3 ms·

Something that might be worth pondering is: When was that ever not the case? Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 ki

Something that might be worth pondering is: When was that ever not the case? Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 kids and put most of them (the ones that even survived!) to work in mines and farms, were in a better situation? The discussion around cost is a red herring. If it really was about cost, we'd be seeing the upper middle class having children by the ton. Most of us here on HN would have 10 children each, because cost definitely isn't an issue for any well-paid software engineer or startup founder. I definitely think that you are right - this is definitely going to be a major crisis in the next few decades, and there needs to be a serious course correction, and -major- incentives for having kids. But I don't think it comes down to cost, for the most part. I think there are a number of other factors, but cost just ends up being a nice easy scapegoat because it sounds completely reasonable. Nobody can argue with it, not even oneself.

pjc50 2y ago
> Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 kids and put most of them (the ones that even survived!) This is the origin story of the contraceptive movement: either your population growth rate is contraception-limited, or it's death-limited. The latter is pretty horrific. > If it really was about cost, we'd be seeing the upper middle class having children by the ton The cost issue is even worse for everyone who isn't a rentier, because children need time, and the opportunity cost of that is higher the more you could be earning otherwise. (hmm: "7 points by pjc50 18 minutes ago [flagged]" I see it's going to be one of those days)
wongarsu 2y ago
In unindustrialized agriculture having a lot of children is a sound strategy. The first couple years they cost you food and time, but after that they are cheaper than employing workers, and they will even take care of you when you are too old to work the fields. And without modern healthcare a lot of them will die. If you want to make sure one of them inherits the farm (and provides for you if you manage to become old) you need to have enough children to achieve this at an acceptable level of risk.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Something that might be worth pondering is: When was that ever not the case? Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 kids and put most of them (the ones that even survived!) to work in mines and farms, were in a better situation? I mean... the answer to that is, it's complicated. If you're talking the peasantry bound to the land owned by a Lord in ye olden days, I would say they were certainly stressed out and barely getting by, but they were different stressors. If they didn't grow enough food to pay their owed amount to the person who effectively owned them, they would obviously be in a really bad situation. But at the same time, that's something they could work on and reasonably plan ahead for: it's an actionable stressor, if you will. It's certainly a problem but it's a problem you can actually do something about. In contrast, if you work in an industry that chronically underpays people, are saddled with various obligations, and are subject to extremely high costs of living, like, in theory you can try and get a better job maybe? But that's not nearly as actionable in general, and there's no guarantee that the better job is even out there, nor how many people you'd be competing with to get that better paying job. Sure, you have air conditioning, you have modern medical treatments, you have a whole host of things at your fingertips should you need them that those peasants wouldn't even dream of. But you also have a ton of stressors that are far more disconnected from your ability to solve them, that are down to systemic failures in our societies. > The discussion around cost is a red herring. If it really was about cost, we'd be seeing the upper middle class having children by the ton. That presumes that the upper middle class aren't also drowning in debt. I can't speak for everyone, but I assure you, I have the really nice house, relatively new vehicles, people would probably call me quite wealthy by the standards of the area I live in, and make no mistake, we're doing better than a lot of our neighbors, but I'm still like, three bad months from homelessness and that's definitely, along with the general trajectory of the world, one of the reasons why we're childfree. I know tons of people my age who are doing much worse than me, who also have decided against children, even if temporarily because they are so damned expensive and there's basically no support here for parents save for a tax credit.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Not to be obnoxiously judgemental here (and this is partly meant to be advice to any younger reader and not just address you specifically), but if you are upper middle class and the expense of buying fancy things limits you from having children, why not not do that? I've got two kids, we might still have more, and we live in a median (for the US) house and drive a basic 2017 Subaru that we bought used. We're saving to buy that really nice house in an upper class area, and our existing mortgage is already fully covered by our assets (not paying it off because of the interest rate). If I lost my job, it means we'd stop making progress toward upgrading, but we are always secure in our current position. Pretty much the first thing we did while younger and still renting was to establish a year of runway, and we've only grown that over time. We save like 2/3 of my income. Taxes are probably over half of our expenses. I realize it's annoying and preachy and privileged and all that, but if you're high income, the comfort and confidence you get from never overextending yourself is priceless, and you can still be quite comfortable.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I tend to agree that costs aren't the only factor. Poor people have always had kids, usually more than wealthier more secure families. I think the bigger question is why security is increasingly becoming an pre-requisite. I think it may have more to do with increasing cultural expectations we put on mothers and parents. There was a times were it seemed like these expectations were much lower than today. To hear it from friends born in the 40's to 60's, the typical duties of parents basically ended at providing a roof and two meals a day.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
It is cost, and it is more costly the wealthier you are because the opportunity costs are higher.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  This ignores the lower marginal utility of money as wealth increases (and increased marginal tax burden), and probably greater marginal "utility" of having children at higher levels of wealth (as you have more ability to spend time with them/don't need to be preoccupied with economic worries. e.g. my wife is a stay-at-home mom and I can work from home, so we get to spend a lot of time with our kids).

pjc50 2y ago

> Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 kids and put most of them (the ones that even survived!) This is the origin story of the contraceptive movement: either your population growth rate is contraception-limited, or it's death-limited. The latter is pretty horrific. > If it really was about cost, we'd be seeing the upper middle class having children by the ton The cost issue is even worse for everyone who isn't a rentier, because children need time, and the opportunity cost of that is higher the more you could be earning otherwise. (hmm: "7 points by pjc50 18 minutes ago [flagged]" I see it's going to be one of those days)

wongarsu 2y ago

In unindustrialized agriculture having a lot of children is a sound strategy. The first couple years they cost you food and time, but after that they are cheaper than employing workers, and they will even take care of you when you are too old to work the fields. And without modern healthcare a lot of them will die. If you want to make sure one of them inherits the farm (and provides for you if you manage to become old) you need to have enough children to achieve this at an acceptable level of risk.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> Something that might be worth pondering is: When was that ever not the case? Are we seriously saying that in the 1800s those poor desperate people who had 12 kids and put most of them (the ones that even survived!) to work in mines and farms, were in a better situation? I mean... the answer to that is, it's complicated. If you're talking the peasantry bound to the land owned by a Lord in ye olden days, I would say they were certainly stressed out and barely getting by, but they were different stressors. If they didn't grow enough food to pay their owed amount to the person who effectively owned them, they would obviously be in a really bad situation. But at the same time, that's something they could work on and reasonably plan ahead for: it's an actionable stressor, if you will. It's certainly a problem but it's a problem you can actually do something about. In contrast, if you work in an industry that chronically underpays people, are saddled with various obligations, and are subject to extremely high costs of living, like, in theory you can try and get a better job maybe? But that's not nearly as actionable in general, and there's no guarantee that the better job is even out there, nor how many people you'd be competing with to get that better paying job. Sure, you have air conditioning, you have modern medical treatments, you have a whole host of things at your fingertips should you need them that those peasants wouldn't even dream of. But you also have a ton of stressors that are far more disconnected from your ability to solve them, that are down to systemic failures in our societies. > The discussion around cost is a red herring. If it really was about cost, we'd be seeing the upper middle class having children by the ton. That presumes that the upper middle class aren't also drowning in debt. I can't speak for everyone, but I assure you, I have the really nice house, relatively new vehicles, people would probably call me quite wealthy by the standards of the area I live in, and make no mistake, we're doing better than a lot of our neighbors, but I'm still like, three bad months from homelessness and that's definitely, along with the general trajectory of the world, one of the reasons why we're childfree. I know tons of people my age who are doing much worse than me, who also have decided against children, even if temporarily because they are so damned expensive and there's basically no support here for parents save for a tax credit.

ndriscoll 2y ago
Not to be obnoxiously judgemental here (and this is partly meant to be advice to any younger reader and not just address you specifically), but if you are upper middle class and the expense of buying fancy things limits you from having children, why not not do that? I've got two kids, we might still have more, and we live in a median (for the US) house and drive a basic 2017 Subaru that we bought used. We're saving to buy that really nice house in an upper class area, and our existing mortgage is already fully covered by our assets (not paying it off because of the interest rate). If I lost my job, it means we'd stop making progress toward upgrading, but we are always secure in our current position. Pretty much the first thing we did while younger and still renting was to establish a year of runway, and we've only grown that over time. We save like 2/3 of my income. Taxes are probably over half of our expenses. I realize it's annoying and preachy and privileged and all that, but if you're high income, the comfort and confidence you get from never overextending yourself is priceless, and you can still be quite comfortable.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I tend to agree that costs aren't the only factor. Poor people have always had kids, usually more than wealthier more secure families. I think the bigger question is why security is increasingly becoming an pre-requisite. I think it may have more to do with increasing cultural expectations we put on mothers and parents. There was a times were it seemed like these expectations were much lower than today. To hear it from friends born in the 40's to 60's, the typical duties of parents basically ended at providing a roof and two meals a day.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

It is cost, and it is more costly the wealthier you are because the opportunity costs are higher.

ndriscoll 2y ago
This ignores the lower marginal utility of money as wealth increases (and increased marginal tax burden), and probably greater marginal "utility" of having children at higher levels of wealth (as you have more ability to spend time with them/don't need to be preoccupied with economic worries. e.g. my wife is a stay-at-home mom and I can work from home, so we get to spend a lot of time with our kids).