121–130 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro-natal policies are a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that basics like housing costs 10x more than with the previous high-baby-having generations
People have historically lived in a much severe poverty than now, yet the birth rates were much better.
One thing I've been considering is the existence of the 401k or basically the Bogle strategy as a whole. Both expect yearly gains over time, due to increasing amounts going into the pools. But what happens when the elders start drawing down that money, and there isn't a base to replace it? Going forward, we could actually see such values shrink, I think? The uber rich aren't Bogleheads, after all.
I mean, as much as interest rates have dramatically risen recently, real yields on 30 year UK government debt (as measured by the inflation-linked gilt yield) are at ~1%. That's just not going to cut the mustard given how little people are able or willing to save in to their retirement fund.
To give you an idea, the difference between a 1% real return and a 4% real return, investing monthly over a 30 year horizon, is having 64% more in retirement.
Fewer!
What?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro-natal policies are a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that basics like housing costs 10x more than with the previous high-baby-having generations
> basics like housing costs 10x more than with the previous high-baby-having generations Thank you. I'm a millionaire. I want kids. I see no near-term path to having them without their costs rivaling that of financing multi-million dollar boats [1]. The fundamental problem is children are extremely expensive, particularly for the ambitious. (I'm putting aside the enormous liabilities that arise from e.g. one's child…
Even at £200k (allowing some inflation since 2012), that's leveled over two decades. Obviously that blossoms then explodes if you fall into the fashion trap of assuming price means quality, particularly for schooling. But these are largely optional costs. Relocating for better state schooling often also grants more affordable housing, at the cost of commuting. If you're already a million up, there are many option.
Even if that is somehow equivalent to your yacht, if that's the springs-to-mind opportunity cost, do you actually want children? Or would you rather have a boat?
> No one really knows why birth rates are dropping so fast. [...] Many people have theories but if you critically examine them they fall apart. > [#1] People do not have money for kids. [#2] The Government isn’t Providing pro-natal policies. [#3] This is happening only in societies that are not religious. [#4] Women are working and not having kids. That seems like an incomplete list. For example, how about this one:…
Pro-natal policies are a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that basics like housing costs 10x more than with the previous high-baby-having generations
Of course the fact that the developing countries/ poorer immigrants / poorer past generations / poorer but religious groups within countries / you name it, have higher rates should make this obvious.
I personally don't have kids because for me, they would be a pointless boring chore. But I guess many fellow coastal bubble dwellers cannot admit it and need a cope ;)
An anecdote, someone from Russia asked me how big our house was when we bought it after getting married. Without going into the details, that was the smallest house we were possibly considering for 2 people, I said 1100sqft. They said, oooh, so you are planning to have many children then, with so much space! Nope, we are just spoiled ;)
This is a rather serious issue but very few people care. It is at least as important as global warming. Media and politicians don't care at all.
[flagged]
Abortion and sexual health services are also not aligned with population decline. If people can't access those services at all then I posit they might be more likely to never want to try for kids. Just a supposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you may have taken to heart the talking points of those opposed to abortion etc. rather than reality. The pro-choice position held by the majority of people is "available, considered and rare". Abortion and sexual health services are also not aligned with population decline. If people can't access those services at all then I posit they might be more likely to never want to try for kids. Just a supposition.
IMHO it is rising individualism triggerred from FOMO from social media where in you believe you still have something left to experience outside in the world and which cannot be done once you have small kids. Another one probably is how people with kids narrate their experience , where in they mention all the sleepless nights , limitations and costs , without telling about the postive aspects like happinesss , satisfa…
This is just not true - at least if you refuse to become an extreme helicopter parent.
I have four kids. I had a ~10 year break where I very rarely made it to parties and music festivals, and my life was mostly work and kids. I had a great time and have never regretted my decision to have kids, but there were some things I missed.
Now we start doing these things again, sometimes with the kids, sometimes because the kids are big enough to be alone or because we can afford a babysitter.
Here is one egoistic argument for having kids: the world is going to become very confusing in a decade or two. There will come the time where you can't keep up anymore. Then you will be happy to have somebody that loves you unconditionally that can make decisions for you. I trust my kids way more to take care of me when I am old and confused than any institution or person motivated by money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be a communal job like so many others, and indeed as it already is in some cultures.
Which cultures are those? Ancient, tribal cultures, absolutely raised children in a communal way as you say. There's even a saying, "it takes a village to raise a child..." But I'm not aware of any modern cultures that still do that in reality.
So another way of saying this is that the extended family participates in raising children.
Not long ago, children were allowed to roam freely in the neighborhood, walk to and from school, and have some essentially unsupervised time to play and be children. The reason this worked well is because they were known to the neighbors, and at least some of those neighbors were looking out for the children, albeit discreetly and not actively. Me and my sister roamed the neighborhood, and at least one Mom on each block would know who to call if we got into an accident or something. There was a creepy guy who invited us to his hot tub, but my sister wisely turned him down, and nothing more was done.
Furthermore, in an extended family, you'll have grandparents to babysit, and cousins who are peers, and in a family with enough children, you'll have older children effectly supervising the youngest ones, changing diapers, doing basic tasks like that. This happens all the time at church, and I see it. It's a matter of Mom and Dad setting good examples and instilling good discipline.
If instead you have a situation of high divorce rates, single moms and single dads going it alone, everyone lives in a separate little dwelling, we barely know our extended family, we live in neighborhoods full of strangers, we all work two full-time jobs, well your support system will consist of paid child care, if you can find it, and if you can afford it. So children are high-maintenance.
And in a family of one or two children, the children won't be learning the basics of changing diapers and feeding applesauce, so if you do raise children, you're raising children who are unprepared to be parents.