3 ms·

I am a top 15% earner in my area, have been for 7 years, and I'll be able to afford a home maybe in another 5-10 years. If you consider starting a family with

by SLWW 1y ago

I am a top 15% earner in my area, have been for 7 years, and I'll be able to afford a home maybe in another 5-10 years. If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children. On top of the issues with people working so often and so hard that they rarely have time to meet anyone outside of work; no wonder people aren't marrying.

arcticbull 1y ago
> If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children. Generally the less money you make the more kids you have. It's really a question of prioritization. People say they're holding off on kids for X or Y reason but I think this is more of an expressed vs revealed preferences situation. They would rather chase material wealth for themselves than have kids, and to be clear I'm not judging just observing. Through most of human history mud huts weren't a blocker to having kids. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  That’s because people pulling a nice paycheck have gotten a taste of stability and don’t want to risk losing it, and this is intensified when the economy is turbulent. People making less never had stability in the first place and don’t have as much to lose. Aside from that, it's merely observations/anecdotes, but from what I’ve seen people who have managed to achieve a massive uplift in economic status (say from minimum wage in their mid-20s → net worth north of $500k-$1m in their mid-30s) are more likely to have children than people who’ve always been wealthy. I would theorize that such individuals feel a greater degree of economic freedom, having lived at the bottom and being able to make more effective use of what they have.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  > Generally the less money you make the more kids you have. Previously, but this no longer holds. https://www.governance.fyi/p/45-why-rising-family-size-temporarily https://www.governance.fyi/p/45-why-rising-family-size-tempo...
  - arcticbull 1y ago
    It holds. It holds practically everywhere on Earth. Income is one of the strongest inverse correlations to fertility. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#Contrary_findings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#Contrary_... https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-relationship-between-income-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-... https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf (your paper is five years old, and is lagging broad, rapid global fertility decline trends; it's not income-fertility, its "educated, empowered women with access to birth control have less kids, no kids, and/or delay childbirth" regardless of income, with the caveat being some higher income cohorts and ultra orthodox religions/cultures [Israel] having higher than baseline fertility)
      - arcticbull 1y ago
        The contrary findings section on Wikipedia starts quoting a 2002 article. Could you point to which part exactly you find more compelling? Education and contraceptives as the article I linked are separately correlated and powerful, as is religious adherence. They're all factors. Note that each of these factors is differently important in different countries or regions, so just because you found a study that shows a positive correlation in the Netherlands that it is in isolation important or that it would work the same way in the US.
- SLWW 1y ago
  Mud huts didn't have you evicted 4 years after you built it. A different scenario. It's one thing to function in a world where you have nothing but can always make ends meet because while you aren't earning anything more, at least your expenses aren't increasing. Currently we have a different system.
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
Right, I think we’re running into the limitations of a scarcity-based system here. Even many well compensated couples would face having to make major tradeoffs with their economic stability, careers, time spent with the kids, retirement, quality of life, etc, and are accordingly choosing the path of least risk. Even the most generous countries aren’t fully compensating for the costs of raising a family, and the assistance offered by many is less than pocket change. It’s only natural that incentive is going to be low.

by SLWW 1y ago

arcticbull 1y ago

> If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children. Generally the less money you make the more kids you have. It's really a question of prioritization. People say they're holding off on kids for X or Y reason but I think this is more of an expressed vs revealed preferences situation. They would rather chase material wealth for themselves than have kids, and to be clear I'm not judging just observing. Through most of human history mud huts weren't a blocker to having kids. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
That’s because people pulling a nice paycheck have gotten a taste of stability and don’t want to risk losing it, and this is intensified when the economy is turbulent. People making less never had stability in the first place and don’t have as much to lose. Aside from that, it's merely observations/anecdotes, but from what I’ve seen people who have managed to achieve a massive uplift in economic status (say from minimum wage in their mid-20s → net worth north of $500k-$1m in their mid-30s) are more likely to have children than people who’ve always been wealthy. I would theorize that such individuals feel a greater degree of economic freedom, having lived at the bottom and being able to make more effective use of what they have.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
> Generally the less money you make the more kids you have. Previously, but this no longer holds. https://www.governance.fyi/p/45-why-rising-family-size-temporarily https://www.governance.fyi/p/45-why-rising-family-size-tempo...
- arcticbull 1y ago
  It holds. It holds practically everywhere on Earth. Income is one of the strongest inverse correlations to fertility. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#Contrary_findings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#Contrary_... https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-relationship-between-income-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-money-more-babies-whats-the-... https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/26 https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf (your paper is five years old, and is lagging broad, rapid global fertility decline trends; it's not income-fertility, its "educated, empowered women with access to birth control have less kids, no kids, and/or delay childbirth" regardless of income, with the caveat being some higher income cohorts and ultra orthodox religions/cultures [Israel] having higher than baseline fertility)
    - arcticbull 1y ago
      The contrary findings section on Wikipedia starts quoting a 2002 article. Could you point to which part exactly you find more compelling? Education and contraceptives as the article I linked are separately correlated and powerful, as is religious adherence. They're all factors. Note that each of these factors is differently important in different countries or regions, so just because you found a study that shows a positive correlation in the Netherlands that it is in isolation important or that it would work the same way in the US.
SLWW 1y ago
Mud huts didn't have you evicted 4 years after you built it. A different scenario. It's one thing to function in a world where you have nothing but can always make ends meet because while you aren't earning anything more, at least your expenses aren't increasing. Currently we have a different system.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

Right, I think we’re running into the limitations of a scarcity-based system here. Even many well compensated couples would face having to make major tradeoffs with their economic stability, careers, time spent with the kids, retirement, quality of life, etc, and are accordingly choosing the path of least risk. Even the most generous countries aren’t fully compensating for the costs of raising a family, and the assistance offered by many is less than pocket change. It’s only natural that incentive is going to be low.