6 ms·

We have socialized the gains of children (via their adult tax receipt used to pay for benefits and healthcare) but (largely) privatized the costs of children so

We have socialized the gains of children (via their adult tax receipt used to pay for benefits and healthcare) but (largely) privatized the costs of children solely onto their parents. In the modern world, if you do not have children, but instead save your income in a retirement fund, you have an even better claim to the labor of the next generation than the childrens' parents through your increased retirement fund. Privatized X matched with socialized anti-X is the classic condition for a moral hazard to emerge.

CalRobert 1y ago
Good point - I also think we have a race to the bottom w.r.t housing. When homes were abundant one income could support a household (ish). Then we added more women to the workforce at the same time NIMBYism took hold and peer competition meant you needed two incomes. Then fewer people had kids and you needed two stressed out incomes without the expense (in time and money) of kids to support one. Hell, the “who’s hiring” thread sometimes has companies talking about massive overtime being expected, hard to raise a kid like that. Perhaps in time we’ll see more polycule formation driven by housing costs… (These are all on average of course, there are still high earners who manage)
- ponector 1y ago
  Average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 50 years. Price per square foot is pretty much the same as decades before (adjusted for inflation). Isn't it the abundance of housing? >>When homes were abundant one income could support a household Was it the case, though? Could one income support household with 3000sq ft house, big new truck and college for each kid back then?
  - CalRobert 1y ago
    No, but it also is much harder to buy smaller homes (especially townhouses, etc.), and you didn't actually need a vehicle nearly as much as you do now. The NIMBYs I mentioned made it much harder to have a decent ~1200 sqft home where your family needed one (or no) vehicle for their daily life. College is actually another good example- sending more people to college mostly just meant everyone else _also_ needed to go to college in order to compete with their peers for jobs that didn't used to require a degree. We can see this across borders - jobs that require a bachelor's in the US often require a master's in Europe, because too many people in Europe have master's degrees compared to the number of jobs that should actually need one.
    - jltsiren 1y ago
      People often have master's degrees in Europe, because master's has been the primary university degree since the middle ages. Bachelor's degrees only started becoming popular in most European countries with the Bologna Process ~20 years ago. And the industry hesitated accepting them for a long time, often considering them little more than glorified dropouts.
      - CalRobert 1y ago
        Interesting! Sounds like European industry imposes enormous unnecessary costs (especially opportunity cost) on new entrants.
        watwut 1y ago
        You did not went into massive debt for life for that. One bit difference is that European system did not had first three years of college as "life experience, basically generic study without specialization, basically another high school" thing. You picked a field and studied that one. And that was structured as five years old study. If you are in the middle, you are eligible for the same positions as those who did not study at all - because you are not qualified yet.
        CalRobert 1y ago
        It’s getting more expensive, but I was mostly thinking of opportunity cost
        watwut 1y ago
        In that system, demanding bachelor is the opportunity cost. Because basically there should be a trade school for that. Like a nurse - before you would go to nursing high school and become qualified nurse there. The new demand to have bachelor made studies longer and did not brought higher quality nor was needed. Same with kindergarten teachers. Same with basic administration etc. What actually happened was whole bunch of positions that did not required university suddenly formally requiring it. And half baked school programs to get you diploma. And 40-50 years old people going to diploma mills so that they can be formally better competitive apply to positions that required only high school before.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > Isn't it the abundance of housing? You also need to consider the distribution of housing sizes. The average being driven up by rural or suburban McMansions is not representative of the conditions of million of people living in large cities.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Homelessness rates say opposite. What that say there is inequality
    - ponector 1y ago
      Homelessness is not related to the housing prices. With any job one can afford to rent a room. Homelessness is a complex issue, but a healthcare is the main cause. Lack of proper treatment of addictions and mental illness is the main cause of homelessness.
      - watwut 1y ago
        That is simply not true. Homelessness goes up and down with housing prices. You can see that in the data. If housing is cheap, mentally sick person or even addict can get one in an easier way. And their relatives have easier time to help their mentally ill relative find a place. Being homeless makes both addictions and mental illness worst, to the point of unsulvable.
      - lan321 1y ago
        But it also affects your safety net. If rent is 60% of your income, it's much easier to drown in it than if it's 30%. Especially considering once you start drowning, you'll need to pull 3 months' rent out of somewhere for the deposit of a new (cheaper) place. It also makes it make more sense to live in a car. A car costs the same, mostly everywhere, so if you're in a stupidly expensive location, it might start to sound reasonable to live in a van. Drugs, poor financial literacy and insanity are the main reasons, but expensive housing is also there.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    > Average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 50 years I have no trouble believing that. But what about the mean? Also, what happens if you include not-new houses?
    - eadmund 1y ago
      I think you mean ‘what about the median?’ The mean is the average.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        A mean is a type of average (i.e. a single figure that attempts to summarize the data). There can be a geometric mean average, an arithmetic mean a average, a median average, a mode average, etc. It is often used ambiguously to intentionally create ambiguity as it allows for reaching muddied conclusions, which evoke more emotion. I dream of a world where all data comes with at least quintile if not decile level distribution details. Especially in the digital age, I cannot think of a single good reason to not provide that detail.
        FredPret 1y ago
        Yes, or even just a simple distribution chart, which makes intuitive sense to someone who might not know about percentiles.
    - ponector 1y ago
      Median also doubled, though the value is a bit lower. But median 50 years ago was also lower than average. >>not-new houses If you zoom out for 50y it does not matter. New house built 20y ago is an old house now, but still much bigger than old houses 50y ago.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Also, the homeownership rate of married, unmarried, and divorced individuals are all higher today than in 1980. What changed is the number is the relative number of people in each category (far fewer married people). Houses are much more affordable with two incomes than one.
tossandthrow 1y ago
This is likely one of the most important points IMHO in the modern discourse on having kids. A way to alleviate it could be to give insane tax deductions for having kids - we will likely reach a point where we have to.
- decimalenough 1y ago
  Many countries do in some form or another. But the subsidies are trivial compared to the huge expenses of raising a child well.
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    Yes, saw that I had a typo - I meant insane deductions. You are right that many countries do - but they are simply not high enough to make it worthwhile and make the same economical sense at not having kids does.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      The problem with subsidies is society does not benefit from kids simply existing. Society benefits from well raised kids. Kids not raised well end up costing society. As “well raised” is not possible to measure, this is not a feasible solution. One work around has been to bet that those with earned incomes are likelier to raise their kids well, so the subsidies can be non refundable earned income tax credits. But I doubt sufficient people have sufficient tax liabilities that offset the costs of the minimum quality of life many people require for their kids and them to have.
      - tossandthrow 1y ago
        It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. One way to subsidize parents is to give free child care. As a bonus, the government get to decide exactly how these kids are being raised. But yeah, it is a material investment for the society to take - which is likely why we have seen the cost of kids being transferred to the parents (and lower birth rates).
eadmund 1y ago
> (largely) privatized the costs of children solely onto their parents. The single greatest component of the property tax is the local public schools. Federal taxes pay for free lunches at those schools. Approximately half of Social Security’s budget go towards needy families. Over half of college students receive federal aid, and over a quarter receive state aid. To privatize something implies motion from public to private. What costs of parenthood do you believe have been privatized over the last 200, 100, 50 or 25 years? I genuinely don’t believe that there’s a single one, but I sincerely know that I could be wrong.
- cagenut 1y ago
  daycare used to be an extended familiy or village thing, now its on the ~1.7 parents per kid to earn enough to pay a commercial supplier.
- davemp 1y ago
  > To privatize something implies motion from public to private. Only if you’re being pedantic. Taking on the responsibility to raise children will completely take over your life. Not even considering the financial cost of daycare or missing second income, the opportunity cost is enormous. Also parents still pay taxes…
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- ausbah 1y ago
  that’s the wrong framing. simpler way is just looking at what the US doesn’t have compared to equivalently well off nations. childcare, parental leave, medical care are all things that are taken up by the comparatively larger wages US families have
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Free lunches and college aid are supposed to offset the costs of parenting? All of the costs of parenting are privatized except for schooling, but even to do that one well costs an enormous amount from the parent also you're asking which costs have been privatized in the last 200 years, but the entirety of the costs were (always) private and only a small amount has been socialized.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
This is a great framing. I've often thought that social security eligibility should be based on how many kids you've had. If you're not recruiting into the Ponzi scheme you shouldn't participate in the "earnings"
- baconbrand 1y ago
  Hmm yes, I can’t see any possible issues with incentivizing having lots and lots of children, especially in the age of modern medicine…

CalRobert 1y ago

Good point - I also think we have a race to the bottom w.r.t housing. When homes were abundant one income could support a household (ish). Then we added more women to the workforce at the same time NIMBYism took hold and peer competition meant you needed two incomes. Then fewer people had kids and you needed two stressed out incomes without the expense (in time and money) of kids to support one. Hell, the “who’s hiring” thread sometimes has companies talking about massive overtime being expected, hard to raise a kid like that. Perhaps in time we’ll see more polycule formation driven by housing costs… (These are all on average of course, there are still high earners who manage)

ponector 1y ago
Average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 50 years. Price per square foot is pretty much the same as decades before (adjusted for inflation). Isn't it the abundance of housing? >>When homes were abundant one income could support a household Was it the case, though? Could one income support household with 3000sq ft house, big new truck and college for each kid back then?
- CalRobert 1y ago
  No, but it also is much harder to buy smaller homes (especially townhouses, etc.), and you didn't actually need a vehicle nearly as much as you do now. The NIMBYs I mentioned made it much harder to have a decent ~1200 sqft home where your family needed one (or no) vehicle for their daily life. College is actually another good example- sending more people to college mostly just meant everyone else _also_ needed to go to college in order to compete with their peers for jobs that didn't used to require a degree. We can see this across borders - jobs that require a bachelor's in the US often require a master's in Europe, because too many people in Europe have master's degrees compared to the number of jobs that should actually need one.
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    People often have master's degrees in Europe, because master's has been the primary university degree since the middle ages. Bachelor's degrees only started becoming popular in most European countries with the Bologna Process ~20 years ago. And the industry hesitated accepting them for a long time, often considering them little more than glorified dropouts.
    - CalRobert 1y ago
      Interesting! Sounds like European industry imposes enormous unnecessary costs (especially opportunity cost) on new entrants.
      - watwut 1y ago
        You did not went into massive debt for life for that. One bit difference is that European system did not had first three years of college as "life experience, basically generic study without specialization, basically another high school" thing. You picked a field and studied that one. And that was structured as five years old study. If you are in the middle, you are eligible for the same positions as those who did not study at all - because you are not qualified yet.
        CalRobert 1y ago
        It’s getting more expensive, but I was mostly thinking of opportunity cost
        watwut 1y ago
        In that system, demanding bachelor is the opportunity cost. Because basically there should be a trade school for that. Like a nurse - before you would go to nursing high school and become qualified nurse there. The new demand to have bachelor made studies longer and did not brought higher quality nor was needed. Same with kindergarten teachers. Same with basic administration etc. What actually happened was whole bunch of positions that did not required university suddenly formally requiring it. And half baked school programs to get you diploma. And 40-50 years old people going to diploma mills so that they can be formally better competitive apply to positions that required only high school before.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Isn't it the abundance of housing? You also need to consider the distribution of housing sizes. The average being driven up by rural or suburban McMansions is not representative of the conditions of million of people living in large cities.
- watwut 1y ago
  Homelessness rates say opposite. What that say there is inequality
  - ponector 1y ago
    Homelessness is not related to the housing prices. With any job one can afford to rent a room. Homelessness is a complex issue, but a healthcare is the main cause. Lack of proper treatment of addictions and mental illness is the main cause of homelessness.
    - watwut 1y ago
      That is simply not true. Homelessness goes up and down with housing prices. You can see that in the data. If housing is cheap, mentally sick person or even addict can get one in an easier way. And their relatives have easier time to help their mentally ill relative find a place. Being homeless makes both addictions and mental illness worst, to the point of unsulvable.
    - lan321 1y ago
      But it also affects your safety net. If rent is 60% of your income, it's much easier to drown in it than if it's 30%. Especially considering once you start drowning, you'll need to pull 3 months' rent out of somewhere for the deposit of a new (cheaper) place. It also makes it make more sense to live in a car. A car costs the same, mostly everywhere, so if you're in a stupidly expensive location, it might start to sound reasonable to live in a van. Drugs, poor financial literacy and insanity are the main reasons, but expensive housing is also there.
- vintermann 1y ago
  > Average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 50 years I have no trouble believing that. But what about the mean? Also, what happens if you include not-new houses?
  - eadmund 1y ago
    I think you mean ‘what about the median?’ The mean is the average.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      A mean is a type of average (i.e. a single figure that attempts to summarize the data). There can be a geometric mean average, an arithmetic mean a average, a median average, a mode average, etc. It is often used ambiguously to intentionally create ambiguity as it allows for reaching muddied conclusions, which evoke more emotion. I dream of a world where all data comes with at least quintile if not decile level distribution details. Especially in the digital age, I cannot think of a single good reason to not provide that detail.
      - FredPret 1y ago
        Yes, or even just a simple distribution chart, which makes intuitive sense to someone who might not know about percentiles.
  - ponector 1y ago
    Median also doubled, though the value is a bit lower. But median 50 years ago was also lower than average. >>not-new houses If you zoom out for 50y it does not matter. New house built 20y ago is an old house now, but still much bigger than old houses 50y ago.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Also, the homeownership rate of married, unmarried, and divorced individuals are all higher today than in 1980. What changed is the number is the relative number of people in each category (far fewer married people). Houses are much more affordable with two incomes than one.

tossandthrow 1y ago

This is likely one of the most important points IMHO in the modern discourse on having kids. A way to alleviate it could be to give insane tax deductions for having kids - we will likely reach a point where we have to.

decimalenough 1y ago
Many countries do in some form or another. But the subsidies are trivial compared to the huge expenses of raising a child well.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  Yes, saw that I had a typo - I meant insane deductions. You are right that many countries do - but they are simply not high enough to make it worthwhile and make the same economical sense at not having kids does.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    The problem with subsidies is society does not benefit from kids simply existing. Society benefits from well raised kids. Kids not raised well end up costing society. As “well raised” is not possible to measure, this is not a feasible solution. One work around has been to bet that those with earned incomes are likelier to raise their kids well, so the subsidies can be non refundable earned income tax credits. But I doubt sufficient people have sufficient tax liabilities that offset the costs of the minimum quality of life many people require for their kids and them to have.
    - tossandthrow 1y ago
      It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. One way to subsidize parents is to give free child care. As a bonus, the government get to decide exactly how these kids are being raised. But yeah, it is a material investment for the society to take - which is likely why we have seen the cost of kids being transferred to the parents (and lower birth rates).

eadmund 1y ago

> (largely) privatized the costs of children solely onto their parents. The single greatest component of the property tax is the local public schools. Federal taxes pay for free lunches at those schools. Approximately half of Social Security’s budget go towards needy families. Over half of college students receive federal aid, and over a quarter receive state aid. To privatize something implies motion from public to private. What costs of parenthood do you believe have been privatized over the last 200, 100, 50 or 25 years? I genuinely don’t believe that there’s a single one, but I sincerely know that I could be wrong.

cagenut 1y ago
daycare used to be an extended familiy or village thing, now its on the ~1.7 parents per kid to earn enough to pay a commercial supplier.
davemp 1y ago
> To privatize something implies motion from public to private. Only if you’re being pedantic. Taking on the responsibility to raise children will completely take over your life. Not even considering the financial cost of daycare or missing second income, the opportunity cost is enormous. Also parents still pay taxes…
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ausbah 1y ago
that’s the wrong framing. simpler way is just looking at what the US doesn’t have compared to equivalently well off nations. childcare, parental leave, medical care are all things that are taken up by the comparatively larger wages US families have
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Free lunches and college aid are supposed to offset the costs of parenting? All of the costs of parenting are privatized except for schooling, but even to do that one well costs an enormous amount from the parent also you're asking which costs have been privatized in the last 200 years, but the entirety of the costs were (always) private and only a small amount has been socialized.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

This is a great framing. I've often thought that social security eligibility should be based on how many kids you've had. If you're not recruiting into the Ponzi scheme you shouldn't participate in the "earnings"

baconbrand 1y ago
Hmm yes, I can’t see any possible issues with incentivizing having lots and lots of children, especially in the age of modern medicine…