News

The plan is to move all the money to the top 0.1%. Low birthrate is just a side effect of that. The plan was always to fill in the gaps in workforce with illegal immigrants who are cheaper and easier to steal money from. Currently I'm not sure what the plan is. Robots? Abandon manufacturing altogether?

And birthrate is still very low.

Because now is the best time to be alive, ever. I could take you back 100, 200, 500, 1000, or 5000 years ago and things just get shittier and shittier the further back we go yet people kept having kids.

I think you understand this pretty well. For educated people parenting is a choice. They wait for the right moment in the career, they make sure they will be able to provide their children with everything they may need and that their kids will have optimal conditions for growth and development, they consider their other passions and projects and weight them against having kids.

Uneducated people simply have kids and don't really give it a second thought. You have kids, you feed them some junk food, give them phone to play with and that's it. You're a happy family.

If you're looking at people in developed countries where more kids doesn't necessarily mean more labor, the difference can also be somewhat explained by religion and quality of life concerns. Extremely religious people in the us, who tend to be less educated and have lower incomes, may not believe in contraception and believe that "god will provide". That may sound like an exaggeration, but I personally know someone with 7 kids who cannot afford to feed them but thinks that they will go to hell if they use condoms and denying their husband is also a sin somehow. They just talk about how god intended for their family to struggle. That's not a mindset you generally see in high income families.

The other factor is quality of life (and yes, education). If you're making enough to afford a home and a good education for 1-2 children, you may be looking to give your child a good life and a good springboard for their future. If you know that no matter what you do, you will never be able to afford a college education for your child, then that makes having a child "less expensive" in that regard. You know you won't be able to afford sports or extracurricular activity equipment, or new clothes, so while a family earning more may spend a smaller percentage of their income on any single child, the resources they are expecting to be able to provide them increase. A lot of low income families may have the approach that if a child is fed they've done the thing. Check mark on parenting for the day. If that's the approach to parenting then it's less resource intensive than a more involved approach that some high income families may have. I want to be clear that this is not a moral failing or some kind of judgement being passed. I think a lot of people don't realize the day to day of very low income families. There are still people in the US raising families with no access to electricity or even running water. They have a very different background and understanding of what a family looks like. I don't think they are inherently evil for having more kids and being unable to provide for them in the way others may expect, but I also think that's not an excuse to allow children to live in unsafe conditions. I legitimately believe that if we had better education in low income and rural areas that you'd see this disparity drop, as they learn the different options education can provide and strive to ensure their own children get the best education and support possible.

Inequality is the primary factor. If people making $150k to $200k can reasonably conclude that having children would be a burden on their future economic prospects (in an already uncertain future), they will decide against it. $50k to $75k is probably more in the "fuck it, we might as well have more sources of potential labor and income and maybe a subsidy or two since we're already at this point", and people making $400k or above have nothing to fear from child expenses.

A lot of that might also be location based. Where I am right now we're paying ~1700/mo for daycare. Wife got a job for nearly double our current combined income (for 260k) so moving to Boston, daycare going to ~3000/mo and housing going from 2k/mo to looking at 6-10k/mo. It almost feels like a paycut...but at least driving should become more optional.

Did you at any point between misreading this headline and deciding you'd solved a blindingly obvious problem, think to read the link?

This isn't Twitter. Stop with your responses to 140 characters.

Oh and by the way, "just stay home" is pretty shitty as a solution even in itself because taking years off work is significantly damaging to one's career and women are disproportionately expected and pressured to be the ones to do so.

Federal guidelines say that childcare is affordable if it consumes no more than 7% of household income. Citing data from Child Care Aware of America, LendingTree found that the average annual cost of care for an infant and a 4-year-old is $28,190 nationwide.

That would require household income of $402,708 a year to meet the 7% benchmark.

Childcare doesn't cost $400k (at least not according to the article, or even the headline). The article says it costs $28k. Most people are going to make more than $28k/yr, so keeping the second job is still a financial positive.