> 300k is a very reasonable amount for two typical people.
It's literally four times the median household income of the US. (And even after inflation, bananas still don't cost anywhere near $10 two decades on after that joke was made). This sort of statement is a bit out of touch if you ask me.
Here's where I'm certainly willing to accept that I'm a bit out of touch - I don't have children. So my question is, how much would you be willing to pay if you thought something would give them a significantly better future?
> Many of my acquaintances simply cannot afford the costs of multiple children.
I can't speak for your friends. But I think that when someone says "can't afford" what they really mean is "I'd rather spend that money on something else".
Some people literally can't afford children. But those in the middle class (or better) in the US certainly can. It would just take money away from other parts of their lifestyle: the home the live in; the car they drive; ability to vacation; newest phone model, etc.
Generally, the more money you make in the US, the fewer kids you have. So, for most, it's hard to argue that they can't "afford" children. They can't afford children while maintaining their same lifestyle. And that will generally always be true (except for the truly rich).
> You privately spend 1 million dollars each to raise them
Average kid costs $227k, not a million. Just wanted to clarify since that number was very off. The cost of raising a child is growing extremely quickly though, much faster than inflation.
> Extremely unlikely there will ever be a will to do this considering the long term value to be compensated (hundreds of thousands of dollars per child, if not $1MM).
Parent here. You don’t need $1mm to raise a kid. You don’t need anywhere close to that, actually.
Kids aren’t free, obviously, but this internet meme that they’ll bankrupt you is getting out of control.
Honestly, how do you think people making the median US household income are affording kids? Multiple kids, even? I hope it’s obvious that households with two kids earning <$100K per year (a common situation) aren’t spending $1mm on each of them.
> You should have good reasons for wanting something that costs 18 years and a million dollars.
Raising kids doesn’t cost a million dollars. That’s $55K per year per child. Maybe if you live in a high cost of living city, use expensive private schools, and pay full sticker price for their education. That’s hardly common though.
A more accurate number is about $240,000, with almost 1/3 of that being the cost of additional housing which varies greatly depending on where and how you live. The USDA has studies on this: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-chil...
> Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid?
Yes, it seems like a great deal to me.
EDIT: Though I guess you could see it as a form of eugenics; "pay this much in order to have a third child"; but then it probably disproportionately hits middle class families rather than those who are at the very bottom. Many things are like this.
>Babies are expensive but they aren't life-changing expensive.
I can't comprehend how you can say that. This is an actual human being with basically unbounded ability to benefit from absorbing your time and resources.
>Why is the inevitable result some hard life working 3 jobs?
It is a spectrum. The earlier comment in the chain stated "Some % of people will always want to have kids, no matter what circumstances. It's inelastic for them". This is the reality for some people in that spectrum. Anecdotally i'd say for -most- people. At some point, in my opinion, the consequences are bad. Saying it's just about not buying an iPhone seems like a rich person perspective from someone that has no idea how most people live and raise children
>>Give people enough resources and they'll have more kids.
Not sure I buy that - I know plenty of couples, each of them with good 6 figure salaries, who have no interest in having kids, ever - if they had 7 figure salaries, I don't think it would change their mind one bit.
You're talking about kids as financial investments and they're the irrational ones?
BTW, the average cost of raising a child 0-17 in the US ~$230k. That amount alone sitting in an index fund over many decades will provide for you more than any single person ever could.
> Income per family is a treacherous measure, since family sizes have shrunk considerably.
> If I marry you, our family income has doubled, but none of us is any richer.
I don't disagree with your core point, but I have to nitpick a bit the last part.
Expenses don't grow linearly with the number of people in a family, especially with the number of wage-earning adults. You will be richer in a couple, and I don't only mean emotionally :-) Rent won't double, all sorts of other living expenses can be shared, etc. Disposable income should definitely be higher than for 2 single people.
I feel that a decent chunk of the issues in modern societies is that many people are single for long periods of time. That makes things really hard financially, plus there's less support in case of issues...
> I’m a parent, I disagree. I might have thought in my 20s that having kids is expensive, but in my 30s I make so much money that is not an issue. Buying a house, that is expensive :)
You're contradicting yourself. I'm a dad of two. Kids are extremely expensive and the largest expense is needing a large enough house in an area with good schools (UK here). That alone adds extra hundreds of thousands to your cost of living.
> What, might I ask, is the minimum acceptable level of income that a couple should have before having children? What do they do, those hard-working, upright and moral couples who don't make enough money to meet your standard? Should they live their whole lives childless, and die alone?
The whole tone of your message, talking about child as a passive thing that you conceive for the sake of making parents “not alone” already speaks a lot about how much you give a shit about whether A KID would be happy being born into this family.
In which family did you grow up? Pops and moms were happy campers with middle class income?
> for the record, i don't think families with two six digit incomes should have children either. they're existence is dependent on the lives of people who do not earn six digit incomes, and so they are guilty of just as much misery in this world.
That's a very odd comment. Two six digit incomes is a family of two engineers (2-5 years into their career) in Silicon Valley. Two $120,000-$150,000 incomes in Silicon Valley means "can afford a single family home, as long as both spouses are employed".
"They're" (I think you meant their) existence is not dependent on the lives of people who do not earn six digit incomes, amongst them are also people (doctors, engineers, scientists) who are making the lives of less fortunate much less miserable.
That also describes my parents and would very likely describe my own family (I've been earning a six digit income since two years out of college), so it's not something extra ordinary.
> People are free to have as many or as few kids as they like, but it's silly to argue that money is a barrier when we are living in the wealthiest era in human history.
Around where I live two types of housing are being built:
1. million dollar+ McMansions.
2. Tiny 1 or maybe 2 bedroom apartments for rent.
Of course there is existing housing stock, for around $600k-$800k for a house that is good for raising a family in.
My friends with kids are dumping 10-25k into education, and the ones with younger kids also have to factor in child care.
So, sure, for dual income families earning 300k a year[1], it has never been a better time to have kids.
I'm not going to argue that higher income countries have less kids, of course they do, the higher % chance kids survive the less need there is to have a lot of kids.
But I honestly wonder if people are having as many kids as they want to if economics weren't an issue.
[1]This is not even an exaggeration, for people living in major coastal metros, the quality of life trade-off is either drive 1h to 1.5hrs and have affordable housing, or have a commute that allows for a life and not be able to afford housing that would allow for kids. Those being the two choices society presents is 5 types of bullshit.
If you're in the minority, maybe you're the one who's out of touch?
It's not that they can't afford having children—many of those who are less fortunate than them still have children. It's just that they think the cost of raising children, which likely affects their current lifestyle, is not worth it.
> we had 5 kids and chose to have my wife stay at home for about 7 years
You and your wife chose to have five children, and chose for her to work as a childcare provider, which we know is a low-paid gig.
I'm very impressed that you managed to do that without going into debt, but I have little sympathy for other people who in similar situations find themselves struggling: the rest of us derive a smaller benefit from the continuation of your genetic legacy than you do, so it is appropriate that society should pay a smaller part of the cost of that lifestyle choice.
People who fall into similar situations without your foresight might struggle more, but so too do people who buy expensive cars they can't afford or pursue careers they enjoy instead of careers that pay well.
> imagine the state of society when that starts happening
The state of my own personal society is my apartment costs $1000 more than it did two years ago and my food costs about 25-30% more than it did two years ago. I definitely wouldn't consider having another kid, nor would I encourage my own to have one.
It's literally four times the median household income of the US. (And even after inflation, bananas still don't cost anywhere near $10 two decades on after that joke was made). This sort of statement is a bit out of touch if you ask me.
Here's where I'm certainly willing to accept that I'm a bit out of touch - I don't have children. So my question is, how much would you be willing to pay if you thought something would give them a significantly better future?
reply