It seems to me that not birthing children when one is not financially safe makes sense; having children is, in some ways, a luxury now that a two-incomes household is the norm.
It makes sense, but people have always had kids that they couldn't afford. The statistic matches up with what I've experienced at work and with friends, where older people without children aren't as concerned with being responsible with their money because nobody depends on them for support, while the older people with kids are much more diligent about monitoring the amount of money they spend.
Poor people with kids also qualify for a lot more government benefits than poor people without kids.
Although a lot of those benefits punish the parents for being married, i.e. if you want to maximize benefits it's better to be unmarried and maybe also not living together.
I don't think it's that surprising. I know that If I didn't have a kid I definitely wouldn't have focused as much on getting raises over the years. If no one depended on me, I would have quit a few jobs for petty reasons, or even just because I wanted a break for a few months.
Seems to me like they did the math when they were younger. If they were below the poverty line as young adults, having children would have pushed them down further.
It is more dangerous for women to be homeless. This is why most homeless women make a lot of efforts to not appear as such, which might distort our conception of who are homeless.
To say nothing of regionally adjusted poverty rates. The Bay Area is filled with highly educated who live as paupers compared to those in less expensive housing markets. Economic insecurity is known to be the cause of declining birth rates. We are increasingly urban and educated population. One can sort of “do the math.” Hard to raise a family paying $3200 a month to rent a small studio in the “trendyloin.”
Having had kids really early in life forced me into taking steadier work than I might otherwise have. While I am grateful for that-- it's both easier to make money by programing computers than by playing music as well as all the goodness of having adult children-- it certainly pushed me into different situations.
I have a lot of friends in their late 20s and early 30s and they are in situations where they are, say, climbing rocks for 6 months at a time before settling briefly in a place. It's likely that they are going to have a much different professional situation when they are my age.
That seems to be the case with the 50-year-old former ski bums I know, at least.
I suspect this has a lot to do with it. If having kids got you on the steady job train, and you stick with it after they leave (at 55+, I assume most children are at least not counted in household size for poverty income levels), then continuing the job when they leave will probably have you above poverty income.
Not in response to your post, but on the general topic, there is a persistent issue in US statistics of using income levels to declare wealthiness. To me, having poverty level income only implies poverty if the person also has no savings. If the person has a lot of savings/investments and can retire and live off return of capital from 55-70, that may look like 15+ years of poverty in an older adult to statisticians looking at income number, but could be a very nice early retirement. Income is an easy number to get, because of mandatory reporting in dollars, but a single annual value doesn't tell a complete story.
I make a good income doing what I do, but I have a six-figure student loan (which largely went to raising my step daughter and son). I don't expect any sympathy for that.
Nor do I expect sympathy for living in small town with a crazy real-estate market.
But between those, it's likely I'll never retire and will die in debt.
But hey, I do plan to take up paragliding and climbing bigger mountains, so whatever. I guess.
But hey, I also funnel a lot of cash to my kiddo who is getting all-As and is a Junior in a well-respected Mechanical Engineering program.
These are generational problems. I suspect that regardless of how you slice it, that fact about student loans (or lack of professional options for unsettled late-millenials) and real-estate is closer to the truth for most of the people I know who didn't settle down in their 20s and have kids.
My climbing partner, who just got priced out of this town, might look like he's living in poverty, as he's living in a car. But it's a lexus and he's climbing rocks full time... so maybe he's just "retired" temporarilly.
Who knows. I can't tell the difference between hobos and kings anymore.
Honestly many countries don't charge (or at least as excessively) for education. Student loans are a product of a system that should be far more subsidized than it is today.
Many of the politicians who rant about "personal responsibility" themselves didn't have to worry about an out of control real-estate market (that they probably voted in favor of) and $2k 1bdrm rents. Cost of college was cheaper back then too.
Combined with the higher education levels of the childless older adults, that’s even more surprising at first glance.
But after a bit more thought, having someone 20-40 years younger than you who feels a strong obligation to you when you’re not quite as sharp as you used to be could make a lot of difference in your finances.
This hits really close to home. Everyone in my close friend group (5-8 people) and their spouses are all childless, for various different reasons. I've never been good at romance or relationships, so I feel the clock ticking as well.
I really don't know how much of this can be attributed to modernity or personality. A man not having children is apparently the norm throughout human history.
I do find it fascinating, though, that if I do not have children, I will be the end of a direct line that stretches back four billion years to the dawn of life itself. And, I will be the first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a son. It's simple, but amazing, to realize that I am the son of a father, his father, his father, ... etc all the way back to when sexual reproduction began.
He's talking about tracing your male lineage. So if you just follow the male side of your family tree -- your father, his father, his father, his father, etc. Everyone one of these men by definition had a son.
Well, it’s not weird, it’s predictable and an inherent outcome of many current societies overwriting the female lineage with their male mate’s. I do agree with the point you’re trying to make, but, it’s just a patrilineal mindset. Not weird, but problematic all the same. I find it’s best to be plain and direct about these things so that everyone else is on the same page about your beliefs, as otherwise we all end up in arguing about rhetoric instead of reevaluating unconsidered beliefs.
He has no chance of passing on his mitochondrial DNA, whether or not he has children. On the other hand, should he choose not to have children, he will represent a change of behavior that has lasted as long as the Y chromosome has- he is the end of the line.
The same would be true if by chance he only passed on his X chromosome, but at least then the attempt was made, and he could keep trying as long as he had willing partner(s).
If OP is a man and has no sisters, then he can't say "first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a daughter" because his parents had no daughters either.
> Everyone in my close friend group (5-8 people) and their spouses are all childless, for various different reasons. I've never been good at romance or relationships, so I feel the clock ticking as well.
I was childless until the age of 38. I'll be 40 when my third is born. My wife is 37. We didn't decide to have children when I was 37, we'd been together for a decade at that point. Still a lot of time for some perspective change in your group.
If you feel like this now, I suggest having a kid before it’s “too late,” otherwise you may have regret later. Am noting that for a male, too late is a very flexible thing.
Yep, and the downside of having a kid is very low. Basically, if one decide to go with public education system, the expense is low. And one has the choice to divorce or engage less with the child if he does not want to be with them. Although morally that's quite bad behavior.
And when they grow into high school, they'll actively drive the parents out of their social circles.
I am about as bitter as a successful startup founder looking his company grows bigger...
Only non parent can ask questions like this...
Edit: Kids are those things that you wholeheartedly want them never happen, but also wholeheartedly believe being the best possible in your life, often at different moments and switching so suddenly that one often questions their own sanity...
Am I bitter, sure, sometimes, I hate my kids like the the farmer hating the snake, who was bitten by the snake he just rescued.
But that is just a tiny part of the parenting life.
There are no children in my immediate family, it will stop with my generation. In my extended family of 8 first cousins none of the 4 males have children.
My social circle has quite a few children. One couple had children then met several other couples through childbirth classes and added them to the group.
Modernity, although it would have also shaped your personality.
Nevertheless, in the time and place I live, I doubt that my male ancestors would have done any better in my place. Narcissism and self-centeredness are so normalized that the kind of man I am doesn't really belong. I think there are many men and women like I am who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex in the form that they tend to take in modern civilization. I was just recently talking to a female relative of mine who has a similar perspective.
People are also less visually attractive in general. I've been at the beach a few times recently, crowded ones, and I noticed that there were virtually no attractive, beautiful, or sexy people like I remember. My standards are not extraordinarily high, btw. Over half of people were overweight or obese and the minority that were even close to being in shape weren't wearing anything particularly flattering. By the way, this is in California, not the middle of nowhere. I've met foreigners who believe that Los Angeles is full of hot people, and that was somewhat true at one point. Now, I'm not so sure.
Believe me, I appreciate body diversity, but everyone being fat and slovenly (i.e. unhealthy) isn't diversity or a positive thing.
Anyway, I think that people are just less attracted to each other in general. They've either abused their bodies to the point where they look a decade or more older than they should or they just dress like slobs. Or they dress in ways that signal that they aren't interested in any sort of serious relationship.
There's also just the general perception of globalized craziness. On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime? Why would I want anyone to live under technological tyranny? Or the consequences of humans abusing the environment?
People point to the "mouse utopia" experiment, but I don't think it's that. Technological inertia is what is bringing us to this point. Besides a little bit of HN and the occasional episode of 80's TV, I've pretty much disconnected from it all, and more people I know are disengaging. It's both a good sign and a bad one. If people are disengaging, that doesn't really mean that society itself is correcting itself. We're wincing at the wall we are about to crash through.
> Narcissism and self-centeredness are so normalized that the kind of man I am doesn't really belong. I think there are many men and women like I am who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex in the form that they tend to take in modern civilization.
> On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime?
Consider therapy. Outside of your angsty high school years, these sort of thoughts are not healthy. Unless you're purposely going out of your way to inspire melancholy, you sound depressed.
Is it wrong? Look at things like radical feminism or men going their own way, seems like decent sections of both genders are starting to outright hate and swear off of each other even when they are heterosexual. And it's undeniable that any child born today will have to contend with all seeing techno spying governments with automated drone armies and live through whatever climate change has in store for the next 100 years. Just sea level change alone means massive city migrations around the world.
This is the kind of thing that made me realize I have no interest in having kids. I don't want them to live in the world as it is today, and even less so the future to come. I'd rather save my resources for myself and my existing loved ones.
I'm in awe at how my ancestors managed to survive every war, plague, famine, and natural disaster on Earth. And, that my non human ancestors survived every single mass extinction.
I look at the difficulties of my own pleasant life and feel a little ashamed, to be honest. My ancestors managed to survive and reproduce through ALL OF THAT, and I can't because of some social anxiety? It's a little sobering, for me at least.
To be fair, it's a complicated issue. Maybe not every single one of your ancestors was suffering; as far as we know maybe you had nobility 3000 years ago who lived like gods. Similarly, perhaps you're living through things that they would find it incredibly difficult to go through. Lastly, to this point
> My ancestors managed to survive and reproduce through ALL OF THAT, and I can't
The bar is very low. All you know is that your ancestors all lived long enough to reproduce, and then reproduced. It's not difficult to pass that bar today with means that were available back then: alcohol, patience, effort, luck for example (and that even leaves out the darker ways that reproduction happens, which happens more than people like to talk about).
If it's something you want (and related to a base instinct like eating and using the bathroom), it's doable. Join a church or other such community and you may even find people going out of their way to help you reproduce.
Suffering is also a weird thing. If we were able to ask our distant ancestors whether they were suffering, they would probably give us a blank stare. Perhaps in not all cases, but much of what humans normally had to go through is what a modern human would consider suffering. That's not to say they didn't suffer by our standard, but perhaps they didn't see it that way. Someday future humans may wonder how we made it through all the "suffering" we go through now because of the consequences of technology, but with our frame of reference this is the best of times. It's hard to imagine how our ancestors were able to deal with their turmoil, but that viewpoint only makes sense from a modern one.
The boomers had Vietnam. (The US boomers: but it wasn't great times in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, or a bunch of other places.) Their parents had WW II; the grandparents had WW I, the Spanish flu, and Great Depression.
I am old and married, but from what I see of the young, the sexes seem to get along pretty well.
I'll consider it, but I find your perspective peculiar (perhaps insensitive) in that if someone has concerns about the future of children and humanity then it seems you think there must be something broken about that person. It's fairly presumptuous for you to think you can psychoanalyze me to that extent via text.
I have things to be sad about, and I've had depression in the past, but I don't think I qualify for depression. People are quick to pathologize the things that I talk about, but the reality is I don't think about those things in day to day life. I've largely moved on with my life and have plenty of good things to live for.
Yes, I find a lot about the state of humanity to be dissatisfying. And there are certainly people far more distinguished than I am whom share some of that dissatisfaction. Does it really make sense to conclude that we are all simply depressed? In that case, you might as well tell people they're pollyannas for having optimism.
> in that if someone has concerns about the future of children and humanity then it seems you think there must be something broken about that person.
People throughout history have had these thoughts. There is nothing wrong with having them. I personally think it becomes an issue when they negatively affect your life. It sounds like these thoughts/concerns have drastically shaped your life. They don't have to.
In addition, the majority of your statements come off as borderline /r/redpill. Something to be aware of. Again, nothing wrong with having these types of thoughts. If you find they are having a negative impact on your life, such as reduced romantic relationships, reduced involvement in society, abandoning the idea of having children (in which you are presumably interested), that's not healthy.
I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around. The other reply didn’t say it well, but they might have been onto something when they suggested you might be (understandably) depressed. I have dealt with depression and some of the ideas in your comment remind me of certain bleak perspectives I have had at various moments. I also remember having plenty of clever intellectual rationalizations for these feelings.
It’s pretty crazy when your mood shifts and you are looking at the exact same situation and no longer feel the negative assessment of it. I’ve had lots of ups and downs as I learned to deal with difficult emotions and pain that apparently were hidden within me.
Edit: Of course, it is just an idea. I don’t know you or your situation. You might not be depressed at all :) It’s objectively true that there are more obese people nowadays, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
I appreciate your empathy, and will think about what you have said. I'd rather not comment extensively on it since thoughts that may stem from a depressed mind are more easily dismissed than those from an overly happy and optimistic one. As much as I do appreciate yours and others' thoughts on my mental state, I'm not sure I should entertain it or even justify myself for that reason.
> I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around.
It depends quite a bit on the neighborhood. You'll see more people on the Westside who are magazine material than say the Van Nuys. I still stand by my subjective experience that there has been an overall reduction in general attractiveness, but I'm totally open to counter-evidence. (yes, I mean men and women, and in ways that were at least once somewhat agreed upon)
> It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me. I used to be in the obese category and I've known other people who are or were. The way the public treats the obese and the skinny is like night and day. If the obesity rate continues to climb, that sure seems like something that would help the population. Beyond attractiveness, the obese are more at risk for having trouble conceiving.
> > It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
> Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me.
You remind me of myself. Your observations remind me of what my natural observations tend to be. I’m originally from LA and think I’d agree with what you’ve written above.
With that said, here’s a defense of the GP willfully ignoring data in this case (and possibly in general).
It’s attractive to be positive. Not just to romantic partners, but to friends, coworkers, managers, reportees, strangers, etc. I think it’s fine to have standards for physical attractiveness, but they should be in line with what you can achieve. Similarly, I think positivity is attractive and negativity not so much, though I naturally think critically. Over time I’ve learned that others perceive me as a negative person. So erring on the side of positive might mean ignoring data. It might mean being blind to trends, but if it also means being happier, it’s how I would prefer to live.
I don't really think your experience applies to most people. I don't know if it's your situation but perhaps you could consider reducing your pornography intake.
That's valid, although I don't believe I claimed that it applies to most people. Something can be relatively common and have a significant effect without meaning that a majority would be subject to it.
I don't appreciate your suggestion, though. Even though you i-don't-know-if-but it, what you say suggests that my viewpoint comes from a dark place of loneliness and pornography intake, which I don't think is fair unless you substantiate that somehow.
Oh, I didn't mean it that way at all, and I'm sorry I made you feel attacked --- what I mean is that I feel that pornography consumption in excess (or even in general, sometimes) can sometimes warp our sense of what is attractive or not.
Not sure if this is comforting or mind-blowing (or both), but if you expand it out, every man who has children but no son is the last in a line of thousands of men with sons, and every woman who has kids but no daughters is the last in a line of thousands of women with daughters.
Though if you take say the man, if he has a brother who has a son, then you can't say the line of the mans father has ended. I think over all it looks a bit more like pruning a bush, if you back track there is a continuing line somewhere.
I also find fascinating that as our lineage: parents, grand parents etc, expands in powers of two as we go back, the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
Picture a tree. At every instant, every branch tip in the tree makes a decision: keep growing linearly, spawn a new branch, or stop growing altogether. How the tip makes the decision is unknown, but in the end the tree is perfectly balanced. Had excessively many tips decided to branch (“all my ancestor tips branched, if I don’t then all their work was for nothing”), the tree would be far too tangled and nutrients would be wasted developing far too many branches which all must compete against each other to secure more nutrients. On the contrary, if too many tips decide not to develop (“this dismal nitch is is devoid of all nourishment, progressing further would be a waste of resources, I should just end it now”), the tree has no chance of persisting through a thick undercoat to reach the riches above.
Point is, every individual entity “goes with their gut” and the final product is beauty. Too many try to meta-analyze it, maximize their own gains, etc, and the final product cripples.
IMO statements like these are meaningless platitudes. To you it may be beauty, to me it's arbitrary generations of reproduction. It's not good or bad, it just is. Some people go with their gut and rob or kill people, some people go with their gut and run charities. Is that beautiful? I don't think so, it's just reality.
With regards to modernity, I think specifically we are in a time where it is both much easier to not have a child, while also much more difficult to raise a child because of relative economic and social pressures of this period. My peer group mostly mirrors yours in that all but one are childless, with most not looking to have children at all.
There are many birth control options and views on abortion have changed significantly as well as education which has improved, which means much fewer people keep unplanned pregnancies. Simultaneously, working and middle classes in western developed nations have continuously been squeezed within our the lifetimes of people who should be settling down, 2 severe economic contractions combined with the pandemic on top of preexisting job, wage and other social insecurities makes the financial and social burden of having a child much more difficult to bear.
Having a biological child is one way to influence future life. What are some others that might feel like time well spent?
I was ambivalent about being a parent. I have one child and the experience has changed me more than I anticipated; shedding indulgent hobbies, valuing sleep more, going without more luxuries, being willing to just observe my surroundings, practicing perspective-taking (I readily do this with other animals, harder with people), singing more, feeling like I have a sense of purpose. I used to teach math and science to groups of students, and now with the one student who is also family I don’t know what the relative positive influence of on life on earth will be my actions. I suspect greater, given the changes that might have taken much longer to materialize, if at all.
I’d guess that adoption and fostering, relationships that increase one’s responsibility for others, would have had similar effects on my life.
One issue is that the childless will wind up requiring more state care as they age (since they won't have family to care for them). A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference.
Child tax deductions don’t even come close to canceling out the lost revenue of a potential future taxpayer over their lifetime. Especially given today’s near zero interest rate environment.
Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
But I (happening to have two kids) consume government services now in addition to creating the linked supply and demand for government services that my kids represent.
It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
Hmm... That's a fair point. The wrinkle is not all government services scale linearly with users. For example, if there were twice as many Americans we probably wouldn't need twice the defense budget.
"Because you have no family to rely on and your savings are insufficient to care for yourself we (the state) have to care for you. Therefore, we will tax you and people like you more in order to further reduce your savings and make you even more dependent on the state in your dotage."
That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.
What are you responding to? I really am having trouble parsing your reply.
What was never set up as a savings account?
My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes.
The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state.
I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
I already pay more income tax because I don't have dependents. A good portion (most?) of my property taxes go to schools I will never utilize. If anything, not having children is an altruistic choice that should be rewarded with lower taxes. Perhaps it will if carbon taxes ever become a thing.
It is better to treat these as separate issues. Some people need additional assistance from the state as they age. We should decide how much support we'd like to provide, and provide it without bias.
We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents.
It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.
> The report refers to childless adults as those who have no biological children
> Childfree is the term used generally for those who have chosen not to have kids while Childless is for those who would love them but can’t have them. [0]
This survey didn't ask if people chose to not have children. It merely asked if they didn't have biological children. The term "childfree" isn't accurate in this usage.
The report isn't defining "childfree." It's defining "childless" as "adults with no children." It's not even remotely talking about why these adults do not have children.
This has nothing to do with Australia[0]. But by trying to say all childless adults are "childfree", you're basically ignoring infertility, which I think is inconsiderate, at best.
> But by trying to say all childless adults are “childfree”
I didn't try to say that at all
You did though, which is interesting
The point about talking about your source is the your entire response seemed haphazard and creating contexts that neither I or the report said, contexts that didn't fit at all while pretending to be consensus on terms. Which it isn't.
In any case, you did find my main point, where the language and adjectives used in the childless context assumes an affliction. It assumes there is a problem, such as the infertility that you care about and are sensitive to.
I think it is equally inconsiderate to not acknowledge people that just don't want children, as opposed to an explanation. Simply writing Childfree apparently illuminates that so well. So, its a two-way street, where everyone feels invalidated. Glad we could make that obvious.
I am really not surprised. I'm under 30, about to get married have a decent paying job but the uncertainty of a lot of things (Healthcare, inflation, global warming, just to name a few) has both me and my SO still unsure if we want kids. It also might be that some people are realizing they would not be good parents and thus choosing to not have kids.
Those are all tractable problems. I don't mean overall, but the impact of all of those things on you is something you can control.
It's possible that society has imposed ridiculously stringent "requirements" for raising children (apparently families are buying a second washing machine just for their baby's clothes) that raising children responsibly is viewed as financially unachievable for most.
I'm going to be joining that cohort one day. I've never wanted children. I wonder to what extent this is a function of me being a single guy? Bringing a child into this world is a huge responsibility. I have no faith in my ability to protect and raise a child to adulthood without failing them in some way.
Even if I somehow managed to raise a healthy, well adjusted child, there is also the specter of climate change. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world, when they will slowly watch the world they live in be slowly decimated by heat, drought, and rising seas?
People have told me that I will regret my decision in old age. Maybe that's true, but if I ever get the urge to have kids, I'll simply volunteer, adopt or foster them. If they're already here on this earth, hopefully I can have a positive impact, and my conscience is clear.
Humans have a tendency to post rationalize their choices. Once you’re stuck with the consequences of your actions you justify it in a way that’s psychologically acceptable to you.
Okay, then let have a study with elderly people, comparing percentage of childless people regretting their choice against percentage of those regretting having had children.
Not having kids is totally valid. I have two and prefer it that way, can't imagine a life without them, as Jeff explains here[1]. Having a second one is no different (for me) than having only one, actually it's a tad better. So if the joy increases with # of kids around, why not have three then, why not four? And if you backtrack this idea, not having any kids is not bad at all. Just a different life.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted - this seems like a pretty reasonable comment that explores one person's current thinking on the topic.
I don't intend to have kids. I grew up in an abusive home, and I'm still working on attachment issues and CPTSD in my mid 30s. My rationale: this shit stops with me. Awareness and desire to address these issues isn't enough when I know I'm still exhibiting behaviors that I don't fully understand, and I won't propagate what my parents taught me.
While I haven't 100% closed myself to the possibility of kids, I've decided (and accepted) that I will not pursue it without major personal progress, which currently has its own timetable, meaning the door is probably closed.
Divorce rates in America indicate that many people don’t consider this. Let’s say you don’t like interacting with certain people that often, then having a kid is kind of a reckless decision. You’ll need the help of your parents, your spouse’s parents, siblings, neighbors, etc to give the kid the optimal upbringing. Some people literally go ‘well I don’t like my partner anymore, so fuck this nuclear family shit’. If you have that in you, stay clear of parenthood.
> You’ll need the help of your parents, your spouse’s parents, siblings, neighbors, etc
This touches on a really important factor for people like me with families like mine. Their involvement in the parenting process could be nothing negative and stressful. I'd never feel comfortable leaving my kids in their care.
This is not just a pessimistic fear, but a reality I see in my siblings and their own interactions with our parents.
This further complicates things, because I think one could argue that people with my background need more support than average, but we're less likely to have access to that support given our origins.
Hear, hear. I've also found cultivating love and care for my chosen family of friends to fill the space where I feel people seek maternal/paternal satisfaction. You don't need to have a blood relation / dependent relation with someone to invest yourself in their joys and successes and be there for the rest.
The added benefit is, some of these folks in my circle will likely have kids and being an unofficial aunt sounds like a good deal to me.
as a single person, living far from family, and basically friendless, I'm recognizing there is probably a big market for having someone to fall back on. I used to have my now ex girlfriend as an emergency contact, but rn I have no one who I would miss me or likely to come help me if I were, say, hospitalized. I'd feel far more comfortable if I had someone on retainer to fill this risk gap.
They live in another country. I mean I do actually list my mother as my emergency contact. But it's not like she'd be able to do anything besides cry and maybe get to me in 3-4 days time if it was really critical.
“Among childless adults ages 55 and older, 85.2% were White alone; 79.0% were non-Hispanic White; 9.2% were Black alone; 3.4% were Asian alone; 2.2% were all other races or reported multiple races; and 6.5% were Hispanic”
I’d like to see a little more data on these long term single people. It takes a village to raise another member of society. How big is one’s social circle, trustworthy friends/family, role models? I bet the monkey sphere is smaller for these people, so it feels a lot scarier to embark upon this milestone.
Once upon a time it might be normal to rely on neighbors or large extended families for support, but the more isolated we get, the less safety net there is.
If you didn’t work to build that network, you are pretty much handicapped in terms of giving the child the best chance possible.
In other words, this demographic group might be making an extremely responsible decision.
The cost of living and costs of raising a child have both increased dramatically while wages are flat, of course people are having fewer kids. We could increase government childcare aid, but that involves taxing wealthy people, which isn't popular. We could reduce some of the future productivity loss with immigration, but many people don't like that idea either. Instead, childless adults are called selfish and blamed for eating too much avocado toast because that's easier than addressing the real problems.
This feels like a huge problem. You hear about inverted population pyramids and what it costs to have a small young working population support the larger old population. But there's a big difference between 10 couples that had 1 kid each; and 5 couples that had 2 while 5 couples had 0. It dawns upon me that I don't know any elderly childless people.
The social cost of supporting someone who is completely alone vs. someone who has a kid they can depend on, even if only infrequently across large geographies, is probably a lot higher.
So, from the beginning of humans (or well before really) until sometime in the mid-60's (or a little later depending on the area), the primary determinant of whether or not you had children is whether or not you were in a sexual relationship. Not that this was all that mattered, but it was the primary filter.
In the last few decades, the primary determinant is whether or not you want children. Again, it's not the only reason, but it's the primary filter.
So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were true you would see declining self-reports of how often people are having sex. Don't look up the data on that, btw.
> So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Why would you assume this? The only reason you'd assume this is that you have a preconceived notion that those of us who want lots of kids don't want sex. That's ridiculous.
I'm a pretty traditional catholic, and it's pretty clear from my own life and my interactions with other traditional catholic men that we really like sex. In fact, given the stats, we and our wives like sex more than most people [1]. We also like the babies that come out. That's part of the fun.
People like to group us religious people as sex-averse. It's quite the opposite. We just follow the normal ethics one would come up with (religious or not) if you viewed children as part of the natural results of sex (because.... they are). In that framework, religious exhortations like 'Don't have sex unless you're in a publicly recognized and blessed committed relationship (i.e., marriage)' become as obvious as 'don't have sex with people who don't want it'.
From my observation in my social circle, there are two pressures that forcing not having kid or more kids. One is support system and second financial stability to take care or kids.
First, with both partner working & almost no one to support(from relatives/close family) during first 3-5 years of kids. It's super exhausting and one starts having second thoughts about having more kids.
Second, People want good future for kids. Daycare expenses, school, college etc. general thinking is if I can support one child really well and not two then its better to have just one.
In my experience I have not seen anyone who genuinely dont like kids or regretted having kid even at their emotionally lowest point. It just above two primary forces, pushing them towards not have anymore kids.
In the 60's when I grew up, there was one mother on our street who had a "great" job, some mothers worked full time jobs, some worked out of the house (ironing, babysitting, etc), but most with younger kids did not work.
Each decade, women shifted more toward working outside the house, full time, and having good jobs on par with men. This has continued to where potential grandmothers also work, so cannot help with kids like they used to.
Working has given women a lot more options than they used to have since they are not as financially dependent on men, but somebody still has to take care of houses and raise kids, and now that both parents usually work, this is a lot more difficult.
We used to be able to have a decent family life on one income. Not so much a possibility now.
It's expensive to have kids these days. Many would-be parents are holding off, and for good reason - at the same time, income inequality is at an all-time high since the great depression.
The government should fix this in tax laws or directly assist if they want more kids (at a moderate salary, the child credit disappears and AMT calc essentially kills your deductions).
168 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] thread>” Childless adults as a group were more educated than parents.”
A little surprised by this:
>”Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parents.”
It seems to me that not birthing children when one is not financially safe makes sense; having children is, in some ways, a luxury now that a two-incomes household is the norm.
Although a lot of those benefits punish the parents for being married, i.e. if you want to maximize benefits it's better to be unmarried and maybe also not living together.
Not surprising... Children won't let their parents become destitute
You may be confusing "in poverty" with merely "poor."
Having had kids really early in life forced me into taking steadier work than I might otherwise have. While I am grateful for that-- it's both easier to make money by programing computers than by playing music as well as all the goodness of having adult children-- it certainly pushed me into different situations.
I have a lot of friends in their late 20s and early 30s and they are in situations where they are, say, climbing rocks for 6 months at a time before settling briefly in a place. It's likely that they are going to have a much different professional situation when they are my age.
That seems to be the case with the 50-year-old former ski bums I know, at least.
Not in response to your post, but on the general topic, there is a persistent issue in US statistics of using income levels to declare wealthiness. To me, having poverty level income only implies poverty if the person also has no savings. If the person has a lot of savings/investments and can retire and live off return of capital from 55-70, that may look like 15+ years of poverty in an older adult to statisticians looking at income number, but could be a very nice early retirement. Income is an easy number to get, because of mandatory reporting in dollars, but a single annual value doesn't tell a complete story.
I make a good income doing what I do, but I have a six-figure student loan (which largely went to raising my step daughter and son). I don't expect any sympathy for that.
Nor do I expect sympathy for living in small town with a crazy real-estate market.
But between those, it's likely I'll never retire and will die in debt.
But hey, I do plan to take up paragliding and climbing bigger mountains, so whatever. I guess.
But hey, I also funnel a lot of cash to my kiddo who is getting all-As and is a Junior in a well-respected Mechanical Engineering program.
These are generational problems. I suspect that regardless of how you slice it, that fact about student loans (or lack of professional options for unsettled late-millenials) and real-estate is closer to the truth for most of the people I know who didn't settle down in their 20s and have kids.
My climbing partner, who just got priced out of this town, might look like he's living in poverty, as he's living in a car. But it's a lexus and he's climbing rocks full time... so maybe he's just "retired" temporarilly.
Who knows. I can't tell the difference between hobos and kings anymore.
Many of the politicians who rant about "personal responsibility" themselves didn't have to worry about an out of control real-estate market (that they probably voted in favor of) and $2k 1bdrm rents. Cost of college was cheaper back then too.
No one should have to die in debt.
But after a bit more thought, having someone 20-40 years younger than you who feels a strong obligation to you when you’re not quite as sharp as you used to be could make a lot of difference in your finances.
I really don't know how much of this can be attributed to modernity or personality. A man not having children is apparently the norm throughout human history.
I do find it fascinating, though, that if I do not have children, I will be the end of a direct line that stretches back four billion years to the dawn of life itself. And, I will be the first in this direct line of descent NOT to have a son. It's simple, but amazing, to realize that I am the son of a father, his father, his father, ... etc all the way back to when sexual reproduction began.
Why focus on just the male side?
His X chromosome from the mother could have come from either her maternal or paternal lineage, so it seems less "direct".
Edit: I presume a biological focus given the other comment on how by not having children, he becomes a dead end of 4 billion years of reproduction.
I will hold my tongue on the romance point.
He has no chance of passing on his mitochondrial DNA, whether or not he has children. On the other hand, should he choose not to have children, he will represent a change of behavior that has lasted as long as the Y chromosome has- he is the end of the line.
The same would be true if by chance he only passed on his X chromosome, but at least then the attempt was made, and he could keep trying as long as he had willing partner(s).
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What is the age range here?
And when they grow into high school, they'll actively drive the parents out of their social circles.
Finally in college, you are free...
Clearly HN commentators seldom read...
Only non parent can ask questions like this...
Edit: Kids are those things that you wholeheartedly want them never happen, but also wholeheartedly believe being the best possible in your life, often at different moments and switching so suddenly that one often questions their own sanity...
Am I bitter, sure, sometimes, I hate my kids like the the farmer hating the snake, who was bitten by the snake he just rescued.
But that is just a tiny part of the parenting life.
My social circle has quite a few children. One couple had children then met several other couples through childbirth classes and added them to the group.
Nevertheless, in the time and place I live, I doubt that my male ancestors would have done any better in my place. Narcissism and self-centeredness are so normalized that the kind of man I am doesn't really belong. I think there are many men and women like I am who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex in the form that they tend to take in modern civilization. I was just recently talking to a female relative of mine who has a similar perspective.
People are also less visually attractive in general. I've been at the beach a few times recently, crowded ones, and I noticed that there were virtually no attractive, beautiful, or sexy people like I remember. My standards are not extraordinarily high, btw. Over half of people were overweight or obese and the minority that were even close to being in shape weren't wearing anything particularly flattering. By the way, this is in California, not the middle of nowhere. I've met foreigners who believe that Los Angeles is full of hot people, and that was somewhat true at one point. Now, I'm not so sure.
Believe me, I appreciate body diversity, but everyone being fat and slovenly (i.e. unhealthy) isn't diversity or a positive thing.
Anyway, I think that people are just less attracted to each other in general. They've either abused their bodies to the point where they look a decade or more older than they should or they just dress like slobs. Or they dress in ways that signal that they aren't interested in any sort of serious relationship.
There's also just the general perception of globalized craziness. On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime? Why would I want anyone to live under technological tyranny? Or the consequences of humans abusing the environment?
People point to the "mouse utopia" experiment, but I don't think it's that. Technological inertia is what is bringing us to this point. Besides a little bit of HN and the occasional episode of 80's TV, I've pretty much disconnected from it all, and more people I know are disengaging. It's both a good sign and a bad one. If people are disengaging, that doesn't really mean that society itself is correcting itself. We're wincing at the wall we are about to crash through.
> On top of not being appealed by emotionally immature partners (with no useful skills), why would I want to bring a child into a world where their way of life is going to radically shift several times in their lifetime?
Consider therapy. Outside of your angsty high school years, these sort of thoughts are not healthy. Unless you're purposely going out of your way to inspire melancholy, you sound depressed.
I look at the difficulties of my own pleasant life and feel a little ashamed, to be honest. My ancestors managed to survive and reproduce through ALL OF THAT, and I can't because of some social anxiety? It's a little sobering, for me at least.
> My ancestors managed to survive and reproduce through ALL OF THAT, and I can't
The bar is very low. All you know is that your ancestors all lived long enough to reproduce, and then reproduced. It's not difficult to pass that bar today with means that were available back then: alcohol, patience, effort, luck for example (and that even leaves out the darker ways that reproduction happens, which happens more than people like to talk about).
If it's something you want (and related to a base instinct like eating and using the bathroom), it's doable. Join a church or other such community and you may even find people going out of their way to help you reproduce.
I'm all for lessening the load of the population on the planet...I see that happening now. But I don't think it means not ever having kids.
I am old and married, but from what I see of the young, the sexes seem to get along pretty well.
I have things to be sad about, and I've had depression in the past, but I don't think I qualify for depression. People are quick to pathologize the things that I talk about, but the reality is I don't think about those things in day to day life. I've largely moved on with my life and have plenty of good things to live for.
Yes, I find a lot about the state of humanity to be dissatisfying. And there are certainly people far more distinguished than I am whom share some of that dissatisfaction. Does it really make sense to conclude that we are all simply depressed? In that case, you might as well tell people they're pollyannas for having optimism.
People throughout history have had these thoughts. There is nothing wrong with having them. I personally think it becomes an issue when they negatively affect your life. It sounds like these thoughts/concerns have drastically shaped your life. They don't have to.
In addition, the majority of your statements come off as borderline /r/redpill. Something to be aware of. Again, nothing wrong with having these types of thoughts. If you find they are having a negative impact on your life, such as reduced romantic relationships, reduced involvement in society, abandoning the idea of having children (in which you are presumably interested), that's not healthy.
It’s pretty crazy when your mood shifts and you are looking at the exact same situation and no longer feel the negative assessment of it. I’ve had lots of ups and downs as I learned to deal with difficult emotions and pain that apparently were hidden within me.
Edit: Of course, it is just an idea. I don’t know you or your situation. You might not be depressed at all :) It’s objectively true that there are more obese people nowadays, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
> I live in LA and, in my opinion, there are plenty of attractive people around.
It depends quite a bit on the neighborhood. You'll see more people on the Westside who are magazine material than say the Van Nuys. I still stand by my subjective experience that there has been an overall reduction in general attractiveness, but I'm totally open to counter-evidence. (yes, I mean men and women, and in ways that were at least once somewhat agreed upon)
> It’s objectively true that there are more obese people, however I don’t think it is helpful to focus on that fact.
Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me. I used to be in the obese category and I've known other people who are or were. The way the public treats the obese and the skinny is like night and day. If the obesity rate continues to climb, that sure seems like something that would help the population. Beyond attractiveness, the obese are more at risk for having trouble conceiving.
> Why? To discount that variable doesn't make sense to me.
You remind me of myself. Your observations remind me of what my natural observations tend to be. I’m originally from LA and think I’d agree with what you’ve written above.
With that said, here’s a defense of the GP willfully ignoring data in this case (and possibly in general).
It’s attractive to be positive. Not just to romantic partners, but to friends, coworkers, managers, reportees, strangers, etc. I think it’s fine to have standards for physical attractiveness, but they should be in line with what you can achieve. Similarly, I think positivity is attractive and negativity not so much, though I naturally think critically. Over time I’ve learned that others perceive me as a negative person. So erring on the side of positive might mean ignoring data. It might mean being blind to trends, but if it also means being happier, it’s how I would prefer to live.
I don't appreciate your suggestion, though. Even though you i-don't-know-if-but it, what you say suggests that my viewpoint comes from a dark place of loneliness and pornography intake, which I don't think is fair unless you substantiate that somehow.
I also find fascinating that as our lineage: parents, grand parents etc, expands in powers of two as we go back, the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
Very true. It only applies to brotherless men and sisterless women.
> the historical pool of humanity grows ever smaller so that the likelihood of shared ancestry with any other person grows to near certainty.
Isn't there something like only 20 matrilineal lines in the world or something?
Point is, every individual entity “goes with their gut” and the final product is beauty. Too many try to meta-analyze it, maximize their own gains, etc, and the final product cripples.
Idk, maybe I’m just stoned at the nail salon. :)
IMO statements like these are meaningless platitudes. To you it may be beauty, to me it's arbitrary generations of reproduction. It's not good or bad, it just is. Some people go with their gut and rob or kill people, some people go with their gut and run charities. Is that beautiful? I don't think so, it's just reality.
You could do this kind of analysis for any mammal (and most animals) to be honest. Yet we still wage war, eat meat and destroy ecosystems.
There are many birth control options and views on abortion have changed significantly as well as education which has improved, which means much fewer people keep unplanned pregnancies. Simultaneously, working and middle classes in western developed nations have continuously been squeezed within our the lifetimes of people who should be settling down, 2 severe economic contractions combined with the pandemic on top of preexisting job, wage and other social insecurities makes the financial and social burden of having a child much more difficult to bear.
I was ambivalent about being a parent. I have one child and the experience has changed me more than I anticipated; shedding indulgent hobbies, valuing sleep more, going without more luxuries, being willing to just observe my surroundings, practicing perspective-taking (I readily do this with other animals, harder with people), singing more, feeling like I have a sense of purpose. I used to teach math and science to groups of students, and now with the one student who is also family I don’t know what the relative positive influence of on life on earth will be my actions. I suspect greater, given the changes that might have taken much longer to materialize, if at all.
I’d guess that adoption and fostering, relationships that increase one’s responsibility for others, would have had similar effects on my life.
Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
Punishing people for not having kids is obviously ridiculous.
It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
Not getting dependent/child tax credits already does this.
That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.
What was never set up as a savings account?
My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes.
The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state.
I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents.
It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.
> Childfree is the term used generally for those who have chosen not to have kids while Childless is for those who would love them but can’t have them. [0]
This survey didn't ask if people chose to not have children. It merely asked if they didn't have biological children. The term "childfree" isn't accurate in this usage.
[0] https://womensagenda.com.au/life/why-terms-like-childless-vs...
The report is drawing no distinction, while you are saying both terms are a subset of “adults with no children”.
Just helping you notice that, since you made a distinction the the US Federal Government is not making a distinction on in an attempt to correct me
This has nothing to do with Australia[0]. But by trying to say all childless adults are "childfree", you're basically ignoring infertility, which I think is inconsiderate, at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness
I didn't try to say that at all
You did though, which is interesting
The point about talking about your source is the your entire response seemed haphazard and creating contexts that neither I or the report said, contexts that didn't fit at all while pretending to be consensus on terms. Which it isn't.
In any case, you did find my main point, where the language and adjectives used in the childless context assumes an affliction. It assumes there is a problem, such as the infertility that you care about and are sensitive to.
I think it is equally inconsiderate to not acknowledge people that just don't want children, as opposed to an explanation. Simply writing Childfree apparently illuminates that so well. So, its a two-way street, where everyone feels invalidated. Glad we could make that obvious.
It's possible that society has imposed ridiculously stringent "requirements" for raising children (apparently families are buying a second washing machine just for their baby's clothes) that raising children responsibly is viewed as financially unachievable for most.
Even if I somehow managed to raise a healthy, well adjusted child, there is also the specter of climate change. Is it ethical to bring a child into the world, when they will slowly watch the world they live in be slowly decimated by heat, drought, and rising seas?
People have told me that I will regret my decision in old age. Maybe that's true, but if I ever get the urge to have kids, I'll simply volunteer, adopt or foster them. If they're already here on this earth, hopefully I can have a positive impact, and my conscience is clear.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-...
https://sciencenorway.no/ageing-childlessness-children/older...
https://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/enduringlove/sites/w...
[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood/
I don't intend to have kids. I grew up in an abusive home, and I'm still working on attachment issues and CPTSD in my mid 30s. My rationale: this shit stops with me. Awareness and desire to address these issues isn't enough when I know I'm still exhibiting behaviors that I don't fully understand, and I won't propagate what my parents taught me.
While I haven't 100% closed myself to the possibility of kids, I've decided (and accepted) that I will not pursue it without major personal progress, which currently has its own timetable, meaning the door is probably closed.
This touches on a really important factor for people like me with families like mine. Their involvement in the parenting process could be nothing negative and stressful. I'd never feel comfortable leaving my kids in their care.
This is not just a pessimistic fear, but a reality I see in my siblings and their own interactions with our parents.
This further complicates things, because I think one could argue that people with my background need more support than average, but we're less likely to have access to that support given our origins.
The added benefit is, some of these folks in my circle will likely have kids and being an unofficial aunt sounds like a good deal to me.
https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(98)00103-4/full...
"Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/childless..." on this server. Reference #18.ce7519b8.1630427505.a68f250"
I can see this being adopted in the future as therapy for regular patients and then for everybody.
According to this linear trend the last child in America will be born in 2045 [1]
[1] https://xkcd.com/605/
This is a significant disparity based on race
Once upon a time it might be normal to rely on neighbors or large extended families for support, but the more isolated we get, the less safety net there is.
If you didn’t work to build that network, you are pretty much handicapped in terms of giving the child the best chance possible.
In other words, this demographic group might be making an extremely responsible decision.
This assumes you can reach the same level of productivity. Not all immigration is created equal I'm afraid.
The social cost of supporting someone who is completely alone vs. someone who has a kid they can depend on, even if only infrequently across large geographies, is probably a lot higher.
In the last few decades, the primary determinant is whether or not you want children. Again, it's not the only reason, but it's the primary filter.
So, natural selection might be in the middle of producing a species of humans obsessed with children, and not that interested in sex (except as a means of getting children).
Of course, that's ridiculous; if that were true you would see declining self-reports of how often people are having sex. Don't look up the data on that, btw.
It's only been one generation. You'd need to wait a few 100 years before you see any change.
Why would you assume this? The only reason you'd assume this is that you have a preconceived notion that those of us who want lots of kids don't want sex. That's ridiculous.
I'm a pretty traditional catholic, and it's pretty clear from my own life and my interactions with other traditional catholic men that we really like sex. In fact, given the stats, we and our wives like sex more than most people [1]. We also like the babies that come out. That's part of the fun.
People like to group us religious people as sex-averse. It's quite the opposite. We just follow the normal ethics one would come up with (religious or not) if you viewed children as part of the natural results of sex (because.... they are). In that framework, religious exhortations like 'Don't have sex unless you're in a publicly recognized and blessed committed relationship (i.e., marriage)' become as obvious as 'don't have sex with people who don't want it'.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/paeekv/why-conservatives-hav...
First, with both partner working & almost no one to support(from relatives/close family) during first 3-5 years of kids. It's super exhausting and one starts having second thoughts about having more kids.
Second, People want good future for kids. Daycare expenses, school, college etc. general thinking is if I can support one child really well and not two then its better to have just one.
In my experience I have not seen anyone who genuinely dont like kids or regretted having kid even at their emotionally lowest point. It just above two primary forces, pushing them towards not have anymore kids.
In the 60's when I grew up, there was one mother on our street who had a "great" job, some mothers worked full time jobs, some worked out of the house (ironing, babysitting, etc), but most with younger kids did not work.
Each decade, women shifted more toward working outside the house, full time, and having good jobs on par with men. This has continued to where potential grandmothers also work, so cannot help with kids like they used to.
Working has given women a lot more options than they used to have since they are not as financially dependent on men, but somebody still has to take care of houses and raise kids, and now that both parents usually work, this is a lot more difficult.
We used to be able to have a decent family life on one income. Not so much a possibility now.
The government should fix this in tax laws or directly assist if they want more kids (at a moderate salary, the child credit disappears and AMT calc essentially kills your deductions).