4 ms·

“Choose” is a strong word, as we simply don’t value parenthood (monetarily or culturally) as much as previous generations. And I can’t blame women in this scena

by kredd 3y ago

“Choose” is a strong word, as we simply don’t value parenthood (monetarily or culturally) as much as previous generations. And I can’t blame women in this scenario - rationally speaking, why would you sacrifice multiple years of your life, then go back to the work force to be inferior because of those missed years, and lose out on your youth at the same time? The usual answer of “because having children is eternal happiness” just doesn’t hold water anymore, because the opportunity loss of having a child has grown dramatically. Fortunately, you can have a fairly fulfilling life without having children as of today. And as the time goes, more childless people grow up which somewhat paves the way to the younger people without children. So, the spiral of low fertility continues, because again, we say we care about having a society full of children, but in reality, we don’t.

Thorrez 3y ago
>The usual answer of “because having children is eternal happiness” just doesn’t hold water anymore, because the opportunity loss of having a child has grown dramatically. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. How can the opportunity loss outweigh eternal happiness?
- jrflowers 3y ago
  This is a good question; if somebody tells you that something promises eternal happiness, how could you (or any person) compel yourself to not do that thing? The sheer amount of willpower it must take to overcome the unassailable truth of a statement phrased in that way boggles the mind of a low brow such as myself
  - kredd 3y ago
    Very easy when you subscribe to “if it’s too good to be true it probably is” belief.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      I’ve never heard of this phrase and I find it confusing. How could someone arrive at such a negative outlook when faced with infinite and undeniable proof of eternal happiness everywhere in the world?
      - kredd 3y ago
        Why negative? Not believing that there’s eternal happiness waiting in a corner doesn’t mean someone (well, me in this case) lives a depressing life. Quite the opposite, I’m genuinely satisfied with where I am right now. Everyone’s choices are subjective and involve different calculations. After all, happiness is subjective.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        >undeniable proof of eternal happiness I've seen enough families clearly miserable with each other to know that anyone who calls marriage and children "eternal happiness" is a fucking snake oil peddler trying to sell me a bridge.
- kredd 3y ago
  I meant that quote to be tongue-in-cheek, and out of reality. Should’ve been a bit more clear, my bad. When I was a kid, that’s how older people around me described what parenthood gives you (eternal happiness). Later on, as sad as it sounds, I realized that line can be used as a cope for people for whom parenthood didn’t work out for a lot of different reasons (loss of a child, kids not meeting your expectations, work stress, problems in your partnership, societal priorities and etc.). So you start weighing your risks, and some come to conclusion that having no children or just one is good enough. Then again, you get “you’ll never know until you experience it!” statements, and that still doesn’t cut it. Because, it’s really, genuinely good enough for some people, since you avoided most of the risks and enjoyed your life. Also as childless/small families age, they become a proof of concept to others how you really don’t need 3+ children (basically a requirement to be at the replacement level of the society). There’s also a huge underlying “everyone wants others to have children, but only care about their own children” issue. And as we’ve gotten more competitive in the society, the best way to play the game is not playing it. But that’s a different topic. Sorry for being a bit of a downer, but we talk about this with my friends quite often (late 20s-30s groups). And that’s generally how everyone feels - both men and women.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I relate heavily. I (Japanese-American male, if that matters) do not ever plan on marrying and thusly having children, life is far too short to deal with that literal bullshit when I have so many bigger fish to fry.
    - geraldwhen 3y ago
      What fish? Without kids, nothing matters. You’re just moving from one hedonistic pleasure to the next.
      - Hamuko 3y ago
        Oh no, not the pleasures!
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
carlosjobim 3y ago
"We"... You mean the rulers don't value parenthood. Of course not, because they need to squeeze as much productivity and profit from the younger generations they can before they (the rulers) die. Parenthood gets in the way for that, when the only priority should be to generate as much taxes and corporate profits as possible, and not snot-ridden kids. The reason for this is that all real estate value, 401K value and stock value gets transferred to the corresponding accounts in the afterlife, so you can understand why the older generation is in a hurry to get as much as they can. "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Matthew 13:12
giantg2 3y ago
There's risk for men as well, without much reward. Why would you risk becoming a father and being subjected to what many would feel is an unfair and costly family court system. I'm not sure what the benefit would be in a society that looks at you funny (as a threat) if you're the one taking your kid to playground, assuming your wife takes care of you (increasingly rare), etc. The expectations for men have changed and probably increased, the downsides have increased, but the stereotypes remain. "we say we care about having a society full of children, but in reality, we don’t." We only care that we have an increasing population to drive our consumer economy.
AdrianB1 3y ago
Today the "fulfilling life" is on the verge of disappearing. When most people don't have kids, like South Korea, when you get 60 years old you realize that there will be nobody to support you because there are not enough people left of working age. At 70 you can die of hunger not because you don't have the money for food, but there is nobody there to sell you the ingredients or deliver the order. You can import food, but it will not distribute itself. Electricity is not produced without people, drinking water need people, these people are your potential kids and grandkids when your are 70 years old and they are not there because you did not have any.
- kredd 3y ago
  That argument only works for people who care how they’ll live in their 60s/70s. There’s a morbid reality check in my circles (late 20s/30s) that the way our parents are living right now will never be obtainable for us (this includes friends with children as well). So might as well squeeze out life right now, at least have stories to tell to each other when we’re “dying of hunger in our 70s”. It’s not a scientific data point or anything, just bunch of friends shooting the shit and talking at the bar kind of stuff. I’m not saying it’s all doom and gloom in the future, but it’s simply a risk assessment. The usual semi-paradox of “if others don’t care about it, why should I”, but apply that to everyone in the world.
- badpun 3y ago
  The standard of living will go down for sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to predict people starving to death due to not enough workers producing food. More likely, we won't be going on vacations abroad, we'll be driving our cars for 20+ years, will be living in small houses or apartments.
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    We regularly get the labour shortage argument to push retirement age later and later. There's just one problem: if there's a labour shortage, where does the 10+% unemployment comes from? Can't be explained by unfulfilled positions either, we counted in France, there's one open position for 10 unemployed worker. And bloody hell, if push comes to shove, we can give up on optional niceties and reallocate labour to the more important stuff.
Gibbon1 3y ago
I think women will choose to have children if they can do it on their own terms. The problem is systematic gender roles and the (word hate ahead) patriarchy still score a bullseye when it comes to motherhood.

by kredd 3y ago

Thorrez 3y ago

>The usual answer of “because having children is eternal happiness” just doesn’t hold water anymore, because the opportunity loss of having a child has grown dramatically. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. How can the opportunity loss outweigh eternal happiness?

jrflowers 3y ago
This is a good question; if somebody tells you that something promises eternal happiness, how could you (or any person) compel yourself to not do that thing? The sheer amount of willpower it must take to overcome the unassailable truth of a statement phrased in that way boggles the mind of a low brow such as myself
- kredd 3y ago
  Very easy when you subscribe to “if it’s too good to be true it probably is” belief.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    I’ve never heard of this phrase and I find it confusing. How could someone arrive at such a negative outlook when faced with infinite and undeniable proof of eternal happiness everywhere in the world?
    - kredd 3y ago
      Why negative? Not believing that there’s eternal happiness waiting in a corner doesn’t mean someone (well, me in this case) lives a depressing life. Quite the opposite, I’m genuinely satisfied with where I am right now. Everyone’s choices are subjective and involve different calculations. After all, happiness is subjective.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      >undeniable proof of eternal happiness I've seen enough families clearly miserable with each other to know that anyone who calls marriage and children "eternal happiness" is a fucking snake oil peddler trying to sell me a bridge.
kredd 3y ago
I meant that quote to be tongue-in-cheek, and out of reality. Should’ve been a bit more clear, my bad. When I was a kid, that’s how older people around me described what parenthood gives you (eternal happiness). Later on, as sad as it sounds, I realized that line can be used as a cope for people for whom parenthood didn’t work out for a lot of different reasons (loss of a child, kids not meeting your expectations, work stress, problems in your partnership, societal priorities and etc.). So you start weighing your risks, and some come to conclusion that having no children or just one is good enough. Then again, you get “you’ll never know until you experience it!” statements, and that still doesn’t cut it. Because, it’s really, genuinely good enough for some people, since you avoided most of the risks and enjoyed your life. Also as childless/small families age, they become a proof of concept to others how you really don’t need 3+ children (basically a requirement to be at the replacement level of the society). There’s also a huge underlying “everyone wants others to have children, but only care about their own children” issue. And as we’ve gotten more competitive in the society, the best way to play the game is not playing it. But that’s a different topic. Sorry for being a bit of a downer, but we talk about this with my friends quite often (late 20s-30s groups). And that’s generally how everyone feels - both men and women.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I relate heavily. I (Japanese-American male, if that matters) do not ever plan on marrying and thusly having children, life is far too short to deal with that literal bullshit when I have so many bigger fish to fry.
  - geraldwhen 3y ago
    What fish? Without kids, nothing matters. You’re just moving from one hedonistic pleasure to the next.
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      Oh no, not the pleasures!
    - Dalewyn 3y ago

carlosjobim 3y ago

"We"... You mean the rulers don't value parenthood. Of course not, because they need to squeeze as much productivity and profit from the younger generations they can before they (the rulers) die. Parenthood gets in the way for that, when the only priority should be to generate as much taxes and corporate profits as possible, and not snot-ridden kids. The reason for this is that all real estate value, 401K value and stock value gets transferred to the corresponding accounts in the afterlife, so you can understand why the older generation is in a hurry to get as much as they can. "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Matthew 13:12

giantg2 3y ago

There's risk for men as well, without much reward. Why would you risk becoming a father and being subjected to what many would feel is an unfair and costly family court system. I'm not sure what the benefit would be in a society that looks at you funny (as a threat) if you're the one taking your kid to playground, assuming your wife takes care of you (increasingly rare), etc. The expectations for men have changed and probably increased, the downsides have increased, but the stereotypes remain. "we say we care about having a society full of children, but in reality, we don’t." We only care that we have an increasing population to drive our consumer economy.

AdrianB1 3y ago

Today the "fulfilling life" is on the verge of disappearing. When most people don't have kids, like South Korea, when you get 60 years old you realize that there will be nobody to support you because there are not enough people left of working age. At 70 you can die of hunger not because you don't have the money for food, but there is nobody there to sell you the ingredients or deliver the order. You can import food, but it will not distribute itself. Electricity is not produced without people, drinking water need people, these people are your potential kids and grandkids when your are 70 years old and they are not there because you did not have any.

kredd 3y ago
That argument only works for people who care how they’ll live in their 60s/70s. There’s a morbid reality check in my circles (late 20s/30s) that the way our parents are living right now will never be obtainable for us (this includes friends with children as well). So might as well squeeze out life right now, at least have stories to tell to each other when we’re “dying of hunger in our 70s”. It’s not a scientific data point or anything, just bunch of friends shooting the shit and talking at the bar kind of stuff. I’m not saying it’s all doom and gloom in the future, but it’s simply a risk assessment. The usual semi-paradox of “if others don’t care about it, why should I”, but apply that to everyone in the world.
badpun 3y ago
The standard of living will go down for sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to predict people starving to death due to not enough workers producing food. More likely, we won't be going on vacations abroad, we'll be driving our cars for 20+ years, will be living in small houses or apartments.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  We regularly get the labour shortage argument to push retirement age later and later. There's just one problem: if there's a labour shortage, where does the 10+% unemployment comes from? Can't be explained by unfulfilled positions either, we counted in France, there's one open position for 10 unemployed worker. And bloody hell, if push comes to shove, we can give up on optional niceties and reallocate labour to the more important stuff.

Gibbon1 3y ago

I think women will choose to have children if they can do it on their own terms. The problem is systematic gender roles and the (word hate ahead) patriarchy still score a bullseye when it comes to motherhood.