Hacker News Reader

> Actually, it's really striking that even in America -- the developed country with the #1 highest birthrate -- still falls below the replacement rate. What is it that's inversely correlated between growing wealth and having children?

I think a lot of people miss the simple fact that some people just don't want kids and are unable to reconcile their personal experience with anyone else's.

My partner and I are both wealthy enough that we could both afford children and we can afford to not have children. But neither of us think our lives would be improved by having them.

I think that's really, really hard to understand for a lot of parents and people who want to be parents: being (relatively) wealthy creates choice, and that a growing number of people are choosing different things now that they have the ability to do so.

I think a lot of people are also pessimistic about the future.

It's fairly obvious the world will be very different and much less pleasant place by 2050. A lot of people don't want their kids to live through that.

It's possible aliens will arrive before then and fix all our problems, or some other Salvatio Ex Machina, but it's not exactly a high-odds bet.

More wealth and education gives people the option to choose which I think is a good thing. People who don't want kids shouldn't be forced to have them. Before, people had kids because they needed them to work on their farm or it's what was expected of them as a housewife. Now that we have a choice, less people want to commit to taking care of a human for 18+ years. It's great so many people want to be parents but having a kid doesn't automatically make someone a great parent.

Due to the extremely competitive nature of the US economy, a lot of people have to choose between career success (having money) and starting a family (which is expensive). I know a lot of women who want to have a family, but have struggled to get to a comfortable economic position where they can actually do it. Compounded by the wage stagnation, which makes it hard for most people to support a family on a single income. We have hollowed out our third spaces, so its difficult for people to relax and socialize. Even vibing ends up being a kind of competition because of the high costs. Not to mention the perverse incentives in the housing market.

None of this is conducive to starting a family.

I think the two-income household (two full-time paying jobs, specifically) is a lot of it, and seems to go along with "rich" countries.

Having all the stuff that could happen during the day if it were (if you will) someone's full-time job, instead get crammed into evenings and weekends when you're trying to also do non-chore stuff with your kids (or, for god's sake, maybe get just one measly hour to do something you want to do, alone... or spend time with your spouse, without kids...) and take care of things that have to happen each evening (dinner, bed time stuff) really, really sucks.

Not having chores piling up through the week to ambush you both on the weekend would be amazing. I can hardly even imagine how much more free we'd feel. With two working parents it's like neither ever gets any actual time off that they're not carving out by neglecting something they really ought to be doing (usually several somethings)

When someone asks me if starting a family is worth it, I borrow words from Agent K and tell them, "Yes, if you are strong enough"...

But as you say, I suppose everyone ends up becoming strong. Because there is no other way...

Oh, if you read some of the headlines in the news... no, not everyone.

birth control also plays a role in it

Kids cost time, not money. So the wealthier you are, the more difficult it is because you probably have less free time. You can pay someone else to raise your kids (daycare/etc.) but then you lose a lot of the value of having kids.

This bullshit excuse that somebody can't afford to have kids is proven wrong by the fact that poorer people have more kids than rich people. You can even be unemployed. Gone are the days of destitute single mothers having to give up their child to the church and work in the poorhouse. We have social welfare for that.

Maybe the fact that poor people can have lots of kids has taken away their value as a status symbol for wealth?

> Kids cost time, not money.

There's a well known aphorism about this...

Um, wtf is this rambling statement that doesn't seem to be based in any kind of truth at all?

In the past both poor and rich tended to have tons of kids, this is because kids tended to die young regardless of being rich or poor.

Then you're trying to compare massive social changes in the west that occurred around the same time. For example womens suffrage, women being allowed to work, sexual revolutions and birth control.

If you look at countries that tended to develop later, the rate of childbirth tends to drop with accessibility to birth control and education.

Yea, educated women have fewer kids because they prefer to spend their time making money, and money isn't what you need to raise kids.