4 ms·

Over and over this is repeated, but wages are not the reason for decline in birth rates IMO. Talk to your friends, they might verbally say 'money', but then yo

Over and over this is repeated, but wages are not the reason for decline in birth rates IMO. Talk to your friends, they might verbally say 'money', but then you see them go on trips and buy food at restaurants. Its much easier socially to say 'money', than 'I don't like/want kids'. The only reason I have a ton of kids, is because I am planning on setting them up for political purposes as I play Dynasty. Its selfish, and I hope to make lots of money and power from them. No one else has this mentality. The better question is: "Why does someone want kids?" Given most people are hedonists(assumed). Would a hedonist want kids? Maybe. They are cute which is dopamine inducing. But less fancy food and lots of crying pains.

baseballdork 2y ago
> Talk to your friends, they might verbally say 'money', but then you see them go on trips and buy food at restaurants. Its much easier socially to say 'money', than 'I don't like/want kids'. Going on trips and eating out are luxuries some can afford because they don't have children...
jjk166 2y ago
There was a time, not that long ago, when going on trips and eating at restaurants was not mutually exclusive with having kids.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Depends on the restaurant. I'm apparently the only white family that will bring my kids to an Indian restaurant in this city. Once in a while I'll see kids with their India family, but all the other customers are adults who seem to think Indian restaurants are not for kids. (the staff seems to agree that they are serving family friendly food - it is what they ate growing up)
  - jjk166 2y ago
    That sounds less like a money issue and more a cultural thing.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      exactly, many places are not welcoming of kids.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  There was a time, not that long ago, where going on trips and eating at restaurants were not affordable for 90% of people, but they still had kids. This is clearly a multifaceted topic.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    No, these are two different topics. Travel and food became less expensive because technology advances. This is what we'd expect to happen and has nothing to do with kids. We got to the point where travel, food, and child rearing were all readily affordable things. Now it is no longer the case. Our technological ability to travel or produce food has not diminished, indeed these things are cheaper than ever. The cost of child rearing, relative to people's earnings, has gone up.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think that's an interesting thought, but would frame it a little bit differently. I'm not sure the true cost of child rearing has increased in the bare minimum requirements are still quite cheap. Instead, I think there's been an escalation of expectation or perceived minimum around both child rearing and material life. It would be fascinating to read or perform a study looking at what it would cost to obtain the median material conditions of life from say 1924. I would expect it would be quite cheap. I imagine a tiny house smaller than modern apartments located in a rural area. There would be no healthcare, cell phone, Electronics, or car. If these were the expectations, I think it is still very possible to support the family and children on a single income. Edit: I found this awesome USDA guide from 1934 for how to set up a substance farm on 1 acre. https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/subsistence/item/29#:~:text=About%201%20acre%20of%20good,work%20will%20not%20be%20excessive https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/su.... Im partial to layout 1, for land north of the Mason-Dixon line, where average quality farmland is about 11k/acre: https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/files/original/5e60c2119aed5902abc3aeaf12f065df.jpg https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/files/original/5...
      - jjk166 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head with hedonism as a root cause, particularly happiness utilitarianism in my mind. There are lots of sentimental reasons a romantic might have kids even if it makes them less happy. In our current culture, sentimental and romantic are synonymous with stupid or foolish.
themikesanto 2y ago
Is this a novelty account? The comment + username makes it feel like it, but I'm not used to seeing this type of poster on HN.

baseballdork 2y ago

> Talk to your friends, they might verbally say 'money', but then you see them go on trips and buy food at restaurants. Its much easier socially to say 'money', than 'I don't like/want kids'. Going on trips and eating out are luxuries some can afford because they don't have children...

jjk166 2y ago

There was a time, not that long ago, when going on trips and eating at restaurants was not mutually exclusive with having kids.

bluGill 2y ago
Depends on the restaurant. I'm apparently the only white family that will bring my kids to an Indian restaurant in this city. Once in a while I'll see kids with their India family, but all the other customers are adults who seem to think Indian restaurants are not for kids. (the staff seems to agree that they are serving family friendly food - it is what they ate growing up)
- jjk166 2y ago
  That sounds less like a money issue and more a cultural thing.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    exactly, many places are not welcoming of kids.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
There was a time, not that long ago, where going on trips and eating at restaurants were not affordable for 90% of people, but they still had kids. This is clearly a multifaceted topic.
- jjk166 2y ago
  No, these are two different topics. Travel and food became less expensive because technology advances. This is what we'd expect to happen and has nothing to do with kids. We got to the point where travel, food, and child rearing were all readily affordable things. Now it is no longer the case. Our technological ability to travel or produce food has not diminished, indeed these things are cheaper than ever. The cost of child rearing, relative to people's earnings, has gone up.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think that's an interesting thought, but would frame it a little bit differently. I'm not sure the true cost of child rearing has increased in the bare minimum requirements are still quite cheap. Instead, I think there's been an escalation of expectation or perceived minimum around both child rearing and material life. It would be fascinating to read or perform a study looking at what it would cost to obtain the median material conditions of life from say 1924. I would expect it would be quite cheap. I imagine a tiny house smaller than modern apartments located in a rural area. There would be no healthcare, cell phone, Electronics, or car. If these were the expectations, I think it is still very possible to support the family and children on a single income. Edit: I found this awesome USDA guide from 1934 for how to set up a substance farm on 1 acre. https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/subsistence/item/29#:~:text=About%201%20acre%20of%20good,work%20will%20not%20be%20excessive https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/exhibits/show/su.... Im partial to layout 1, for land north of the Mason-Dixon line, where average quality farmland is about 11k/acre: https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/files/original/5e60c2119aed5902abc3aeaf12f065df.jpg https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/ipd/small/files/original/5...
    - jjk166 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head with hedonism as a root cause, particularly happiness utilitarianism in my mind. There are lots of sentimental reasons a romantic might have kids even if it makes them less happy. In our current culture, sentimental and romantic are synonymous with stupid or foolish.

themikesanto 2y ago

Is this a novelty account? The comment + username makes it feel like it, but I'm not used to seeing this type of poster on HN.