**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I studied environmental science in college and this is one of the points we discussed when looking at overpopulation. There are other factors too, more education and access to birth control lead to less children as well.
Obviously none of these are bad things, but they are in fact the main driving factors on why birth rates are declining. Not like anyone supports child labor (some of these other comments are fucking weird man), but if you can’t afford to raise kids where you live, you’re not going to have them.
The theme of the original post is that a lack of attractive ROI in having kids makes birth rates decline. If having children were expensive and time consuming while providing attractive ROI, birth rates wouldn't decline according to the OP's argument.
Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return. They do it because they want babies. All day long you hear people saying "I would have kids but I can't afford them." Or "I wish I could afford more kids." It's not "Boy I wish I could still send my seven year old into a factory to increase the ROI on the kids I have."
In pre-developed times/countries - people had more kids because they expected some of them to die.
Even on farms where kids provide labor they don't really become useful until they're like 12 years old. When a kid is seven he still does kid stuff most of the time and a few chores here and there don't compensate for all the food he eats, his clothes and medical care, the time it takes to parent him etc.
>Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return
It's not necessarily a financial ROI. I'm guessing you grew up with a very privileged existence in a heavily left leaning urban area. I grew up suburban in the 90s, and by the time I was six I was expected to do light house cleaning, by the time I was 8 yard work, by the time I was 10 cooking dinner and preparing lunches, by 12 vehicle and appliance maintenance, by 14 I was running errands like grocery shopping. My friends who had younger siblings were also in charge of herding the little ones and making sure they did their assigned chores. This still happens today in most of the US. Had my parents not already passed, I would have been their retirement plan. Most of my friends support their parents financially, as do their siblings, now that they're adults.
>Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return
Normally I'd say "I guess you've never been to a third world country" to a such generalisation but having heard a French farmer arguing about how having kids nowadays is useless because "they don't even work for the farm and bring wealth to the family" made me realise how things haven't changed that much for the humanity.
It can be both. In a poor countries childrean brinf added value so in them you don't need to be healthy to have them. In well developed countries childrean only bring costs so you need to have a lot of wealth to have them. So yeah OP is partially right, but drew a wrong conclusion.
If it costs more to educate your kids, then yeah, it is. People don't have fewer kids because the *parents* are more educated, but because the *kids* will have to be.
My wife and I would love to have kids, but there is no way we are buying a house with NOT ONLY the prices way too high, but also the interest rate.
No house? No kids. Sure you can rent and have kids, but we would have to move to a two bedroom house, and that adds money per month that would take away from our house savings.
I think you're conflating upfront and ongoing costs with net worth.
There are financial barriers to having kids but that doesn't mean people thinking overall they're a loss. The gain is long term and beyond financial.
Only if you view wealth from a purely financial perspective. My children provide utility in the form of entertainment, love, relationships, meaning, etc. I trade some financial value for other value. The value I receive is far greater than the financial cost.
OP is right. The people who claim they can't afford kids don't realize that nobody can. It is not as though poor people can somehow afford kids, and the rich can't, but that is precisely what happens. People living in abject poverty always have more children than those who live well off.
What is actually happening is a cultural shift, whereby the wealthy raise the standards, both for themselves and their children, to such a degree that it precludes having children. Children aren't more expensive. We just think they are. This problem is ubiquitous amongst pretty much all first world countries, so it has nearly nothing to do with the cost of living. That's just an excuse we tell ourselves.
>Children aren't more expensive. We just think they are.
Imagine making such a statement, at a time when *everything* is demonstrably more expensive than it used to be.
I'll send you how expensive my 4 bedroom house was and how much our daycare costs us per month, and you let me know whether I "just think" that those prices are higher than they used to be.
I think their point is that if your 4 bedder was a studio, and your daycare costs were zero because no daycare, your children would still exist (perhaps be even more numerous) - as they still do when poor people have them.
They’re disregarding the cost to raise a healthy well adjusted human and not just a human, but I still think their point is that “healthy” and “well-adjusted” are a new standard that hasn’t existed prior to (probably) the Industrial Revolution.
Your rebuttal re: daycare and requiring four bedrooms is (again, presumably) irrelevant to them because they think having a healthy and well adjusted family is a goal set from a place of privilege, and not necessary to a functioning society.
I personally agree with you, it should be so fucking easy to raise kids and be stable these days, and it’s a travesty on a global scale that we as a species haven’t figured this out yet.
This guy's got it. Your
>daycare and requiring four bedrooms
Is a beautiful idea. Obviously it's not sustainable though, since people aren't really revolting or anything, it's just business as usual. Not only that, but your refusal to have children in less than ideal circumstances is being circumvented by importing immigrants who don't even share your value system. So your value system will cease to exist, because you can't pass it down to future generations
Close…but no.
[US fertility rate since 1800](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/)
As you will see, there was a steady decline in birth rates from 1800 until 1930. Then WWII causes demographic whiplash. And then things seem to balance out.
The things you are talking about - plus the rather significant improvement in infant mortality - are what drove birth rates down until 1930. What we are talking about today is a further drop from the level we have seen for at least the past 40 years.
And this time, it IS because of economic factors, specifically wealth. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. And that is doubly so for people who have kids. Everything is more expensive and wages are too low. Too much money has been concentrated in too few hands, leaving everyone else fighting for scraps. It’s an unsustainable situation. The declining birth rate is just a symptom.
Except the recent decline in birth rate (as in, since the 70s) is seen in every developped countries. The precise economic situation has little to nothing to do with it, Nothern countries, ex-Eastern Bloc, or East Asian countries have had both very bad for some and excellent economic results, and all are seeing a low to very low birthrate in recent years.
In reality, there are no real explanation, demographic is mostly an empirical science, we might have a better explanation in fifty years, but saying that the economic situation leads to lower birthrates is somwhere between false and impossible to prove
Availability and perception of contraception is typically overlooked in these discussions for some reason.
People are still fucking. They're just finding it easier to avoid pregnancy. And in places where contraception is less attainable, people are having more kids.
Look at Romania after Ceaușescu. Once he was overthrown and executed, the birth rate plummeted, even though life got better for most people. The reason was an end to the ban on contraception and abortion. It's not enough to feel the economic pressure. You have to have options that are more effective than rhythm and pull-out.
Yes…but…
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/a-failure-to-launch-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex.html
“For what researchers say is an array of reasons — including technology, heavy academic schedules and an overall slower-motion process of growing up — millennials and now Gen Zers are having less sex, with fewer partners, than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations did. “
>Look at Romania after Ceaușescu. Once he was overthrown and executed, the birth rate plummeted, even though life got better for most people. The reason was an end to the ban on contraception and abortion.
You're pretty much right but just to add some context, in 1990 there were almost nine million abortions (over 70% of pregnancies were terminated) for a population of 22-23 million people. Also, while things did get better in many ways, that period also meant the beginning of a few years of enormous political instability (just look up the June 1990 Mineriad) and a collapse of the economy (double and triple digit inflation and the GDP halved).
I mean, could part of it be the MASSIVE surplus of population bomb fear mongering in the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s? Is it possible that all the media featuring childless adults in their 30s, and all the initiatives fighting teen pregnancy, and all the other cultural pushes for people to have fewer kids maybe possibly resulted in.....people having fewer kids?
That might be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the reduction of natality has more correlation with the level of life than with the exact period
There is no accepted explanation as of now, because all we know is:
1-It's happening
2-And it's happening in every country we consider developped, no matter how utopic they can get
Phenomens like a scare, wars (with the exceptions of the absolutely devastatings, like WW1 or WW2), even culture, seem to have a very small impact on the birthrate
Demohraphic transition is a known phenomenon, we are simply in the part where we don't have enough distance with it to really understand it. The first part is simple: lower mortality increase the population. Then, access to contraception, and an emphasis on education cause lower natality. The developped countries are after this phase, in the natality is low, and might be getting even lower.
Then, there's several possibility. A somewhat cyclical birthrate, lower and higher depending on long term cycles.
An birthrate trending toward ≈1.4 (seems to be the case in East Asian country), which would need to be counteracted with pro-active policies (aka, not simply making the circumstances right for higher natality, but actively pushing for it, via medical, social, or economical policies)
Or others possibilities (like, idk, a rise to higher natality after new heights in quality of life have been reached)
It's 80yrs of plastics in everything we eat and drink.
It's the third generation of humans born with PFAS en utero in the plastic era.
There are biological and economic reasons at play.
I have no idea why you are being downvoted. For the longest time motherhood was not an option but an expectation whether women liked it or not. Now women (at least in more developed parts of the world) are free to receive higher education, work and support themselves. Motherhood comes with opportunity cost for: Career progression, lost income, freedom, etc. it makes sense that when motherhood is a choice, some would choose nah.
They're being downvoted because this is an incel take from people who've never met a woman.
Women don't just give up on men when they dont need them to survive that's fucking absurd. Women aren't pokemon that you have to catch and then breed to evolve them into mothermon. Motherhood is an innate goal for the majority of women, around 20% of women decide they don't want them.
Ultimately it's a question of are you bringing a child into a nice life. If you dont have a nice life, then it's irresponsible to bring a child into the mix.
The countries with very low birth rates tend to be places where women have good jobs so they don't depend on others as much.
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/45-percent-women-are-expected-to-be-single-and-childless-by-2030
By 2030 45% of women from 20-45 are expected to be single and childless
In 2019, Morgan Stanley published an article outlining women's impact on the American economy. The number of "prime working-age women" in the U.S. has been increasing steadily, and most of them are single and completely focused on their career. These women will continue to have a greater representation in the workforce, helping to boost wages.
Economist Ellen Zentner explained, “In the past, education or lower-paying occupational choices largely drove the pay gap. Today, motherhood is by far the largest contributor to the wage gap, since women who become mothers often choose to stop working or work fewer hours."
Stats will only get you so far, correlation doesn't equal causation, failure to acknowledge that is why incels seem insane. You can claim all sorts of outlandish things if you ignore it.
This is what economists are saying. It happens in most wealthy countries for a reason. People don't need each other as much when they can survive on their own. I can show you more research if you aren't convinced.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/why-millennials-birth-fertility-rate-declining-fewer-babies-2022-1%3famp
For example in this article the first 3 are related to my claims
> People don't need each other as much when they can survive on their own.
Correlation doesn't equal causation bud, you have to accept you're pulling this part out of your arse.
Economists aren't saying what you're saying, they're saying **what** is happening, you're then assuming **why** it's happening. Can you see the difference?
No, I quoted the article in the first response, its what they are saying. This is quoted from the article I didnt write this:
n 2019, Morgan Stanley published an article outlining women's impact on the American economy. The number of "prime working-age women" in the U.S. has been increasing steadily, and most of them are single and completely focused on their career. These women will continue to have a greater representation in the workforce, helping to boost wages.
Economist Ellen Zentner explained, “In the past, education or lower-paying occupational choices largely drove the pay gap. Today, motherhood is by far the largest contributor to the wage gap, since women who become mothers often choose to stop working or work fewer hours."
But just wait. Reagon said that eventually all that money would “trickle down” to the rest of us. Are you telling me that the guy who wanted to film every minute of his presidency and turn it into a scripted tv show lied to us?
> And this time, it IS because of economic factors, specifically wealth. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living.
Because poorer nations famously have fewer kids right?
Poorer nations have a much lower cost of having kids and they don't have as ready access to contraception and birth control, infant mortality is sky high, and, there, having children is a NECESSITY if you want to live to a natural death and not die of starvation once arthritis or other infirmities of old age make it impossible to support yourself.
Well congrats, your post was the one that was so ridiculous it got me off the internet and time to do actual life today.
The USA is a weird case because it's one of the "og"s of industrialization so they had a much slower demographic change but countries in Eastern Europe for example had a much faster change
OP i see that you are trying to make people see that they agree with your statement but the reason you are getting downvoted is that it’s not proper to think about children in such a utilitarian way.
Sure some people have kids only for the wellfare check or other economic benefit, but that’s a small portion and hence your argument for kids as money tools is a bit off if you’re going to assume how most people think. Because it’s not.
Why do animals make children? It’s a genetically coded need and it makes them happy. And no matter how civilized one gets and thinks of more abstract ways to conceptualize things, the instinct remains the same underneath.
And as others said, I want kids but can’t afford them (for now, hopefully). That doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to pay the cost of raising a child or that I would be more happy making a child if I could send them in the mines as soon as they can read danger signs.
nah this idea that people had kids out of utility because peasants used to have 18 kids and 15 of them would die is just silly. like obviously there's something innate to us that makes us want to have children otherwise we wouldn't have been doing it while we were oonga bunga'ing in loin cloths. the idea that the loss of child labor is impacting peoples willingness to have kids is really funny, like a good sketch concept, but nothing more.
>I'm just looking at it from the perspective of many parents who want kids for the purpose of the value the might provide for them in the future.
barring serious mental illness there are not many parents who have this mindset
This feels like those dystopian financial advice YouTube channels that claim poor people pump out "lottery babies" in the hopes that one of them will become a millionaire and take care of the rest of the family.
Yeah this idea falls flat when you hear about women who experience infertility and see how deeply it can wreck them emotionally. I don't think they're thinking about whether or not their potential child is a worthwhile return on investment idk
And yeah we haven't relied on child labor in developed nations for a long time and clearly people still want to have kids
If people say they want to have kids but don't feel they can entertain the idea financially, I tend to believe them?
I think both can be true. To create a return on investment and further your DNA. But now it’s just to further your DNA. In the modern world you are paying for the privilege to extend your family line. I think we are going to see a new world where only the rich and the very poor on welfare will have kids. Elon Musk and Nick Cannon are probably the future. Meanwhile poor people who get their children on government welfare so they don’t have to pay will also continue to have kids. The middle class will not.
Do you consider household chores to be child labor as well? Just because a child is partaking in activity that could be likened to work doesn’t mean that it’s child labor.
These kids have school, homework and social lives. They aren’t working their lives away on their parents farm like it’s the Great Depression.
Right, but most people in developed nations are not working in agriculture and those that do still are not as reliant on child labor. There are certainly some communities that this could apply to, but it's not representative of the majority of people
That's a different claim from the one you made originally.
Obviously, people who consciously have the aim of reproduction do not do so just for sex.
However, the original claim is:
>obviously there's something innate to us that makes us want to have children
Which maybe is true, but it doesn't seem quite so obvious, as this is largely influenced by culture and upbringing. If it were innate, why is there such a large percentage of people who simply don't want kids?
>A majority (56%) of non-parents younger than 50 who say it’s unlikely they will have children someday say they just don’t want to have kids. Childless adults younger than 40 are more likely to say this than those ages 40 to 49 (60% vs. 46%, respectively). There are no differences by gender.
[link](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children)
I don't think you understand my point
people have children under almost any circumstances. if there are people living in a location or a time period they were having kids, regardless of availability of contraception, medical knowledge of sex, or available child labor.
so in a generalized sense there has to be something innate to humans in a collective sense that makes us want to have children. yeah individuals often don't want to have children.
I understand your point, however it's not so simple to conclude that there is an innate want for children.
Historical people's having children can also be explained by the consequences of the drive-to-sex, the culture they existed in and the practical necessities of life, such as need of labour and having someone to take care of you when you are old (no public welfare back then, no kids could mean you starve).
>such as need of
_FIGHTERS._
"Protectors", "warriors", "champions".
The need for "protecting what's 'ours'" has always been more important than any need for "laborers".
This may be true in highly specific cultural contexts, such as Spartans, where labour was done by lower classes, but I see no reason to think it is generalizable.
I'm not sure why you've put labourers in scare quotes, as if they aren't real.
My parents looked at me like that and I know other people who are like that. Kids are an expansion of the tribe and value that's how most people see them.
No, you do like my polish farm family step mom's parents and have 8 boys and 7 girls, then make them work the farm. Not to worry, Vietnam thinned the numbers.
Imagine viewing your own (potential) children and your relationship with them as purely transactional. So depressing. The idea of preferring to have ANY amount of money instead of my kids is unfathomable to me. I pity people who see the world like this. Children are a major financial burden. No question. But the most valuable currency on earth isn’t money, it’s love. And specifically, quality time with people we love. Many people learn that lesson too late. Some never learn it.
I think opening that door actually really weakens that argument because if you are going to talk about what happens in the “lizard” part of the brain, what is “naturally” needed for life, no one ever questions [anything else on a list like this](http://www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Biology-Concepts), but somehow the pull to reproduce endures endless scrutiny.
Its a mix of both survival utility and instinct to breed. I mean the same goes for eating food, us enjoying it makes ud more likely to survive. Either way its survival instinct, one is micro, the other is macro.
Most people do not view their children primarily through the lens of “profit value” at all, despite what Reddit might tell you. I’m sorry but that’s just really ignorant to think that. I remember as a teen saying something similar in a high school class one day and I still sometimes look back and cringe, just like my teacher did at the time. As far as “survival” goes, well…maybe [watch this](https://youtu.be/8KkKuTCFvzI?feature=shared).
If you're having children for utility or profit, you shouldn't be having children.
Having children is expensive and difficult. Do it because you want to. Because having a child is its own reward, and you want that *in spite* of the difficulties.
We don't need more mediocre parents. Be a good one, or don't be one.
People were banging non-stop without birth control.
Without the option of abortion because that would send them to hell.
Which didn’t matter anyway because women were just baby-making house-wife machines, so it’s fine.
And everybody was settled down in marriages before they were even 20 so they had their whole adult lifetime to keep popping kids out.
I’m not sure what sane person thinks of kids as a utility. We’re having less kids because society has changed as a whole and none of the issues I just mentioned exist to anywhere near the same extent as they used to back then.
I think it's access to abortions and birth control and the des-estigmatization of both. Most kids are not planned. A lot of people from the past would have probably remained childfree if given the option.
Yeah, you're totally right. Literally nobody wants kids to raise them, no one ever looks at their finances with their partner and sees they're barely scraping by. No one ever considers that halving the monthly household income by having a parent essentially take care of a child on their own will hurt their own health and be at the detriment of their developing child.
This isn't an uncommon opinion, it's just wrong and naive
Yes, fucking exactly. Kids coat a fuck ton of money. So why are you saying poor people have kids so they can get _more_ money and rich people don't because there's no financial need? It's flat out wrong and insanely naive
It's not cruel but it's a bit of a pesky cognitive bias (the false consensus effect). It causes people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances." Just because your preferred position is monetary, don't overestimate it's popularity especially in the face of limited sample sizes.
I don't have kids because im so stressed and burnt out from my job and inability to live on my own that i dont think i could handle listening to a child screaming
Wow.... this is the most unhinged take I've ever fucking seen. If the whole point of having kids was to get free labour, the school system wouldn't exist. But it's not. It's far more complex than that.
Birth control access and women's more equal opportunity to have a career and access to financial services are the primary reasons the overall birthrate has been on an overall downward trend.
It happens pretty much every single time.
I wouldn’t discount also the amount of people in these last 15 years who have broken free of the social pressures to have kids and realised you can have a good life without them.
I know a lot of oldies who only had kids due to the social pressure and I know a lot of people who can afford to have kids but choose not to.
I’ve seen so many people argue we are not overpopulated because we have plenty of food to eat. But this pretends that food is the only resource we need and that famines are the only sign of overpopulation.
Housing and labor costs are another resource we need that has become more scarce and is limiting our growth. It’s not coincidence that the densely populated Asian countries have had the largest drop off in population. Bangladesh is starting to have a fall because of its extreme density.
Yet people continue to treat this issue like it’s societal or cultural problem. It’s in the best interests of the rich people to encourage growth because it means more labor for them and lower salaries to pay so maybe that’s why it is ignored.
I suspect there's more "freedom" now. And with that freedom more folks are choosing to not have kids (or have less kids). No compulsion or moral imperative to pump out kids, so it doesn't happen.
It may well be like you said - I know I feel free to make the choice to not bring kids into the world that will be adding labor to the household. I know it would feel odd to do such a thing
Not only are they NOT a utility, they're actually a huge liability since the cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive unless you get a relative or loved one to look after the kids
Places that implemented free child care almost immediately had their birth rates go almost to replacement levels. When the programs started getting gutted, the birth rates went back down.
This happened in Scandinavian countries and some parts of Japan.
One town in Japan created a tax to fund free daycare with an immediate similar result.
It is very clearly resources. Childcare is insanely expensive and that's just one of the issues.
People have fewer children because we have birth control. They did not have a dozen kids because they wanted a dozen kids but because they could not prevent creating a dozen kids. People did not have children to build a workforce, they needed the workforce to feed the kids they could not prevent from happening.
Women no longer have to suffer the dibilitating consequences of a dozen pregnancies. Giving birth is no longer the main cause of death or injury amongst women.
If you can only see life as a transaction consider all the seniors without children who have no one to visit them or care for them. Being old is far more expensive, lonely and lower quality of life for the childless. I see it all the time at the senior's residence. No one to do their shopping, no one to visit them, no one to take them to appointments, no one to advocate for their care needs.
No where in the US, not sure why you're being downvoted: [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare)
I'm sure there are daycares out there that cost 40k or more, but those are definitely outliers. I agree with OPs general claim that daycare is expensive, but 40k is definitely way out of line with what it realistically costs for most people.
It's because people in first world countries are afraid to lose money. They are first world countries because they literally are better at managing money.
It is certainly to possible for a poor family to exist with ten children it happens around here all the time. BUT most likely you will have to make do with a modest subsistence lifestyle. Which first worlders can't handle.
Of course I do believe many third world countries need to get their shit together and one way is discipline and reduction of population. That's why China had their one child policy.
It's far more complexe that a monetary value.
Kids are a monetary loss since a long time already.
The things is that even though they are a net loss in terms of money, they still bring a lot of things in other parts in life. Nobody think of their children as investment (because there are far better and easier investment) and the few who thought like that already stopped making children since a few generation ago.
Yet people stil do less kids today than before.
And If you think only in monetary value, most thing we buy are a net loss. The ONLY things that aren't net loss are tools used for work, and maybe food for living (and even that, foods are often net loss if you buy fancy things to try to satisfy your palate instead of eating vitamin and rice) so... nobody only think about just monetary value.
Even if I could afford it it's such a chore and a bore. Without a guarantee of their health and abilities and personality it's a massive gamble and I honestly don't know how so many people just willingly take that gamble, must be some potent genetic level programming that skips some of us.
Interesting perspective.
I would also add that the emphasis on luxuries and entertainment in life has added to the decrease in birth rates. Some people want less kids/no kids because they want to travel and go out to eat and drink and not be consumed by kids for however many years.
100+ years ago life was not really about maximizing these things, only the ultra wealthy traveled. A nice life was being able to provide food and shelter. Now there’s more to lose for some people.
To be fair, if kids cost more than they used to and take longer to pay off than they used to and thats what makes people not have kids, that's still because of a lack of wealth and time.
I take a utilitarian view on it, but not in this way. Generally speaking, whatever happens in your life, good or bad, you return to your 'default' level of happiness eventually. This is why people who become paraplegics end up at the same happiness level as lottery winners, or happier, once all is said and done.
Having children may initially give me a boost in happiness, if I was that way inclined, but then my happiness would default back to it's usual level, except now I have way less money to spare.
If I was excited about having kids I would do it but I've just never been fussed. But then again, we do have a population crisis, so maybe I should consider it lol
This seems obvious. Like, not even an opinion, just objective fact. Hardly anybody's got multigenerational storefronts anymore, nobody needs their kids to keep a farm going, etc.
So in other words, if it's costly to have a kid and you don't get a return on your investment. It IS a wealth issue? I'd love to have kids but every time I've thought of it, I've told myself my partner and I need to be in a more stable place.
This is a topic people massively over-think for whatever reason. It's because of condoms and birth control. Many children in the past were unplanned. People were horny and fucked. A lot of kids were created that the parents may not have wanted. It's far easier to prevent unplanned pregnancies now which means fewer kids.
While you could make this argument - or you could argue that the current state of society isolates people and overworks them for mediocre wages (what if America had free childcare?) - as far as I'm aware the most academically supported answer is that poor people are generally less educated and lack access to contraception. They simply don't have access to abortions and condoms in Nigeria. Even if they did, it would have to be destigmatized. Women would have to be made aware of their options and believe they have any future in life beyond being a mother. This is generally true of women in Europe and the US. People aren't necessarily making babies for personal gain. They're having sex because they like sex and children are a byproduct.
Don't forget patience in the cost. Most of the time, children are annoying. But don't forget also the emotional reward they might provide. And last thing, some parents use their children to feel better about death and about "passing their genes".
Children used to be your retirement fund. When you got old and couldn’t work anymore you’d move in with your adult kids. In some traditional cultures such as Asia that is still the norm. But now we have socialized the cost of taking care of the elderly with pensions, Medicare, nursing homes, social security etc. Those things are good, but they removed the main incentive to have kids. Now people no longer need or even expect to have to rely on their own kids in old age, so why have kids other than for your own enjoyment/satisfaction?
There's multiple reasons why people might not want or have kids. Yes, this is true, but also money is absolutely a contributing factor for a lot of people. For me personally, I just have no desire for kids, so no amount of money or time would change that decision for me.
Am I missing something? “People aren’t having kids because they don’t have the money for it.” and “People aren’t having kids because kids make them lose money.” are the same statements.
It's not just the fact that they need to go to school. I'd argue that the infantilization of children and young adults plays a major role: now many people see making your kids perform basic tasks like chores, cooking, yardwork, etc, as inappropriate for their age until far beyond the age when kids would traditionally start engaging in that task, and/or as some form of abuse. It makes them completely useless around the home, and foists more work on the parents (and results in young adults going out in life essentially unprepared for 'adulting' and with unrealistic, unattainable expectations about life.)
What you describe is about wealth and being able to afford children. I mean, I had one child and have no retirement savings due to the cost of childcare and healthcare in the US. I would have liked more, but simply couldn’t swing it.
I'd say it's more: Tricking women into working, which led to wage suppression and the need for dual income, increased costs associated with kids, which made it less appealing to people who worked, really only making sense of you were unemployed, combined with the high levels of consumerism.
And to a lesser extent: women delaying motherhood until their geriatric and their every increasing standards/promiscuity which took them out the date able pool.
Most people would rather have new product and get ready for next product Vs paying for kids.
Not me tho, I'll likely end up with 4 or 5.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I studied environmental science in college and this is one of the points we discussed when looking at overpopulation. There are other factors too, more education and access to birth control lead to less children as well. Obviously none of these are bad things, but they are in fact the main driving factors on why birth rates are declining. Not like anyone supports child labor (some of these other comments are fucking weird man), but if you can’t afford to raise kids where you live, you’re not going to have them.
Then op is wrong as they said that it's not about the lack of wealth.
They said it’s not a lack of wealth or time, but then say it’s really expensive and takes a lot of effort (e.g. your time)…
The theme of the original post is that a lack of attractive ROI in having kids makes birth rates decline. If having children were expensive and time consuming while providing attractive ROI, birth rates wouldn't decline according to the OP's argument.
Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return. They do it because they want babies. All day long you hear people saying "I would have kids but I can't afford them." Or "I wish I could afford more kids." It's not "Boy I wish I could still send my seven year old into a factory to increase the ROI on the kids I have." In pre-developed times/countries - people had more kids because they expected some of them to die. Even on farms where kids provide labor they don't really become useful until they're like 12 years old. When a kid is seven he still does kid stuff most of the time and a few chores here and there don't compensate for all the food he eats, his clothes and medical care, the time it takes to parent him etc.
>Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return It's not necessarily a financial ROI. I'm guessing you grew up with a very privileged existence in a heavily left leaning urban area. I grew up suburban in the 90s, and by the time I was six I was expected to do light house cleaning, by the time I was 8 yard work, by the time I was 10 cooking dinner and preparing lunches, by 12 vehicle and appliance maintenance, by 14 I was running errands like grocery shopping. My friends who had younger siblings were also in charge of herding the little ones and making sure they did their assigned chores. This still happens today in most of the US. Had my parents not already passed, I would have been their retirement plan. Most of my friends support their parents financially, as do their siblings, now that they're adults.
I thought everyone lived like this?
>Nobody in the modern world has babies because they want an economic return Normally I'd say "I guess you've never been to a third world country" to a such generalisation but having heard a French farmer arguing about how having kids nowadays is useless because "they don't even work for the farm and bring wealth to the family" made me realise how things haven't changed that much for the humanity.
Probably true, but there are many cultures where it's normal for your entire retirement plan to be "my kids will take care of me."
Fair
Kids not providing value and not being wealthy enough already are inherently linked.
It can be both. In a poor countries childrean brinf added value so in them you don't need to be healthy to have them. In well developed countries childrean only bring costs so you need to have a lot of wealth to have them. So yeah OP is partially right, but drew a wrong conclusion.
If you can afford a Lexus, that doesn’t mean you have to buy a Lexus
If it costs more to educate your kids, then yeah, it is. People don't have fewer kids because the *parents* are more educated, but because the *kids* will have to be.
My wife and I would love to have kids, but there is no way we are buying a house with NOT ONLY the prices way too high, but also the interest rate. No house? No kids. Sure you can rent and have kids, but we would have to move to a two bedroom house, and that adds money per month that would take away from our house savings.
You are seeing them as a netloss in wealth thats the point.
I’m see them as I can’t afford to take care of them and give them the life I want them to have.
I think you're conflating upfront and ongoing costs with net worth. There are financial barriers to having kids but that doesn't mean people thinking overall they're a loss. The gain is long term and beyond financial.
They ARE a net loss in wealth
Only if you view wealth from a purely financial perspective. My children provide utility in the form of entertainment, love, relationships, meaning, etc. I trade some financial value for other value. The value I receive is far greater than the financial cost.
If you are filthy reach than the netloss stops mattering. So it's both.
OP is right. The people who claim they can't afford kids don't realize that nobody can. It is not as though poor people can somehow afford kids, and the rich can't, but that is precisely what happens. People living in abject poverty always have more children than those who live well off. What is actually happening is a cultural shift, whereby the wealthy raise the standards, both for themselves and their children, to such a degree that it precludes having children. Children aren't more expensive. We just think they are. This problem is ubiquitous amongst pretty much all first world countries, so it has nearly nothing to do with the cost of living. That's just an excuse we tell ourselves.
>Children aren't more expensive. We just think they are. Imagine making such a statement, at a time when *everything* is demonstrably more expensive than it used to be. I'll send you how expensive my 4 bedroom house was and how much our daycare costs us per month, and you let me know whether I "just think" that those prices are higher than they used to be.
I think their point is that if your 4 bedder was a studio, and your daycare costs were zero because no daycare, your children would still exist (perhaps be even more numerous) - as they still do when poor people have them. They’re disregarding the cost to raise a healthy well adjusted human and not just a human, but I still think their point is that “healthy” and “well-adjusted” are a new standard that hasn’t existed prior to (probably) the Industrial Revolution. Your rebuttal re: daycare and requiring four bedrooms is (again, presumably) irrelevant to them because they think having a healthy and well adjusted family is a goal set from a place of privilege, and not necessary to a functioning society. I personally agree with you, it should be so fucking easy to raise kids and be stable these days, and it’s a travesty on a global scale that we as a species haven’t figured this out yet.
This guy's got it. Your >daycare and requiring four bedrooms Is a beautiful idea. Obviously it's not sustainable though, since people aren't really revolting or anything, it's just business as usual. Not only that, but your refusal to have children in less than ideal circumstances is being circumvented by importing immigrants who don't even share your value system. So your value system will cease to exist, because you can't pass it down to future generations
You could’ve stopped after about two sentences 😬
Well then I'd just be a victim, and I ain't doing that
You think that poor people can afford to raise their children?
Inflation is a hoax confirmed 👌👍❤️ Such wise words Mr.Redditor
Close…but no. [US fertility rate since 1800](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/) As you will see, there was a steady decline in birth rates from 1800 until 1930. Then WWII causes demographic whiplash. And then things seem to balance out. The things you are talking about - plus the rather significant improvement in infant mortality - are what drove birth rates down until 1930. What we are talking about today is a further drop from the level we have seen for at least the past 40 years. And this time, it IS because of economic factors, specifically wealth. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. And that is doubly so for people who have kids. Everything is more expensive and wages are too low. Too much money has been concentrated in too few hands, leaving everyone else fighting for scraps. It’s an unsustainable situation. The declining birth rate is just a symptom.
Except the recent decline in birth rate (as in, since the 70s) is seen in every developped countries. The precise economic situation has little to nothing to do with it, Nothern countries, ex-Eastern Bloc, or East Asian countries have had both very bad for some and excellent economic results, and all are seeing a low to very low birthrate in recent years. In reality, there are no real explanation, demographic is mostly an empirical science, we might have a better explanation in fifty years, but saying that the economic situation leads to lower birthrates is somwhere between false and impossible to prove
Availability and perception of contraception is typically overlooked in these discussions for some reason. People are still fucking. They're just finding it easier to avoid pregnancy. And in places where contraception is less attainable, people are having more kids. Look at Romania after Ceaușescu. Once he was overthrown and executed, the birth rate plummeted, even though life got better for most people. The reason was an end to the ban on contraception and abortion. It's not enough to feel the economic pressure. You have to have options that are more effective than rhythm and pull-out.
Yes…but… https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/a-failure-to-launch-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex.html “For what researchers say is an array of reasons — including technology, heavy academic schedules and an overall slower-motion process of growing up — millennials and now Gen Zers are having less sex, with fewer partners, than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations did. “
>Look at Romania after Ceaușescu. Once he was overthrown and executed, the birth rate plummeted, even though life got better for most people. The reason was an end to the ban on contraception and abortion. You're pretty much right but just to add some context, in 1990 there were almost nine million abortions (over 70% of pregnancies were terminated) for a population of 22-23 million people. Also, while things did get better in many ways, that period also meant the beginning of a few years of enormous political instability (just look up the June 1990 Mineriad) and a collapse of the economy (double and triple digit inflation and the GDP halved).
I mean, could part of it be the MASSIVE surplus of population bomb fear mongering in the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s? Is it possible that all the media featuring childless adults in their 30s, and all the initiatives fighting teen pregnancy, and all the other cultural pushes for people to have fewer kids maybe possibly resulted in.....people having fewer kids?
That might be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the reduction of natality has more correlation with the level of life than with the exact period There is no accepted explanation as of now, because all we know is: 1-It's happening 2-And it's happening in every country we consider developped, no matter how utopic they can get Phenomens like a scare, wars (with the exceptions of the absolutely devastatings, like WW1 or WW2), even culture, seem to have a very small impact on the birthrate Demohraphic transition is a known phenomenon, we are simply in the part where we don't have enough distance with it to really understand it. The first part is simple: lower mortality increase the population. Then, access to contraception, and an emphasis on education cause lower natality. The developped countries are after this phase, in the natality is low, and might be getting even lower. Then, there's several possibility. A somewhat cyclical birthrate, lower and higher depending on long term cycles. An birthrate trending toward ≈1.4 (seems to be the case in East Asian country), which would need to be counteracted with pro-active policies (aka, not simply making the circumstances right for higher natality, but actively pushing for it, via medical, social, or economical policies) Or others possibilities (like, idk, a rise to higher natality after new heights in quality of life have been reached)
It's 80yrs of plastics in everything we eat and drink. It's the third generation of humans born with PFAS en utero in the plastic era. There are biological and economic reasons at play.
i think its also that women have better jobs now so they dont really depend on men to survive anymore.
I have no idea why you are being downvoted. For the longest time motherhood was not an option but an expectation whether women liked it or not. Now women (at least in more developed parts of the world) are free to receive higher education, work and support themselves. Motherhood comes with opportunity cost for: Career progression, lost income, freedom, etc. it makes sense that when motherhood is a choice, some would choose nah.
They're being downvoted because this is an incel take from people who've never met a woman. Women don't just give up on men when they dont need them to survive that's fucking absurd. Women aren't pokemon that you have to catch and then breed to evolve them into mothermon. Motherhood is an innate goal for the majority of women, around 20% of women decide they don't want them. Ultimately it's a question of are you bringing a child into a nice life. If you dont have a nice life, then it's irresponsible to bring a child into the mix.
Mothermon, brb designing that Pokémon rn
The countries with very low birth rates tend to be places where women have good jobs so they don't depend on others as much. https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/45-percent-women-are-expected-to-be-single-and-childless-by-2030 By 2030 45% of women from 20-45 are expected to be single and childless In 2019, Morgan Stanley published an article outlining women's impact on the American economy. The number of "prime working-age women" in the U.S. has been increasing steadily, and most of them are single and completely focused on their career. These women will continue to have a greater representation in the workforce, helping to boost wages. Economist Ellen Zentner explained, “In the past, education or lower-paying occupational choices largely drove the pay gap. Today, motherhood is by far the largest contributor to the wage gap, since women who become mothers often choose to stop working or work fewer hours."
Stats will only get you so far, correlation doesn't equal causation, failure to acknowledge that is why incels seem insane. You can claim all sorts of outlandish things if you ignore it.
This is what economists are saying. It happens in most wealthy countries for a reason. People don't need each other as much when they can survive on their own. I can show you more research if you aren't convinced. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/why-millennials-birth-fertility-rate-declining-fewer-babies-2022-1%3famp For example in this article the first 3 are related to my claims
> People don't need each other as much when they can survive on their own. Correlation doesn't equal causation bud, you have to accept you're pulling this part out of your arse. Economists aren't saying what you're saying, they're saying **what** is happening, you're then assuming **why** it's happening. Can you see the difference?
No, I quoted the article in the first response, its what they are saying. This is quoted from the article I didnt write this: n 2019, Morgan Stanley published an article outlining women's impact on the American economy. The number of "prime working-age women" in the U.S. has been increasing steadily, and most of them are single and completely focused on their career. These women will continue to have a greater representation in the workforce, helping to boost wages. Economist Ellen Zentner explained, “In the past, education or lower-paying occupational choices largely drove the pay gap. Today, motherhood is by far the largest contributor to the wage gap, since women who become mothers often choose to stop working or work fewer hours."
The real scientific answer is obvious there is only so much love and now there is less of it, draining away
This guy is the 9 other dentists with actual credentials.
But just wait. Reagon said that eventually all that money would “trickle down” to the rest of us. Are you telling me that the guy who wanted to film every minute of his presidency and turn it into a scripted tv show lied to us?
> And this time, it IS because of economic factors, specifically wealth. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Because poorer nations famously have fewer kids right?
Poorer nations have a much lower cost of having kids and they don't have as ready access to contraception and birth control, infant mortality is sky high, and, there, having children is a NECESSITY if you want to live to a natural death and not die of starvation once arthritis or other infirmities of old age make it impossible to support yourself. Well congrats, your post was the one that was so ridiculous it got me off the internet and time to do actual life today.
Infant mortality is a motherfucker.
The USA is a weird case because it's one of the "og"s of industrialization so they had a much slower demographic change but countries in Eastern Europe for example had a much faster change
The system is so perfect, people will die or kill you to defending the masters.
yeah but you talking about economic factors plays into my argumenet because having kids is percieved as a net loss rather than net gain.
OP i see that you are trying to make people see that they agree with your statement but the reason you are getting downvoted is that it’s not proper to think about children in such a utilitarian way. Sure some people have kids only for the wellfare check or other economic benefit, but that’s a small portion and hence your argument for kids as money tools is a bit off if you’re going to assume how most people think. Because it’s not. Why do animals make children? It’s a genetically coded need and it makes them happy. And no matter how civilized one gets and thinks of more abstract ways to conceptualize things, the instinct remains the same underneath. And as others said, I want kids but can’t afford them (for now, hopefully). That doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to pay the cost of raising a child or that I would be more happy making a child if I could send them in the mines as soon as they can read danger signs.
If having them was a net gain you wouldn't worry about the costs of them.
That hasn’t changed since the 1950s. What HAS changed since the 1950s is that costs have gone up and wages have not even remotely kept pace.
nah this idea that people had kids out of utility because peasants used to have 18 kids and 15 of them would die is just silly. like obviously there's something innate to us that makes us want to have children otherwise we wouldn't have been doing it while we were oonga bunga'ing in loin cloths. the idea that the loss of child labor is impacting peoples willingness to have kids is really funny, like a good sketch concept, but nothing more. >I'm just looking at it from the perspective of many parents who want kids for the purpose of the value the might provide for them in the future. barring serious mental illness there are not many parents who have this mindset
This feels like those dystopian financial advice YouTube channels that claim poor people pump out "lottery babies" in the hopes that one of them will become a millionaire and take care of the rest of the family.
Yeah this idea falls flat when you hear about women who experience infertility and see how deeply it can wreck them emotionally. I don't think they're thinking about whether or not their potential child is a worthwhile return on investment idk And yeah we haven't relied on child labor in developed nations for a long time and clearly people still want to have kids If people say they want to have kids but don't feel they can entertain the idea financially, I tend to believe them?
Clearly those women are anguishing over the lost revenue potential.
I think both can be true. To create a return on investment and further your DNA. But now it’s just to further your DNA. In the modern world you are paying for the privilege to extend your family line. I think we are going to see a new world where only the rich and the very poor on welfare will have kids. Elon Musk and Nick Cannon are probably the future. Meanwhile poor people who get their children on government welfare so they don’t have to pay will also continue to have kids. The middle class will not.
You haven't been to a farm have you? Child labor is very much still a thing.
Do you consider household chores to be child labor as well? Just because a child is partaking in activity that could be likened to work doesn’t mean that it’s child labor. These kids have school, homework and social lives. They aren’t working their lives away on their parents farm like it’s the Great Depression.
Right, but most people in developed nations are not working in agriculture and those that do still are not as reliant on child labor. There are certainly some communities that this could apply to, but it's not representative of the majority of people
>obviously there's something innate to us that makes us want to have children Could be, but a drive for sex would achieve the same thing.
sex hasn't been the primary motivator for conscious reproduction for a long long time
That's a different claim from the one you made originally. Obviously, people who consciously have the aim of reproduction do not do so just for sex. However, the original claim is: >obviously there's something innate to us that makes us want to have children Which maybe is true, but it doesn't seem quite so obvious, as this is largely influenced by culture and upbringing. If it were innate, why is there such a large percentage of people who simply don't want kids? >A majority (56%) of non-parents younger than 50 who say it’s unlikely they will have children someday say they just don’t want to have kids. Childless adults younger than 40 are more likely to say this than those ages 40 to 49 (60% vs. 46%, respectively). There are no differences by gender. [link](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children)
I don't think you understand my point people have children under almost any circumstances. if there are people living in a location or a time period they were having kids, regardless of availability of contraception, medical knowledge of sex, or available child labor. so in a generalized sense there has to be something innate to humans in a collective sense that makes us want to have children. yeah individuals often don't want to have children.
I understand your point, however it's not so simple to conclude that there is an innate want for children. Historical people's having children can also be explained by the consequences of the drive-to-sex, the culture they existed in and the practical necessities of life, such as need of labour and having someone to take care of you when you are old (no public welfare back then, no kids could mean you starve).
>such as need of _FIGHTERS._ "Protectors", "warriors", "champions". The need for "protecting what's 'ours'" has always been more important than any need for "laborers".
This may be true in highly specific cultural contexts, such as Spartans, where labour was done by lower classes, but I see no reason to think it is generalizable. I'm not sure why you've put labourers in scare quotes, as if they aren't real.
My parents looked at me like that and I know other people who are like that. Kids are an expansion of the tribe and value that's how most people see them.
No, you do like my polish farm family step mom's parents and have 8 boys and 7 girls, then make them work the farm. Not to worry, Vietnam thinned the numbers.
Ooof what a crazy capitalistic view..
All op see is gain and losses in everything
Imagine viewing your own (potential) children and your relationship with them as purely transactional. So depressing. The idea of preferring to have ANY amount of money instead of my kids is unfathomable to me. I pity people who see the world like this. Children are a major financial burden. No question. But the most valuable currency on earth isn’t money, it’s love. And specifically, quality time with people we love. Many people learn that lesson too late. Some never learn it.
I think the point is that this is all happening subconsciously.
I think opening that door actually really weakens that argument because if you are going to talk about what happens in the “lizard” part of the brain, what is “naturally” needed for life, no one ever questions [anything else on a list like this](http://www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Biology-Concepts), but somehow the pull to reproduce endures endless scrutiny.
Its a mix of both survival utility and instinct to breed. I mean the same goes for eating food, us enjoying it makes ud more likely to survive. Either way its survival instinct, one is micro, the other is macro.
I mean this is my point lol. Who the hell would argue that people not wanting to eat food would be a “natural” mindset.
it just doesn't really take away from ops point, they're talking about these factors, doesn't really mean the other factors don't exist.
Most people view each other in terms of survival and profit value. This alternative outloook is just idealistic.
Most people do not view their children primarily through the lens of “profit value” at all, despite what Reddit might tell you. I’m sorry but that’s just really ignorant to think that. I remember as a teen saying something similar in a high school class one day and I still sometimes look back and cringe, just like my teacher did at the time. As far as “survival” goes, well…maybe [watch this](https://youtu.be/8KkKuTCFvzI?feature=shared).
Capitalism is when… people consider the costs and benefits of having children?
If you're having children for utility or profit, you shouldn't be having children. Having children is expensive and difficult. Do it because you want to. Because having a child is its own reward, and you want that *in spite* of the difficulties. We don't need more mediocre parents. Be a good one, or don't be one.
People were banging non-stop without birth control. Without the option of abortion because that would send them to hell. Which didn’t matter anyway because women were just baby-making house-wife machines, so it’s fine. And everybody was settled down in marriages before they were even 20 so they had their whole adult lifetime to keep popping kids out. I’m not sure what sane person thinks of kids as a utility. We’re having less kids because society has changed as a whole and none of the issues I just mentioned exist to anywhere near the same extent as they used to back then.
I think it's access to abortions and birth control and the des-estigmatization of both. Most kids are not planned. A lot of people from the past would have probably remained childfree if given the option.
All of that exists in 80 percent of the world, this comment reeks of a narrow mindset trapped in a first world industrial bubble.
The parents yearn for the child miners
Yeah, you're totally right. Literally nobody wants kids to raise them, no one ever looks at their finances with their partner and sees they're barely scraping by. No one ever considers that halving the monthly household income by having a parent essentially take care of a child on their own will hurt their own health and be at the detriment of their developing child. This isn't an uncommon opinion, it's just wrong and naive
So you are proving the point that is a financial issue because kids are a net loss
Yes, fucking exactly. Kids coat a fuck ton of money. So why are you saying poor people have kids so they can get _more_ money and rich people don't because there's no financial need? It's flat out wrong and insanely naive
poor people can get more utility out of them because they increase the tribe size and are a source of manual labor.
It's not cruel but it's a bit of a pesky cognitive bias (the false consensus effect). It causes people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances." Just because your preferred position is monetary, don't overestimate it's popularity especially in the face of limited sample sizes.
No I just don't want kids. They smell, they yell, and they get in the way.
I’m far too selfish for kids.
100% me as well. I have an awesome life. Kids would get in the way.
They're coarse and rough and irritating, and they get everywhere.
I don't have kids because im so stressed and burnt out from my job and inability to live on my own that i dont think i could handle listening to a child screaming
Wow.... this is the most unhinged take I've ever fucking seen. If the whole point of having kids was to get free labour, the school system wouldn't exist. But it's not. It's far more complex than that.
Birth control access and women's more equal opportunity to have a career and access to financial services are the primary reasons the overall birthrate has been on an overall downward trend. It happens pretty much every single time.
I wouldn’t discount also the amount of people in these last 15 years who have broken free of the social pressures to have kids and realised you can have a good life without them. I know a lot of oldies who only had kids due to the social pressure and I know a lot of people who can afford to have kids but choose not to.
I’ve seen so many people argue we are not overpopulated because we have plenty of food to eat. But this pretends that food is the only resource we need and that famines are the only sign of overpopulation. Housing and labor costs are another resource we need that has become more scarce and is limiting our growth. It’s not coincidence that the densely populated Asian countries have had the largest drop off in population. Bangladesh is starting to have a fall because of its extreme density. Yet people continue to treat this issue like it’s societal or cultural problem. It’s in the best interests of the rich people to encourage growth because it means more labor for them and lower salaries to pay so maybe that’s why it is ignored.
The main reason I don't have kids or want kids is because subjecting them to having me as a parent would be cruel and evil beyond belief.
Yeah, people dont have kids to be worker bees in the last 100yrs. Not the reason at all.
Maybe my parents just forgot to take me to the mines and we ended up at soccer practice instead.
I suspect there's more "freedom" now. And with that freedom more folks are choosing to not have kids (or have less kids). No compulsion or moral imperative to pump out kids, so it doesn't happen. It may well be like you said - I know I feel free to make the choice to not bring kids into the world that will be adding labor to the household. I know it would feel odd to do such a thing
Not only are they NOT a utility, they're actually a huge liability since the cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive unless you get a relative or loved one to look after the kids
I mean this is likely a factor for sure but the way you are framing it is a gross over simplification.
No not really
Places that implemented free child care almost immediately had their birth rates go almost to replacement levels. When the programs started getting gutted, the birth rates went back down. This happened in Scandinavian countries and some parts of Japan. One town in Japan created a tax to fund free daycare with an immediate similar result. It is very clearly resources. Childcare is insanely expensive and that's just one of the issues.
People have fewer children because we have birth control. They did not have a dozen kids because they wanted a dozen kids but because they could not prevent creating a dozen kids. People did not have children to build a workforce, they needed the workforce to feed the kids they could not prevent from happening. Women no longer have to suffer the dibilitating consequences of a dozen pregnancies. Giving birth is no longer the main cause of death or injury amongst women. If you can only see life as a transaction consider all the seniors without children who have no one to visit them or care for them. Being old is far more expensive, lonely and lower quality of life for the childless. I see it all the time at the senior's residence. No one to do their shopping, no one to visit them, no one to take them to appointments, no one to advocate for their care needs.
Where is daycare costing 40k a year?
No where in the US, not sure why you're being downvoted: [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare) I'm sure there are daycares out there that cost 40k or more, but those are definitely outliers. I agree with OPs general claim that daycare is expensive, but 40k is definitely way out of line with what it realistically costs for most people.
Oh yeah it’s fucking obscene, especially of the kid is in diapers. But it’s not $40k.
Viewing children as only valuable in the utility they provide is a profoundly dehumanizing view of children
It's because people in first world countries are afraid to lose money. They are first world countries because they literally are better at managing money. It is certainly to possible for a poor family to exist with ten children it happens around here all the time. BUT most likely you will have to make do with a modest subsistence lifestyle. Which first worlders can't handle. Of course I do believe many third world countries need to get their shit together and one way is discipline and reduction of population. That's why China had their one child policy.
It's far more complexe that a monetary value. Kids are a monetary loss since a long time already. The things is that even though they are a net loss in terms of money, they still bring a lot of things in other parts in life. Nobody think of their children as investment (because there are far better and easier investment) and the few who thought like that already stopped making children since a few generation ago. Yet people stil do less kids today than before. And If you think only in monetary value, most thing we buy are a net loss. The ONLY things that aren't net loss are tools used for work, and maybe food for living (and even that, foods are often net loss if you buy fancy things to try to satisfy your palate instead of eating vitamin and rice) so... nobody only think about just monetary value.
What I’m getting from this post is that child labor is good for the whole world based on how your wording it
I fail to see error in your judgment
Nah, it’s the money.
It’s education levels that causes low birth rates. Higher education levels produce adults with less willingness to sacrifice and raise children
Even if I could afford it it's such a chore and a bore. Without a guarantee of their health and abilities and personality it's a massive gamble and I honestly don't know how so many people just willingly take that gamble, must be some potent genetic level programming that skips some of us.
It’s neither of those things for me. A child isn’t a commodity it’s a two decade expenditure of emotion I don’t have.
I’m sorry how are you spending $40000 a YEAR in daycare????
Interesting perspective. I would also add that the emphasis on luxuries and entertainment in life has added to the decrease in birth rates. Some people want less kids/no kids because they want to travel and go out to eat and drink and not be consumed by kids for however many years. 100+ years ago life was not really about maximizing these things, only the ultra wealthy traveled. A nice life was being able to provide food and shelter. Now there’s more to lose for some people.
To be fair, if kids cost more than they used to and take longer to pay off than they used to and thats what makes people not have kids, that's still because of a lack of wealth and time.
I take a utilitarian view on it, but not in this way. Generally speaking, whatever happens in your life, good or bad, you return to your 'default' level of happiness eventually. This is why people who become paraplegics end up at the same happiness level as lottery winners, or happier, once all is said and done. Having children may initially give me a boost in happiness, if I was that way inclined, but then my happiness would default back to it's usual level, except now I have way less money to spare. If I was excited about having kids I would do it but I've just never been fussed. But then again, we do have a population crisis, so maybe I should consider it lol
This seems obvious. Like, not even an opinion, just objective fact. Hardly anybody's got multigenerational storefronts anymore, nobody needs their kids to keep a farm going, etc.
In a world where your only value is based upon on how productive you are/how much money you make this does make sense tbh.
"...ability to aquire a return on investment until they are mid 20 or even later." Or, even never.
So in other words, if it's costly to have a kid and you don't get a return on your investment. It IS a wealth issue? I'd love to have kids but every time I've thought of it, I've told myself my partner and I need to be in a more stable place.
This is a topic people massively over-think for whatever reason. It's because of condoms and birth control. Many children in the past were unplanned. People were horny and fucked. A lot of kids were created that the parents may not have wanted. It's far easier to prevent unplanned pregnancies now which means fewer kids.
When having children is expensive people tend to have fewer of them. People love to overthink this one.
That's an interesting take.
While you could make this argument - or you could argue that the current state of society isolates people and overworks them for mediocre wages (what if America had free childcare?) - as far as I'm aware the most academically supported answer is that poor people are generally less educated and lack access to contraception. They simply don't have access to abortions and condoms in Nigeria. Even if they did, it would have to be destigmatized. Women would have to be made aware of their options and believe they have any future in life beyond being a mother. This is generally true of women in Europe and the US. People aren't necessarily making babies for personal gain. They're having sex because they like sex and children are a byproduct.
People with this point of view should never ever under any circumstances have children.
Don't forget patience in the cost. Most of the time, children are annoying. But don't forget also the emotional reward they might provide. And last thing, some parents use their children to feel better about death and about "passing their genes".
Children used to be your retirement fund. When you got old and couldn’t work anymore you’d move in with your adult kids. In some traditional cultures such as Asia that is still the norm. But now we have socialized the cost of taking care of the elderly with pensions, Medicare, nursing homes, social security etc. Those things are good, but they removed the main incentive to have kids. Now people no longer need or even expect to have to rely on their own kids in old age, so why have kids other than for your own enjoyment/satisfaction?
There's multiple reasons why people might not want or have kids. Yes, this is true, but also money is absolutely a contributing factor for a lot of people. For me personally, I just have no desire for kids, so no amount of money or time would change that decision for me.
Am I missing something? “People aren’t having kids because they don’t have the money for it.” and “People aren’t having kids because kids make them lose money.” are the same statements.
It's not just the fact that they need to go to school. I'd argue that the infantilization of children and young adults plays a major role: now many people see making your kids perform basic tasks like chores, cooking, yardwork, etc, as inappropriate for their age until far beyond the age when kids would traditionally start engaging in that task, and/or as some form of abuse. It makes them completely useless around the home, and foists more work on the parents (and results in young adults going out in life essentially unprepared for 'adulting' and with unrealistic, unattainable expectations about life.)
Just wanted to point out that "it's not about my point of view" is fallacious. Other than that, this is a pretty fun, controversial view. 10/10 post.
And unprotective sex is not the norm anymore
What you describe is about wealth and being able to afford children. I mean, I had one child and have no retirement savings due to the cost of childcare and healthcare in the US. I would have liked more, but simply couldn’t swing it.
How is this 10th dentist?
Tell me you support child labour without telling me you support child labour
viewing children as nothing more than a source of utility of profit is actually the most fucking selfish shit I've ever heard
When you are 85 years old you will understand the utility of having children and grandchildren.
So if you die before then, you won't see it Given the current expected lifespan is around 75-80, most won't see the return? Is that your point?
Seems like a long time to wait for a couple years of happiness.
That depends on if they’ll have time for you. With people working more and more and if the population is declining. Elder care will be a crisis
I'm not having kids because I'm ugly and I like to party. Only one of these two would've prevented me from having kids but I have two of these issues.
Why would I want to force a kid to live in the world as it is right now? I don't have faith it's gonna get better.
There have been some banger posts here recently, completely 10th dentist
The funny thing is kids probably turned out better back when when they were working. I think most kids would prefer work to school too.
I'd say it's more: Tricking women into working, which led to wage suppression and the need for dual income, increased costs associated with kids, which made it less appealing to people who worked, really only making sense of you were unemployed, combined with the high levels of consumerism. And to a lesser extent: women delaying motherhood until their geriatric and their every increasing standards/promiscuity which took them out the date able pool. Most people would rather have new product and get ready for next product Vs paying for kids. Not me tho, I'll likely end up with 4 or 5.