Paywall removed: https://archive.is/anyBg
Like Ms. McKay, a growing number of U.S. adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.
When asked why kids were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other things, like their career or interests; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.
Is this a surprise? People can barely afford to take care of themselves these days, why would they want to further burden themselves with a child?
Stop stealing everything from the lower and middle classes and giving it all to the rich, and this trend will magically reverse itself.
There was a podcast I listened to a while back that indicated the opposite, the idea was that the better off people are, the less likely they are to have kids. One of the explanations I remember was that the better off people are, kids are just another competing thing that they can do. For example, if you are well off and can go travel for a long period of time, you might be more inclined to do that vs deciding to have kids. Another stat was that birthrates were higher for lower income people.
Nah this is bullshit. Most people want to raise a family in a home they own. Take away that possibility of certainty of having a roof over your head and then planning for a kid sounds scary. If you don’t want to accept that, you could also blame the micro plastics floating around in everyone’s balls now because plastic was considered such a useful byproduct to the petroleum industry.
How do you explain the inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations?
To me it seems counterintuitive that having more money, or like you said about ability to secure a roof over ones head, would mean less chance of having kids but that seems to be a clear trend. Have you actually looked into it or you just making up bullshit?
My experience has been that my coworkers across several jobs that have kids tend to be both less educated and more religious. Regardless of income, my less ignorant coworkers tend not to have kids.
It is hypothesized that the observed trend in many countries of having fewer children has come about as a response to increased life expectancy, reduced child mortality, improved female literacy and independence, and urbanization that all result from increased GDP per capita,consistent with the demographic transition model. The increase in GDP in Eastern Europe after 1990 has been correlated with childbearing postponement and a sharp decline in fertility. In developed countries where birth control is the norm, increased income is likewise associated with decreased fertility. Theories behind this include: People earning more have a higher opportunity cost if they focus on childbirth and parenting rather than their continued career. Women who can economically sustain themselves have less incentive to become married. Higher-income parents value quality over quantity and so spend their resources on fewer children.
From the link you used, it seems to suggest it is less about where they have time to spend and more towards other reasons. The only one that would be affected by choosing between one and the other is between children and continued career but that could be fixed with better access to child care services (day care, etc…)
Nobody can afford kids with all of the corporate price gouging and wage theft. no shit we’re not having more kids.
Unbounded growth isn’t progress, it’s a disease.
Literally Cancer’s modus operandi
I really can’t comprehend how someone can look at the state of things and think it is appropriate to subject another person to the rat-ass future that’s coming. That’s before you even consider the expense of raising children, which is also prohibitive.
They don’t “look”… Those are the ones that want kids. Those who weight the pros and cons, most likely reach the conclusion that having kids is not feasible.
It’s not only about “not being able to afford them”. Plenty of people in the world “cannot afford” kids and have 7 of them.
It’s the mix of being educated and understanding that it’s not a great idea to have kids, plus the means of being able to prevent or stop pregnancy. Also a cultural shift that allowed us to think by ourself and not feeling forced to have kids.
But the machine need human lubricant to keep working for its owners so they are going to take that from us to ensure we keep making them workers to exploit.
We are already seeing how anti-pregnancy methods are being attacked. And soon they will take away this new culture to bring back the old hivemind culture. And of course the education. There is already a trend on how bad it is for everyone to have a college degree.
40 years of a recession will do that to a society. An entire generation fucked.
But there’s no problem with the economy*
*According to metrics that ignore working class savings, inflation, and prices for basic goods and services like groceries and housing increasing faster than inflation.
And jobs are so stable, and give great benefits.
Not having kids is the only way some of them are gonna be able to afford to live, and less people 30 years from now means they might even be able to afford a place to live if they can retire.
There’s always fearmongering when populations god down, but historically it’s the only time periods normal people can claw back some wealth from the 0.1%
Which is why the wealthy always freak the fuck out. They do t care about people, they care about labor supply, and the more people the cheaper labor.
Having fewer children is something that is positively-correlated with a society being wealthy, rather than the other way around.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity
The phenomenon of societies having their birth rate fall off as they become wealthier is called the demographic transition.
And further, that correlation exists across a number of axes:
-
Time (that is, as societies have become wealthier, the number of children they have has dropped).
-
Space (poorer societies today tend to have more children than wealthier societies do).
-
Within a society. Poorer people in society tend to have more children. Here’s the US, and more-generally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Income and fertility is the association between monetary gain on one hand, and the tendency to produce offspring on the other. There is generally an inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations.[3][4] The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any developed country.
Within a society. Poorer people in society tend to have more children.
That’s why the very wealthy want people to keep having lots of kids. Kids make you more willing to take shit in order to feed them and make you poorer and more dependent on your job. That’s not a bad thing about kids, it’s a good thing about parents, but it also makes parents easier to exploit.
Having fewer children is something that is positively-correlated with a society being wealthy, rather than the other way around.
Correlation is not causation, there’s no “other way around”…
But what you’re talking about is the drop in fertility due to industrialization and other periods where children worked less and cost more.
That’s different than what I’m talking about; when a labor supply shrinks it means workers get paid more.
That’s just basic supply and demand.
We’re both right, just talking about different things.
I took “rather than the other way around” to mean “rather than negatively-correlated” in this context, since positively was emphasized
-
There is the real issue of how a society will support its aged population with significantly less young people working than in the past. It requires changes to regulations and taxation and many nations arent ready to accept that and instead somehow expect the smaller number of young people to just pick up the slack and accept they won’t get to retire when they age.
Or we could just tax the wealthy…
Some of us even say, “fuck no.”
And for a non-zero number of those, it’s because no fuck.
Speak for yourself
*fuck for yourself
*fuck yourself
