income and number of children. In the USA, families with an income under $10K have the most kids. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  I noticed that the big jumps in births seem to occur around the boundaries of various poverty level measurements and tax brackets in the US. Hard to establish a direct correlation, but I think it speaks a bit to the fact that if you're really poor, having a lot of kids doesn't really change your situation. If you're a little poor, having many kids still doesn't change the situation unless it makes you really poor. But above that, you start having to really consider how having more kids will affect not only your own financial situation, but how much fewer resources you'll be able to dedicate to each child. At a certain level of income you lose access to a lot of resources that the government provides that allows a certain minimum level of care for each child. Food stamps, financial aid, tax breaks, all start to fade away as you make more money.
- everforward 3y ago
  Oh, it's by birthrate. For a brief second, I thought families making less than $10k/year was a large enough cohort to have the largest number of children and I was horrified.
jwells89 3y ago
This is because people with greater means expect to be able to provide more/better for their children, which entails much higher costs and puts parents in a considerably more perilous position financially despite aforementioned greater means. Quality food, clothing, daycare, education, medical care, etc is not cheap and only couples sitting on the higher end of the working class salary band can consistently afford all these things while also maintaining financial padding substantial enough to keep the boat righted and afloat should disaster strike. The above is a big reason why you often see higher-comp working class wait until the last minute (biologically) to have kids. It’s the only way to accumulate anywhere near enough surplus resources to be able to afford a well-cared-for family without risk of a badly timed flurry of bills putting them out on the street. By contrast, if you’re poor having children doesn’t change a whole lot financially. You’re living on the edge and struggling either way, regardless of your desires. This is why if it’s a goal of governments to boost birth rates it should be by making raising a family with a high quality of life less burdensome, not by making the population more poor.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  I was writing out a similar reply but you covered more or less all of it. Anecdote: I know a few couples where their financial situation improved when one of the spouses stopped working and started taking care of the kids. The cost of having someone else watching the kids, such as daycare, was more than one of the spouses was bringing in. So they had a choice of being in a more precarious financial situation until the kids could be more independent with both spouses working, or having one spouse give up a long chunk of their career and potentially end up worse off later because they missed on years of advancement. And of course, if both spouses work a lot, you end up with latchkey kids, which ain't the best situation either.
  - chrsw 3y ago
    Right, another way to put it, couples with nothing to lose are more likely to have to have kids. More well-off couples are worried about how they can have kids, give their kids a good start in life and not have to sacrifice almost everything.

echelon 3y ago

Procreation is a lower dopamine hit than career growth, travel, dating, hobbies, Instagram, flexibility, mobility. We're always on our phones and the internet. There's no space left for even entertaining the idea of kids. Cellphones took their place. And capitalism filled the gaps to occupy us with entertainment for any spare moment. (Who knew we needed "escape rooms"?) Kids were perfect for the farm and nomadic societies. They were essentially free labor to help around the house. They don't fit very well into today's society, where you might just go on a random trip, go partying late at night, or spend your income on your hobby / pet project. I'm saying all of this both tongue-in-cheek (kids are the future and we need them), but also in earnest. I truly think this is a big driver or component of why people aren't having kids. I think this, more than cost burden, is the reason. We're too into our own thing to let a young infant have space.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
A better way to say it is opportunity cost of children is higher now. It used to be your alternative was simple stuff like socializing or doing some basic hobby. Now you have maximally addictive entertainment at your fingertips, not to mention that people are wealthier so they can travel and do other activities. It’s also the reason why wealthier people have fewer kids.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
[flagged]
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  It probably makes sense to someone who lives their life 100% online.
- RajT88 3y ago
  This whole thread of speculation is pretty crap. The history of speculating why poor people have so many kids is extremely crappy. Let's just stick with what the boffins have come up with, yes?
  - echelon 3y ago
    > Let's just stick with what the boffins have come up with, yes? Speaking for myself and my friends (to whom I have talked about this matter), we have too much going on right now. Life is full.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  Who on their phones all day is meeting new people and settling down with them?
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  There are a lot of people that are now 100% content with streaming services and doom scrolling and don't want to have kids. In the more distant past, it was either a necessity, enforced through social constructs, or was probably seen as a lot more interesting back when entertainment wasn't so all encompassing. During holidays I'll go visit a massive family (my wife's) and she has a bazillion cousins and brothers and almost nobody is getting married. The few that are have no interest in children and it isn't a housing or money problem. They'd just rather live a different lifestyle. I get it for sure, but it's also a bit shocking to see a forecast of how quickly the birthrate is going to drop.
CyberDildonics 3y ago
Has japan had smart phones since 1970? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN
- lmm 3y ago
  Japan was a technological leader in those years; while not smart phones per se, they had plenty of entertainment technology ahead of the rest of the world.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    they had plenty of entertainment technology ahead of the rest of the world. What did they have that the rest of the world didn't?
    - lmm 3y ago
      A bigger bowling boom than elsewhere. The biggest version of the arcade golden age in the world. The Walkman. The first laptops. A stronger service/entertainment culture. Or maybe other countries had a similar fertility decline that was masked by other factors. Did you remember to adjust out the effects of immigration (not just immediately, but in subsequent generations)?
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        To be clear, you think that the consistent country wide drop in japanese fertility for the last 50 years was due to bowling alleys, arcades the walkman and the first laptops? Or maybe other countries had a similar fertility decline that was masked by other factors Or maybe they didn't. You are throwing out nonsensical guesses, I linked you real information. Did you remember to adjust out the effects of immigration (not just immediately, but in subsequent generations)? What are you talking about, I linked you a graph of long term statistics. If you have questions about it, click on the link and read.
        3y ago
bloomingeek 3y ago
<Kids were perfect for the farm and nomadic societies. They were essentially free labor to help around the house.> They also mow the yard and help with heavy lifting! All kidding aside, children are also useful/needed in the later life phase of their parents. I watched my wife visit her Mother everyday for the last ten years of her life.

nradov 3y ago

Yes, there is a clear negative correlation between household income and number of children. In the USA, families with an income under $10K have the most kids. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

genocidicbunny 3y ago
I noticed that the big jumps in births seem to occur around the boundaries of various poverty level measurements and tax brackets in the US. Hard to establish a direct correlation, but I think it speaks a bit to the fact that if you're really poor, having a lot of kids doesn't really change your situation. If you're a little poor, having many kids still doesn't change the situation unless it makes you really poor. But above that, you start having to really consider how having more kids will affect not only your own financial situation, but how much fewer resources you'll be able to dedicate to each child. At a certain level of income you lose access to a lot of resources that the government provides that allows a certain minimum level of care for each child. Food stamps, financial aid, tax breaks, all start to fade away as you make more money.
everforward 3y ago
Oh, it's by birthrate. For a brief second, I thought families making less than $10k/year was a large enough cohort to have the largest number of children and I was horrified.

jwells89 3y ago

This is because people with greater means expect to be able to provide more/better for their children, which entails much higher costs and puts parents in a considerably more perilous position financially despite aforementioned greater means. Quality food, clothing, daycare, education, medical care, etc is not cheap and only couples sitting on the higher end of the working class salary band can consistently afford all these things while also maintaining financial padding substantial enough to keep the boat righted and afloat should disaster strike. The above is a big reason why you often see higher-comp working class wait until the last minute (biologically) to have kids. It’s the only way to accumulate anywhere near enough surplus resources to be able to afford a well-cared-for family without risk of a badly timed flurry of bills putting them out on the street. By contrast, if you’re poor having children doesn’t change a whole lot financially. You’re living on the edge and struggling either way, regardless of your desires. This is why if it’s a goal of governments to boost birth rates it should be by making raising a family with a high quality of life less burdensome, not by making the population more poor.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
I was writing out a similar reply but you covered more or less all of it. Anecdote: I know a few couples where their financial situation improved when one of the spouses stopped working and started taking care of the kids. The cost of having someone else watching the kids, such as daycare, was more than one of the spouses was bringing in. So they had a choice of being in a more precarious financial situation until the kids could be more independent with both spouses working, or having one spouse give up a long chunk of their career and potentially end up worse off later because they missed on years of advancement. And of course, if both spouses work a lot, you end up with latchkey kids, which ain't the best situation either.
- chrsw 3y ago
  Right, another way to put it, couples with nothing to lose are more likely to have to have kids. More well-off couples are worried about how they can have kids, give their kids a good start in life and not have to sacrifice almost everything.