[andy_adams]

This does not match my experience. I live in an average cost-of-living area and know lots of large families (3+ kids) living off a single income, sometimes in the $12-15/hour range. Life is challenging for them but not impossible.

What does "In order to keep up" mean, exactly?

[refurb]

This is key. It’s not like people can’t afford kids, they can. It’s that they can’t afford kids and live in a high cost urban center and have all the other luxuries of life at the same time.

[dvdhnt]

The thing is, rent rises faster than income. There are numerous emotional and social costs to having children, too. I should know, we have two of them.

Even making low six figures doesn't seem like enough in my low to mid CoL area. It's incredibly taxing to invest yourself into the lives of two small humans while still maintaining your own life.

So yeah, people could live like pilgrims and have kids, but why? That's not the main obstacle in 2020. Societal, cultural, and economic uncertainty is far and away more of an obstacle than budgeting.

[xyzzyz]

The thing is, rent rises faster than income.

That’s why most married people with kids take a mortgage. Mortgage payments stay flat, but the actual expense goes down over time, because you pay less and less of interest and more of principal.

[dvdhnt]

Anecdotally, my mortgage went up every year due to some combination of assessment values, property taxes, or whatever black magic Wells Fargo and the government had in their pocket.

[watwut]

By luxuries you mean healthcare, good education and financial stability. Even comment you respond to qualified it as "life is challenging" which does not mean "they miss golden handles on door", but rather "it is a lot of work and stress to fit into budget".

Plus, being stay at home with three small kids is more isolating then corona lockdown, so there is significant "dealing with frustration and routine without loosing your mind" challenge too.

[econcon]

If you go interview few collage age girls, they'll will tell you:

1. I want to study

2. Get a job

3. Date between the education/career

4. Travel the world (she will not say travel with her boyfriend or partner)

5. Marry and have kid (most will not talk about kid or marriage at all) but a few will.

But realistically it takes a 20 year old girl atleast 15 years to achieve all that she listed. Most of the times it's not even possible for many of them.

That gives you age of 35 when they start thinking about marriage or kids. From there fertility doesn't cooperate with you and sometimes it even gets hard to find a commited partner.

But marriage and kid is the last thing on their list and the things that come before it are not easy, not feasible for everyone to travel world.

[watwut]

Majority of them wont travel the world all that much either - whether with or without partner. And I would be surprised if the girls would traveled more then boys. That part is a dream, but not really a reality of their decisions.

So it is study, get a job and then work while living.

Also, dating is something you do while doing school and work, it is not like people needed to take two years off to date.

[npc1220]

And now that everyone has a bachelors degree, they need to spend another 2 years getting a Master's degree so that they can get their "dream job".

Our society tricks women to think that working for some corporation is "empowering" while staying home and raising kids is "oppressive". It's no wonder everyone is depressed and not getting married anymore.

[fapjacks]

I'd just like to add something to put this out there for anyone in this position: Traveling the world is a lot easier when you are young, and you can travel the world a lot more cheaply than you think. The first because one of the byproducts of being a human being is taking on obligations of various kinds as you spend time in a place, which add up and behave as a form of gravity for your time and money. Also because most people think of traveling in a kind of "expedition" style (staying in hotels, eating at restaurants every day, flying to destination cities) when they should be thinking of traveling in a kind of "alpine" style (staying in hoStels, eating from the market, taking the train or hitchhiking, finding a temporary job).

Also -- and this is never a popular suggestion, but it's a great suggestion -- you can travel the world with a steady paycheck and have your room and board paid for by joining the military. Many Western militaries have personnel stationed on bases (or ships) all over the place, and some offer programs for members to travel at a discount or for free. Even if you never travel anywhere at all in the military, you could save a lot of your pay and pick up a few useful life skills and experiences while you're at it. Perhaps even gain an appreciation for the many various modern-day miracles that most people take for granted (useful for traveling the world in the alpine style, btw).

[IanDrake]

Andy - your experience doesn't matter for several reasons.

1st - It doesn't fit with what the majority here believe.

2nd - It dangerous to spread the idea that people aren't victims and they're just experiencing the effects of their own choice to live in an expensive city.

[dvdhnt]

> It dangerous to spread the idea that people aren't victims and they're just experiencing the effects of their own choice to live in an expensive city.

Mobility is much more elusive than HN, or the middle and upper classes, would have you believe. Also, that doesn't account for the fact people do not choose where they are born.

[IanDrake]

I'm listening... Why is it more difficult?

For every corporate executive position there are thousands of low level jobs. These low level jobs are practically everywhere.

Internet is free at the free library. Go there, Google cheep places to live, pick one, look for a job, rent a moving van, rent an apartment. It's not rocket science.

[mac01021]

IanDrake: I upvoted you here to offset some of the downvoting.

While your posts here arguable lack a little tact, I think this discussion would be improved if people who strongly disagree would respond with substantive, logical argument.

I don't think you're really wrong here, but some things are worth noting:

- People are generally not rational beings who examine their lives and try to live them better. So it's not reasonable to expect a large majority of people to take the kind of initiative you're describing

- There are only so many jobs in Billings, MT. So it's not like all the struggling families in San Fransisco can move there and all expect to do better. They need to all move to 10000 different parts of the country.

- Most kinds of working class jobs do not typically interview candidates from around the whole country so it gets tricky to first find a job and then relocate. And uprooting your family and moving 1000 miles to then look for a job seems risky.

[dvdhnt]

I'm surprised it isn't obvious. Let me ask -

Have you ever moved a family across the country? Do you have parents or family that offer a safety net? Do you have children?

A few things - you often need to pay to break a lease. Say your lease ends naturally, most new tenants are required to pay at least one month up front, sometimes the last, and maybe a deposit, too. You have to pay for some kind of moving truck or storage. Utilities require a deposit. You probably don't know what neighborhoods or schools suit your needs. There's an emotional cost to losing your support and friend network, not to mention those of your family members.

Those are a few things off the top of my head. I don't think anyone is claiming it's as complicated as rocket science. But the idea that it is cheap or free to uproot your life and family with little to no savings or support (low level workers don't get relocation packages) is not correct.

[IanDrake]

Yes, far enoug away to need a moving truck. No and no.

I guess we have different measures for hardship. I read what you say and think "and?"