Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No one wants to have kids anymore

torturechambersmalltalk.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 457 posts

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#161

Post by leesalminen »

notch656a wrote: post #119
throwayyy479087 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a kid is the most fun I’ve ever had. Used to go to raves, done bunch of crazy sexual stuff, as well as most drugs under the sun. There’s nothing close to chasing a toddler in a circle for an hour.

Is this satire? I have a child and the monotonous boredom of dealing with a toddler forces me to suppress the distant memories of freedom to go to raves, fight in foreign militia, get lost in stormy mountains, hitchhike across the plains...

I’ve put in some effort to identify things my toddler and I can do together that we both enjoy. Here’s some in random order:

- go to beach, play in sand & swim in ocean, find other kids to play with

- go to woods, walk around and spot wildlife

- go to farmer’s market, try various foods/drinks, play with other kids

- go out for ice cream

- go to playground, play with other kids

- go out for some (light) off-roading, he loves the bumps

My son will be 3 next week.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#162

Post by dougmwne »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #56
somehnacct3757 wrote: post #33

Kid-having emerges. This (western biased) article is blaming the victim. An entire generation bled dry by student loans for useless degrees, unable to buy homes that their elders view as retirement funds. A thousand and one more entertaining things to do online which don't risk creating 18-year bundles of debt. And absolutely no idea how to break the cycle for your offspring. Pick one thing to fix and spend your life…

In India- or that subcontinent, people were majority in the very poor category. Only recently middle class grew, 20-40 years. What people did was buy homes and invest live savings to have a "permanant shelter over heads" for themselves and their families. This is true for a lot of people so children when the start earning, "there is no rent to pay" which is a big savings considering. On the other hand, you have "amer…

This is an over generalization of American culture. Yes, in my experience, when parents live in a high cost of living city with plentiful opportunities, the children tend to live at home longer. This seems quite common in California and New York. In areas with less opportunity, children are forced to move out or never have much of a career.

This was the case for me. I had no choice but to leave home at 18 or I would have been working in food service or lawn care for the rest of my life.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#163

Post by AlexandrB »

zpeti wrote: post #126
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s your choice, but you’re definitely missing out on something special. I totally forgot to mention the patronizing attitude that so many people come to this conversation with. Thank for you for heads up.

Patronising is thinking you know what it’s like having children without having them. You don’t. You have no idea of the emotional and practical side of having children, and how hard and how amazing it is, and how it’s the best and hardest part of your life up until then. Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.

> Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.

This sentence is the definition of patronizing. It's the same thing parents tell their kids: "oh you just don't understand what it's like, that's why you don't agree with me".

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#164

Post by 123pie123 »

I was given the advice of: There is never a good time to have kids.

I'm over 50, I have kids (and now grandkids) - everyone of them was unplanned and at the time I could not afford them. But each time we struggled and either we made ends meet and it spurred me on to get more money (change jobs/ go contracting/ start my own business)

has it been stressful - yes, have I suffered lack of sleep - yes

would I do it again - absolutely yes, being a father has been one of the best things in life

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#165

Post by pooper »

Nursie wrote: post #75
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #43

A word of advice to anyone on the fence about having kids: There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to have kids, but do yourself and consult with actual parents for what it’s really like to have kids. Articles like this one, which are written by someone who apparently has chosen not to have children, are almost universally terrible at representing the true experience of being a parent. Yes, being a parent involves a…

I have friends who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in years because of one of their kids being unable to settle into normal patterns. I’m sure they’d still say it was worth it. Mind you they are getting divorced now so who knows. I think it’s fair to say YMMV on the sleep front.

I see it the same way as people who have iPhones or luxury German cars. People who have iPhones or luxury German cars are more likely than not to rate themselves as satisfied with their purchase. It is as simple as wanting to feel good and usually it feels good to believe I am correct. Therefore, I suspect this is correct for both breeders and the child free that we will try to justify our own decisions, not for anyone else but to satisfy ourselves. We probably get simply defensive when questioned.

It may not have anything to do with the greater fool theory as we aren't constantly buying or selling children or doing child swaps like banks do with money but it is worth bringing up as we are humans in both places and I suspect the underlying human psychology is the same.

> In finance, the greater fool theory suggests that one can sometimes make money through the purchase of overvalued assets — items with a purchase price drastically exceeding the intrinsic value — if those assets can later be resold at an even higher price.

> In this context, one "fool" might pay for an overpriced asset, hoping that he can sell it to an even "greater fool" and make a profit. This only works as long as there are enough new "greater fools" willing to pay higher and higher prices for the asset. Eventually, investors can no longer deny that the price is out of touch with reality, at which point a sell-off can cause the price to drop significantly until it is closer to its fair value, which in some cases could be zero.[1][2][3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

tl;Dr NEVER EVER trust a parent to tell you the truth about the "wonders" of being a parent, not because they are malicious but because they are likely incapable of being objective.

edit: disclaimer, if it wasn't obvious, i made this all up. i don't have any children

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#166

Post by lotsofpulp »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #111
toomuchtodo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs $310k to pay for a kid from 0-18 per Brookings. The math is straightforward to work backwards to the income you need to afford that along with your basic needs and retirement savings, and most people don’t have the means. Median US lifetime earnings are $1.7 million. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3608647-new-estimate-proj...

The article states two (2) children costs $310,000. Comes out to be $8,611/year or $718/month per child. A tiny sample size, but I have several children and none of them cost me $23.58/day for 18 years. Do you have a link to the actual study or the breakdown what went into this?

No, it states the per child cost for a family with 2 children:

> A recent estimate conducted by the Brookings Institution projected the cost of raising a child for a middle-income, two-parent married family with two kids to be north of $310,000.

>The estimate assumes the youngest child would be born in 2015 and covers raising the child through the age of 17. It does not include the cost of sending the child to college.

This seems to be the source:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Brookin...

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/08/30/its-getti...

Edit: not only does the study exclude college costs, but it excludes daycare costs, which are relevant to pretty much all dual income couples.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#167

Post by nashashmi »

Everyone wants to have kids. Everyone. But the whole fear of the future between paying for school loans, divorce rates, rising cost of living, exciting work environments, both couples working, thoughts of day care, and finally the lack of compromise in reducing your class of living is driving people bonkers where children and family are just no longer part of the equation.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#168

Post by meindnoch »

One morning last week, I’ve noticed that my wife was walking around the house in unusual silence. I thought I might have upset her with something, but couldn’t really recall any transgression that would have made her mad. Then after a few minutes of this, she dropped a pregnancy test in front of me, with a “+” sign shown on the little display.

Looks like I’m going to be a father!

I knew that this could happen sooner or later, but only as an abstract thought; something that will happen sometime way ahead in the future, like your own death.

At that moment it became something tangible. A few days later I’ve noticed that I’m driving much more carefully, respecting the speed limit and whatnot. A few weeks ago I was contemplating doing ketamine with a friend of mine - now it sounds absurd.

It’s frightening how fast your subconscious changes your perspective practically overnight.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#169

Post by the_only_law »

mftrhu wrote: post #136
zpeti wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patronising is thinking you know what it’s like having children without having them. You don’t. You have no idea of the emotional and practical side of having children, and how hard and how amazing it is, and how it’s the best and hardest part of your life up until then. Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.

> Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like. ... what?

It’s “make up random definitions for words I don’t know” day apparently.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#170

Post by rendall »

ehutch79 wrote: post #67
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #43

A word of advice to anyone on the fence about having kids: There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to have kids, but do yourself and consult with actual parents for what it’s really like to have kids. Articles like this one, which are written by someone who apparently has chosen not to have children, are almost universally terrible at representing the true experience of being a parent. Yes, being a parent involves a…

Real parents consistently make it clear how terrible having kids is. The childless among us hear every complaint and lament about how terrible it is. Why would we do that to ourselves?

Real parent, here.

Having a son anchored me to the (land and planet)* in a very unexpected way. Formerly, there was always an option to chuck things and go somewhere else, but now whatever is in front of me I must deal with and make happen. It's not about what I want to do any more, but the first underlying thought behind everything I do is how it will affect my son and family.

Lots of former options are closed. I can no longer start a relationship with a fun and beautiful but legitimately insane woman. I can no longer splurge my life savings on some risky venture. I can no longer spontaneously digital nomad. Heck, I can't really hit the local pub or have a night out without negotiation.

Is that terrible? I don't think so. It doesn't feel so. More, like, I do whatever I want within the bounds determined by my responsibility to someone who cannot care for himself yet.

I have a fatherly and calm personality, though, and I know it's not suited for everyone.

So, TL;DR: Not terrible. Anchoring. Limiting, but not oppressive.

* There's no really good word for this.

Post reply on HN