7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > And one would reason those adult kids are at home because of economic reasons No doubt. Poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life. There weren't enough resources found "at home" to support multiple adult generations. But when one is rich, they don't have to set out unto the world. They can bring the resources to where they already are. > I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility. Alone? Probably not. Alongside a parent? Most definitely. There wasn't enough time in the day to get everything done if you didn't have their help. I will also note that rich people today also have modern kitchen appliances to further replace those children, so even if you're not going to McDonalds, you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done. So, again, no need for the 'mule'.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        Historically multi-generation homes are the norm, so that would put assertions like “poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life” into grave doubt. > you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done That recontextualizes your earlier statements, which are made even more dubious. Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”

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.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > And one would reason those adult kids are at home because of economic reasons No doubt. Poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life. There weren't enough resources found "at home" to support multiple adult generations. But when one is rich, they don't have to set out unto the world. They can bring the resources to where they already are. > I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility. Alone? Probably not. Alongside a parent? Most definitely. There wasn't enough time in the day to get everything done if you didn't have their help. I will also note that rich people today also have modern kitchen appliances to further replace those children, so even if you're not going to McDonalds, you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done. So, again, no need for the 'mule'.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Historically multi-generation homes are the norm, so that would put assertions like “poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life” into grave doubt. > you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done That recontextualizes your earlier statements, which are made even more dubious. Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”