6 ms·

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 https://www.economist.com/node

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 https://www.economist.com/node/21561112.

shredprez 8y ago
Doesn’t that still track? Having children makes it harder to get/stay rich, not having children makes it easier.
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  When you have nothing in your life and none of your achievements will outlast you, the prospect of having children is more interesting. There's also the whole "not being aware contraception exists because you couldn't go to school" thing.
  - jotm 8y ago
    "not being aware contraception exists even if you went to school" haha
    - Raphmedia 8y ago
      "going to school but not paying attention because you work two jobs and take care of your siblings"
      - otakucode 8y ago
        "going to school and paying attention but being taught that abstinence is the only effective form of birth control and that condoms fail regularly so why bother" All so parents don't have to deal with the horror-movie scenario of their adolescent kids having a responsible, happy sex life.
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    "contraception is expensive and pulling out will work"
- confuseddesi 8y ago
  The causal connection works the opposite way. When you are rich, you have fewer kids.
- randyrand 8y ago
  Sure we could come up with a bunch of reasons each way. They're probably all wrong. But why are we speculating? Just go ask some rich people why they want/don't want X number of children and they will tell you.
- kaennar 8y ago
  I think there are a lot of good points being made, but you guys may be caught up in the math and are forgetting something fairly simple. Sex is free, fun, and easy. The less education you have the less likely you are to understand effective birth control. The less wealthy you are the less you have to spend on contraception. Those things together with the easiest and cheapest form of entertainment would seem to cirrelate with a higher birthrate in lower income brackets. I cant find any studies that support what Im saying right now, but the logic holds.
sp527 8y ago
I have to wonder if there's a dip around the upper middle/lower upper who, because of price discrimination on college costs and such must still be conservative, that then reverses course for the mid to upper upper, who have wealth in excess of any reasonable pattern of consumption and certainly more than enough to raise many children. I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head is roughly $500k in today's dollars (including total private college costs, which account for half of that).
- koolba 8y ago
  > I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head is roughly $500k in today's dollars (including total private college costs, which account for half of that). So double the kids for same price assuming they go to a public university? Sounds like a good deal to me. FYI, you can cut that down even further if you go to a community college for the first year or two and then transfer.
  - sp527 8y ago
    Rank of the college matters in my opinion. It's unfortunate but it does create opportunities. High-ranked public universities are often really great, but usually comparable in total cost to private ones (with savings for being in-state in some cases). But yes if you only gain admission to the long tail of private colleges, then you would almost certainly be wiser to go to a low-cost public school. I wouldn't want my kids to consider community college unless they had to. By definition, I'd like them to have the same academic opportunities I had, if possible.
- gowld 8y ago
  People who have a lot of money have a lot more fun entertaining themselves without leaning on the emotional network of a family. People with less money rely on their family and community for entertainment. So I'd expect wealthy "jet setters" to not have many children.
  - sp527 8y ago

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 https://www.economist.com/node/21561112.

shredprez 8y ago

Doesn’t that still track? Having children makes it harder to get/stay rich, not having children makes it easier.

Raphmedia 8y ago
When you have nothing in your life and none of your achievements will outlast you, the prospect of having children is more interesting. There's also the whole "not being aware contraception exists because you couldn't go to school" thing.
- jotm 8y ago
  "not being aware contraception exists even if you went to school" haha
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    "going to school but not paying attention because you work two jobs and take care of your siblings"
    - otakucode 8y ago
      "going to school and paying attention but being taught that abstinence is the only effective form of birth control and that condoms fail regularly so why bother" All so parents don't have to deal with the horror-movie scenario of their adolescent kids having a responsible, happy sex life.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  "contraception is expensive and pulling out will work"
confuseddesi 8y ago
The causal connection works the opposite way. When you are rich, you have fewer kids.
randyrand 8y ago
Sure we could come up with a bunch of reasons each way. They're probably all wrong. But why are we speculating? Just go ask some rich people why they want/don't want X number of children and they will tell you.
kaennar 8y ago
I think there are a lot of good points being made, but you guys may be caught up in the math and are forgetting something fairly simple. Sex is free, fun, and easy. The less education you have the less likely you are to understand effective birth control. The less wealthy you are the less you have to spend on contraception. Those things together with the easiest and cheapest form of entertainment would seem to cirrelate with a higher birthrate in lower income brackets. I cant find any studies that support what Im saying right now, but the logic holds.

sp527 8y ago

I have to wonder if there's a dip around the upper middle/lower upper who, because of price discrimination on college costs and such must still be conservative, that then reverses course for the mid to upper upper, who have wealth in excess of any reasonable pattern of consumption and certainly more than enough to raise many children. I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head is roughly $500k in today's dollars (including total private college costs, which account for half of that).

koolba 8y ago
> I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head is roughly $500k in today's dollars (including total private college costs, which account for half of that). So double the kids for same price assuming they go to a public university? Sounds like a good deal to me. FYI, you can cut that down even further if you go to a community college for the first year or two and then transfer.
- sp527 8y ago
  Rank of the college matters in my opinion. It's unfortunate but it does create opportunities. High-ranked public universities are often really great, but usually comparable in total cost to private ones (with savings for being in-state in some cases). But yes if you only gain admission to the long tail of private colleges, then you would almost certainly be wiser to go to a low-cost public school. I wouldn't want my kids to consider community college unless they had to. By definition, I'd like them to have the same academic opportunities I had, if possible.
gowld 8y ago
People who have a lot of money have a lot more fun entertaining themselves without leaning on the emotional network of a family. People with less money rely on their family and community for entertainment. So I'd expect wealthy "jet setters" to not have many children.
- sp527 8y ago