I suspect the economy plays a large role. If you can't afford a house or don't have much financial security in general, that makes the idea of adding another large expense less interesting.
What's changed are expectations. 50 years ago, as long as you could get a job at a warehouse or restaurant, people would have 1 or 2 children without severe economic anxiety, even if they couldn't afford a house. Today, anxiety is through the roof even among professionals and other high earners whose finances look downright unfathomable to half the population from 50 years ago. If your only prospects are working at a warehouse or restaurant, this makes you all but destitute, and according to the calculus of modern popular culture it would be irresponsible to bear and raise children.
Objectively speaking, it's easier today for even the poorest of households to raise well-educated and healthy children. Traditionally, shelter, food, clothing, and then in the 20th century, education, were all that mattered. In 21st century America, access to all of those things is basically guaranteed, especially for people with children. (Yes, there are people who are unable to navigate the system and fall through the cracks. But those things are available. The people who fall through the cracks today would have had a much worse time of things 50+ years ago, notwithstanding that public programs cannot fully replace the more extensive family relationships that were once more common.)
But because the scope of peer group identification has expanded both geographically (basically, the entire country) and across socio-economic strata, now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves. And the emphasis has shifted. It's no longer about shelter, food, clothing, and formal education; it's about one's ability to spend quality time with the kids, to afford private schools or exclusive public school districts, tutoring, extracurriculars, etc. The goal posts have shifted.
The actual root causes are economic but there's a psychological feedback loop at play as well. I lived in Germany for a few years and got culture shocked when I attended a 40th birthday and realised that I was the only parent in attendance. When society gets itself into a situation where not having kids is that normalised, it gets fairly easy to validate the choice not to have one.
Even if they did want a family it might be difficult or impossible to find a partner for lower income men. Western women with degrees and careers aren't exactly fawning over your average forklift driver, and i think a lot of low income men understand this and are just opting to focus on themselves.
"It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville (political strategist for Bill Clinton)
But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.
>But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.
lol that none of us can know for sure which party you think is which, since one could reasonably launch both criticisms at either
On the contrary, I don't think it's the economy... it's your last paragraph. People just don't feel very encouraged to have children in such a toxic culture
Two of the studies cited were on high school seniors and men aged 18-28. I speculate that part of this is that "40 is the new 30" and interest in fatherhood is happening later. Not saying I dont agree with the finding, just that there is definitely an element of delaying family until later vs previous generations
This seems very late. I mean antinatalism isn't an uncommon view point for people to have. This trend has been happening for a long time. I suspect it's cultural and economic. Some people that want to be parents simply can't afford to do what it takes to become parents. But at the same time, having kids doesn't tend to be a high priority for people in a society primarily focused on personal independence. And it shows;
>Nearly two-thirds of nonparents (65%) agree that the freedom that comes with not having kids brings them happiness, according to a survey of 1,950 U.S. adults conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Fortune in October.
I think people have different interests as well, I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people I grew up with that started families when they were in their early twenties. But there are also a group of us who haven't heading into our thirties.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that statistically it hasn't changed.
For me personally, I don't feel like I have enough stability to bring a child into the world just yet. I'd prefer to do that and settle down once I own a house, whereas other people are happily doing it renting. I find it challenging enough to look after myself let alone another tiny human, but I suppose it depends on where your dial is at in what you're comfortable with doing.
It’s more of a issue with childcare being unreliable and unavailable. Like there are no available spots in some areas for after school care. It’s very expensive if you find a spot and the care is pretty meh. The tax breaks for kids are tiny so you end up paying for their expenses in post tax money that adds another 24% to the cost.
Then you have schools that only provide 180 days of service, plus only 6.5 hrs plus random half days plus random days of plus they your kid is bored because we have to teach to the lowest student.
All these things wear you down, and don’t get me wrong you can deal with them when your household earns 200k/year but you probably need a solid 350/400k as a family to truly buy your way out of these problems. If both parents are making less then 6 figures dual income living sucks
> A significant portion (44%) of nonparents ages 18 to 49 say it’s unlikely they’ll have children, according to a 2021 report by the Pew Research Center. That’s up by about 7 percentage points from the 37% who reported the same in 2018.
> And the majority of these adults feel good about their decision: Nearly two-thirds of nonparents (65%) agree that the freedom that comes with not having kids brings them happiness, according to a survey of 1,950 U.S. adults conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Fortune in October. Among millennials without kids, 73% agree with that sentiment, according to the survey.
> Across the board, Americans are having fewer kids—and that’s been a trend for over a decade now. During the early days of the pandemic in 2020, that was exacerbated with a short-lived “baby bust.” And while birth rates recovered and then some in a 2021 “baby bump,” there was still a net loss of 11,000 “missing conceptions” in 2020 and 2021, according to research from Melissa Kearney, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland.
In the old days, Grandma took care of the kids. Later, the kids took care of Grandma. And everyone worked the family property together.
After the (skimmed) pensions promised by governments go insolvent (due to lack of young people who had no apparent reason to breed), we'll get back to the old ways.
Being a human is not a good reason to become a parent.
Sure, reproducing is a human instinct, but another part of being a human is learning to control your instincts so you can have the life you want. If the life you want does not involve children, then the instinct to reproduce ceases to be a good reason.
> Bozick found that, over the past two decades, the number of childless men who do not want children has doubled. Meanwhile, the number of men who said that it was important to have parental leave decreased between 2005 to 2015. The study cites data from the U.S. Census Bureau estimating that 39.4% of men over the age of 15 have no children, “constituting a sizable share of the population that at present is poorly understood.”
Given current technology, the only known way to roll back the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere to the levels required to put an end to anthropogenic climate change is population reduction. The most humane way to do that is to limit the number of children being born.
I expect part of the explanation to be economic and the other part due to the realization that having families as was done in the past is paradoxically incompatible with future survival of the species.
Ofc it's impractical at a political level, but from a logical perspective it's a lot safer for the existing population and more reliable a solution than a megaproject (ie "giant sun shade") which won't limit carbon at all leaving humanity on a longer tail ride to the same situation alongside the dangers of a megaproject failure.
Readit News
Objectively speaking, it's easier today for even the poorest of households to raise well-educated and healthy children. Traditionally, shelter, food, clothing, and then in the 20th century, education, were all that mattered. In 21st century America, access to all of those things is basically guaranteed, especially for people with children. (Yes, there are people who are unable to navigate the system and fall through the cracks. But those things are available. The people who fall through the cracks today would have had a much worse time of things 50+ years ago, notwithstanding that public programs cannot fully replace the more extensive family relationships that were once more common.)
But because the scope of peer group identification has expanded both geographically (basically, the entire country) and across socio-economic strata, now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves. And the emphasis has shifted. It's no longer about shelter, food, clothing, and formal education; it's about one's ability to spend quality time with the kids, to afford private schools or exclusive public school districts, tutoring, extracurriculars, etc. The goal posts have shifted.
"It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville (political strategist for Bill Clinton)
But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.
lol that none of us can know for sure which party you think is which, since one could reasonably launch both criticisms at either
>Nearly two-thirds of nonparents (65%) agree that the freedom that comes with not having kids brings them happiness, according to a survey of 1,950 U.S. adults conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Fortune in October.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that statistically it hasn't changed.
For me personally, I don't feel like I have enough stability to bring a child into the world just yet. I'd prefer to do that and settle down once I own a house, whereas other people are happily doing it renting. I find it challenging enough to look after myself let alone another tiny human, but I suppose it depends on where your dial is at in what you're comfortable with doing.
...and that much before you have to contend with social media grooming and reinforcing misbehavior.
If you end up with a bad apple, anything you say or do in the name of parenting will be construed as Abuse by an army of "helpful" therapists.
Dead Comment
Then you have schools that only provide 180 days of service, plus only 6.5 hrs plus random half days plus random days of plus they your kid is bored because we have to teach to the lowest student.
All these things wear you down, and don’t get me wrong you can deal with them when your household earns 200k/year but you probably need a solid 350/400k as a family to truly buy your way out of these problems. If both parents are making less then 6 figures dual income living sucks
> A significant portion (44%) of nonparents ages 18 to 49 say it’s unlikely they’ll have children, according to a 2021 report by the Pew Research Center. That’s up by about 7 percentage points from the 37% who reported the same in 2018.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/19/growing-sha...
> And the majority of these adults feel good about their decision: Nearly two-thirds of nonparents (65%) agree that the freedom that comes with not having kids brings them happiness, according to a survey of 1,950 U.S. adults conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Fortune in October. Among millennials without kids, 73% agree with that sentiment, according to the survey.
> Across the board, Americans are having fewer kids—and that’s been a trend for over a decade now. During the early days of the pandemic in 2020, that was exacerbated with a short-lived “baby bust.” And while birth rates recovered and then some in a 2021 “baby bump,” there was still a net loss of 11,000 “missing conceptions” in 2020 and 2021, according to research from Melissa Kearney, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland.
After the (skimmed) pensions promised by governments go insolvent (due to lack of young people who had no apparent reason to breed), we'll get back to the old ways.
Sure, reproducing is a human instinct, but another part of being a human is learning to control your instincts so you can have the life you want. If the life you want does not involve children, then the instinct to reproduce ceases to be a good reason.
Given current technology, the only known way to roll back the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere to the levels required to put an end to anthropogenic climate change is population reduction. The most humane way to do that is to limit the number of children being born.
I expect part of the explanation to be economic and the other part due to the realization that having families as was done in the past is paradoxically incompatible with future survival of the species.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment