[foxglacier]

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?

[hamdingers]

> Kids cost time, not money.

There's a well known aphorism about this...

[pixl97]

Um, wtf is this rambling statement that doesn't seem to be based in any kind of truth at all?

In the past both poor and rich tended to have tons of kids, this is because kids tended to die young regardless of being rich or poor.

Then you're trying to compare massive social changes in the west that occurred around the same time. For example womens suffrage, women being allowed to work, sexual revolutions and birth control.

If you look at countries that tended to develop later, the rate of childbirth tends to drop with accessibility to birth control and education.

[foxglacier]

Yea, educated women have fewer kids because they prefer to spend their time making money, and money isn't what you need to raise kids.