3 ms·

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 con

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.
- techjamie 3y ago
  Having kids would take my household from living very comfortably to struggling but still making too much to get government assistance. It's basically not even a question which one we're choosing. I'll keep my quality of life, thanks.

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.
techjamie 3y ago
Having kids would take my household from living very comfortably to struggling but still making too much to get government assistance. It's basically not even a question which one we're choosing. I'll keep my quality of life, thanks.