6 ms·

I think we very rapidly went from a world with high child mortality rates, no access to birth control and children being at least moderately useful on the farm

I think we very rapidly went from a world with high child mortality rates, no access to birth control and children being at least moderately useful on the farm or doing some other work quite young to a world where having children is both a choice and very very expensive. This happened depending on where you live in the course of 1-3 generations. We are still grappling with how you incentivize and promote parenthood when the future costs of each child are 6 figues.

pjc50 1y ago
Also from a world where the ability of women to access decently paying jobs outside the home was heavily restricted to one approaching equality. Motherhood is one choice of many, with negative pay.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Right, the numbers can be a real mess / rich people problems if you have two relatively high paying earners in a household. My parents baby boomer generation maybe the wife was college educated and worked, but the pay wasn't necessarily great AND the cost of childcare wasn't as insane as it is today. In many HCOL/VHCOL areas, people tend to not live near parents anymore so they lose free childcare, and then between tax & number of kids in childcare.. very well paying 6 figure jobs are basically just treading water for 5-10 years. It leaves families with a a hard choice of heaving the lower paid spouse leave the workforce which helps kids and in short term makes economic sense, but ruins future savings for college/retirement prospects as its hard to re-enter the workplace after 5-10 years. My own mother was in nursing, left workforce for ~20 years and returned working a retail job. My mother in law educated in accounting left the workplace for similar length of time and returned to nonprofit work. Both of them had degrees that didn't cost 1/10th of what it does today so it wasn't as bad as it sounds. By comparison my wife's student loans weren't fully paid off until we were 35.
  - sseagull 1y ago
    Spot on, but this in particular > people tend to not live near parents anymore so they lose free childcare For some reason I don't see this mentioned as often, but I've always felt it a significant root cause (among many of course). Childcare is really expensive, but it used to be "free". I grew up with grandparents/aunts/uncles/older cousins available to baby sit me. But now very much of my cohort have moved away from our home region for better jobs. My nearest family is a 4 hour drive away. Combine this with a strong individuality streak (less reliance on neighbors and community) and you have to turn to very expensive childcare. Raising children without that support is very daunting, at least to me.
    - steveBK123 1y ago
      It fits with everything in the rich world, especially the west, especially the US which is - replacing family/community/social/etc systems with pay-as-you-go solutions. And this is one of many areas it falls apart.
      - spacemadness 1y ago
        One of the major unspoken costs of having hotbeds of industry and the opportunity cost associated for not being in those hotbeds. Hotbeds are great for the entrepreneur but it still costs a hell of a lot in other ways that would otherwise enrich society.
alabastervlog 1y ago
Worse: the costs are front-loaded and (all but) must come early-ish in your life. The opportunity cost—the shadow, if you will, that the cost of children casts on your future retirement savings—is enormous. It’s way larger than the nominal cost. Big ouch.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  I feel like the costs are U-shaped.. 0-5 childcare, then 18-22 college right?
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    Kinda. I dunno, I had a job and went to a cheap college.
  - kaibee 1y ago
    6-17, the time to actually raise them. It ain't like just because the kid 7 you can leave them at home while both parents go to work.
    - steveBK123 1y ago
      Right right, but purely mechanically in terms of number of hours in school / after school activities / clubs / sports.. you could most easily have two working parents during that age range.
      - trust_bt_verify 1y ago
        > ‘most easily’ Seems like you may be underestimating how much work kids, even at elementary age, can be.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    College is quite cheap in many, many parts of the world where birth rates are still quite low - specifically in most of Europe, but also in Japan, Korea, at least compared to the USA.
le-mark 1y ago
> We are still grappling with how you incentivize and promote parenthood when the future costs of each child are 6 figues. Six figures? False because poor people have been having children forever and continue too.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  It's all relative to your own status. Everyone wants their kids to do better than they did. But, if you are poor enough in a rich country, you have lower absolute aspirations for your own children / you probably get child related government benefits that approach your costs / etc. If you went to college and want your kids to do the same.. the costs are enormous.
- Kivern7 1y ago
  Children are an asset for net tax-recipients, but a liability for net tax-payers. I grew up in a very poor area and heard firsthand teenage girls excited over how much welfare money they can receive for babies. It's an inversion of the natural order. It's state-manipulated breeding incentives between different classes of people. It's literally eugenics.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Children are a massive asset for tax-payers. Money is a claim on the production of a country. Without that production, money is just a useless piece of paper or useless entry in a bank database. And for a country to produce, it needs people of working age. More concretely, let's suppose you're 92 and you need full time nursing care. You still have retirements savings so should be able to pay for it. Now let's say there are more people needing nursing than there are nurses. What happens to the cost of that nursing? It goes up until some cannot afford to pay and demand balances supply. Without a working age population, your retirement assets will be inflated away into worthlessness.
    - steveBK123 1y ago
      Yes at a society level, but individual parents bare the costs. So far rich world governments and individuals haven't found an optimal incentive/cost share ...

pjc50 1y ago

Also from a world where the ability of women to access decently paying jobs outside the home was heavily restricted to one approaching equality. Motherhood is one choice of many, with negative pay.

steveBK123 1y ago
Right, the numbers can be a real mess / rich people problems if you have two relatively high paying earners in a household. My parents baby boomer generation maybe the wife was college educated and worked, but the pay wasn't necessarily great AND the cost of childcare wasn't as insane as it is today. In many HCOL/VHCOL areas, people tend to not live near parents anymore so they lose free childcare, and then between tax & number of kids in childcare.. very well paying 6 figure jobs are basically just treading water for 5-10 years. It leaves families with a a hard choice of heaving the lower paid spouse leave the workforce which helps kids and in short term makes economic sense, but ruins future savings for college/retirement prospects as its hard to re-enter the workplace after 5-10 years. My own mother was in nursing, left workforce for ~20 years and returned working a retail job. My mother in law educated in accounting left the workplace for similar length of time and returned to nonprofit work. Both of them had degrees that didn't cost 1/10th of what it does today so it wasn't as bad as it sounds. By comparison my wife's student loans weren't fully paid off until we were 35.
- sseagull 1y ago
  Spot on, but this in particular > people tend to not live near parents anymore so they lose free childcare For some reason I don't see this mentioned as often, but I've always felt it a significant root cause (among many of course). Childcare is really expensive, but it used to be "free". I grew up with grandparents/aunts/uncles/older cousins available to baby sit me. But now very much of my cohort have moved away from our home region for better jobs. My nearest family is a 4 hour drive away. Combine this with a strong individuality streak (less reliance on neighbors and community) and you have to turn to very expensive childcare. Raising children without that support is very daunting, at least to me.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    It fits with everything in the rich world, especially the west, especially the US which is - replacing family/community/social/etc systems with pay-as-you-go solutions. And this is one of many areas it falls apart.
    - spacemadness 1y ago
      One of the major unspoken costs of having hotbeds of industry and the opportunity cost associated for not being in those hotbeds. Hotbeds are great for the entrepreneur but it still costs a hell of a lot in other ways that would otherwise enrich society.

alabastervlog 1y ago

Worse: the costs are front-loaded and (all but) must come early-ish in your life. The opportunity cost—the shadow, if you will, that the cost of children casts on your future retirement savings—is enormous. It’s way larger than the nominal cost. Big ouch.

steveBK123 1y ago
I feel like the costs are U-shaped.. 0-5 childcare, then 18-22 college right?
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  Kinda. I dunno, I had a job and went to a cheap college.
- kaibee 1y ago
  6-17, the time to actually raise them. It ain't like just because the kid 7 you can leave them at home while both parents go to work.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Right right, but purely mechanically in terms of number of hours in school / after school activities / clubs / sports.. you could most easily have two working parents during that age range.
    - trust_bt_verify 1y ago
      > ‘most easily’ Seems like you may be underestimating how much work kids, even at elementary age, can be.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  College is quite cheap in many, many parts of the world where birth rates are still quite low - specifically in most of Europe, but also in Japan, Korea, at least compared to the USA.

le-mark 1y ago

> We are still grappling with how you incentivize and promote parenthood when the future costs of each child are 6 figues. Six figures? False because poor people have been having children forever and continue too.

steveBK123 1y ago
It's all relative to your own status. Everyone wants their kids to do better than they did. But, if you are poor enough in a rich country, you have lower absolute aspirations for your own children / you probably get child related government benefits that approach your costs / etc. If you went to college and want your kids to do the same.. the costs are enormous.
Kivern7 1y ago
Children are an asset for net tax-recipients, but a liability for net tax-payers. I grew up in a very poor area and heard firsthand teenage girls excited over how much welfare money they can receive for babies. It's an inversion of the natural order. It's state-manipulated breeding incentives between different classes of people. It's literally eugenics.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Children are a massive asset for tax-payers. Money is a claim on the production of a country. Without that production, money is just a useless piece of paper or useless entry in a bank database. And for a country to produce, it needs people of working age. More concretely, let's suppose you're 92 and you need full time nursing care. You still have retirements savings so should be able to pay for it. Now let's say there are more people needing nursing than there are nurses. What happens to the cost of that nursing? It goes up until some cannot afford to pay and demand balances supply. Without a working age population, your retirement assets will be inflated away into worthlessness.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Yes at a society level, but individual parents bare the costs. So far rich world governments and individuals haven't found an optimal incentive/cost share ...