U.S. Birthrates Fall to Record Low

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birthrates-fall-to-record-low-11589947260

by jseliger • 6 years ago

142 433 6 years ago

merricksb• 6 years ago

brenden28• 6 years ago

The Ponzi scheme that is the economy is not going to work unless there are lots of new entrants. We either need a) lots of births or b) lots of immigration.

I don't know about other people, but the idea of trying to have a child is unfathomable to me because I am very, very far away from being (economically) in a place where I feel comfortable breeding. As someone who doesn't fit the mold society wants me to be (i.e., a real contrarian but not in the hip cool SV way), there's simply no way I can participate in the one thing that being human is really about: procreation.

PS[edit]: Idiocracy is a great film and everyone should watch it.

ikeboy5• 6 years ago

Why does the economy require new entrants?

brenden28• 6 years ago

Where do you think the growth comes from? More people at the bottom push up everyone at the top.

spamizbad2• 6 years ago

You need human beings to actually produce stuff and grow the economy, which drives most public and private retirement accounts (we're not just talking about social security here).

weatherman2• 6 years ago

A couple of reasons:

-As people grow old, they are economically dependent upon people younger than them.

-A growing population goes hand-in-hand with a growing economy. This tends to bring prosperity to many people.

And as a bit of a tangent: The argument that a shrinking population is good for the planet and is therefore better than a growing population feels to me like an extremely pessimistic argument, and the people that I personally know that embrace it have a much less human-centric moral intuition than I do. I put a lot lot lot more worth on human happiness than that of animals, and to me it seems that a cultural disconnect from the natural act of procreation implies an unhappiness that is rooted in how cultures are run nowadays.

raldi2• 6 years ago

The American Dream is that all families climb the ladder to the point where they own a house that always goes up in value and a stock market portfolio basically guaranteed by federal economic policy to grow 10% a year over the long term.

All those people earning money by doing nothing needs to be supported by an ever-increasing influx of people actually doing work. So we promise the latter the American Dream. Ponzi scheme.

_2d30• 6 years ago

The economy doesn’t and just about every argument that says it does shows very clearly the bias of those who make them.

That said, there are many things social structures and institutions with embedded growth assumptions such as social security, pension plans, government debt, etc.

empath753• 6 years ago

there's simply no way I can participate in the one thing that being human is really about: procreation.

As someone with 2 kids and a third on the way, I think this is a really sad and reductive way to think about life. The way I think about the meaning and purpose of my life has changed since I had kids, but I had a perfectly meaningful and purposeful life before that. Focus more on finding meaning and making connections with other people, and less on your economic situation and whether you can afford to "breed". People who live in abject poverty can still have happy families, or live happy, meaningful lives.

spamizbad2• 6 years ago

As a parent I personally think people are way too preoccupied with trying to have perfect material conditions before having a child. If you can put a roof over their head, feed, cloth, and love them and give them a mostly constant home environment you're doing your job as a parent. Kids are sensitive to their social conditions but oblivious to their material situation until they've entered preadolescence. This can be pulled off even in times of great economic insecurity (think about all the depression-era babies). It's arguably easier to get them out of way when you're younger, healthier and can withstand sleep deprivation better. Money won't buy you sleep unless you've got enough for a nanny.

shadowgovt2• 6 years ago

As the xkcd comic notes, we are, each of us, the tip of a long chain of people who lived in less than perfect material conditions and succeeded in raising a family anyway.

(Of course, the same comic also notes "They did it, therefore I'm here, therefore I can do it" is the mother of all confirmation biases ;) )

Analemma_4• 6 years ago

As a parent I personally think people are way too preoccupied with trying to have perfect material conditions before having a child.

I alluded to this in a different comment, but I think for most people the uncertainty is a bigger impediment than absolute conditions. If you had poor material conditions, but could at least count on them to remain stable no matter what, you could make that work as fair as raising a family. But the defining feature of the contemporary economy is that you'll never have that certainty: at any minute you might go from material security to being kicked out onto the street, and in the US at least you'll get no help except "Guess you shouldn't have had children lol; pull yourself up by your bootstraps loser."

This can be pulled off even in times of great economic insecurity (think about all the depression-era babies).

I'm not sure what you mean by "all the depression-era babies". The Great Depression had the lowest birthrate the US had ever seen, and it did not pick up again until after the war: [0]

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-u...

peterangular14• 6 years ago

If you can put a roof over their head, feed, cloth, and love them and give them a mostly constant home environment you're doing your job as a parent

See - that's the thing. Lots of us can't commit to that because we're still securing the consistency of those resources for ourselves. All I'm saying is I don't agree with "I'm way too preoccupied" when I see the following grocery list as a very tall order for most people starting off today.

Kids are sensitive to their social conditions but oblivious to their material situation until they've entered preadolescence.

As someone who grew up in a family with even mild struggles... yeah this just doesn't hold up. Lots of kids know as early as when they enter school. You notice the gaps between you and your peers almost immediately and often will have peers point it out to you because the poor kid is easy to pick on. You wear different clothes (second hand/etc), you probably struggle a bit with school, you don't have the cool video game system, you don't get to do the cool stuff other kids do... etc etc.

Kids notice way earlier than preadolescence.

kashura• 6 years ago

+1. It's never a "perfect" time to do huge things like getting married or having kids. There is always a risk of something going wrong. Waiting for that moment is never ending.

WhompingWindows5• 6 years ago

Having a balanced age pyramid is not a Ponzi scheme: it's natural and healthy and as old as hunter-gatherer society itself. You want youthful energetic members, optimistic innovators and learners; middle-aged strong leaders, fighters, and innovators; and you want elder wise-people. There's actually a reason humans are long-lived past menopause: the old/grandparents provide a lot of value in social groups.

The one way I agree with Ponzi Scheme... in the USA currently, at least, there's been a massive transfer of wealth to Boomers from everyone else via SS, Medicare, pensions, and all the cheap education and services that have since evaporated. I doubt these conditions will exist for anyone else...Boomers really got an amazing deal.

corey_moncure• 6 years ago

Meanwhile, "site developers" are in a mad rush to tear down miles and miles of virgin forest and construct new cookie cutter houses they expect to sell for $300,000 each, in my city. This, in the midst of the worst unemployment crisis we've seen since the dust bowl.

rootusrootus5• 6 years ago

Any house being built right now was already in the works for a while. It only seems like this crisis has been going on for years.

sjg007• 6 years ago

There's some reasons for this... existing housing stock is old so requires renovation or maybe not available. People want also want bigger houses and maybe a little more land. So because you have the land people will use it. In places with land use restrictions or simply places that are out of room you see infilling and renovations. Schools play a big role and a lot of families want to move into neighborhoods with families in them.

ruminasean• 6 years ago

I suspect 9 months from the lockdown months will see a surge in births....

raldi2• 6 years ago

Not for any couples that already have a kid.

metalliqaz2• 6 years ago

amen, brother

bitlax• 6 years ago

This is snark that will be upvoted but not borne out by statistics.

dudul3• 6 years ago

That would be kind of my intuition as well, but apparently a few surveys have shown that people were so depressed by the quarantine that they stopped... being intimate.

josefresco5• 6 years ago

That lasted about 1 week in my household.

Analemma_4• 6 years ago

I suspect you're wrong. Economic uncertainty hammers birthrates, and this pandemic has been the ultimate demonstration of uncertainty: in the space of a few weeks, we went from a humming economy to 20% unemployment. It's a brutal reminder that in the contemporary economy you can have the chair kicked out from under you at any second, and that's not conducive to having children.

There also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that people are having way less sex right now, for what that's worth.

save_ferris3• 6 years ago

It's a brutal reminder that in the contemporary economy you can have the chair kicked out from under you at any second

This is how I’ve felt my entire career. There are no guarantees for future success, but family planning requires an incredible amount of stability to pull off responsibly.

dumbfounder• 6 years ago

I briefly looked for numbers around the Spanish flu but couldn't find any.

My gut says you will see a mini-boom though. A lot of dogs are getting adopted right now, and adopting a dog is a gateway drug to children for a lot of couples. Would be interesting to see how many kids are "happy accidents" vs intentional though. Oh, I just looked it up and one article says 45% in the US... yeesh.

metalliqaz2• 6 years ago

On the contrary, my expectation is that it will be divorces that surge after the lockdown.

josefresco5• 6 years ago

IMHO both will happen.

pretendscholar• 6 years ago

Which is not directly related to whether or not there is a baby boom.

simonsarris• 6 years ago

I hoped so, but Google trends for things like "pregnancy test" should show an uptick then, and they do not. (Ignore the uptick in early april that happens every year because of april fools)

mythrwy• 6 years ago

Or divorce filings.

iandanforth4• 6 years ago

Curious how many people share this opinion, but I think this is extremely good news. I would love to see birth rates drop below replenishment across the globe. We simply don't need billions of humans. We have done, and continue to do major damage to our environment and historically a tiny minority has benefited from the labor of the majority. The people who benefit most from an increasing population are those who exploit people to increase their quality of life in clean sanctuaries while distancing themselves from the effort and waste required to maintain those lifestyles.

toomuchtodo10• 6 years ago

It's tremendous news. The carrying capacity of the Earth is closed to 1 billion people (we're at ~7 billion, and on track to hit ~10 billion by the end of the century due to population momentum). Target total fertility rate should be as close to 1 as possible.

This is a subject near and dear to my heart as a systems observation wonk, and have done a tremendous amount of research on the subject.

I recommend these two books to those interested:

Shrinking-population Economics: Lessons From Japan by Akihiko Matsutani

Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth? by Alan Weisman

prmph• 6 years ago

The carrying capacity of the Earth is closed (sic) to 1 billion

I assume you have a reference for this? How do you know the carrying capacity of the earth is close to 1 billion?

throwaway555544• 6 years ago

The carrying capacity of the Earth is closed to 1 billion people...

Where does this come? Is it referenced in the books you mention? I just have never heard this before.

rubidium• 6 years ago

"the carrying capacity of the Earth is closed to 1 billion people" This is FUD. The carrying capacity of earth is determined by the ingenuity of humanity. It can go poorly for the environment or not, but considering it purely a function of the number of people is Malthusian hogwash.

Mirioron2• 6 years ago

What does "carrying capacity" in this case mean? I've seen various numbers quoted on this and they all seem somewhat suspect to me. Humans improve the world for ourselves through work. As time progresses we get better at it and solve various problems. It's not like us consuming resources actually makes the resources disappear from Earth. They're still there, but they simply need more work to be done to be made useful. We extract new resources because it's cheaper, but at some point that'll change. Hopefully that's so far in the future that it's a challenge that's easily met.

WhompingWindows5• 6 years ago

In this case, it's a good thing, because the birthrates declined most for women 24 and younger. Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use. Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...not when you're 16 and can't care for them properly.

I do think there is value to having a balanced aged pyramid, however. We don't want a China or Japan situation, where there are far too many old people, which would crush the younger members of society under the burden of caring. The one way to counteract that would be immigration, which has been a hot-button issue and is not a given or perfect remedy for population pyramids.

alehander426• 6 years ago

how can a human being be simplifed down to a "lifetime of energy use" and a very carbon-intensive action? I know this language has normalized and that we use it with "good" intentions, but sometimes we sound much more soulless and anti-human than even the language of soviet ideology

ZitchDog• 6 years ago

You could also be spawning the person who solves the problem of climate change.

dudul3• 6 years ago

Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do

This is a bold blanket statement that I can't agree with. It all depends on how this new person will live their life. I would argue that creating 10 new persons in a third world country doesn't hurt the environment as much as 1 single person in the US or in Europe.

blueblisters• 6 years ago

Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use.

Cutting back on energy use is the most regressive way of solving climate change. We will almost certainly use more energy in the future, regardless of the population.

SkyBelow• 6 years ago

Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do, you're literally spawning a lifetime of energy use.

This feels like a very odd view because the reverse is near profane thought.

Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...not when you're 16 and can't care for them properly.

If it is okay to accept this logic based on age, what about other factors? For example, income level?

actuator• 6 years ago

Japan gets talked about a lot but Taiwan and SK are doing worse if you see TFR. TFR of SK was below 1 in 2018, replacement level being 2.1. It would be interesting to see how this plays out in the next two decades over there considering the high life expectancy.

3fe9a03ccd14ca52• 6 years ago

Creating another person is one of the most carbon-intensive actions anyone can do [...] Best to do that when you're SURE they will have all the resources they need to be a productive and helpful member of society...

I totally get the sentiment, but history stubbornly is full of people born into abject poverty who somehow rise to the occasion. Take a look on Wikipedia at inventor profiles. Our best, life changing inventions came from people who were born into less-than-ideal situations. In many ways the impact people have on the world is a dice roll and not a matter of proper financial preparation.

ausbah2• 6 years ago

if your birthrates and deathrates at roughly equal, I don't think this conclusion holds up

iandanforth4• 6 years ago

The phrase "population pyramid scheme" comes to mind.

ketanmaheshwari• 6 years ago

I think it is good if the decline happens at a steady rate rather than a sudden drop which will create an imbalance between the number of elderly folks who need support and a younger generation who could provide that support.

vincentlee2• 6 years ago

or covid19 could naturally fix the glitch

api• 6 years ago

I think there are pros and cons. You mention some of the pros. Right now I think the ideal population growth would be slightly below replacement level for a while, and then replacement level once we hit a population that seems to "work."

You can't ignore the social problems created by shrinking populations though. A major one is monopolization of high positions in business and politics by an increasingly elderly class that is stuck in an obsolete way of thinking. In America this has given birth to the quip "ok, boomer."

I don't like sounding age-ist, but it does seem as if most people stop updating their understanding of the world at some point in their 40s. I don't think it's that older people can't learn. My grandfather taught himself computer programming, called BBSes (at 300 baud!), learned digital/TTL electronics, and learned all kinds of other new stuff in his 60s. It's just that most people don't do this. I think it might be an ego thing. People decide they know it all at some point and stop learning or changing their opinions.

It could also have less to do with age than with age plus status. High status people rarely seem to make drastic revisions to their world view because their brain stem is telling them everything they're doing is working. (At least this is the mechanism I suspect exists. It would have survival value to some extent.) So you get entrenched older managerial and political classes that double, triple, and quadruple down on failing policies because the failure has not affected them yet.

A second problem is that virtually every society on Earth today uses growth to paper over a range of systemic failings. Instead of dealing with inequality, we use growth. Instead of getting rid of moribund industries we use growth to make new ones while keeping the old stuff around. Growth really does avoid the need to confront a lot of very messy problems. Recent political history has not inspired confidence in me that we can confront these problems any more rationally than people in the past.

iandanforth4• 6 years ago

I agree, some further thoughts.

The tipping point I'm looking at is when kindred.ai, covariant.ai, google, or similar player nails manipulation. Give me a set of hands that can reliably perform a task in a semi-structured environment 24/7 at 65% the speed of a human and 1B people will be out of work in a decade.

This will further increase the wealth of a few and raise the standards of living for many which will increase their rates of consumption. I'd like to see the population decline to balance this expected increase in consumption.

As for the gerontocracy problem, the easier it is for me to earn enough live the less I have to worry about who is in charge.

dudul3• 6 years ago

Except that it will probably barely move the needle. The US's contribution to world population growth is negligible compared to Africa's or parts of Asia.

That being said, this focus on "population" always sounds a little wrong to me. It's not about how many people are alive, it's about the consumption of resources per person. And by this metric, yes, the US is probably the worst offender. But here is the thing, will childless household/individuals consume less than families?

jtbayly• 6 years ago

Nope. As outlined in another comment, it will be travel and consumption for the sake of the individual, with no thought for what happens to society in 5 decades. Supposedly everything will be fine, since they didn’t “spawn” a “carbon consumer,” and the only problem we face is carbon. It is selfish.

xoxoy• 6 years ago

US birth rates not global

JoeAltmaier4• 6 years ago

Global birth rates are racing toward < 2. Almost every nation. We'll get there in a decade or two.

Analemma_4• 6 years ago

It could be a good thing if we didn't have an economy-- in particular, retirement and health care schemes-- that essentially requires a pyramidal population distribution, and collapses if it goes inverted. We should be working to fix that, but if the inversion happens before the change does, we could be in real trouble.

rootusrootus5• 6 years ago

Have you looked at the population distribution? To make the 60+ brackets go inverted would require a remarkable improvement in life-extending medical technology. It narrows pretty fast at retirement age.

josephorjoe3• 6 years ago

America already has an easy, useful, and generally positive solution to a decline in birthrates: immigration.

We'll just need to move beyond the current xenophobia and remember what we use to know.

rubber_duck3• 6 years ago

In theory this will suck for you because the entire society is structured so that younger people support the old and reducing the number of people who have to support you is a terrible thing, especially if we continue to rise life expectancy (although suicide/accidents/drugs are doing a fine job at countering this in aggregate).

But there is no telling how things will pan out with economy in the future, to what extent will automation increase productivity, etc. Also if the anti-aging research comes through the productive age of individuals could be extended along with longer lifespan.

Whatever happens the environment argument is ridiculous, environment has always been unstable, life on earth has been hit by major cataclysmic events throughout the history - the only difference is that historically we couldn't do anything about it - which is changing significantly with technological development. If we don't start decoupling our survival odds from the environmental factors we are going to suffer as a society irregardless of what we do to environment.

neutronicus• 6 years ago

Figuring out how to structure society in a way that doesn't require the young to outnumber the old is a band-aid the species will have to rip off eventually.

throwaway5752• 6 years ago

"environment argument is ridiculous"

It isn't. The environment isn't unstable right now, it has relatively stable rate of change, and it's predictable. It's just getting worse for our survival as a population. We are using carbon based energy sources too quickly for the environment to follow the natural cycle to sequester it, and as a result we won't be able to feed the existing number of humans.

We cannot decouple survival odds from environmental factors. You show a lack of understanding of how food is made to think that is possible at current populations.

iandanforth4• 6 years ago

To your first point. I think contraction economics (the study of economics under declining populations) would be a great area to enter right about now.

JoeAltmaier4• 6 years ago

Done.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trend-of-total-fertility...

mrfusion3• 6 years ago

Every human born is a super computer with AGI that can be purposed towards improving our situation and solving the mysteries of the universe.

alex_anglin• 6 years ago

If by AGI, you're referring to 'Artificial General Intelligence,' I'm curious to know what you think the Artificial part is.

gtfoutttt2• 6 years ago

Amen

mrfusion3• 6 years ago

On the other hand, what’s the purpose of a universe without humans?

rtkwe4• 6 years ago

It's unlikely humans are the only life in the universe and beyond that why does it have to have a purpose.

cudima• 6 years ago

what's the purpose of a universe without elephants?

0xffff2• 6 years ago

What's the purpose of a universe with humans?

stuntkite• 6 years ago

I don't think it's been proven that human or even earth life is the most effective method the universe has come up with to look at itself. Humans appear to be good at recording the universe's happenings but I haven't seen solid evidence that the record is important on a galactic time scale.

mrfusion3• 6 years ago

A lot of environmentalists think humans are a plague on this planet.

tengbretson• 6 years ago

Well forgive me then if I totally disregard the policy prescriptions of people who hate my species.

keiferski5• 6 years ago

The cause of this is an overemphasis on consumption, not an increase in the number of human beings alive.

Ironically this consumption-based mentality is also one cause of the declining birth rates in developed countries. On a material level, potential middle-class parents are vastly better off today than the parents of ~100 years ago. As a percentage of income, food is cheaper, entertainment and education are essentially free (thanks to the Internet), clothing doesn't need to be hand-made, etc. And yet many people don't have kids because they "can't afford it" which basically translates to "can't afford to maintain society's baseline consumption levels." I'm not blaming them, either - this is something that society pushes constantly. Going against that tide is extremely difficult.

bagacrap3• 6 years ago

Every problem with modern society becomes worse with more humans. We could cut per capita consumption in half and every additional human would still accelerate climate change.

chillwaves3• 6 years ago

The cost of rent has increased as a percentage of income.

People aren't choosing to not have kids just so they can eat avocado toast.

rtkwe4• 6 years ago

A big problem with that is long lifetimes and nice non-poverty level retirements basically require that there be more young people to support the older population in retirement because most people do not make enough to pay for their own retirement through savings.

gizmo6862• 6 years ago

Retirement savings is irrelevant. No one saves for retirement by stockpiling cans of food. They save for retirement by stockpiling financial assets that can be exchanged for food when they are retired. They need just as much of a workforce to produce this food if they pay for it through savings as they would if it was provided through a socialist government program.

If everyone who retired has "adequate" savings, but their is not a large enough workforce to support them, you will see their buying power fall. Also possible is their buying power would remain, and the buying power of the young workforce would fall as a greater share of goods produced go to retired folks who hoarded financial capital when it was cheaper to do so.

impendia4• 6 years ago

We simply don't need billions of humans.

You make an excellent point, and I'll raise a counterargument. I would claim, simply, that human life is intrinsically a good thing. I believe that my life is worth living, that it is better that I'm alive than if I were dead. I'll presume that everyone who reads this believes the same about their own lives. In that case, the more people alive, the better -- (if all else is equal).

That said, the philosopher Derek Parfit anticipated this and raises a counterargument to my argument above, known as the "mere addition paradox". [1] Roughly speaking, it goes as follows.

1. Suppose you have a population of 1,000,000 people, living happy, healthy, productive lives. Let's stipulate that this is a good thing.

2. Now, suppose in addition to this, suppose you have a second population of 1,000,000 people, who lead difficult lives with a lot of hardship, but whose lives are (perhaps barely) worth living. Then, if human life is intrisically good, then it is good that these people also exist. (This is the "mere addition" part.)

3. Given these two populations, equality is a good thing: lower the standard of living of the first million people ever so slightly, and raise the standard of the second group to match the first. This, too, seems to be a good thing.

4. Repeat. Eventually you arrive at a huge population, living lives of misery and squalor which are just slightly better than nothing -- but which one has argued is a better scenario than your original million people. This is the "repugnant conclusion".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

jonwalch• 6 years ago

"I'll presume that everyone who reads this believes the same about their own lives."

That's an enormous assumption, in my opinion.

scottLobster3• 6 years ago

If nothing else more humans increase our collective potential intelligence to solve problems.

It's my my main issue with the anti-natalist movement: If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse.

We don't need fewer humans, we need smarter/better institutions and more efficient technology. Every life born is one more potential option for a breakthrough.

saiya-jin2• 6 years ago

This is perspective from purely human view, ignoring just about everything else that makes reality, which is way more complex.

People don't live in vacuum, we destroy our environment on maybe even exponential scale as our numbers grow. Extermination of vast amounts of species and whole ecosystems might mean nothing to you, but sure as hell is something I value very highly.

I am not an extremist, I don't claim that earth and universe would be just fine without humans, we can be a worthy addition even if only for selfish purposes. But as usually some middle path is probably the best, especially in long term view, which is very hard to model for human mind.

volkk3• 6 years ago

you've lost me at

Given these two populations, equality is a good thing: lower the standard of living of the first million people ever so slightly, and raise the standard of the second group to match the first.

I'm trying to understand why you would repeat this step if you've lowered the standard of the first million ever so slightly but have already matched the miserable million to be that of the happy million?

nitwit005• 6 years ago

Pick silly axioms, get silly conclusions.

If it were genuinely the case that human life should be maximized, we should lower everyone's standard of living as much as possible (it consumes resources), and then force everyone to have as many children as possible.

Of course, that would also maximize human suffering, but apparently human life is intrinsically good regardless of suffering, so not a problem.

jes5199• 6 years ago

this is happening! Check out “Empty Planet: the Shock of Global Population Decline”. They predict a peak in _global_ population around 2050. The same cultural change is happening world-wide: people are having fewer children, and they’re having them later.

snarf21• 6 years ago

I agree with you. I don't think the planet can sustain more than about 4B people. As the third world countries get better health care and have better infant mortality, their rates will continue to drop. Additionally, robotics are going to continue to reduce our need for people to do stuff for other people.

pkaye• 6 years ago

Most western countries are below population replacement fertility rate of 2.1. This also include China at 1.7 and India almost there at 2.2. The countries in Africa are still up there though but they will go down also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

ecoled_ame• 6 years ago

Amen

meddlepal3• 6 years ago

Kids aren't worth the headache (queue the parents telling me how their kid is the greatest thing that ever happened to them).

I'd rather allocate the saved 500K-1million dollars it costs to raise a kid and use it for myself.

abledon• 6 years ago

diff strokes for diff folks

patentatt• 6 years ago

Or, rather than making a value judgement; how about ‘to each his own’ and we can all make different decisions in life for ourselves and that’s OK.

brenden28• 6 years ago

I agree, but it's politically incorrect to acknowledge the fact that it's ok to not breed, and it's also ok to not want kids.

yardie3• 6 years ago

The only people that are not okay with you having kids are your parents and politicians. The former out of cultural and familiar reasons. The latter because city/town bond ratings take a hit if the population isn't growing.

rootusrootus5• 6 years ago

Sounds like you have made the right decision.

chadash• 6 years ago

As a parent, I agree. It's a big expense and lots of work. I personally think it's well worth it for me personally, but for a lot of people, I agree that it's not worth the headache. I don't think there's anything wrong with using that extra time/money on yourself instead.

yardie3• 6 years ago

As a parent I completely agree. A lot of people shouldn't have kids. The shitty parents that do have them do so out of obligations (culture or religion) or just sheer laziness, ie birth control was too hard and here we are. I question my ability as a parent everyday (as every parent should).

Some people looking for companionship or loyalty should get a dog. Because your kids aren't that.

croon2• 6 years ago

As a parent who loves their kid, and having waited and planned before going into it, I encourage anyone who doesn't 100% want a kid to not have any, and applaud them for it.

We need <some> kids, but neither the kid, the parent nor the world will be better off by having kids whom the parents didn't want.

I imagine a vanishingly small amount of parents would say they regret having kids post-fact, but it's fairly obvious who were mentally prepared (and willing) and who weren't, when meeting other parents.

glitchc5• 6 years ago

I thought much the same for the longest time... until we had one by accident.

Rearing a child grounds you in a way you cannot imagine at this moment. Looking back, I realize not having a kid was just me trying to avoid making any hard choices in life.

Now, when I interact with colleagues who don't have kids, I see a certain shallowness of perspective that, in retrospect, I myself was guilty of. None of them ever really grew up.

bagacrap3• 6 years ago

that's not condescending at all

meddlepal3• 6 years ago

I see a certain shallowness of perspective that, in retrospect, I myself was guilty of. None of them ever really grew up.

... And there's the condescension I hinted at. Get over yourself.

LordAtlas• 6 years ago

Anyone have a non-paywall link?

hiram1122• 6 years ago

I've been able to read WSJ links with the Bypass Paywall plugin, Firefox, and UBlock Origin.

* https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

throwaway555544• 6 years ago

Wait until January 2021.

But on a serious note, even though my SO and I are doing very well economically (both engineers), it's still weighs heavy the thought of having a child with how expendable engineers are these days.

alharith• 6 years ago

Just have a kid if you want them. You'll never "be able to afford it."

It will never make "economic sense" to have a child. Luckily, most of us do not place a monetary value on human life.

swebs• 6 years ago

with how expendable engineers are these days

I have never heard anyone say that. What kind of engineers are you? There should be demand everywhere.

throwaway555544• 6 years ago

I mean expendable in the sense that as an employee you can just be thrown away if the market dips. Sure, you can maybe find more work, but you probably would have to uproot (not everyone lives in SV) and that's not easy with kids. My parents did that and it sucked; 8 different schools from elementary to high school.

AndrewGaspar3• 6 years ago

it's still weighs heavy the thought of having a child with how expendable engineers are these days.

If you're working in some sort of Information technology, you're one of the least expendable employees in the labor market, at least as of March 2020. Only government and finance have lower layoff rates: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t05.htm

save_ferris3• 6 years ago

I decided against kids a couple of years ago and I’m so glad I did. I just couldn’t see myself raising kids the way I wanted to and being able to keep my career and quality of life. And I see so many new parents just being ground down by it all, and that was before the pandemic.

Without independent wealth, I just don’t see how people do it without making some incredible sacrifices.

WhompingWindows5• 6 years ago

They DO make incredible sacrifices: losing sleep, losing free time, everything gets messy and slobbery, kids are very expensive, they can get into trouble and worry you...on and on.

Then again, parents see the trade-offs. They'll have someone to take care of them later, to pay some of that forward to society, plus parents are often the kind of people who love babies/kids and take joy and pleasure in the process.

It totally makes the best sense to let every person decide if these trade-offs are worth it...but I do think we should support parents financially, as having a balanced age pyramid is an important thing for a society.

save_ferris3• 6 years ago

but I do think we should support parents financially,

I completely agree, but the cynic in me just doesn't see a scenario where this is politically feasible in the US.

gtfoutttt2• 6 years ago

They'll have someone to take care of them later....

Meh. This is overrated. Lots of kids hate their parents, and never see them.

ArlenBales• 6 years ago

They'll have someone to take care of them later

This is probably the most longterm bet any human makes, but it's also very dependent on culture. Sheltering with and caring for your elders is common in countries like Japan and India, whereas in the U.S. it usually amounts to depositing them at a nice nursing home.

fullshark• 6 years ago

Until I had kids I would probably agree with you, but now that I do having my career be slightly less successful doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice at all. Careerism seems like such an empty modern day religion to me compared to the joy of raising my children.

cwperkins• 6 years ago

A look at the charts tells a different story IMO.

Birthrates fell or held steady for women of all ages except those in their early 40s. Teenagers saw the sharpest drop, with a 5% decline in their birthrate. Since peaking in 1991, the teen birthrate has fallen 73%.

Seems to me like people are waiting longer these days. We may be in a lull at the moment, but I'd expect this to pick back up barring any adverse economic conditions.

WhompingWindows5• 6 years ago

Plus access to contraceptives, sexual education, and economic and social considerations -- lot of factors that could contribute to the drop in <24 year old group.

jbeam2• 6 years ago

I'd expect this to pick back up barring any adverse economic conditions.

I expect that it won't pick back up because adverse economic conditions have already arrived.

AndrewGaspar3• 6 years ago

If you push out the whole distribution of child births, some of those would-be child births will not happen. Female fertility falls rapidly after 35[1]. It's not something you can simply delay across the population and expect to get the same total reproduction rate. People will have fewer kids than they otherwise would have.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility#Quant...

keiferski5• 6 years ago

I know this is a sci-fi scenario, but: don't overpopulation problems evaporate once space travel and colonization really kick off? In fact, at that point, it would seem that more people = better, at least if 'explore the universe' is something you think civilization should do.

This scenario seems doable/likely within a few hundred years. Less if space travel becomes more than a niche thing.

bagacrap3• 6 years ago

Unfortunately it seems the Earth is also going to be uninhabitable "within a few hundred years".

orev• 6 years ago

Space travel and colonization is so far off from a realistic option that you might as well be talking about Captain Marvel swooping in and saving the planet. The physics simply don’t allow it to happen (short of some truly major breakthrough like warp drive/time travel). And we don’t have hundreds or thousands of years to wait for things like that — the current trends point to a few decades at best to solve these problems.

Also, colonization creates more people. The current ones stay where they are, while only a few adventurers move to the new place, and then have kids there. Most people are not going to give up a lifetime’s worth of building a life somewhere, at least not in the numbers needed to impact total population.

keiferski5• 6 years ago

I don't know, that seems a bit pessimistic. Right now, space travel is a tiny fraction of global economic activity. What if that increased 10x, 100x, or 1,000x?

Submarines and self-contained vessels might be a good metaphor/approach, as compared to a full-blown colony. It doesn't seem implausible that we could have millions of self-contained spaceships, each carrying hundreds of people, within ~200 years, assuming that serious percentages of GDP are put toward it.

ben_w3• 6 years ago

Space is big. Really big. It’s such a long way to the nearest star to Sol that I expect a billion people living in a floating Pacific seastead community before I the first hundred thousand reach the stars.

Unfortunately, once we do have proper cheap space access with e.g. a launch loop, the exponential nature of growth means it only takes 50 generations of 4-child families to go up each step along the Kardeshev scale.

After type II, population growth is limited by the speed of light.

yardie3• 6 years ago

In the longterm it's theoretically possibly, in the short term (in human lifetimes) we'll die on this planet trying to make it happen elsewhere. To colonize another planet will take a lots of terraforming. Terraforming takes tons of energy in manufacturing, transportation, and sustainability. Those resources will have to be mined from earth, transported to another planet, and installed there until a colony is sustainable.

A bit of history. The American Revolution was initiated by the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was initiated because the UK government treasury was being drained by trying to sustain a distant colony. They assumed, wrongly, the colonists would help pay for the ships, army, and resources they were being subsidized. The French revolution began out of King Louis XVI draining the French treasury to support the American revolution. When famine hit and he didn't have the resources to feed his people, CHOP!

So to get a space based colony running you're going to need to convince a whole lot of people that things are going to suck for a while but the payoff is generations away. I don't see that happening in todays climate.

I think the series The Expanse gets space colonization mostly right. The Belters have it hard because space. Terrans have it hard because Earth is dying.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

Let's suppose that space travel (interstellar, or just interplanetary?) kicks off. Let's suppose that we colonize Mars, or even Alpha Centauri. Well, there's a big difference between moving a thousand colonists to Mars, and moving a billion people to Mars. (What's the carrying capacity for Mars?) Even more so with Alpha Centauri.

I see exactly zero chance that, within a few hundred years, there will be enough space travel to move enough people off of Earth to significantly change the population of Earth.

asdff2• 6 years ago

It depends on how colonization actually works out. If all materials would have to be delivered from earth, no way in hell. The New World would have never took off if all the wood needed for building the village had to be imported from Spain.

peterangular14• 6 years ago

Anecdotal: Many folks in my social circles are just less willing to accept the real responsibility of raising a child. We're all late-20-somethings/early 30-somethings and I have the conversation all the time with people who want to wait until things like careers are established, until they have a chance to seriously travel a bit, and most commonly they just want to enjoy a relationship without the stress of kids. Kids are an insanely huge responsibility, and to parent right all of your life priorities change completely.

Also, with religious stresses being almost non-existent in the groups I run in I feel like people aren't jumping into legally-binding marriages which causes the baby thing to be pushed down the road until they find someone they want to forge a lifelong relationship with. I think it's a super good thing when people take their time to find the right relationship for them!

All-in-all I've noticed a big generational gap in thinking on this one because all I hear from tons of older relatives is "sooo when you guys getting married?" ...or even pushing for children before the fact. It feels unnatural and downright weird to field those questions and it's neigh impossible to explain "we're just taking our time to enjoy this thing and not rushing into huge commitments with marriage or kids..."

We're just taking our time trying to do the right thing for us really... I just wish people would stop calling us selfish for that.

nathanaldensr• 6 years ago

It's terrifying to me that selfishness and self-centeredness has apparently taken over that generation of young people. Our society and culture are doomed if this doesn't change.

kingkawn• 6 years ago

It is easily arguable that given the overpopulation of the planet and looming risks of climate change that the people delaying or choosing against having kids are saving the future for humanity.

CogitoCogito2• 6 years ago

It's terrifying to me that selfishness and self-centeredness has apparently taken over that generation of young people.

It's selfish and self-centered to not* have children?

Our society and culture are doomed if this doesn't change.

That's one opinion I guess. Personally I believe our society and culture are doomed if we don't significantly decrease the human population. But that's just another opinion.

*Edit: I forgot the "not" which obviously entirely changes the meaning of my post.

Trasmatta• 6 years ago

Choosing not to have kids doesn't mean you're selfish or self-centered. In fact, it's often the complete opposite. Choosing to have kids when you're not in a situation to raise them decently (mentally, physically, emotionally, financially) is the more selfish choice.

troutwine2• 6 years ago

That's one way to look at it. The more realistic is, I think, to recognize that the generation reaching child-bearing age has lived through one major recession, seemingly another is on the way and our response to the first was to increase the indebtedness of everyone broadly. Even past that, with Millenials and lower you're looking at people that take the possibility of catastrophic climate change seriously and have serious anxiety about it. Is it responsible to bring a child into the world if you're broke and if you're dreading the future?

OP seems like they run in some affluent circles, but the problem is broader than just among the affluent.

throwawaygh• 6 years ago

In my extended family and high school network, nearly everyone in my age group who had a kid in their early 20s has been on welfare or other assistance at some point. The financial stress ruined a lot of those marriages. And it doesn’t scale, since someone’s taxes paid for all that support.

Waiting a few extra years for financial security is not selfish. Having children without building up some assets to ride through a financial crisis or bout of unemployment is selfish.

syedkarim• 6 years ago

Isn't the act of having children just as selfish--or more selfish? I don't know of any parents (I have four children) who had kids to advance the human race. Most of the reasons for having kids--that I have heard--are related to the personal satisfaction of raising children, having a family, and not being alone when old. Not having kids is less selfish than having kids, as the non-parent is not adding any additional stress to society or the environment.

saiya-jin2• 6 years ago

Well its a reflection of the world previous generations have built to us - you have to study very hard, work hard, in US take massive loans even before entering workforce, no way a single parent can feed whole family like it used to before and so on...

People want more enjoyment out of life, and in the same time finding their place in life got harder. Have state support parentship more (ie sponsored kindergardens instead of horribly expensive ones), because modern folks often live too far from their parents. And tons of other supportive things.

Ie in Switzerland where I live, you are taxed more if you as a couple get married. Staying single brings more than 1000$ extra per month. Even with 1 kid, we are still worse off compared to not marrying. I mean, how more clear can the state be to giving you a massive fuck you as a parent? People here have kids despite state child support policies, not thanks to them.

If you don't feel that you have some support, kids are simply too hard for many. Although, subjectively, they are the best thing in my life.

wing-_-nuts• 6 years ago

On the contrary; I think it's rather selfless to pay for infrastructure and programs that help raise kids, when you have none yourself.

The real narcissism to me, is bringing a child into this world when you're not 100% certain in your abilities to properly raise it. It is a lifetime commitment you need to know you're ready to make before you do so.

tomrod• 6 years ago

Try not to discount the external pressure the current generation faces.

Real wage declines, often dual incomes required just to keep up, two major recessions during prime career building years, primary equity channels increasingly unaffordable, cultural mal-adaptation in many semi-rural/small metro areas to support children in dual-income situations, poor financial literacy as a part of core education, punitive judicial system engendering classism, and more. Not all these problems are new. However, they have increased and are the daily reality this generation faces.

Want to see more people have children? Encourage, vote for, and adopt policies that reduce the external costs of child rearing and birthing. Only then, if low birth rate remains extant, can doomsaying and despair over cultural selfishness be acceptable. Until then, focus on bug-fixing the social platform.

hyperbovine• 6 years ago

Said every older generation about every younger generation, ever. Yet here we are.

golf3• 6 years ago

It's thinly veiled hedonism, we'll reach some kind of equilibrium eventually but it's going to be painful.

underbluewaters3• 6 years ago

Could someone explain this viewpoint to me? It's a common one but I just don't understand where it's coming from. What am I depriving anyone by not having children? I could make the argument that having children is selfish but I don't really understand the opposite perspective well.

wonderwonder3• 6 years ago

Who is OP being selfish towards? The children they don't have? If that's the case then is its selfish to stop having kids is it not? Have 2 kids, its selfish not to have 7. Who decides the correct amount of children to have and who decides if that number is greater than 0?

There are a variety of factors that are or should be taken into account before having a child, OP is being responsible. If they don't want or feel like they are not ready for a child, not having a child is the responsible option.

This 'generation of young people' are incredibly financially insecure and are currently experiencing the second great recession of their lives. Adding the expense of children to that is not a responsible action. Good for OP for making a rational decision that suits their needs.

falsaberN1• 6 years ago

Depends on the reasons. I cannot have children because of a genetic disorder that my father decided to spread around irresponsibly, having lots of kids with multiple women. That disorder took the life of my brother recently, and I was explicitly advised to NOT have children because it apparently becomes worse every generation, something proven by the children of my stepbrothers and sisters.

Try to explain that to people, and you might as well be telling them that the weather is bad, though. It's kinda nonsensical.

tomjen3• 6 years ago

There are young people all over the world who would go to the US right now, if they could get a visa, because they will have better opportunities there, and because they genuinely love the US culture.

The only culture that is liable to die from lack of children is a culture that could not survive in the free.

sershe10• 6 years ago

Having kids in the first world is probably the most selfish act one can do. All other obvious arguments aside (w.r.t. impact on society, the planet, etc. compared to the alternatives), if your motivation was not basically selfish you'd adopt.

It's literally the same thing, except you don't get to propagate your genes and might get less of a personal hormone rush.

3fe9a03ccd14ca52• 6 years ago

Also, with religious stresses being almost non-existent in the groups I run in I feel like people aren't jumping into legally-binding marriages

I’ve made the same observation, I think “common law” marriage is becoming a big thing. I also notice it’s not a mutually-appreciated situation for many couples long term, usually with one partner wanting to enter into a legal marriage but not the other for various reasons.

Spooky233• 6 years ago

I'm a little older, and while I wouldn't be worried about what strangers think about your choices, you may find your own perspective change if you have kids.

I know in my circle of friends and favily, we waited longer than we wanted do due to things out of our control, but ended up being about "average" age for having a first child in our circle. Many of our circle who waited until late 30s/early 40s are very torn up with having waited, as the reality that they are going to miss certain things sets in.

Life moves fast, and our modern world tends to make you prioritize things that don't really matter. Your relatives may be annoying, but in most cases, they are probably trying to express how they grew to feel. From my personal pov, watching or working with my 8 year old isn't some obligation that I have to do, it's incredible and more relevant to me that some stupid IT project that I'll barely remember in 10 years.

If I come off as preachy, I don't intend it and apologize. I just found that the "eyeroll factor" for how 39 year old me sees 29 year old me was much higher than how 29 year old me looked back at 19 year old me!

caseysoftware2• 6 years ago

And it's multi-generational.

I'm 40 and my youngest is 3. By the time he's an adult, I'll be 55. If he has kids at 40, I'll be 77 and will never really know his kids, let alone see them grow up.

I'd never recommend having kids at 18 but looking more and more like 25-30 is the "right" age.

mrits• 6 years ago

"it's incredible and more relevant to me that some stupid IT project that I'll barely remember in 10 years."

You are comparing your kids to your IT projects. Maybe you should instead compare it to things you really are passionate about in life. If you don't have those then it certainly makes sense how children could have easily filled that void.

sershe10• 6 years ago

Interesting, 26 year old me was willing to have children some day, 31 year old me was contemplating maybe having kids some day when he gets bored with life, 36 year old me never wants children, is married to someone who never wants children, had a vasectomy, and is still kinda afraid it will fail and he might end up with a kid.

The longer I live and look around the more I realize how annoying and life-ruining kids would be for me. And, while there may be many couples that are happier with kids, the ones that stick out for me are (also many) that either visibly have worse QoL, less happy marriages, etc., and the ones that visibly have stockholm syndrome.

josefresco5• 6 years ago

I'm genuinely curious, who in your life is calling you selfish? Are they specific people, or are you asserting that "society" is making this claim?

peterangular14• 6 years ago

Both - even in this thread someone is getting downvoted into oblivion for calling me selfish:

It's terrifying to me that selfishness and self-centeredness has apparently taken over that generation of young people.

It's a very common sentiment and it's usually older family/coworkers.

EDIT: now there's even more and weird "you're gonna die alone" comments in there too (which are common as a counter argument for waiting)... just look at this thread and you'll see exactly what I was trying to describe.

mobilefriendly• 6 years ago

There's a huge trade-off that you're missing. Fertility drops rapidly in your 30s, especially for women. I'm middle aged and know many women who waited but were unable to conceive.

thisisnico• 6 years ago

It's still doable with enough effort. My best friend at 32 was able to conceive even with medical issues that would make it near impossible. It took 2 years but it happened.

scottLobster3• 6 years ago

Define "waited" https://www.babycenter.com/0_age-and-fertility-getting-pregn...

"Every study you read or expert you consult will agree that 35 is a milestone for women when it comes to having children. In your early 30s, your chances of getting pregnant are only slightly lower than in your late 20s, and your risk of having a miscarriage or a baby with Down syndrome is only slightly higher. But at 35, that decline in fertility begins to accelerate."

Sure it might take more effort than say mid-twenties, fertility tracking/treatments, etc. But it can be done. And before 35 is certainly doable.

If there's one thing I'm grateful to my parents for it's my education. Life in the 21st century requires much higher complexity to achieve similar economic/social success to previous generations, and not just on the technological front. Those with the tools to solve complex problems will do fine, those who lack said tools are going to be bitterly disappointed across most aspects of life, unless we somehow bring back unskilled labor as a middle class profession.

sershe10• 6 years ago

Couldn't one adopt and have the same experience?

asdff2• 6 years ago

You can freeze your gametes. Probably a good idea to do now, male and female.

aantix5• 6 years ago

But it is by definition selfish.

You literally have thousands of generations that have gone before you, that have sacrificed to give you those very choices you’ve outlined.

Your parents comforted you when you were scared, even to the detriment of their sleep. Fed you, clothed you, shared all of their resources even when they didn’t feel like it, even when it wasn’t to their advantage.

Edit: not sure why this is downvoted?

“Selfish: lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.”

aianus2• 6 years ago

Presumably the “others” referenced in the definition need to actually exist for you to lack consideration for them.

josefresco5• 6 years ago

What about someone who has no kids, but instead cares for and commits their entire existence to helping humanity? Still selfish? What about the couple who has 10 kids and relies on charity and public assistance to survive? Not selfish?

SketchySeaBeast7• 6 years ago

It's important to keep in mind that all those generations before us did it because that's just what you did - by not reproducing you're not stopping the Kwisatz Haderach from being born or anything. There's no manifest destiny here - it's just that sex feels good. That's it.

game_the0ry3• 6 years ago

Your comments are not being downvoted because they are false - there is some truth in what you say.

They're being downvoted because:

(1) your comment is a blanket assumption on an entire group of people, and

(2) you claim a position of (likely unearned) moral superiority that (you assume) allows you to make such judgements on others.

Thus, you come off as "un-cool." Be cool, my friend. Don't judge strangers for the important life choices they make. You don't know enough about others' lives to make justifiable judgements on the important life choices they make.

danbolt• 6 years ago

Your parents comforted you when you were scared, even to the detriment of their sleep. Fed you, clothed you, shared all of their resources even when they didn’t feel like it, even when it wasn’t to their advantage.

Oof, I’m glad you haven’t met some of the parents I’ve met.

js89• 6 years ago

Many folks in my social circles are just less willing to accept the real responsibility of raising a child.

You can also accept the responsibility of dying childless. It might be lonely and problematic in other ways. It might even make your life shorter.

I wish people would understand that kids are not only responsibility, but also joy, and help. So the grass is not really greener on the either side.

CogitoCogito2• 6 years ago

You can also accept the responsibility of dying childless. It might be lonely and problematic in other ways. It might even make your life shorter.

Might make your life longer and happier too. Obviously it depends on personal circumstances.

I wish people would understand that kids are not only responsibility, but also joy, and help. So the grass is not really greener on the either side.

I think most people _do_ understand that. I would hope that you understand that depending on the circumstances, that joy and help may _not_ outweigh the responsibility and hardships.

peterangular14• 6 years ago

You can also accept the responsibility of dying childless. It might be lonely and problematic in other ways.

Who am I to impose my degrading health/inevitable death onto someone else? I say this having dealt with both of my parent's deaths already.

I come from a long family history of mental illness, addiction, abuse, and just some general heinous stuff. Passing my daily struggle along to someone to avoid dying childless seems so selfish to me... to the point that I'd feel pretentious even considering that as a reason TO have children.

What I'm trying to say is it's just not as simple as that for many people. I've also accepted that I will likely die alone and just don't care - I've volunteered at nursing homes and EOL is miserable for everyone. Doing anything so people give a f about me down the line just seems incredibly selfish.

caseysoftware2• 6 years ago

The problem comes on the other side.. the later you decide to have kids, the more risks involved. For women, risks are low until ~35 or so and get much higher around 40. FTA:

The NCHS data also showed that the share of babies born preterm last year hit its highest level in more than a decade, with just over 1-in-10 being born before 37 weeks of gestation.

Having experienced that, it's not something I'd wish on anyone.

seanalltogether• 6 years ago

My wife and I had a kid at 37 and now another at 40. If I could go back in time I would have started a year after marriage at 33.

tehjoker2• 6 years ago

Another way to look at this is that as dual careers have become a necessity, the economy has become so brutally competitive that it has become biologically insufficient for reproducing the working class. There's an element of choice in upper middle class careers, but for most of the population there is no choice.

Children are a result of sufficient resources being present (time, energy, supports, and money). Those things are being stripped from us by the employer class.

In terms of lack of supports, for example, the United States is one of the only advanced economies without free child care. The right wing is attempting to strip away public education. The physical process of having a child costs thousands of dollars, and sometimes they charge for letting the mother hold her baby right after it is born. Housing requires dual incomes in order to live in a place near jobs that isn't either a slum or too cramped.

gfxgirl2• 6 years ago

You're not selfish. Do what's right you.

You could make the argument those having kids are selfish. I'm not going to enumerate all the reasons why but it doesn't take much thought to come up with many.

I'm not saying they are selfish, only that people can make the argument either way. Ignore them.

superflit3• 6 years ago

I am making this comment here as a late father of two in good faith.

Please consider at least 1/3 of what I am trying to say.

"Many folks in my social circles are just less willing to accept the real responsibility of raising a child. We're all late-20-somethings/early 30-somethings and I have the conversation all the time with people who want to wait until things like careers are established,"

This is the eternal search for the "perfect time", "perfect conditions" as I sometimes said myself:

"When I have more time, I will go to the Gym."

"When I get more money I will be able to save."

"All-in-all I've noticed a big generational gap in thinking on this one because all I hear from tons of older relatives is "sooo when you guys getting married?" ...or even pushing for children before the fact. It feels unnatural and downright weird to field those questions and it's neigh impossible to explain we're just taking our time to enjoy this thing and not rushing into huge commitments with marriage or kids..."

No, there is not. I am in my forties and got the same questions. But you know what the real deal is? People are not asking about the children. They are polite, trying to alert you.

Alert about:

1. Healthy babies and age of parents -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881604/

2. What age will you be when your son wants to play/run at his 16 years?

3. We don't have control of life anytime. You may be Healthy now, but it only takes a disease to change it.

4. One thing is you did not use protection on your 20's and got pregnant another is willing to get pregnant later -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

Life is a match competition game if you are aware or not.

Older ladies compete against younger ladies (more fertile)

Man compete with another man for physical security (muscles and tall) or financial security(money, resources).

The main problem is sometimes you are having fun with someone that you can't see yourself having a family.

Now about the other reasons to not have a baby:

1. The "earth", carbon resources, global warming -> Riiight it seems the propaganda only targets one part of the population that is not the part of the problem.

2. We just need more robots: That will be nice for you to live in a robotic nursery home. "Alexa! Give me my pills".

3. Immigration will complement: different people, different traditions, different morals. Don't get surprised later!

Now consider at least 1/3 of what I said in good faith:

1. Are you spending your time with someone you can see raising a family? If not is like sleeping with a poisonous snake in your bedroom. One day it will bite you.

2. Did your past jobs/companies called you on holidays? Invited you for a BBQ?

3. Who profits from high IQ, working hard people not having kids? Have you checked how much a burrito breakfast is charged in a retirement home? How much is "dinner"? (microwave)

Please consider it in good faith. What if 1/3 is true?

SketchySeaBeast7• 6 years ago

You're basically just arguing from fear - missed opportunities, conflict, and difficulties if you wait.

Cactus2018• 6 years ago

IDIOCRACY Opening Scene (2006) Mike Judge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

LinuxBender• 6 years ago

That is one of my favorite documentaries.

pontifier• 6 years ago

This scene is directly responsible for convincing me to reproduce. I saw this movie, and less than a week later met some old dumb guy that said he had over 90 grandchildren. I was convinced I needed to do my part to shift the balance of the future toward intelligence.

I now have 3 children, and would love to have many many more.

wonderwonder3• 6 years ago

People should have kids when they are ready, if they are ready. One thing those with kids that are actively encouraging you to have them don't tell you is that life as you knew it is pretty much over. This can be a positive or a negative. I have 2 kids that I very much love and am very grateful to have, the oldest being 8 now. I have been exhausted for 8 years. Everything changes. Even something as simple as running out to the food store means rounding the kids up, finding shoes, finding water bottles, getting them in the car, strapping the youngest one in the car seat. Driving to the store while the kids full on fight about the youngest saying he does not like the oldest's favorite color. Getting to the store, having to say no 15 times to everything they pass and want (plastic dinosaur bowels with built in straw). Waiting in line, having to tell them constantly to stop picking up the candy in the checkout line, etc.

There are definitely great moments, throwing the ball in the yard, hugs, conversations etc. But these don't detract from the overall exhaustion. I would still choose to have my kids every time if provided the option as I love them and could not imagine not having them but don't let anyone talk you into something you are not ready for.

Press2forEN• 6 years ago

For two months, lockdown protesters have been called selfish for the perception that they stand in opposition to what their detractors believe is a more important obligation to wider society over their personal concerns.

By the same token, having children is essential to maintain the social welfare state, and those that choose to travel or maintain a career instead are currently benefiting from that state while not contributing future workers back to it.

I don't know what the solution is, but short of dismantling the welfare state, there needs to be a concern on the part of today's young people for the perpetuation of the system from which they benefited so greatly.

SketchySeaBeast7• 6 years ago

having children is essential to maintain the social welfare state

That's not actually true though - immigration happily supports the required population growth. When the whole world stops reproducing we may need a plan B, but that's not a problem right now.

peterangular14• 6 years ago

there needs to be a concern on the part of today's young people for the perpetuation of the system from which they benefited so greatly

It also seems like the system that will throw me overboard and tell me to "pull myself up by the bootstraps" the moment I hit turbulent times.

gowld• 6 years ago

That's what robots are for.

lonelappde• 6 years ago

On a global level, a wealthy person delaying or not having kids is an altruistic gift, avoiding pollution.

On a family level, not having kids (ever) is both selfish (if you neither pay back your parents for their effort not pay it forward it to kids of your own) and also vandalism to your parents: genetic heritage.

peterangular14• 6 years ago

My parents did plenty to abuse and there's strong history of mental illness, addiction, and genetic disorders on both sides of my family.

Is this vandalism? I think not...

meowfly2• 6 years ago

I didn't ask to be born, it was forced on me. I don't see why I would have any moral obligation to not vandalize my genetic heritage nor why I would owe anyone taking the responsibility of another life.

tjalfi• 6 years ago

I'm a high-functioning autistic and have Alzheimer's disease in my family.

I wouldn't wish either of these on anyone - the future will just have to get along without any of my offspring.

lenkite• 6 years ago

I am diabetic and would hate to force this on my offspring. So selfish of me!

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

It's a real responsibility. The losses are real. I think the key thing is realizing that you don't find real fulfillment in doing what you want. You don't find it in financial success, or in travel.

And so you can wind up chasing more money or more travel or more time to do your thing, and never finding that it's enough to satisfy you, because what you're looking for isn't there. This trip won't be enough, and the next one won't either, because what you're hungry for isn't in a trip.

Children can help you learn that. If you have children and don't learn it, then you resent the children. "I didn't find what I was looking for, but I could have, if they didn't mess it up for me!"

But I'm not sure that I can explain this in a way that makes sense to someone who doesn't already kind of feel it...

peterangular14• 6 years ago

Nah - I appreciated the comment and really agree with it. Life isn't just black and white, and simplifying it to that is reductionist to the weird minutia that makes up the brilliance of this whole experience.

Things just have been admittedly rocky for me through my life, and I'll fully own that too - it's what you do with your situation that matters. In some ways I'm stunted in comparison to lots of the folks here and have had to live my teens in my 20's, and a bit of my 20's into my 30's. I get that I'm a grown-ass-adult and all, but I'm still growing up, hence the "I'm not into this whole kids thing."

brnt2• 6 years ago

I think part of the error in this train of thought is thinking having kids is a huge responsibility. Naturally speaking, its the most straightforward thing. We've made it into a huge responsibility.

boardwaalk2• 6 years ago

I probably wouldn’t call it an error and say “having kids needs to be” rather than “having kids is”.

It’s reasonable to speak inside the inside the big walls society puts up without specifying so.

Unless you’re willing to go to the extreme of somehow going off the grid and home schooling (and god forbid you have health care issues, for example), it’s just the way it is.

cylinder2• 6 years ago

people should have kids, I think the "no kids" thing is really just a modern American concept. It's fine to wait and plan but I feel sorry for people who say they don't want kids because of what they are reading in global news or whatever. humans have raised children through far worse conditions than now!

Stressful only if you make it. Tiring for everyone, but that's different. Even if you go broke and end up living in a trailer in the sticks it's still ok to have had kids and they will be ok.

bradlys3• 6 years ago

Anecdotal: Many folks in my social circles are just less willing to accept the real responsibility of raising a child. We're all late-20-somethings/early 30-somethings and I have the conversation all the time with people who want to wait until things like careers are established, until they have a chance to seriously travel a bit, and most commonly they just want to enjoy a relationship without the stress of kids. Kids are an insanely huge responsibility, and to parent right all of your life priorities change completely.

I don't meet these people often (I'll be 30/dead in a few months). Most of the people I meet are just not interested in kids - or they already have them. The bank of mom & dad helps with that down payment so they can start pumping out children. I've had friends who gave up on children - they were satisfied being the cool aunt and uncle. I imagine the financial pressure has some influence like it does for me.

Personally - I'm at such a financial burden that I don't know when it'll happen. I quite literally cannot imagine having kids or being excited about them because I find it so hard to even get further in my career with financial prospects. Children is a complete non-starter if I don't have the income to support them. And I don't want them to ever live anything close to what I grew up with - the generational poverty line stops with me. It's not like I have a partner who could have kids right now anyway. (My significant other is about to be gone for ~2 years to finish her degree)

I can't imagine having kids when I hate my jobs so much (agonizing) and feel like I get paid peanuts (half or less than what my peers make at bigger places). So - I'll wait. No sense in having kids when I'm miserable AF because I can't get what I want or need to support them. Maybe they'll never happen. Maybe my significant other will find a new partner who has rich parents. Maybe I'll be single forever more. Whatever.

diddid• 6 years ago

"Don't wait for the perfect moment, take the moment and make it perfect"

While there is definitely bad timing when it comes to kids, there is never a perfect time. I waited because I didn't really care but now I wish I hadn't. Every year you wait is one less year you get to know them. They are selfish little jerks that could change the way you think and give you a renewed purpose. As long as you can provide food, shelter, love and imagination you don't need anything else and neither will they.

Maybe now really is a bad time for you though as it's hard to know without stepping in your shoes. But if you really want them, I genuinely hope you find that just-perfect-enough moment.

toasterlovin17• 6 years ago

Other people sacrificed a lot so you could enjoy this thing called life. I think that saddles you with a burden of paying the debt forward to your children. After all, you’re the only person who can bestow the gift of life on them.

ryanwaggoner• 6 years ago

I think many people agree with you, maybe even just on a subconscious level. But I’m not sure that it’s a good argument. Doesn’t that logic imply that you have a duty to bestow life on as many children as possible? It’s not just your first and second child that are owed the gift of life that only you can bestow. It’s also the 14th and 15th and so on, right?

mtalantikite2• 6 years ago

I'd also emphasize the financial stresses of raising a child. Young people have huge financial burdens from college, live in extremely expensive cities, and the idea of adding a child into that life seems ridiculous.

Plus we have too many people in the world as it is.

nl7• 6 years ago

Plus we have too many people in the world as it is.

Just pointing out there is no real evidence this is the case.

Many people use vastly less resources than the average American, and even at high standards of living this remains true.

We are able to feed all the people in the world easily, with current (or less) environmental impact (just look at the waste we produce).

It's choices, not carrying capacity that leads to environmental issues.

lm284692• 6 years ago

You can't really live like a sub saharan person if you're in the US. Just sitting in an air conditioned office for a week probably makes you use more energy than the average guy in Sudan use in a year.

mtalantikite2• 6 years ago

I don't know, hanging out in Asia makes me feel otherwise. The real results of climate change are in your face there. It's not just about being able to feed everyone.

ReticentVole• 6 years ago

Americans use a lot of resources, but generate a huge amount of GDP, science, and culture.

For example the average American generates 15.7x as much CO2 as the average Pakistani, but generates 591x as much science.

https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo...

Plus intelligence is highly heritable, and many positive traits are heavily influenced by parenting and upbringing, so successful people should have as many children as possible for the good of our civiliation. It is our duty.

The core issue is the extremely high cost of housing in many cities, as well as high taxes, which can mostly be blamed on Baby Boomers for not downsizing rapidly enough and for the burden they place on the rest of society with their pension and healthcare expenses.

ycombonator• 6 years ago

Just look at the number of pets being adopted by Millennials.

tlear• 6 years ago

It is pretty amazing that we are witnessing hard natural selection in action. Think of it like a disease that kills 50% of population. Those that have immunity get to pass their genes, rest die out. Sort of like pressure from smallpox.

I am really curious how this will get resolved. Just collapse of current society with the values we have, some selection of properties like “need” to have kids imprinted even harder then it is now?

Humans 100 years from now will be quite different to us it seems.

I am also quite amazed at all the kids hate. In addition to all other awesome things they allow you to relive your childhood, chance to have an incredibly close friend, you can teach them what you know, do some incredible things together. Etc. Kids are not expensive unless you make them so. They can help you with stuff too you know..(that is if you raise them to be decent people and not just spend days staring at the iPad so they don’t bother you)

lotsofpulp7• 6 years ago

The most expensive part of a kid is stretching yourself to your limits to get them into the most expensive neighborhoods (I.e. best schools) possible.

And the unfortunate thing is the data shows that this is the best move for people to make, as the peers you are surrounded are the biggest determinant of your future success (see opportunity atlas). Which is why people stretch themselves to the max with 30 year mortgages. It’s inevitable in a society with ever widening wealth/income gaps.

agensaequivocum• 6 years ago

If you are putting off having a child on account of money you are doing life wrong. Plenty of large families have non-software incomes and do just fine. They may not be able to eat out but it's a sacrifice worth making.

bfrog2• 6 years ago

The US more or less hates kids and parents. You want more kids? Our society needs to reduce health care and childcare costs while socially making the "village" more of a socially accepted setup. I have 3 generations in my house with other family nearby. I can't imagine doing it any other way. The current job environment is you should be moving to where the jobs are. Why do people need to move to sit on a computer all day is beyond me.

AndrewGaspar3• 6 years ago

Respectfully, I think reducing childcare costs is in direct tension with returning to an expectation that grandparents share some of the child rearing responsibilities.

Hopefully an expansion of remote work can improve this situation.

bfrog2• 6 years ago

Childcare costs could be somewhat indirectly related to grandparents having to retire later or not at all.

volkk3• 6 years ago

yep. agreed here. i would be more likely to want/have kids if i actually lived in a place that was built for kids (tons of space, nature, and a house). instead i'm stuck in the city with jobs that need your ass in a chair and the stress of subway commutes, tons of people, noise, no space. no wonder nobody wants kids. cities simply suck for raising them.

cylinder2• 6 years ago

exactly. I left the US, and there are just way more young couples with kids here. People generally live near their family and have support and won't drop everything chasing jobs thousands of miles away. During lockdown we're staying with my in-laws w/ our 12 onth old, and don't know how this will not continue especially with two kids. Restaurants, long haul travel, bingeing TV, all that stuff are just superficial luxuries of modern life and not the norm and highly overrated IMO. It's time to return to a simpler life. Focus on family, free outdoor activities, vacations are simple road trips to nearby locations, camping and so on.

treespace88• 6 years ago

Society acts like having kids is a luxury good, and not a vital resource.

You can certainly argue that we need to have fewer kids, but to expect parents to fully bear the responsibility of raising them alone drives down the potential of the next generation.

jimbob453• 6 years ago

We already know how to solve this: via tax incentivization to breed. Everyone even remotely familiar with history knows about the baby boom and knows that came about because of financial incentives from the GI Bill. Seems like the government would rather have the cheap unorganized labor of immigrants rather than do the right thing.

trabant002• 6 years ago

About the discussions for/against having children: quit justifying your choice. Most of the time the reason you think made you choose is not the real one and any argument can be countered easily, it only opens your choice to discussion even more.

Especially justifying not having children with the state of economy, politics or social issues does not stand up to scrutiny if you look back in history.

On the other hand simply and unemotionally stating "I don't want children (right now)" is as unbeatable as they come.

ausbah2• 6 years ago

this is probably the most confusing comment I've seen in this thread

the reasons people have for or for not having kids aren't real reasons because...history? or they're "easily countered"? some examples would be nice to provide context to these statements

trabant002• 6 years ago

The reasons people _give_ for/against having kids are just stories they tell themselves. We want to seem rational and we feel the need to have a rational reason for our choices.

"Economy is bad right now" and everything like this: historically the conditions to have children have been a lot worse. History meaning more than 50 years.

Above is only one example of how you can open your choice to being countered when this decision is just a personal thing that should not be up for debate imho.

I explained poorly, the intention was just to help mostly young people have a more solid stand especially against peer/family pressure.

gumby2• 6 years ago

We had 8 years of happy marriage before having a kid, which resulted in decades of a different kind of happy marriage. I’m glad we waited and glad we became parents.

What’s not frequently discussed is how many people are unhappy having become parents. It worked out great for us but one thing I learnt was how many other parents regret that choice. There’s an understandable taboo on discussing it (you have the responsibility, and you don’t want the kids, who had no choice in the matter, to feel unwanted) but a result of the taboo is that people feel pressured into shifting their life in a way they regret.

One reason why I think it worked for us is because we waited.

twoquestions• 6 years ago

I'll try to put this in a nonjudgemental way, and after a few revisions I'm still not happy with the tone of this comment. Sorry about that.

I find it really tough to harmonize the ideas that: 1) If you can't sell your labor to provide for yourself, you deserve to die. 2) You should have kids, and not only cost yourself $100,000 at least, and increase competition for resources.

The cynic in me thinks people want to see others fail so they can feel better about themselves, and more people competing for labor and capital decreasing the demand for labor will increase the number of people who society will deem unworthy of existence. By the odds, any random kid isn't going to change the world, they're just going to be another mouth to feed, and more than likely going to make things somewhat worse for everyone else. This is a blood-soaked all-against-all kill-and-die world, and what is a kid other than another knife pointed at you?

As far as I can tell, this seems about as rational as being proud to put out your own eyes with a red-hot grapefruit spoon.

As far as the "Kids give your life meaning" idea goes, giving one's parents meaning is a lot to put on a baby who can't even lift their own head, or anyone else for that matter. We're told all our lives that we're on our own, that anyone who needs anything from anyone else is weak and doesn't deserve existence (which is both morally wrong and incorrect). At the same time, it's supposedly okay to force a child to emotionally support you? That doesn't make any sense.

I can at least comprehend the racist argument, that it's one's responsibility to have kids to outcompete outsiders. I disagree with it for numerous reasons, but I can at least fit that idea in my head. Maybe that's a reason having kids squicks me out so much, is the only comprehensible argument to me I find repulsive and I've only heard it out of repulsive people.

Is the desire to have kids completely ruled by biological/hormonal factors, or a fear of ostracism for not "doing one's duty"? A lot of people I know and respect are good parents and don't regret having kids, but can't articulate why they did, so I'm not under the impression that parents are all cruel, broken assholes (though in my hometown there were numerous examples of this).

What is it about parenthood that isn't a curse on yourself and everyone else?

zxcmx• 6 years ago

People don't exist without parents. The parts which are not a curse are just the joys (and struggles) of existence.

The part which is not a curse is you.

In a perfect world the ideal people to answer this question would be your parents, but I don't want to presume. We get the families we get, it's just part of the deal.

mlthoughts2018• 6 years ago

I really want to have kids, but I don’t feel financially capable of it. I have a very good, stable job with a high developer salary and costs of raising a child are just way, way, way too high to consider it.

I would at minimum need to be certain I have enough money to

- own a nice, safe home we cannot easily be evicted / removed from (eg due to landlord preferences), within a short commute from my workplace and any school / child care locations we need.

- have a personal savings rate that will allow me to fully pay for some child care options, school, and eventually college, and give my child some lump sum for an emergency fund when they move out on their own.

- have remaining savings rate to still achieve some of my personal goals that I’m unwilling to sacrifice over child care, like traveling / vacationing, continued education, and supporting my elderly parents when needed.

I cannot see a way to do this without earning probably upwards of $500k/year, so having children is just financially untenable for me.

If home prices near major tech centers went down, or my salary went up, then I’d love to. But as labor share of wealth stagnates and urban real estate is increasingly priced out for average families, it’s just impossible.

game_the0ry3• 6 years ago

Millenial here, born in mid-80s. Have seen or experienced:

dot-com boom / bust (junior high)
9/11 (high school)
War on Terror (college)
student loans (probably for the rest of my life)
the worst recession since the Great Depression, and the lasting economic / career effects that never goes away when you go through that (right when I graduated college)
the divisive culture wars between old / young, rich / poor, establishment / anti-establishment, etc
Trump as president
Covid-19
narcissistic boomer parents
narcissistic boomers in all levels and areas of institutional leadership whose baseline modus operandi is incompetence, corruption, and greed
and a lot more that stresses me out

From my perspective, the world is back-sliding - everything feels like its getting worse, not better. Economic data backs this - real wages are level while cost of living is increasing.

And you wonder why we are putting have having children?

It's because we do not know what economic optimism and financial security feel like.

nine_zeros• 6 years ago

I thought the reasons would be obvious. The cost of living has inflated very rapidly in the last 8 years whereas disposable income has gone down because of high rent, debt payments and stagnant real incomes.

What are they proposing? Millenials stay in school longer than ever, take on massive debts early on, pay ever increasing rent, train themselves up to a skilled worker for a livable wage, get a massive mortgage and THEN go sacrifice more by having a kid (whose education costs will be off the roof)?

What a cruel joke!

neonate• 6 years ago

https://archive.md/Mkn7f

m0zg6• 6 years ago

Raising to record high in about 7 months.

thawaway1837• 6 years ago

No one I know wants to have a child.

The primary reason? It’s super expensive. And people my age entered the workforce right before the Great Recession, which hammered their wages and they lost years of salary growth, followed by not even a decade later, a pandemic, which will do worse.

While raising a child continues to get more expensive.

ianai• 6 years ago

Deciding to not have a kid seems like a functional downvote on the surrounding community and circumstances after the per capita growth levels off.

alexpotato• 6 years ago

I'm 39 and have three kids aged 4, 2 and 1 month old.

I've found Jeff Atwood's post on being a parent the single best blog length overview of the emotional pros and cons of having children: https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood/

I like to think about it as kids are +1,000,000 points and -900,000 points at the same time. The average is probably a slight positive but the highs are extremely high and the lows are also pretty low. This TED talk goes into this in more detail and is also great about giving honest views of being a parent: https://www.ted.com/talks/rufus_griscom_alisa_volkman_let_s_...

To make a development analogy: think of a time when you spent a huge effort trying to solve a bug in a code base you really care about. Finding that bug was incredibly frustrating and made you question why you even got into programming. Then, you find the answer and you watch your program work again and be better than it was before. This rollercoaster of emotions with a net positive outcome parallels very closely with having children.

RickJWagner• 6 years ago

Let's give it about a half a year, then look again.

All this coronavirus togetherness has potential to move the needle.

kindly_fo• 6 years ago

Less people = less problems

QuantumGood• 6 years ago

http://archive.md/Mkn7f

U.S. Birthrates Fall to Record Low

Related Stories