The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-04/career-demands-meager-leave-policies-drive-down-birth-rate

by robtherobber • 2 years ago

51 189 2 years ago

bloomberg.com

mhitza• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/aHZX8

wkat424212• 2 years ago

I can imagine. For me it's the reason also to not want kids. I want to enjoy my life.

But it's good for environmental reasons to not have kids anyway.

okokwhatever3• 2 years ago

My kids will be happy to enjoy an empty world. Thank you.

rolisz• 2 years ago

I enjoy life a lot more with kids. As Paul Graham put it in one of his essays, kids are joy on tap.

wkat424212• 2 years ago

I wouldn't feel like that for sure. I just need my own space. I'm not very mature as a person either (despite being close to 50)

But I'm glad we don't have this kind of social pressure to have kids anymore. Like there was in the 50s and some countries still do.

hotpotamus4• 2 years ago

This is why it's strange to me that having children is portrayed as some selfless act; many say they are creating them for their personal fulfillment.

Nevertheless, I'm sure if I had PG's wealth, I could have kids and have a lot better work life balance with them. But I do not.

throwaway47810• 2 years ago

The environment is not intrinsically worth protecting, the reason we need to take care of it is so that the people that come after us can enjoy it.

If humanity has to go extinct in 40 years might as well tear up all current climate agreements.

ben_w3• 2 years ago

While that position is coherent, the urge to have a legacy and reproduce, can also be found in the form of wanting the environment — the world — to persist after us.

DarkNova6• 2 years ago

It's good not to breath for environmental reasons too.

In contrast, kids are necessary to stop overaging and the collapse of our society.

prmoustache8• 2 years ago

OTOH the collapse of our society is probably the best thing that can happen for our environment.

But anyway, if you need active workforce, the solutions is simple: immigration.

supersrdjan5• 2 years ago

The environmental argument against kids insults me (not that you should care). As if it's a binary choice between preserving the environment and preserving our species. I like to think that humans of tomorrow will find ways to solve problems we don't yet know how, so that we can save the environment and our species :)

That said, here's a fine poem in support of your angle: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-ver...

wkat424212• 2 years ago

It's not as if less people having kids leads to humanity becoming extinct. We're still growing way too fast. Some people will just want them and that's fine.

It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad after we've been growing so hard as a species.

Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.

Uinchuling• 2 years ago

People who don't care about the environment are breeding like rabbits. Their children, too, won't care about the environment.

The best thing you can do for the environment is to find someone as passionate as yourself and create a large family of conscientious, thoughtful, active environmentalists.

supersrdjan5• 2 years ago

Indeed, give the environment a fighting chance :)

The absence of people with bad ideas won't help as much as a surplus of people with good ideas. Since even if we had half the people they could still pollute like crazy.

zelphirkalt2• 2 years ago

Very few people in first world countries though, will be able to balance or surpass negative environmental effects of all the usual things included in raising a child, even with activist lives. Neither will their children.

xyzzy47475• 2 years ago

If there were no humans, the environment would be destroyed when the sun expands.

Humans are the only hope for other species including animals and plants, since we can bring them into outer space and use energy storage or from other parts of the solar system / galaxy to preserve life further.

okokwhatever3• 2 years ago

Wow, just WOW. The Dystopia has gone too far away in 2024... Stop the train please, i'm jumping out of it.

farialima• 2 years ago

on the contrary let's have fun about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA [IDIOCRACY Opening Scene (2006) Mike Judge]

lm2846911• 2 years ago

Just buy a french bulldog and an Apple Vision Pro, seat back and relax ;)

keyle3• 2 years ago

I have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable.

Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense.

You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.

Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well.

Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning.

Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.

If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!

andyjohnson0• 2 years ago

I was agreeing with you until you wrote:

we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism

Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.

keyle3• 2 years ago

I actually removed it after trying it to word it differently as I knew someone would pick on this instead of focusing on my main point. Thanks.

trevyn• 2 years ago

Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

That is a very strange perspective.

keyle3• 2 years ago

How so?

bemusedthrow757• 2 years ago

Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction.
Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.

Society needs fixing to preserve the place of the white middle class?

I am, to be clear, a well-educated white single man over 40 (who has enough to do without this restaurant-based existence you think is the apotheosis of childlessness). But I think society needs fixing so that I am not in a class protected by privilege. So far I think the threat of extinction is having no meaningful impact either way.

maccard• 2 years ago

going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

As opposed to sitting at home with your partner when you're 40+ because your kids are out being teenagers and you need to be available in case they need you? Life at either extreme looks boring.

dTal• 2 years ago

https://xkcd.com/603/

cpursley7• 2 years ago

Huh, my wife and I still go to restaurants. Nice ones, too. We just bring our 2 year old daughter.

And there’s always delivery.

wkat424212• 2 years ago

Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

Then don't do that. I go clubbing a lot and I'm almost 50 and I really enjoy it. My partner is pretty polyamorous like me so we're not really monogamous either, making it even more interesting.

Maybe this doesn't work for you but I don't like the idea of society saying what I should want to do with my life. I'm very happy as it is.

prmoustache8• 2 years ago

When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.

I don't think that should be a life goal. It is just a basic reaction to the fear of death.

zelphirkalt2• 2 years ago

This is typical parent speak/perspective though.

Yes, having kids is incredibly taxing on ones time and nerves and all that. And yes, most parents probably love their children and have warm pleasant feelings when they see their children grow up. And also at least some percentage of people need to have kids, so that we can continue to exist as a species and all that jazz. All not questioned.

What I do question are the following things, and disclaimer, it is going to be a bit philosophical. I also don't tell you this to tell you, that you are doing something wrong. I am telling you this to give another point of view:

You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.

As a determinist I can understand, that to most people children are a very tangible result of their lives. That's fine. But there are so many other things in life that one could do or achieve, that have nothing to do with children. Your children are not solely your own work's result either. Think of all the people involved in raising them. Think of the rest of society contributing to your kids being able to be raised the way they are. Daycare people, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, the friendly neighbor, relatives, friends helping with school homework or additional teaching if necessary, ... probably I am forgetting many. And so many people in various professionsa and jobs can claim just as well, that they leave behind something very tangible, even though they might never have kids themselves.

Many actions of many people all day long all contribute just as much, only that their influence on the children's lives are less direct. Butterfly effect and all that.

Ultimately I even find that focus on ones own children a bit selfish. It is probably a very natural tendency and ones own children are ones dearest usually, so I can understant why it exists. However, there is nothing that says society must be this way. Nothing that mandates, that we look after our own child before others.

Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

There are many other huge parts of life. Unfortunately we have to choose in our lives which huge parts we pursue. Why don't you do other good things for society with your partner? You could offer tutoring for pupils in need or for talented ones. You could work for charity saving children around the world. You could do many great things. Those are not lesser things compared to having kids yourself.

People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning.

I see no problem. The only problem I see there is that of broken education systems in my country. I don't care where a child or adult comes from. I care about their education and skills. I care about how they can contribute to our society. I don't have the fear of being replaced by people from other countries. If they are friendly and willing to contribute well to our society, I welcome them.

Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.
If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!

I partially agree, that society needs fixing. I don't agree on a theoretical basis, that smart people having kids is necessary. I think it is necessary for smart people to pass on their skills and knowledge. Which should be how we fix society. We make the smart people pass on their stuff, through a good education system. Yes, it will be a lot of fixing needed.

Lastly, I do understand, that there are many reasons, why retroactively many people (not saying you in particular) need to justify to themselves the sacrifices they undoubtedly make in raising children. It would be a strong dissonance, if they could not convince themselves of it having been the right choice. It's fine! We all need to cope with our lives. What I would ask parents to do is to consider, that there are other, just as valid viewpoints and that other people can be well aware of all of that and still prioritize differently in their own lives.

holoduke2• 2 years ago

I have 4 kids. Running my own business helps because of the flexibility. But the costs of living is something i did not expected to be so high. 3k per month for daycare/afterschool. Memberships, food, clothing, electronics etc. expensive housing, insurances. We easily spend 8,10k per month without saving anything. Nevertheless I love to have kids. Best investment ever.

wegfawefgawefg5• 2 years ago

Thats not the kids. Thats your lifestyle. There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.

bemusedthrow757• 2 years ago

There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.

Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.

lm2846911• 2 years ago

We traded one parent working and multi generational housing for this (which had other issues of course). Instead of having someone staying at home and raising their kid(s) now you have to work to pay someone else to raise your kid(s), and very often that entire new pay check gets siphoned. If your couple is composed of two min wage worker you can't eve match the previous system in any way (quality of life, education, stimulation, &c.).

Couple that with the fact that most people leave their hometown to work in big cities and you got the perfect mix of time/money and social network issues

That's my mom's job, she takes care of kids, parents drop them as 6am and picks them up at 7pm+. I've talked to these kids, they're miserable, they spend twice as much time with my parents than with theirs, and theirs are so exhausted after work they don't even take care of them once they pick them up (micro waved food and netflix on the daily)

(I'm not saying that applies to you, your comment just made me think about that)

seec8• 2 years ago

Yep, that's pretty much it. This new system pushed by bourgeois feminist for their own benefit is strictly worse than what we had before for 90% of the population. Funniest thing is that if you give them enough time most women would tell you that they would rather just had kids if they could have found the husband with the means for it.

But the current propaganda is very strong and you cannot say anything at the risk of passing for the biggest asshole. Yet I'm pretty sure that if you offered the previous women deal to men, many would take it in a heartbeat.

Instead, we have to listen to insufferable people lecture us on the "meaning" of work, wich hilariously for many women, literally translate into taking care of other people's kids, just for much longer (for example in France they represent up to 80% of the teachers).

This double working parent nonsense is really big bullshit, there is very little benefit for anyone but very few ultra privileged...

remoquete6• 2 years ago

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different.

I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is it the right choice? Perhaps not. Is it a selfish choice? Yes. Why did I do it then? For the same reason I keep breathing. I don't know much more than that.

Affric2• 2 years ago

Life is what any of us make it. The antinatalist position is fundamentally fatalistic. It’s a total negation of the one redeeming feature of the universe: anything could happen.

I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

menschmanfred6• 2 years ago

It's a selfish thing to do.

Nonetheless nothing I condemn.

At the end of the day it's harder not to have kids and stop this cycle than not, thanks to evolution.

XorNot6• 2 years ago

It's weird how a whole bunch of parents jump into threads like these to tell us all about how totally awesome having kids is.

I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive, it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways, because it is relentless in a way which exposure to it as an aunt or uncle or friend simply won't communicate adequately (heck: even parents with older children seem to rapidly forget what having younger children is actually like, as I've experienced).

bluescrn3• 2 years ago

The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe.

I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)

thefz2• 2 years ago

The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

The idea that you’re inherently better off having kids is nonsense as well.

lm2846911• 2 years ago

I think you get it backward, lot of people would like to have kids, the problem isn't life with kids, it's life with modern jobs and everything that come with them

remoquete6• 2 years ago

Life with kids has always been problematic.

_hzw2• 2 years ago

It's interesting to note that you consider having children a selfish choice, because in some cultures, not having children is considered selfish.

remoquete6• 2 years ago

Cultural anthropology might have an answer there. I guess that some cultures and traditions view not having kids as selfish because there's a cultural push for preserving society (kids will become workers, help parents, pay taxes, fight in the army, and so on). I consider myself selfish because I've done it to fill my life with something I felt was lacking. I've no rational excuse.

prmoustache8• 2 years ago

I think both options are selfish.

You don't do it or not do it for humanity, society or whatever random shit you make up.

quietbritishjim3• 2 years ago

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the article.

It doesn't suggest that people are having fewer children because they are "antinatalists" or consider having children a "selfish choice". It's right there in the title: they think they just don't have time due to their work/life balance. As I said in another comment, that's more likely to be an economic problem (specifically, housing) rather than a philosophical change as you seem to be saying.

remoquete6• 2 years ago

it doesn't seem to have much to do with the article

I guess most commenters jumped to their own reasons. In that sense, I think it's a natural reaction to the topic.

seanmcdirmid2• 2 years ago

It really isn’t that different. You have to make different work life balance choices when you have kids, increasingly very hard decisions given rising costs (housing, childcare, food, activities, etc…). You also can’t really relax on long weekends anymore unless you are content with large amounts of screen time, it’s not like yesterday when my boomer parents just threw me out of the house and told me to come back around lunch/dinner.

The article is locked down, so I have no idea what it says after the second paragraph. I can imagine though.

thefz2• 2 years ago

I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse.

That's a false dichotomy, people without kids can bring joy and laughter to "this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit". You don't have to justify yourself for what you have chosen.

remoquete6• 2 years ago

I agree with you, but, to be honest, I'm not too worried about logical phallacies in my post because I'm not trying to convince anyone, nor trying to justify myself. Mine was but a metonymy: by having kids, I'm bringing new smiles to the universe. Existing smiles are totally fine, too!

shmageggy• 2 years ago

Was anyone able to actually read this article? I was greeted by a barrage of popups and overlays that even broke the back button

roenxi• 2 years ago

Well, lets look at the data over at OurWorldIndata: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab...

Looks like the last time there was a big change was 1960, I assume that was the development of good birth control techniques. I'd theorise that families never really wanted children, and once given the means to make effective choices we discover that humans don't think it is that rational to have kids.

It is a weirdly philosophical problem - similar to what we will soon face with artificial intelligence - of what exactly are we trying to do as living entities. It is hard to find a path that isn't either nihilism or, from a factual and materialistic perspective, insanity.

I personally think this is probably a good thing. Evolutionary forces will push society above replacement rates sooner or later by whatever means it takes, but we should enjoy the window where we don't need to fight about resources for as long as is possible. If only the African nations would get their birth rates under control, anyway.

remoquete6• 2 years ago

There's nothing rational in having kids, as in many other things we do as human beings. I've no arguments to refuse books like David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been. Actually, I agree with most of his theses. The only rational actors that want us to have kids are governments, because citizens pay taxes and provide soldiers.

Still, I embrace my lack of rationality. It's what makes me human.

dtech• 2 years ago

The downward trend is generally attributed in a large part due to children changing from being an economic boon - free labor on farms - to an economic burder like they are today with childcare etc.

notfried• 2 years ago

For those of you who decided not to have kids in your 20s-30s, and are now in your 40s+, when changing that decision now becomes increasingly more difficult: did you regret it? Did your position of “I want to live my life, I don’t want the hassle or the cost, or there are too many humans already, or something else”, did that position change or weaken?

Asking for a friend :)

davedx• 2 years ago

I had my first child in my mid 30's, and one of my friends started when both him and his partner were in their 40's. No regrets, but the biological challenges can be very real -- my friends had to use IVF for both their pregnancies.

I don't know anyone who had kids a bit later in life who regretted it purely due to their age. Though being now in my mid 40's I think I would struggle with the sleep deprivation and noise of a new baby....

XorNot6• 2 years ago

For me it became an estimate of how old I wanted to be when my son turned 20. In my 50s seemed better then my 60s.

cpursley7• 2 years ago

Sometimes I wish we had our daughter a bit earlier, the energy requirements are real.

ben_w3• 2 years ago

I've just turned 40, and I'm currently childless, but not because that was my goal. Twice wanted to settle down with a woman, but I wasn't her Mr Right. I'm still friends with the second, but she's (metaphorically) married to her activism; she and I split just as I moved to Germany which was itself just before the pandemic.

Then I ended up with a boyfriend, but medical tech isn't quite there yet for Mpreg :P

xyzzy47475• 2 years ago

Do you regret having a boyfriend instead of a relationship that biologically can produce children?

seec8• 2 years ago

It's funny because I am trending in the same direction. You can't say it because of political correctness but I believe many of our fertility problem lies in the behavior of today's women. But women can't do no wrong so...

If you can't/won't have kids, men make better partners anyway. Everything else can be solved one way or another...

fingerlocks• 2 years ago

No, but there is a very brief, almost imperceptible flicker of envy when you realize most of your friends have children.

Our decision was really my wife’s decision, I was always indifferent, which may explain the feelings described above. Wife remains staunchly committed to a child free lifestyle and couldn’t be happier.

wkat424212• 2 years ago

No I'm nearly 50 and I don't regret it at all, never have in the slightest.

I see all the strings my friends have, having to book meetings months in advance. Where I can go out dancing till 6am whenever I feel like it (which I do a lot) or wake up at 3pm on a Saturday. I don't think my life would have been so full if I'd been so tied down with a family.

schmookeeg• 2 years ago

Nope. 47 now.

As I travel more, my opinion that there are enough humans already has only strengthened.

If I feel the need to scoop up the purported "joy of children", I can visit my sister and wind up my nephew for a few hours, then leave the sugar crash and ensuing tantrums to be her problem as I whizz off back to reality.

I'm so very grateful that my home doesn't have some little narcissist in it running around wearing my face and destroying my property, sanity, and finances. Or at least, not another one. :)

nlnn3• 2 years ago

In my 40s, never wanted kids, and my position hasn't changed at all.

I've never really had the urge, and it's only ever been friends/relatives pushing the "you should have kids, they're amazing!" narrative.

I'm sure they are, but I equate it with e.g. painting. I'm sure painting is very enjoyable, frustrating at times, and can bring a ton of joy and wonder to the world. But I just don't enjoy painting, or have any desire to learn, and don't feel the world is so desperately short of artists that I have a duty to do it.

Seeing many friends of mine seriously struggle with money and time also convinces me I made the right choice. I also don't envy a lot of issues they have to go through, e.g. bullying, teen pregancy, phone addiction, tuition fees, serious/lifelong medical issues, etc.

hiAndrewQuinn2• 2 years ago

You could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids.

I get that most people recoil in horror at the latter one. I think they're silly. The fact of the matter is the world is a safer and more prosperous place than ever before. You should be able to invest less into your children than your parents did before you and still have them lead happy lives.

If you have a child, and your own life isn't a pile of misery, you can be reasonably confident your kid's life won't be either. After all, you grew up in a poorer world than they did. But if you hold back on having children because you fear you can't afford to send them to Yale, or buy them all the Steam games they ever wanted, you're probably not saving them from a life of pain, you're just depriving the world of another soul which could've had a beautiful experience here.

quietbritishjim3• 2 years ago

I wonder if the key issue here is lack of housing in developed countries. Here in the UK, owning a nice house (not just a flat/apartment) in a decent suburb is out of reach for most people who are at the traditional age to have children. That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost. With such a vicious fight over the few properties that exist, almost all income is squeezed on that goal, with very little left for other costs of raising children. It also encourages everyone to have a worse work/life balance in a desperate attempt to get more income for housing (but of course it's a zero sum game because that just pushes the prices up for everyone).

cpursley7• 2 years ago

That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost.

No, this is a problem of poor planning and preventing building up (dense).

Plenty of “developed” countries outside of the Anglo world have solved this issue.

ghusto4• 2 years ago

The Netherlands has the 17th highest population density in the world, and most of our land is still dotted with water here and there (all very cleverly, but it's still there). There are vast areas of nature reserves, with no building allowed.

Most people can afford a house, even in the Randstad. So it's not a lack of land, and it's not development blocking. I'm not suggesting anything else, but though I'd take those two out behind the shed.

bilegeek• 2 years ago

let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids
The fact of the matter is the world is a safer
and more prosperous place than ever before.

Sadly, it's often not even a matter of safety from "danger", but safety from the law. Getting CPS called on you[1][2], or getting arrested[3][4] as a parent is not good, even if you are fortunate enough to win.

Then there's the whole angle of disappearing third places, lack of places that can be reasonably visited without driving privileges, nobody's outside because of all of the above so there's nobody to "hang out" or "play" with, desire to funnel kids/teens into more "productive" activities like academics and sports (depending on affluence and interest, this isn't AS bad as the above points), places outright banning[5] young people, etc etc.

[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/09/05/mom...

[2]https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/living/feat-maryland-free-ran...

[3]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arreste...

[4]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-mom-accused-of-leaving-ki...

[5]https://www.businessinsider.com/teen-bans-curfews-malls-them...

moaf• 2 years ago

You could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids.

When nearing end of life, many people, especially fathers, say they wish they'd dedicated more time to their children rather than work. While meaningful work can provide purpose, it doesn't compare to the happiness derived from building meaningful relationships with loved ones. Children offer a rare opportunity to enjoy one of the deepest forms of human connection available, and I think it's shortsighted to put career advancement over building a family. Balancing work and family life is challenging, but the payoff is well worth it.

hiAndrewQuinn2• 2 years ago

There are actually people who think to themselves, "Oh, no. Distant future me might feel bad, because future me brought beings into existence that were so delightful, that DFM felt spending those extra hours chasing dollars instead of spending those extra hours playing with them was a bad move in retrospect. Maybe I should rethink my plans to have them in the first place." As stupid at it sounds when you put it into those terms, stripped of the fancy talk about "human connection" and whatever. As if no connection at all is preferable to a slightly dissatisfactory one.

I don't give a shit what some old man version of me might end up regretting on this front. My kids deserve to be born because life for them is probably going to be great and filled with joy and adventure, with or without me.

hotpotamus4• 2 years ago

Perhaps more people are living in piles of misery - it seems that anxiety and depression levels only increase. I see many people try to write this off as some artifact of data/survey or other, and yet, fertility also seems to trend inexorably down. Maybe your beautiful experience of life is more the exception than the rule; certainly that is not how I would describe my life experience.

askonomm3• 2 years ago

I don't have nor want/have any desire for kids, yet all the people with kids keep telling me I should, and not having them is selfish (...how? Isn't it the other way around?), and multitude of other reasons why I should definitely have them and that if I don't then I'm somehow a horrible person.

What I don't get is why people keep forcing their lifestyle onto those with a different lifestyle? Do they see me having all this free time and get jealous and want me to spend the best years of my life also stressing out and raising kids or why is that?

cpursley7• 2 years ago

I’ve done all the “lifestyle” stuff as well. We’re not jealous. Kids are an order of magnitude more rewarding.

cpursley7• 2 years ago

And here’s the secret: when the kids are a bit older, they can participate in your lifestyle: travel, skiing, instruments, etc.

askonomm3• 2 years ago

My "lifestyle" is just having more time for my hobbies and entertainment with a lot less stress, so I figure for you kids are more rewarding than those things, but to me (and a lot of other people like me) they are not.

the_third_wave2• 2 years ago

No, it is not the other way around, how could it? Had your parents not had you you would not have been able to voice your opinion on this subject. Were your parents selfish when they did so?

If is not a 'lifestyle' thing to have children, rather the opposite: not having children is a 'lack of life' style. If enough people take up this 'lack of life' style your culture will die out and be replaced with one where having children is the norm. This is not a value proposition but simple math - every couple needs to have ~2.1 children to keep the population at a steady level [1].

Also, 'they' do not see you having all this free time and get jealous, they notice that you're spending time on hedonistic pursuits while time is running out - there is a set time frame within which having children is a viable proposition. They are not jealous of your free time at all because from their perspective it is wasted time - time which could be spent with your family instead of just by yourself or with your partner.

Does this mean you are a horrible person for not wanting to have children? No, of course it does not. Not everybody is brought into this world to raise children. It does mean you are missing out on one of the most formational experiences life has to offer, all that free time you gain does come at a certain cost. The choice is yours to make due to the advent of birth control - choose wisely.

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

prmoustache8• 2 years ago

Also, 'they' do not see you having all this free time and get jealous, they notice that you're spending time on hedonistic pursuits while time is running out - there is a set time frame within which having children is a viable proposition. They are not jealous of your free time at all because from their perspective it is wasted time - time which could be spent with your family instead of just by yourself or with your partner.

Yes some are.

This is incredibly inpopular to articulate it out loud but there is a large enough proportion of parents who regret having kids.

And that doesn't mean they don't love their kids.

nonrandomstring2• 2 years ago

There seems to be a colossal misunderstanding in the first line.

successful, meaningful careers, and they just didn't see how they could juggle those jobs and the demands of parenthood.

That's a false dilemma. Meaning does not come from a bare "career". It comes from how that "career" relates to others. Not everyone can have kids, and many of us find ourselves alone. "Kids" could equally be replaced by charity work, intimate relationships, sports or whatever. But rising up the ranks and accumulating a big pile of money brings neither success nor meaning.

I think the observed change in attitudes has less to do with parenting (or not) than that the present generation have bought into the corporate lie much more than earlier ones.

j7ake2• 2 years ago

It’s also not meaningful if that career coerces you to give up your outside family life (by imposing a huge penalty for having kids) so you can keep working your desk job, report to a boss, and have your 3 weeks of vacation a year.

nonrandomstring2• 2 years ago

imposing a huge penalty for having kids

It shocked me to find quite how devious and aggressive workplaces can be towards women that get pregnant (or who they simply suspect of being in a potentially "fertile" relationship).

Shouldn't it be illegal for employers to monitor communications that might indicate impending motherhood? What about measuring their body temperature covertly? Spying on eating habits. Or making comments about weight and shape?

So you don't have to deal with searching for "Pregnant and screwed" :) here's a link I dug up for people [0] and some real accounts from women in IT who get the sharp end of this [1].

One woman I know went through a wrenching and drawn out court case and won a small fortune against a big British company. She was not able to come on the show because that settlement for constructive dismissal came with a serious NDA/gagging order.

[0] https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/

[1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=22

furyg3• 2 years ago

View from a US-expat in the Netherlands: It doesn't have to be as bad as it is.

Subsidize daycare, fund schools (from pre-school to university) and focus on learning at-school and not at-home, and pass laws forcing employers to allow parents to reduce their working hours, should they wish to. You can rebuild your cities to be bike able, change gender norms, or change work culture, but honestly the most change will come from the first list.

My situation as a parent here:

On the cost side, recurring costs for after-school daycare (2x week), school 'contributions' (field trips), violin lessons and rental, gymnastics classes, and normal clothing purchases are €200/month. Daycare is subsidized and we are lucky that we only need two days, but bumping that up to 3 or 4 would not be insane on the cost side. Baby day care was also subsidized, but can get expensive if you are sending them 5x week... it depends on the parent's income. For us subsidies covered about a third of the costs, but we earned well.

The school here takes care of education, with very little homework. It's well-funded, and does not require much extra effort or money from our side. We can be as involved as we want to be.

We are able to use only 2x of day care per week because a) most employers understand the needs of parents but mostly b) by law employers are required to let you reduce your hours to, for example, take care of your kids. We both work a half-day once a week, with another family member helping on the remaining day.

While the Dutch will complain about higher education costs, the costs are reasonable. A 4 year study will cost you around €10k in tuition, total. That 4 year study results in a masters if the student is able / wants to follow a university track.

the_third_wave2• 2 years ago

While the Dutch will complain about higher education costs

Being a Dutchman myself I'll just put this down to the following piece of Dutch wisdom: Ik klaag, dus ik besta [1], a derivation of Descartes' first principle.

[1] ...which translates to I complain, therefore I am

ghusto4• 2 years ago

It's not a co-incidence that so many people come here to raise their children, but close-by countries like France, Germany, and Spain aren't much different.

And yeah, complaining is the national pass-time, until you visit certain other countries ;)

lamontcg• 2 years ago

Universal health care, daycare and public college, along with jettisoning all this RTO bullshit into the sun would do a lot to increase incentives for people to have families in this country (US). Given our start-your-worklife-massively-in-debt, 80-hour-workweek, slave-at-the-office-till-you-die mentality, don't be surprised if more and more people don't have kids.

geraldhh• 2 years ago

That 4 year study results in a masters if the student is able

fwiw 4 year study ends with a bachelors degree

seec8• 2 years ago

Yeah, expect the Dutch do not make any more children than other countries, now you have a give a lot bigger part of your income to the government whether you want kids or not and this money is going to be use for increasingly inefficient and uncompetitive institution that somehow always needs more money for inexistant results.

Oh, and suddenly your whole population tends to think and act alike for many important subjects because of the built-in propaganda at school. The effects of this can clearly be seen in the current active generation.

As a French that until recently had better fertility than most European countries because of heavy subsidy for having kids I find it funny that you think it even works long-term because it clearly doesn't, even France has dropped fertility and not only you get all the help in the world to have kids, mother are actually paid to have them, yet it doesn't work...

The reality is that it's all about division of labor/responsibility between the sexes but because of previously mentioned "universal education" this is something that cannot be said, because not politically correct (in pretty much any political side which is hilarious in itself).

It's very easy to idealize this coercive system when you were able to choose it but realistically if you would ask many past a certain age, they would definitely choose some other arrangements than to rely on the government for their kids, considering the ongoing cost via taxation (you get to pay forever, how cool) and low quality results...

xyzzy47475• 2 years ago

If everyone was anti-natalist, civilization would collapse, and there would be no work or no life. Surely some logical people can see it's the wrong approach, unless you despise humans in general and want them gone? We're the only species that can create computing or venture into outer space.

Anyways, I have one child and hoping for a second. He has been a total joy for me and my wife since he was born.

supersrdjan5• 2 years ago

Reading the rest of this thread, it seems that the anti-anti-natalists (to which I gravitate more closely) are misrepresenting the anti-natalists' view and that they don't actually expect everyone to be anti-natalist?

xyzzy47475• 2 years ago

Perhaps but even then they’re not exactly being role models or exemplary people.

Gud• 2 years ago

“Deeply invested in having successful careers”, yes of course, because rent is too expensive for people in their prime birthing years, and it’s not getting cheaper.

So what else are we supposed to do but grind it out and hope things get better

j7ake2• 2 years ago

“We choose to [have kids] and [have a career] not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills,”

okokwhatever3• 2 years ago

Please, join the anti-natalist movement. I need more space for the swimming pool in the backyard.

ghusto4• 2 years ago

On the one hand, I'm happy to see people being responsible. So many people who shouldn't have had children don't change, and think they can "have it all". You can not. Your life as you know it is over, and if that only dawned on you after you already had a kid, then join the club, but don't delude yourself, and don't make your kid suffer the consequences of your delusion.

On the other hand; stop being a little wuss. The reasons I see being given by those fretting the responsibilities seem to be born from general anxiety and over-thinking. Nobody is ever ready to have a child, but we do it any learn along the way because we're arrogant enough in the beginning, and humble enough afterward the beginning.

What I see with this generation however, is never trying because on paper it's impossible. Yes, it's impossible, but that shouldn't stop you if it's what you really want.

kristianp• 2 years ago

It's an interesting demographic problem: how do you encourage people to have enough children that the working-age population doesn't decline so quickly that we can't support our retired people and also have a wider effect on the economy? In the long run it's something that we'll have to deal with. China is starting to experience it.

I think that the populations of developed countries will start to decline, and a gradual decline is acceptable. We can't rely on immigration forever, presumably less rich countries will start to have less children too as they modernize.

iteratethis• 2 years ago

The article emphasizes socioeconomic conditions as a root cause for the declining birth rate. Whilst those factors do not help, it's not why the birth rate is declining.

It's a universal trend. The exact same issue is happening in countries that are far more family-friendly.

The world used to REQUIRE you to have children. As your personal pension plan. By cultural or religious force. Or because of the lack of education or contraceptives.

Now in most parts of the world, you're not required. It becomes a question of WANT instead of MUST. And when you ask people how many children they want, the answer is typically 0, 1 or 2. Most people still want children, and quite a few prefer 2. But that averages out to 1.5-1.8 in the aggregate. Which is far below replacement level.

People still want children, just not many per household. Why the cut-off at 2? Because 3, 4, 5 does not fundamentally improve upon the joy of having children whilst it adds a lot of challenges. Bigger home, bigger car, many more trips to take them everywhere, cooking is more complex, it's a mess.

Anyway, the point being is that the article is largely wrong. People that do not want any children because of their focus on career will still not want children when policies are more family-friendly. There's plenty of evidence of this not working. It doesn't move the needle.

You should still go for better policies, just don't expect it to fix this problem.

Assassink786• 2 years ago

Wait, What?

The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

Related Stories