[dauertewigkeit]

> 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss

No there isn't. People want to dick around without responsibility. That's fine. But most people don't really accomplish anything that would come close in worth to raising a child in those six years, in no way shape or form. Let's not frame it in economic terms. People just want to dick around and that's fine.

[a_shane]

As a childless woman in her mid-30's, I take issue with this comment. I run a successful business that supports the livelihoods of a dozen people, I volunteer and am a an active community advocate, and I teach, among other things.

My decision to not have children is so I can focus my attention on other economic contributors and keeping my team employed. I'd hardly call that "dicking around without responsibility."

[kredd]

I completely agree. It’s a fairly bad take whenever people say “you can do both”, because it really doesn’t work that way. Like theoretically you could, but chances are, one will negatively affect the other part.

My sister, in her late 30s with 3 children, always emphasized how she wouldn’t be successful if she didn’t have unlimited support from her partner in terms of income and career. But that’s very rare for an average family.

[A_D_E_P_T]

Your post is a great example of the NAXALT fallacy.

On the whole, he's right. There are some people who can't have kids because they're too busy managing companies and employing dozens of workers, but such people are a very small fraction of the populace.

...And even that, I'd suggest, is cope. Lots of extremely successful people have children. They just hire nannies, utilize daycares, get grandparents involved, etc. It can be done.

[saagarjha]

"It can be done" doesn't mean it has to be done. A lot of people are unwilling or unable to do that.

[kredd]

Fair. In my head I consider “dicking around” a part of opportunity loss. Basically sacrificing whatever your definition of fun is with having children and the responsibilities that come with it.

[gamepsys]

Earlier you said "There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries." I think the lost opportunity value of dicking around would be about equal between wealthy countries and developing countries. You can go to the beach/lake/woods, drink all night, play video games, and binge TV most places in the world. Maybe the wealthy countries would have nicer TVs and more expensive intoxicants, but it's basically the same thing everywhere.

[kredd]

You have more money to dick around with. More money means different types of opportunities, making it less boring. You can keep occupying yourselves with things other than having children.

There’s still some sense of “I should have children to survive in my later years” in developing countries. Not really needed for richer ones where things have established and you can get support in times of needs.

[ketzo]

I mean, there is absolutely opportunity cost for people in high-impact careers

This shows up in economic data all the time, and disproportionately impacts women

Of course young women in high-intensity fields are hesitant to hamstring their careers just as they’re getting started