3 ms·
Having kids often meant you have more free labour. Then it was just an affordable nice to have. Now it's a huge expense.
by ImHereToVote 2y ago
Having kids often meant you have more free labour. Then it was just an affordable nice to have. Now it's a huge expense.
- tonymet 2y ago"kids are a huge expense" is not an economics issue it's a philosophical issue. If you fall into a river, it's a huge expense to send a helicopter . The decision to save your life is not economical, it's ethical.
- ImHereToVote 2y agoSo it's an ethical issue on what you want or don't want to do? Or is it an ethical issue of what you do actually do, regardless of your wants?
- tonymet 2y agoIt's about what the population values and how that influences their decision about having kids.
- ImHereToVote 2y agoSure, but you can't discount the financial incentives giving rise to huge birthrates in the countryside a hundred years ago.
- tonymet 2y agothey are insignificant compared to cultural factors when you look at the huge variation in means across history and in various locales. You have every variant of wealth and poverty leading to both increasing and decreasing birthrates so another culprit must be the factor. it just isn't true that people are primarily motivated by money.
- ImHereToVote 2y agoThey are motivated by well being. If the value of your work depreciates at a constant rate and housing becomes more unaffordable, then this creates a scenario of an uncertain future. Having kids adds a multiplier to that uncertainty. This wasn't always the case.