6 ms·

IMHO we should just accept the lower income. Since women entered workforce we got used to the inflated lifestyle. We should just accept that having a kid will c

by po1nt 1mo ago

IMHO we should just accept the lower income. Since women entered workforce we got used to the inflated lifestyle. We should just accept that having a kid will cost you money and it's fine. It's the best purchase there is. Some might decide to buy more expensive car or larger house and that's cool choice as well. But in the end will bring you just a temporary happiness and maybe some social status boost. Screw consumerism, just have a child.

madduci 1mo ago
I disagree. Why should we accept lower income, while billionaires are doing whatever they want, in the most illegal ways? Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need
- po1nt 1mo ago
  Don't pay them money, instead have children. The reason why they have money is you decide to buy their product instead of spending it on kids. (of course nestle and similar excluding)
  - folkrav 1mo ago
    Oh come on. Spending it on kids ALSO means buying their products in the end, captive audience and all. Kids come with all sorts of expenses you can't just wave away. Daycare/education. Clothing. Twice the food you would as a couple, not that far down the line. Possibly a larger vehicle, or just a vehicle at all, depending on your pre-kid lifestyle. Larger housing. And that's assuming everything goes well and you don't happen to have special needs or sick kids, meaning healthcare, taking days off, etc. The whole freaking thing makes you pay at every corner. Don't be dense.
    - po1nt 1mo ago
      It's a tradition within my family to pass down most of the child stuff, so kids run in second hand clothing that will get puked on, torn, and pooped in anyway. There is no need for a larger car unless you really have a 3+ kids family. You don't need a larger house. That is a scam they are trying to sell you. In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
      - folkrav 1mo ago
        Pass it down depends on having a kid around your age that can pass it down to you. We buy second hand for most, but we still have to buy. Yes, there is a need for a larger car when your original car is tiny, or you didn't have one at all. Yes, there is a need for larger housing cause I lived in a one bedroom apartment. As for special needs, I mean, it always can happen, and you always need to be ready that it's a possibility. Telling people that they should have kids regardless then turning around and leaving them with no resources for it is just irresponsible. You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong. I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
        po1nt 1mo ago
        Food is not that expensive when you cook yourself. Children even don't eat that much. Breast milk substitutes are expensive though, I admit. I'm not saying your budget doesn't change after having a child. I'm just saying for a price of a special color on car, vacation and couple nights out, you can afford to have a child for a year. It's not cheap, but most of us are blowing money on useless stuff anyway. Some are donating thousands a year to online creator, game microtransactions, drinks in a bar, designer bags, funko pop collections and such. The lifestyle inflation is real. And thanks to shifting priorities, you might even get yourself into better financial position after a few years, then before having a child.
fssys 1mo ago
you need the larger house to have the kid!
- po1nt 1mo ago
  Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.
rcxdude 1mo ago
This might be a useful attitude to have individually but it's not really a plan of how to solve the systemic issue.
- po1nt 1mo ago
  There is no systemic issue to solve. There is only cultural issue.
  - rcxdude 1mo ago
    Culture is part of the system, and probably one of the harder parts to change.
    - jareklupinski 1mo ago
      who makes the culture? one person's actions can start to move the tide
collabs 1mo ago
On the contrary, strike! Refuse to have children completely until society and in particular the wealthy uphold their end of the bargain and make universal free of cost childcare a reality. Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!
- po1nt 1mo ago
  Wealthy don't have children as well. Poorer families in africa have ten or more. It's not money issue. It's comfort issue
  - simonh 1mo ago
    To back this up, there is growing evidence that subsidised child care, financial support for families, etc has a minimal effect on birth rates, if any. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable. None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment. I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.
criddell 1mo ago
> It's the best purchase there is. There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.
- po1nt 1mo ago
  Mine including heh.

by po1nt 1mo ago

madduci 1mo ago

I disagree. Why should we accept lower income, while billionaires are doing whatever they want, in the most illegal ways? Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need

po1nt 1mo ago
Don't pay them money, instead have children. The reason why they have money is you decide to buy their product instead of spending it on kids. (of course nestle and similar excluding)
- folkrav 1mo ago
  Oh come on. Spending it on kids ALSO means buying their products in the end, captive audience and all. Kids come with all sorts of expenses you can't just wave away. Daycare/education. Clothing. Twice the food you would as a couple, not that far down the line. Possibly a larger vehicle, or just a vehicle at all, depending on your pre-kid lifestyle. Larger housing. And that's assuming everything goes well and you don't happen to have special needs or sick kids, meaning healthcare, taking days off, etc. The whole freaking thing makes you pay at every corner. Don't be dense.
  - po1nt 1mo ago
    It's a tradition within my family to pass down most of the child stuff, so kids run in second hand clothing that will get puked on, torn, and pooped in anyway. There is no need for a larger car unless you really have a 3+ kids family. You don't need a larger house. That is a scam they are trying to sell you. In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
    - folkrav 1mo ago
      Pass it down depends on having a kid around your age that can pass it down to you. We buy second hand for most, but we still have to buy. Yes, there is a need for a larger car when your original car is tiny, or you didn't have one at all. Yes, there is a need for larger housing cause I lived in a one bedroom apartment. As for special needs, I mean, it always can happen, and you always need to be ready that it's a possibility. Telling people that they should have kids regardless then turning around and leaving them with no resources for it is just irresponsible. You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong. I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
      - po1nt 1mo ago
        Food is not that expensive when you cook yourself. Children even don't eat that much. Breast milk substitutes are expensive though, I admit. I'm not saying your budget doesn't change after having a child. I'm just saying for a price of a special color on car, vacation and couple nights out, you can afford to have a child for a year. It's not cheap, but most of us are blowing money on useless stuff anyway. Some are donating thousands a year to online creator, game microtransactions, drinks in a bar, designer bags, funko pop collections and such. The lifestyle inflation is real. And thanks to shifting priorities, you might even get yourself into better financial position after a few years, then before having a child.

fssys 1mo ago

you need the larger house to have the kid!

po1nt 1mo ago
Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.

rcxdude 1mo ago

This might be a useful attitude to have individually but it's not really a plan of how to solve the systemic issue.

po1nt 1mo ago
There is no systemic issue to solve. There is only cultural issue.
- rcxdude 1mo ago
  Culture is part of the system, and probably one of the harder parts to change.
  - jareklupinski 1mo ago
    who makes the culture? one person's actions can start to move the tide

collabs 1mo ago

On the contrary, strike! Refuse to have children completely until society and in particular the wealthy uphold their end of the bargain and make universal free of cost childcare a reality. Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!

po1nt 1mo ago
Wealthy don't have children as well. Poorer families in africa have ten or more. It's not money issue. It's comfort issue
- simonh 1mo ago
  To back this up, there is growing evidence that subsidised child care, financial support for families, etc has a minimal effect on birth rates, if any. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable. None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment. I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.

criddell 1mo ago

> It's the best purchase there is. There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.

po1nt 1mo ago
Mine including heh.