[afavour]

I dunno how you can say that. When children are young you have two options:

- both parents work, you pay for childcare

- one parent drops out of the workforce, takes care of children at home

neither of these is cheap. Decades ago it was realistic for one parent's salary to cover the whole family but these days salary stagnation and increased costs of e.g. housing makes it much more difficult.

[caeril]

No. Absolutely wrong.

Homes are much larger now than in 1955. Cars are being purchased with far more (expensive) features, and they are driven for fewer miles before being "upgraded". We eat out much more. Even when we eat in, we eat more luxurious meals. We buy Frappuccinos daily, we buy clothing much more frequently, we impulse shop significantly more, we utilize medical services much more frequently, we take far more, and more luxurious vacations, we rack up ludicrous levels of student debt for degrees that have no hope of servicing said debt, etc, etc, etc.

We are wealthier today than at any point in human history. The myth that all homes must be two-income is predicated on the outrageous lifestyles we choose, NOT due to anything inherent in "society" or "the economy".

Our insane consumerist appetite is what's preventing one household member from staying home, nothing else.

[PuppyTailWags]

I'm going to seriously disagree with your depiction:

- frankly fraps, daily, are a magnitude of order smaller than childcare. You could deprive yourself of a frap every day for literally years, and you still couldn't afford even 6 mo of daycare.

- we need to buy clothing more frequently because our clothing quality is shit, and the good clothing quality has increased in expense

- if you think adult humans consume medical services too often you're in for a fucking shock of your life when it comes to babies, which being pregnant is a consumption of medical services

- even small homes are much less affordable than in 1955 because the price of land has drastically increased compared to 1955

- student debt is taken on because we know for a fact that college graduates statistically outearn people without college degrees, outliers aside, and the cost of schooling has ballooned for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the previous generation had voted to withdraw funding for schooling

One household member staying home is also supremely dangerous for that one household member at home, which wasn't a problem in 1955 raping your wife was legal and women couldn't even own fucking bank accounts so it wasn't like women had great options besides staying home! If staying home was so good how come women immediately got the fuck out of the house as soon as it was available to them?

[afavour]

I'm sorry but this is profoundly out of touch with the way a lot of people live. "We" is doing a huge amount of reaching in absolutely everything you're saying.

> We are wealthier today than at any point in human history.

Wealth disparity is also higher today than since records were started. You can't cite overall wealth without factoring that in.

My neighbourhood has a church which holds a weekly food bank, giving out a bag of food to anyone that needs one. The line goes far down the street every week. Do these people have "outrageous" lifestyles? Do you think they take luxurious vacations and sip frappuchinos? Not to mention:

> Homes are much larger now than in 1955.

Okay, how about... affordability? If you're going to claim housing is more affordable than it was in 1955 I'm going to need to see a citation.

[wintermutestwin]

>Homes are much larger now than in 1955.

Homes are not larger necessarily because of our "insane consumerist appetite." They are larger because:

1. Housing is an investment vehicle 2. Housing valuations are primarily driven by SQFT/SQM (when you rule out location) 3. The baseline costs of building (permits, utility connections, etc) are not driven by size and make up a huge % of the cost to build. 4. Zoning laws prohibit smaller builds and multi-family in many areas.

[rsj_hn]

That's assuming you live alone or have no nearby friends/relatives who can watch your child. Most of the world somehow has kids without spending huge sums, because they have children when they are much younger and rely on nearby family to help, just as you will gladly help your children, etc.

This is how civilization propagates. The idea that only the wealthiest can afford to have kids by living in pure isolation and hiring teams of nannies and specialists is contradicted by the practice of opening one's eyes, looking around, and observing much poorer people having kids just fine.

But it requires making sacrifices. Those societies in which few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary die out, and healthier societies take their place.

[afavour]

> That's assuming you live alone or have no nearby friends/relatives who can watch your child.

Yes it is, because those friends and relatives also have to work in order to afford housing, healthcare, etc... grandparents that are happily retired, living off their savings and happy to donate their time is not close to a reality for many people.

> observing much poorer people having kids just fine

Define "just fine". I'm responding to the OP saying that having kids is "not expensive". It is. The fact that people make do, struggle and get by does not alter that fact, it just means they're doing it anyway. 1 in 6 children in the US lives in a food insecure home, that's not particularly "fine".

> Those societies in which few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary die out, and healthier societies take their place.

O...kay? I'm not sure a perspective that's this disconnected from personal lives is all that helpful. "Yes, raising a child in America in 2022 is difficult but don't worry, society will die and a new one will rise"... what's my reaction supposed to be there?

[gourabmi]

> Those societies in which few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary die out, and healthier societies take their place.

I think the comment means is that you can't have the cake and eat it too. Whether or not you want to make sacrifices in order to have kids, those choices will have consequences. Especially when sufficient number of people are doing it at the same time. The claim seems to be that the societies which prioritize sacrifices in order to raise children will outlives the ones that choose otherwise. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows.

[Aeolun]

> The fact that people make do, struggle and get by does not alter that fact

I rather think it does. If Jane Doe can make do for her 3 children at 21 year old on a $15k/year, what right do you ($100k+) have to say that children are expensive.

[afavour]

Did you stop reading before the “food insecure” part? That someone manages to successfully keep a child alive to adulthood does not mean that child has been well provided for.

But sure, if we wish to create a fictional story about a 21 year old raising 3 children on $15k a year I guess we can refute anything.

[necrotic_comp]

This is so sanctimonious and makes me angry.

Part of having kids is wanting your kids to have a life that's as good as, or better, than your current life. You want to give them all of the possible opportunities they can have in addition to instilling them with the values you deem important.

When I was in a position to potentially have a family, I realized that despite my good-on-paper job, my partner and I would not be able to afford any semblance of a good life if we stayed where we were living, and if we moved, I would never be able to see my family - all I would do is work and commute. I had to say no and it led to the dissolution of our relationship.

I don't have family around me, I don't have the option of having family around me, and it makes me angry that you say that I just need to "open my eyes" and see how the poor people do it.

Take a deep breath and reflect on what you said, please.

[Aeolun]

> makes it much more difficult

It’s unpleasant to live with 5 people on 20sqm, but if people can do it in Africa we can certainly do it in the US.

[dionidium]

> Decades ago...

Even if we accept the (I think dubious) claim that we're worse off than people were in the 1950s (or whatever) there's thousands of years of procreation that precede that one specific comparison. Those people had it much worse than we do and they had many more children.

[afavour]

I never understand perspectives like these. The OP's statement was "having children is not expensive". How does "people had it worse a thousand years ago" relate to that? Surely by that logic we can't take issue with any facet of modern life?

[dionidium]

No, you misunderstood. If somebody says, "I have only $10, I can't afford to do X" then the existence of millions of people who did X on $6 is directly relevant. It's not an abstract appeal to, "perk up, people used to have it worse!" It's a refutation of an explicit claim.

[afavour]

You don't think that's a simplistic analysis? For that to be true all external factors would have to remain constant and they obviously haven't.

[dionidium]

Yes, it's very simplistic, but I think directionally correct.