6 ms·

It's not about children actually. The problem in general is how patronizing our society have become in last decades.

mschuster91 3y ago
That's mostly a factor of lower childbirth rates. Put plain and simple: people used to have 3+ kids (or more, if you counted those who died before age 6), so if one or two died, got severely injured, turned mad, criminal or celibate-religious there would be still at least one or two other kids to inherit whatever wealth the family had (i.e. usually the farm or trade shop) and pass on the family name. Nowadays middle-class people tend to have just one or two children, they literally cannot afford the space or childrearing costs for more - for lower classes eligible for government assistance such as the un(der)employed the situation does look different as society picks up large parts of the tab. Additionally, ever rising requirements in employment criteria make it necessary to invest more and more into their education: up until maybe 2-3 decades ago, even a school dropout could work in construction, a factory, retail, farm or mine and make a relatively decent living. But these jobs have largely gone away to China/India or to automation, so the few employment options for "undereducated" people are highly contested. And so, the kid must turn out perfect: there is no room for the kid to make mistakes, especially not ones that endanger their career prospects, and hence all the helicopter parenting. On top of all of that come decades of media/politician "fear brainwashings" (aka, the "pedo child-snatcher van" myth), as well as the legitimate collapse of a high-trust society (homeless, drunk and mentally ill people literally everywhere in major cities; police simply not enforcing laws any more).
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  Do upper-class people have more children?
  - sgerenser 3y ago
    I’ve found on average richer people have less children. And not only at the threshold of government benefits.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > they literally cannot afford the space Sure they can. Early North American settlers lived in tiny, one room log cabins, and raised those 3+ children in them just fine. Homes that small are not even allowed in most jurisdictions these days. The middle class have way more space to work with these days. Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children. Society says you need a career instead, and so that's what most people buy into and turn their attention towards.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Early North American settlers lived in tiny, one room log cabins, and raised those 3+ children in them just fine. Homes that small are not even allowed in most jurisdictions these days. The middle class have way more space to work with these days. Sure, but... who wants to go back to the days of the early settlers "living" in such conditions? We're in 2024, not 1607 after all. As a species, as a society we should progress, not regress. Just because our ancestors had to live in filth, it doesn't mean we have to as well. > Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children. Anecdata ahead: many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing (the market is completely dead here in Germany - sales aren't happening because everyone fears the market correction / to realize a value depreciation, and rentals are routinely at 300+ interested candidates for a single apartment), but also a lack of stable career perspective: academia is a shitshow of limited-term contracts anyway, government doesn't pay anywhere near enough to be competitive with the private sector (usually about 60-70%, but IT and legal staff <<40%), NGOs pay even less than government, and the only way to get raises in the private sector outside of highly competitive unionized shops is to regularly churn companies which has the downside you're the first one to be on the chop block in case of layoffs. Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > Sure, but... who wants to go back to the days of the early settlers "living" in such conditions? Those who want to have children. But I agree, people don't want children, they want other things in life. And fair enough. It is their life to live as they see fit. > many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing So they say. But really, they're just complaining about the housing situation using a device that they hope will pull on the right heart strings (and most likely are just repeating what they heard someone else say). Let's face it: Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care. > Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible. Or, perhaps, children were the contributors that made those things possible? We don't have to go too far back in history to find a time where adults were unable to survive without children. Being able to opt to not have children today is a luxury afforded to those well off (yes, that includes the middle class).

That's mostly a factor of lower childbirth rates. Put plain and simple: people used to have 3+ kids (or more, if you counted those who died before age 6), so if one or two died, got severely injured, turned mad, criminal or celibate-religious there would be still at least one or two other kids to inherit whatever wealth the family had (i.e. usually the farm or trade shop) and pass on the family name. Nowadays middle-class people tend to have just one or two children, they literally cannot afford the space or childrearing costs for more - for lower classes eligible for government assistance such as the un(der)employed the situation does look different as society picks up large parts of the tab. Additionally, ever rising requirements in employment criteria make it necessary to invest more and more into their education: up until maybe 2-3 decades ago, even a school dropout could work in construction, a factory, retail, farm or mine and make a relatively decent living. But these jobs have largely gone away to China/India or to automation, so the few employment options for "undereducated" people are highly contested. And so, the kid must turn out perfect: there is no room for the kid to make mistakes, especially not ones that endanger their career prospects, and hence all the helicopter parenting. On top of all of that come decades of media/politician "fear brainwashings" (aka, the "pedo child-snatcher van" myth), as well as the legitimate collapse of a high-trust society (homeless, drunk and mentally ill people literally everywhere in major cities; police simply not enforcing laws any more).

hyperthesis 3y ago
Do upper-class people have more children?
- sgerenser 3y ago
  I’ve found on average richer people have less children. And not only at the threshold of government benefits.
randomdata 3y ago
> they literally cannot afford the space Sure they can. Early North American settlers lived in tiny, one room log cabins, and raised those 3+ children in them just fine. Homes that small are not even allowed in most jurisdictions these days. The middle class have way more space to work with these days. Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children. Society says you need a career instead, and so that's what most people buy into and turn their attention towards.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Early North American settlers lived in tiny, one room log cabins, and raised those 3+ children in them just fine. Homes that small are not even allowed in most jurisdictions these days. The middle class have way more space to work with these days. Sure, but... who wants to go back to the days of the early settlers "living" in such conditions? We're in 2024, not 1607 after all. As a species, as a society we should progress, not regress. Just because our ancestors had to live in filth, it doesn't mean we have to as well. > Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children. Anecdata ahead: many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing (the market is completely dead here in Germany - sales aren't happening because everyone fears the market correction / to realize a value depreciation, and rentals are routinely at 300+ interested candidates for a single apartment), but also a lack of stable career perspective: academia is a shitshow of limited-term contracts anyway, government doesn't pay anywhere near enough to be competitive with the private sector (usually about 60-70%, but IT and legal staff <<40%), NGOs pay even less than government, and the only way to get raises in the private sector outside of highly competitive unionized shops is to regularly churn companies which has the downside you're the first one to be on the chop block in case of layoffs. Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > Sure, but... who wants to go back to the days of the early settlers "living" in such conditions? Those who want to have children. But I agree, people don't want children, they want other things in life. And fair enough. It is their life to live as they see fit. > many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing So they say. But really, they're just complaining about the housing situation using a device that they hope will pull on the right heart strings (and most likely are just repeating what they heard someone else say). Let's face it: Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care. > Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible. Or, perhaps, children were the contributors that made those things possible? We don't have to go too far back in history to find a time where adults were unable to survive without children. Being able to opt to not have children today is a luxury afforded to those well off (yes, that includes the middle class).