4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    People living where the standard for middle class families is fewer than seven children usually find having seven children to be expensive, leading to dips in standards of living. They do not want to live at the standard of the average seven children Nigerien family. Certainly, if they were able to have seven children and still be comfortable, that might be an option, but then they would no longer be considered middle class. > You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger? We are not talking about having no children. We are talking about why people might have one or two children instead of more. The focus of this conversation is on costs of living, of which housing is the chief expense. More children means more space means more cost.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > More children means more space means more cost. Yet, hilariously, the average home size keeps on growing. Where I live, the average home built today is 25% larger than in 1990 and 100%+ larger than the average house prior to 1950. There is a pretty strong inverse correlation between family size and housing size – as families get smaller, houses get bigger. It seems people have no trouble bearing the cost of larger housing. They just don't want to fill them with people. Again, because people don't want the children. Why would they? You don't need the 'mule' anymore. Rich people can hire someone else from outside of the family to do the work. Today, you don't need a kid slaving away in the kitchen to ensure you are fed, you can simply go to McDonalds.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        A cursory glance as to why housing might be increasing while family sizes are not mentions that an 87.4% increase over the past two decades in Americans aged 25–34 living at home in 2021. With more adult children living with aged parents, the need in space is understandably different from those of young children. And one would reason those adult kids are at home because of economic reasons, thus casting doubt that there is an equal increase in wealth at all levels of society. https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigger-while-households-shrink/ https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigge... Also, while past generations may have expected much from children in terms of work, I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
> 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. Quite a cynical reply. Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. And the child will prefer better lodging after a single sleepover with the neighbor kids.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. Sure, so as you point out there is absolutely no reason why you can't have children, even if you are in the most dire of straights[1]. As you point out, other people will happily help you out with those children if you are struggling to make it on your own. The only reason to not have children is because you don't want them. Anything else is a lame excuse. [1] Of course, we're specifically talking about middle class people here. Middle class people don't live in tents. They live in comparatively large houses that are far bigger than would ever be necessary to raise many children. Even if they wanted to live in smaller houses, must jurisdictions don't allow it.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    I think there are fewer of these childless and middle class people in giant houses than you believe.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Interesting that you believe a “comparatively large” house is the same thing as a giant house. I guess that’s why the average home built today is ~100% bigger than an average home built 100 years earlier - ironically, when people actually had large families. No concept of what large even is.

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.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  People living where the standard for middle class families is fewer than seven children usually find having seven children to be expensive, leading to dips in standards of living. They do not want to live at the standard of the average seven children Nigerien family. Certainly, if they were able to have seven children and still be comfortable, that might be an option, but then they would no longer be considered middle class. > You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger? We are not talking about having no children. We are talking about why people might have one or two children instead of more. The focus of this conversation is on costs of living, of which housing is the chief expense. More children means more space means more cost.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > More children means more space means more cost. Yet, hilariously, the average home size keeps on growing. Where I live, the average home built today is 25% larger than in 1990 and 100%+ larger than the average house prior to 1950. There is a pretty strong inverse correlation between family size and housing size – as families get smaller, houses get bigger. It seems people have no trouble bearing the cost of larger housing. They just don't want to fill them with people. Again, because people don't want the children. Why would they? You don't need the 'mule' anymore. Rich people can hire someone else from outside of the family to do the work. Today, you don't need a kid slaving away in the kitchen to ensure you are fed, you can simply go to McDonalds.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      A cursory glance as to why housing might be increasing while family sizes are not mentions that an 87.4% increase over the past two decades in Americans aged 25–34 living at home in 2021. With more adult children living with aged parents, the need in space is understandably different from those of young children. And one would reason those adult kids are at home because of economic reasons, thus casting doubt that there is an equal increase in wealth at all levels of society. https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigger-while-households-shrink/ https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigge... Also, while past generations may have expected much from children in terms of work, I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

> 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. Quite a cynical reply. Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. And the child will prefer better lodging after a single sleepover with the neighbor kids.

randomdata 3y ago
> Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. Sure, so as you point out there is absolutely no reason why you can't have children, even if you are in the most dire of straights[1]. As you point out, other people will happily help you out with those children if you are struggling to make it on your own. The only reason to not have children is because you don't want them. Anything else is a lame excuse. [1] Of course, we're specifically talking about middle class people here. Middle class people don't live in tents. They live in comparatively large houses that are far bigger than would ever be necessary to raise many children. Even if they wanted to live in smaller houses, must jurisdictions don't allow it.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  I think there are fewer of these childless and middle class people in giant houses than you believe.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Interesting that you believe a “comparatively large” house is the same thing as a giant house. I guess that’s why the average home built today is ~100% bigger than an average home built 100 years earlier - ironically, when people actually had large families. No concept of what large even is.