5 ms·

I mean, a lot of people may not have the financial option to have had kids younger. Like, the last 15 years have included two "completely upend your life" level

I mean, a lot of people may not have the financial option to have had kids younger. Like, the last 15 years have included two "completely upend your life" level crises, along with a lot of smaller crises that could have swept up someone.

Aeolun 4y ago
I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.
- afavour 4y ago
  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.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        Yes, it's very simplistic, but I think directionally correct.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      > 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 4y ago
        > 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.
  - caeril 4y ago
    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.
    - afavour 4y ago
      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.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      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?
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    > 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.
- iamthepieman 4y ago
  We estimated that it costs 1.5 million to raise our kids just based on opportunity cost. If we factored in increased health insurance rates, and all the other expenses around having multiple children including needing to own a bigger car and house, factor out the tax credits in the US, it's more like 2.25 million. This is for a very moderate salary estimation for the non-working spouse.
  - doubled112 4y ago
    I'm always confused about the bigger car thing, and I think it's marketing hard at work. I'm getting myself, my wife, and my two kids to BMX practice (yes, with bikes) in a compact sedan. What are people filling all that space with? Do you pack like you're crossing the Sahara every time you leave the house? I came back and added this: If houses were still built like they used to be, with walls and separation, it'd be easier to fit more people and stuff into fewer square feet, but even a roomy new home feels like there's always somebody with you. I'd love to move into something small and inexpensive, but my 2 bedroom town home will have to do for the time being. Works just fine for us.
    - iamthepieman 4y ago
      If you have more than 3 kids you need something bigger than a sedan. I was talking about seats, not legroom.
      - doubled112 4y ago
        Or a second car and driver, which is inefficient at best. Apparently I had forgotten that you can have more than two kids for a moment. I don’t know anybody who does, at this point, just read about them on the Internet.
- waboremo 4y ago
  >adjust your expectations That's just another way to say they're inherently expensive. If they weren't, why are you adjusting your expectations? I do think we exaggerate greatly how expensive kids are, for the most part the "exchange" is in time and not money. However, they are still a noticeable cost especially in countries with not great support systems.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > for the most part the "exchange" is in time and not money. I agree. If you can have one person stay home kids are pretty cheap. My wife won't stay home, but if we could swap salaries I'd do it myself in a heartbeat.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Kids aren’t inherently expensive. The only thing they really need that you cannot provide without already being set up for it (a farmer) is food. Everything else (sports, school, toys, etc.) is expectation.
- netjiro 4y ago
  Even in super socialized Sweden the first child costs around 180 000 USD (2021) [1] for the median example family. Second child is probably less expensive. [1] https://seb.se/privat/livet/att-skaffa-barn/sa-paverkar-ett-barn-ekonomin https://seb.se/privat/livet/att-skaffa-barn/sa-paverkar-ett-...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

Aeolun 4y ago

I dunno, kids may be incompatible with a lot of lifestyles, but I wouldn’t call them inherently expensive. You just have to adjust your expectations.

afavour 4y ago
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.
- dionidium 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        Yes, it's very simplistic, but I think directionally correct.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      > 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.
- caeril 4y ago
  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.
  - afavour 4y ago
    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.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    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?
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > 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.
iamthepieman 4y ago
We estimated that it costs 1.5 million to raise our kids just based on opportunity cost. If we factored in increased health insurance rates, and all the other expenses around having multiple children including needing to own a bigger car and house, factor out the tax credits in the US, it's more like 2.25 million. This is for a very moderate salary estimation for the non-working spouse.
- doubled112 4y ago
  I'm always confused about the bigger car thing, and I think it's marketing hard at work. I'm getting myself, my wife, and my two kids to BMX practice (yes, with bikes) in a compact sedan. What are people filling all that space with? Do you pack like you're crossing the Sahara every time you leave the house? I came back and added this: If houses were still built like they used to be, with walls and separation, it'd be easier to fit more people and stuff into fewer square feet, but even a roomy new home feels like there's always somebody with you. I'd love to move into something small and inexpensive, but my 2 bedroom town home will have to do for the time being. Works just fine for us.
  - iamthepieman 4y ago
    If you have more than 3 kids you need something bigger than a sedan. I was talking about seats, not legroom.
    - doubled112 4y ago
      Or a second car and driver, which is inefficient at best. Apparently I had forgotten that you can have more than two kids for a moment. I don’t know anybody who does, at this point, just read about them on the Internet.
waboremo 4y ago
>adjust your expectations That's just another way to say they're inherently expensive. If they weren't, why are you adjusting your expectations? I do think we exaggerate greatly how expensive kids are, for the most part the "exchange" is in time and not money. However, they are still a noticeable cost especially in countries with not great support systems.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > for the most part the "exchange" is in time and not money. I agree. If you can have one person stay home kids are pretty cheap. My wife won't stay home, but if we could swap salaries I'd do it myself in a heartbeat.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Kids aren’t inherently expensive. The only thing they really need that you cannot provide without already being set up for it (a farmer) is food. Everything else (sports, school, toys, etc.) is expectation.
netjiro 4y ago
Even in super socialized Sweden the first child costs around 180 000 USD (2021) [1] for the median example family. Second child is probably less expensive. [1] https://seb.se/privat/livet/att-skaffa-barn/sa-paverkar-ett-barn-ekonomin https://seb.se/privat/livet/att-skaffa-barn/sa-paverkar-ett-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]