11–20 of 49 posts
According to the article "Farré and González think that spending more time with their children—or the prospect of having to do so—may have made men more acutely aware of the effort and costs associated with childrearing". Another (arguably more positive) reason could be that new fathers formed a better relationship with their child, and be extension felt more fulfilled in that relationship. That could potentially the…
According to the article "Farré and González think that spending more time with their children—or the prospect of having to do so—may have made men more acutely aware of the effort and costs associated with childrearing". Another (arguably more positive) reason could be that new fathers formed a better relationship with their child, and be extension felt more fulfilled in that relationship. That could potentially the…
TLDR: "You just wasted 5 minutes of your life".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning, especially with all these "XX% of the population live pay-check to pay-check" articles. Up until now the whole system was relying on continuous growth to take care of the elderly (both physically and financially). It's a good thing in the long term, but it might suck big time short term wise.
I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? At the same time, automation will result in lower demand. Hard to say which trend is more important. Combined, I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.
I believe the concern is that a lot of those people who are living paycheque to paycheque are getting to / are at retiring age - we need social safety nets to support these people, and we have a whole lot less people working to afford it.
• There was no limit to the amount of love I could give to my second child.
• There was a limit of time and attention I could share with both children which I felt started to hamper my ability to share that love.
• The logistics of a second child made everything take exponentially more time. Meals, transport, dressing, wrangling...it all became much harder. Manageable with my wife--far more difficult when I am alone with them (which is every morning and evening since my wife has a longer commute).
At this point, I can't envision having a third child. I can't imagine splitting my time and attention into thirds. I have a minivan and I'm not sure how I'd fit the kids and requisite stuff in the car. I'm certainly not ready to handle getting three kids ready in the morning alone. And I'm not ready for the guilt when I travel for work.
How did paternity play into this? With insights from my brother who has two kids, the costs didn't take me by surprise. The effort and complete consumption of time and energy did. Would I trade it for anything? No. Do I think I can handle more children? I think I've learned about myself that no, I can't--both because I don't feel like I would be my best self in that situation and because that would then reflect on my interactions with my kids.
While the idea of the article is entertaining, the data is ridiculous. 3 data points: '00, '05, and '10. The policy came into play in '07. Yet the downward trend was already visible in '05. It barely changed for '10. A more interesting (and honest) take of the data is in women's desire for more children. It was on a decline in '05, but ticked up sharply for '10. So if I was writing this, I would have said: "After men…
However, now the men got to see firsthand what a pain in the ass kids are, instead of being able to relegate that work to their wives, so now they don't want so many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning, especially with all these "XX% of the population live pay-check to pay-check" articles. Up until now the whole system was relying on continuous growth to take care of the elderly (both physically and financially). It's a good thing in the long term, but it might suck big time short term wise.
I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? At the same time, automation will result in lower demand. Hard to say which trend is more important. Combined, I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.
> Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages?
I don't think it's that simple. It's a societal / economical problem on a world scale, not an economy 101 course, I don't think anyone can predict where we're going but it'll definitely require some major changes.
> At the same time, automation will
"Automation will ..." has been used for 60+ years. If all these prophets were right we'd be working 3 hours a day by now. As long as we (collectively) are not ok with people not working, all automation does is moving people from shitty jobs to other shitty jobs (mostly in the service industry).
California's (or san Francisco's... Not sure) six weeks of paid paternity leave made this dad want more kids. Babies are the best! Maybe if they gave more time off they'd want more children
That's a good thing, there are too many people in the world already. Funny how values change when you actually have to deal with the consequences of your actions, though.
Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning, especially with all these "XX% of the population live pay-check to pay-check" articles. Up until now the whole system was relying on continuous growth to take care of the elderly (both physically and financially). It's a good thing in the long term, but it might suck big time short term wise.
No problem, we'll just invent robots to take care of the elderly.