Wonder what the selection bias is like on something like this
I know that this is the rhetoric around why people are not having kids, but it's a pretext, it's not the real reason.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons...
33% say "not finding the right partner". Everything being too expensive such that we're working all the time and don't have any down time is a huge part of that. Economics play into leisure time, stress, and things that kill relationships and the desire to have sex/kids.
The cost of raising a child is enormous. It's dramatically higher than it was 30 years ago, and astronomically more than a century ago. I've known multiple households with dual 6 figure incomes where one quit their job to be a stay at home parent because the cost of childcare was comparable to the reduction in income.
The cost in time is just as bad - no more "go outside and don't come back until dinner", now if you let your kids walk down the street to school/the park your neighbors will call CPS on you, so you have to pay attention all the time.
Rent/mortgages are way up. The cost of food is way up. The cost of education is way up.
Honestly, the primary problem is still the mindset behind most times this line is written.
The cost of raising a child is enormous only if you consider the return a nuisance at best, which many seem to do. If you consider it very rewarding thing you want for your life, working for that a little doesn't seem all that preposterous anymore.
The same peope typically have no problem spending money on frivolous hobbies, toys, travel etc. they technically get no economic return for either.
There may be people who are economically barred from affording children, but most people set the bar at "I want kids with no strings attached".
The real reasons are that we've created a society in which many people no longer consider a rewarding experience they actually want, and those who don't want it no longer have it externally thrust upon them by cultural expectations or pressures as much. I think the latter is good, but the former may be a pervasive failure of character.
You can't pay for day care with vibes.
For example, was it also 33% in the past when the economy was much worse off? Is it still 33% say during crises like a depression or hell even covid? Is it 33% saying "not the right partner" but maybe 50% saying "actually economics"? Is part of the 33% just because the partner isn't rich enough (a very pragmatic and common consideration despite the stigma).
My parents met in the office and started dating after my father made a move. I would NEVER ask someone out at work. In today's culture this is seen as harassment and can get you fired.
Also, I believe that our culture of over-parenting (and therefore many of the associated costs) is a _consequence_ of having fewer children, not the cause. If you put all your reproductive eggs in one basket, you are motivated to overprotect them. That makes a culture of (at least from a historical perspective) insane parenting demands that simply don't scale.
> That if you forced a child on them they could actually suffer through it?
Absolutely, that’s how it always worked before we’ve had good contraception .
Sounds like you just want a serf class and fuck everyone else.
It is uncomfortable, deff more uncomfortable than saying "we're not having kids because we don't behave money" but if it's true, should we just brush it aside?
Yes, it was good for society (nowadays it would be oppressive and would be very bad). Is it good for these children to be born? Maybe, depends if you think living is better than never being born. Do I support policy of forcing people into having children? Absolutely not, I think it's terrible idea! But that's completely tangential - my point is that we've got large body of evidence that 1) surveys asking people why they don't have children are pretty much worthless; 2) economic factors do not matter that much.
> Sounds like you just want a serf class and fuck everyone else.
No, it doesn't sound like that, you are projecting something onto me.
2) Inflation of expectation on parenting. Parents used to be much more hands off in the previous generations, but the expectation of what you need to provide has gone thorough the roof and not all is useful, to be honest.
3) Delay in child bearing led to fertility drop when people really want to have kids.
4) This, I somewhere and will pawn it as my own, but... kids are no longer useful. Previously, kids were a working hand around the house and insurance for parental care when they got older. Both of these are not something necessarily expected of them nowadays.
5) Since women bear the brunt of the rough jobs of child rearing, even in our more egalitarian societies, their increase in options and freedom means a lot opt to just... not do it. As mentioned at pct1. it's really a tough job. Can't say I blame them.
1) Shifting Culture of Norms == Children are expensive. If you have kids you might have to give up the lucrative career opportunities you have been building towards since your university days, and other personal opportunities
2) Inflation of expectations on parenting == Children are expensive. Parents are expected to spend a lot more of their free time and money putting their kids in programs and sports and such
3) Delay in child bearing led to fertility drop when people really want to have kids == Children are expensive. If you want to have them, you need to have them before you are really financially stable and established in a career.
4) kids are no longer useful == Children are expensive. In the past kids were expected to contribute to the household at a fairly young age. Nowadays not so much. This means families either hire someone to do that work or it falls on the parents.
5) Women in the workforce == Children are expensive! Families have an entire extra income with Moms working and they still can't afford childcare. With an entire extra income!
So you're right that the reasons for falling birth rates don't have to be "children are expensive" but all of the reasons are certainly "children are expensive"-shaped
You could do the same kind of exercise with whatever other measurement of reality that you consider to be the pivot of existence like free time or amounts of sandwiches available or whatever (or is that also boiling down to money?).
But that really really hobbles your model of reality so much to the point it's not useful anymore.
And, then by your own standards, were they ever NOT expensive?
Is this expense some relative state to other people, as in if other people have more it means I have less by virtue of comparison or is it some concrete measure of need one can not afford nowadays and they could before.
Yeah a lot of my points are about money. But it's also free time, responsibility, etc
For example my parents used to drop me off for a friends birthday party and then go away. There would be adults there who they trusted to look out for me, and they could use that time for themselves for a bit to do whatever
Nowadays parents literally stay the entire time. That's a pretty large chunk of time that my parents had to themselves and parents nowadays do not. I don't know what other term than "expensive" to describe that, but it doesn't have anything to do with money
Money can buy people to clean for you, do errands and paperwork for you, and more. Free time is the most precious resource.
...and kids consume an incredible amount of it, and crucially far more of it than they used to.
I tried to provide one.
Mass Mutual, 2024: Of those surveyed who plan to remain child free, 43% cited “inability to afford children”[0].
Pew, 2024: Of those who feel it is unlikely that they will have children, 41% of people under 40 cited “can’t afford it” as a reason they are not having children, versus only 22% for those 40+[1].
Morning Consult, 2020: 41% of adults without children cite “it’s too expensive to raise children” as a reason; 24% say it is a “major reason”.[2]
BadCredit.org, 2024: 86% of adults who have delayed having children did so for financial reasons[3].
The Morning Consult survey may be particularly useful if you want to look at just one, because it has more granular age cohort breakdowns which show a clear trend for younger people not having children for financial reasons.
[0] https://www.massmutual.com/global/media/shared/doc/q3_2024_m...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons...
[2] https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/09/2806512...
[3] https://www.badcredit.org/studies/plans-to-have-children-in-...
Let's look at Hungary: loans unless you have 3 (!) children, maybe some housing subsidies that require you to match them with a huge chunk of your own money. Small wonder why that didn't motivate many people.
What countries do want is to incentivize production of properly raised, well mannered, productive children. And the type of person incentivized by a lot of cash to have a kid is probably not going to be the one to do that.
I think the bigger change is: I don’t want my quality of life to go down one bit when I have a kid!
I still think the both parents working thing was maybe good for gender equality but you gotta say the capitalists loved it and probably creamed themselves imagining double the labor pool. But now you see the price of it. How can it be possible for both parents to work and still somehow have kids?
No more super cheap teachers and kindergarten i guess.
Yes, there's lots of things about today that are better than 30 years ago. TVs are bigger, cars are safer, etc. But the ability to give you kids the childhood and initial opportunities you had seems far less likely to many people.
If you don’t want to have kids for any other reason, that’s valid. It’s a ton of work and requires insane resilience. But money is certainly not it, not for SWE.
Fascinating. I wonder if there is some other confounding factor here.
- 49, leaf on a tree.
> while Japan shows the highest immigration levels among respondents, this is almost certainly due to the survey failing to reach the native Japanese population more than to any real demographic trend.
So we are admitting that the result is useless?
> despite being known as “a nation of immigrants”, only 17% of respondents from the U.S. have immigrant roots, versus 22% overall.
What was he expecting? 100%? From what I can find, US first born immigrant % is about 16%, so basically within the massive margins of error this thing has, this is a non result.
I don't think this thing is designed to elicit anything useful except vibes & giving the author a platform to pontificate.
The fact that the survey may not be representative on things like immigration or its Japanese audience has no relation to the data's validity on completely unrelated questions such as developer's outlook on AI.
If you pick a sample to test a new painkiller, you should include an equal amount of men and women, old and young people, people of different ethnic backgrounds, etc. to have a balanced sample.
On the other hand, you do not need to have equal shares of people whose favorite color is blue, red, green, etc. because that clearly has no relation with how people would react to medicine.