alt Hacker NewsThis is one of my favourites from PG, not least because it's a bit antithetical to what I perceive as a growing trend among smart, ambitious people (for whom children might represent friction, inconvenience, etc)... as well as folks for whom COL is making the question irrelevant due to practical concerns.
Actually, it's really striking that even in America -- the developed country with the #1 highest birthrate -- still falls below the replacement rate. What is it that's inversely correlated between growing wealth and having children? Especially since it was likely to opposite for most of human history? (i.e. large families were a sign of wealth and power).
PS - I can't resist offering my own experience as a parent - what a treasure to have discovered that I'm capable of such love, and to get to watch this love transform me into a better person than who I was before. This kind of love demands everything of you, but through it you discover a truer and stronger version of yourself too.
Replies
Due to the extremely competitive nature of the US economy, a lot of people have to choose between career success (having money) and starting a family (which is expensive). I know a lot of women who want to have a family, but have struggled to get to a comfortable economic position where they can actually do it. Compounded by the wage stagnation, which makes it hard for most people to support a family on a single income. We have hollowed out our third spaces, so its difficult for people to relax and socialize. Even vibing ends up being a kind of competition because of the high costs. Not to mention the perverse incentives in the housing market.
None of this is conducive to starting a family.
When someone asks me if starting a family is worth it, I borrow words from Agent K and tell them, "Yes, if you are strong enough"...
But as you say, I suppose everyone ends up becoming strong. Because there is no other way...
> Actually, it's really striking that even in America -- the developed country with the #1 highest birthrate -- still falls below the replacement rate. What is it that's inversely correlated between growing wealth and having children?
I think a lot of people miss the simple fact that some people just don't want kids and are unable to reconcile their personal experience with anyone else's.
My partner and I are both wealthy enough that we could both afford children and we can afford to not have children. But neither of us think our lives would be improved by having them.
I think that's really, really hard to understand for a lot of parents and people who want to be parents: being (relatively) wealthy creates choice, and that a growing number of people are choosing different things now that they have the ability to do so.
Kids cost time, not money. So the wealthier you are, the more difficult it is because you probably have less free time. You can pay someone else to raise your kids (daycare/etc.) but then you lose a lot of the value of having kids.
This bullshit excuse that somebody can't afford to have kids is proven wrong by the fact that poorer people have more kids than rich people. You can even be unemployed. Gone are the days of destitute single mothers having to give up their child to the church and work in the poorhouse. We have social welfare for that.
Maybe the fact that poor people can have lots of kids has taken away their value as a status symbol for wealth?
More wealth and education gives people the option to choose which I think is a good thing. People who don't want kids shouldn't be forced to have them. Before, people had kids because they needed them to work on their farm or it's what was expected of them as a housewife. Now that we have a choice, less people want to commit to taking care of a human for 18+ years. It's great so many people want to be parents but having a kid doesn't automatically make someone a great parent.