3 ms·

I think they were making a more general point that the article may be taking a overly simplistic view of the "costs of child-rearing". If a mother feeds and ca

I think they were making a more general point that the article may be taking a overly simplistic view of the "costs of child-rearing". If a mother feeds and cares for children, that can be viewed as a cost of children to her. If a man works to feed and house those same children, surely that is a cost of children to me. I suspect part of the problem is a generation of people raised with just enough economics knowledge to be dangerous, with life viewed through lenses of cost, profit and risk instead of joy, experience, and sentimentalism.

tivert 2y ago
> I suspect part of the problem is a generation of people raised with just enough economics knowledge to be dangerous, with life viewed through lenses of cost, profit and risk instead of joy, experience, and sentimentalism. IMHO, I think that's part of the problem, but I feel that it's more than "just enough economics knowledge to be dangerous." That knowledge definitely interferes with the ability to analyze the problem, but I don't think it's the main or only thing going on. You could probably add something like "individualism" to the left hand side and something like "duty" to the right to get closer.