3 ms·

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

by jjk166 2y ago

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
      Sure, it probably wouldn't be too expensive to achieve a typical 1924 quality of life, it would be even cheaper to achieve an 1824 quality of life, but it should be deeply alarming that a typical 1994 quality of life is out of reach. Again, you used to be able to have healthcare, and a cellphone, and electronics, and a car, and all these other things (all of which were much more expensive to produce at the time) while simultaneously comfortably raising a family. A nice home in a good area was once a staple of the middle class, not a luxury for the elites. We didn't sacrifice having children to improve our quality of life elsewhere, technological development has allowed us to keep our material possessions as we get poorer and poorer, while the costs of life that can't be reduced through technology - real estate, education, child care, etc - skyrocket.
      - s1artibartfast 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.

by 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
    Sure, it probably wouldn't be too expensive to achieve a typical 1924 quality of life, it would be even cheaper to achieve an 1824 quality of life, but it should be deeply alarming that a typical 1994 quality of life is out of reach. Again, you used to be able to have healthcare, and a cellphone, and electronics, and a car, and all these other things (all of which were much more expensive to produce at the time) while simultaneously comfortably raising a family. A nice home in a good area was once a staple of the middle class, not a luxury for the elites. We didn't sacrifice having children to improve our quality of life elsewhere, technological development has allowed us to keep our material possessions as we get poorer and poorer, while the costs of life that can't be reduced through technology - real estate, education, child care, etc - skyrocket.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago