Among whom? Evidently not among the women who would actually be bearing them.
Among whom? Evidently not among the women who would actually be bearing them.
Like, we have two kids and a top 10% (bottom of the top though) salary, and we have no discretionary income or ability to save (very much) after paying for the costs associated with kids and housing. I can completely understand why people don't want to do that, particularly given that 90% of households in my country earn less than us.
Inflation from 2020-2024 was absurdly high. This was a universal hit to cost, and everyone felt it.
But outside of that recency bias, Americans have poor financial literacy. Americans have spending problems: credit card debt, car loans, and student loans come to mind. Each of these debt categories aren't inherently bad. Student loans are great if the degree has earning potential, but most Americans don't seek those degrees. Car loans aren't bad if it's a practical and affordable vehicles, but Americans like luxury SUVs. Credit cards aren't bad if you buy a washing machine to save on laundromat visits, but Americans like expensive vacations.
Americans also have problems with income, but that's even more complicated.
Sure, but I'm not American and we have none of those debts. It's mostly housing/bills and childcare that screw us.
My point IS that you don't consider this to be a high level of consumption. To you it's normal. You've acclimated, and would again if the quality of life were 10x higher.
If people decide to build careers before having children, and DINKs acclimate to their income levels, then any child would feel like an unacceptable quality of life. You'll always feel like you're a rung below where you need to be, and this property would be independent of any particular scale.
Call it pedant's hypothesis. I've proposed it as an explanation. I can neither prove nor disprove it.
The quality of life that modern, affluent people consider unacceptably low for a family would be considered decadent by most people who ever lived anywhere.
The same way that we give people tax breaks for making donations, because we think making donations is good, people having children are donating their time, physical health, money, and earning potential to the greater good of society, so maybe they should be compensated for it.
Can we start by striking down regulations that make having children more expensive? Zoning laws, environmental laws, development approval processes, and even building codes have significantly increase the cost of housing. Regulations made daycare prohibitively expensive, while also subsidizing that model over traditional childcare models. High costs are first order effects of these regulations, but there are plenty of second and third order cost increases as well.
Then I put it to you that their desire isn't above the replacement rate. People with no money manage to have plenty of children.
I'd say in that case they don't have the desire. They may want children all else being equal, but they don't want to put in what it would cost them to have children. Otherwise they would.
a woman in her thirties has very slim chances to find a partner because men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties. it's a harsh truth, but burying one's head in the sand doesn't really help.
On the contrary. Maybe the most desirable 20% do, but many men in their thirties have very little access to women of any age.
still, your claim does not invalidate my point, does it?
I don't know where is that you live that men are so desperate and eager to commit to low-value women, but in the world I live in, men in their thirties are unmarried and/or childless by choice.
Yes, it very much does?
This is utter nonsense. I met my now wife at 31, and can assure you that I had little to no interest in 20 somethings at that point (having made those mistakes in the past).
Clearly you live in a very different world from me, or you're just trolling (more likely given the green account name).