6 ms·

> 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

> 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).
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    People want their children to have good standards of living, too. Certainly there is a sense that bringing out a child to live in squalid conditions is irresponsible, even reprehensible, no? > 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 was when children helped on the farm or with odd jobs to earn extra income. You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws, not luxury or even class. > Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care. This is just hyperbole on verge of trolling. Yes, those kids in Dorothea Lange photos sure look like they're having a good time.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > People want their children to have good standards of living, too. The average woman in Niger will have seven children. Clearly that's a good enough standard of living, else they would have no children by your logic. You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger? And if not, how do you explain your parents? That means they had no trouble bringing you into a horrible existence. Something doesn't quite add up here. > You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws I agree that industrialization was the catalyst that made everyone richer, allowing them to no longer need children to support them. In the first world, even the poorest people are much, much, much richer today than rich people were in earlier times.
MomoXenosaga 3y ago
People feel like their children deserve things in life which requires financial stability. Poor people having kids is seen as asshole behaviour. Just having your children learning to swim costs 1000 euro!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > Just having your children learning to swim costs 1000 euro! I can't speak for anything outside the US, but here in the states we have lakes and rivers that do just fine for teaching kids to swim.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Logically, yes, but the parent comment is saying that you have to contend with Mrs. Busy Body who won't be happy seeing your children in the "unsafe" lakes and rivers. You're considered an "asshole" if your kids are anything more than porcelain dolls to show off to guests. Letting kids be kids is unthinkable in this day of age. Poor people aren't apt to care if someone thinks they are an asshole, but the middle class people we're talking about feel like they have to keep up appearances for some reason. And, so, they miss out on having children they claim they want because of it. Strange, but that's people for ya. They don't put much thought into things.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      > Logically, yes, but the parent comment is saying that you have to contend with Mrs. Busy Body who won't be happy seeing your children in the "unsafe" lakes and rivers. You're considered an "asshole" if your kids are anything more than porcelain dolls to show off to guests. Letting kids be kids is unthinkable in this day of age. whoever thinks this is true is either in a thought bubble or have surrounded themselves with shitty people. none of this is anywhere near true for me, but I live in flyover country. Who knows, perhaps we're lucky that the dicks fly over rather than land and stay.

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).
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  People want their children to have good standards of living, too. Certainly there is a sense that bringing out a child to live in squalid conditions is irresponsible, even reprehensible, no? > 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 was when children helped on the farm or with odd jobs to earn extra income. You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws, not luxury or even class. > Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care. This is just hyperbole on verge of trolling. Yes, those kids in Dorothea Lange photos sure look like they're having a good time.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > People want their children to have good standards of living, too. The average woman in Niger will have seven children. Clearly that's a good enough standard of living, else they would have no children by your logic. You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger? And if not, how do you explain your parents? That means they had no trouble bringing you into a horrible existence. Something doesn't quite add up here. > You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws I agree that industrialization was the catalyst that made everyone richer, allowing them to no longer need children to support them. In the first world, even the poorest people are much, much, much richer today than rich people were in earlier times.

MomoXenosaga 3y ago

People feel like their children deserve things in life which requires financial stability. Poor people having kids is seen as asshole behaviour. Just having your children learning to swim costs 1000 euro!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Just having your children learning to swim costs 1000 euro! I can't speak for anything outside the US, but here in the states we have lakes and rivers that do just fine for teaching kids to swim.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Logically, yes, but the parent comment is saying that you have to contend with Mrs. Busy Body who won't be happy seeing your children in the "unsafe" lakes and rivers. You're considered an "asshole" if your kids are anything more than porcelain dolls to show off to guests. Letting kids be kids is unthinkable in this day of age. Poor people aren't apt to care if someone thinks they are an asshole, but the middle class people we're talking about feel like they have to keep up appearances for some reason. And, so, they miss out on having children they claim they want because of it. Strange, but that's people for ya. They don't put much thought into things.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > Logically, yes, but the parent comment is saying that you have to contend with Mrs. Busy Body who won't be happy seeing your children in the "unsafe" lakes and rivers. You're considered an "asshole" if your kids are anything more than porcelain dolls to show off to guests. Letting kids be kids is unthinkable in this day of age. whoever thinks this is true is either in a thought bubble or have surrounded themselves with shitty people. none of this is anywhere near true for me, but I live in flyover country. Who knows, perhaps we're lucky that the dicks fly over rather than land and stay.