4 ms·

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

by 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
    What do you think stops us from going back to 1994 material conditions and costs? Population is a big one that is a pretty big non-starter. Urbanization would be difficult. Housing and zoning codes might be possible. Childcare regulations is possible but unpopular. Lowering taxes to 1994 levels is possible, but unpopular.

by jjk166 2y ago

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
  What do you think stops us from going back to 1994 material conditions and costs? Population is a big one that is a pretty big non-starter. Urbanization would be difficult. Housing and zoning codes might be possible. Childcare regulations is possible but unpopular. Lowering taxes to 1994 levels is possible, but unpopular.