People can barely afford what is considered essential these days. Jobs are hard to find, but no one wants to work. Layoffs happening in every large business to cut costs. Profit margins and infinite growth have become congressional priority. Owning your own home is a dream becoming more and more intangible. They make these articles every so often and they're often disconnected with the struggles of the lower and middle classes, asking a question with obvious answers. Most people without kids are a few paychecks away from bankruptcy and you want them to be excited about parenthood?
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
212 points (93.8% liked)
News
23397 readers
3728 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have better things to do
I wonder if Vance checks for change before he fucks the couch. Would be painful to be mid stroke a find a quarter, I imaginem
“They just want to pursue pleasure and drinking all night and going to Beyoncé concerts. It’s this pursuit of self-pleasure in replace of fulfillment and having a family.”
I'm not gonna argue with this.
For reference, I turned twenty in 1997. Initially it was about money. But then it became apparent, as so many of my friends were having kids, that not having kids was much more fun and liberating. Yes, I am selfish.
I would imagine that my combination of experiences (financial struggles > self-realization) isn't as unique today as it was twenty years ago.
Moreover, I think it's worth discussing the ramifications of over/under population. Until we find a magical self-sustaining power source for the planet, and maybe not even then, too many people on this globe will cause it to reject us. On the other hand, a shrinking population means pending economic disaster. These next generations are going to have to choose between a livable planet or economic security. Err, I mean our global corporate overlords are going to give us no choice but to make the planet less livable.
I've always been confused by these conversations though. Aren't people who are having kids doing so because they want to, whatever want might mean to them? Fulfilling just seems like another way to pursue fulfillment/happiness or whatever it is that individuals pursue.
When my wife and I chose to have kids, we enjoyed it. We derive fulfillment and satisfaction out of raising kids. Yeah it's frustrating at times, and you do have trade-offs, but we did it because we wanted to, to feel happy/fulfilled. We didn't start a lifelong journey to support children into adulthood out of some weird sense of patriotism or something. Anyone doing that is weird.
Sure - you do you. I respect the choices and priorities you and your wife share. I didn't say I'm making "the right" choice and others are wrong.
In the long run, I'm envious of the relationships parents build with their children. There's nothing more rewarding.
I'm the kid who ate the marshmallow when left alone. You're probably the one who waited five minutes for two.
I don't think the other commentter was disagreeeing with you or trying to compare. They said that they chose to have children for the same reasons you chose not to. (I am also a parent who chose kids for the fulfillment/happiness and not as some weird effort to build political power or something.)
You choosing not to have kids is perfectly normal and fine in my book. It is fucking strange to pressure other people into having children.
I think both the previous commenter and I are trying to back you up more than trying to argue you made a wrong choice.
Like the other replier noted, you misunderstand my point. People having kids because it's what they want isn't selfless anymore than choosing not to have kids is selfish.
Shrinking population will be the least of our problem, in fact the opposite will happen (despite globally shrinking population). Huge areas in the global south will become uninhabitable rather soon, and if we don't want to be complicit in a global genocide we will have to take some of them in. This will more than off-set any local population decline and we will rather have to scramble to provide affordable housing to all.
Right. But also... As the population shrinks (in addition to AI / robotization), we're on track for a global economic catastrophe.
When businesses can no longer grow, due to people not having enough money and there being fewer consumers, the stock markets will (slowly) crash. As that happens, corporations will scramble to keep afloat. As major employers struggle to employ workers, the unemployment rate rises. Combined: this means less tax revenue, less social services, less economic prosperity. People complain about inflation but deflation is far worse when the population is already in a decline. Governments will scramble to inject free money into the economy. Bonds could become worthless.
The global economy that's been growing for the past fifty years may crumble in the next fifty years. People may need to rebuild smaller local economies.
It's actually very interesting. As the population has grown and technology has put the entire planet in the palm of our hands, we as a civilization have grown more apart from each other - instead choosing to reside in the bubbles of our choosing. If the population declines and larger economies struggle, perhaps we'll need to go back to a time with mom and pop shops and learn to be more neighborly.
In the near term, I think the economic impact would be far greater than ecological impact. Though I think the ecological impact certainly may have a more long term role to play in humanity's story.
But, I'm not an expert in either of these things. I welcome any source materials studying the matter. I would imagine that some one / group has compiled a formula to define the perfect equilibrium for the planet - combining population growth, employment rates, productivity rates, energy consumption, depletion of natural resources, etc. I'd venture to guess we passed that point around 2010.
There is nothing selfish about not having children. Ask any parent why they wanted children, and the answer is often "I just wanted them", "otherwise, who would take care of me when I'm old?", or "I wanted a little version of myself". All selfish.
Of course, so many people have children accidentally without actively wanting them that I think a lot of reasons are made up after the child has already been birthed.
I've had similar conversations in the past. I think there's some nuance to it and everyone has their own prerogatives.
I suppose a truly selfless act is one where you don't expect anything in return. There's little guarantee you'll get anything from being a parent other than maybe pride. You're investing in a future that may not exist. You're dumping everything you have and even what you don't have (ie, second mortgage for college tuition) into something you can only hope will generate a small amount of future benefit for yourself. Mostly, it's hoping that you've done the best you possibly can to make someone else's life the best it possibly can be.
Not having children means every investment or action I take has little impact on anyone but myself. If I fuck up, if I go to jail, if I can't pay my bills, if I'm barely able to care for myself (let alone another person), it's all about me. Conversely, if I want the lottery, if I take up new hobbies and interests, if I choose to live a lavish or minimalist life is all about me. I have no one to worry about – therefore it's, by definition, a selfish life.
For my entire life, I have the choice to be selfish or selfless. I can choose to spend a year living in isolation or working for a food bank or busting my ass for my employer or traveling the world. Not having a child means I have no restrictions to making these choices at any given moment. Every benefit or detriment or opportunity or restriction that exists in my world is based on my own previous actions and choices. I have no one to consider going forward. I have no one to blame but myself.
Your second paragraph implies that parents experience no joy or other not-selfless feelings as a result of having the child. That is a reward.
And you're simply logically incorrect to say that your actions don't impact others if you don't have children. I can't even begin to imagine where you came up with that idea.
I love my niece but fuck that I'm not doing that full time.
Because kids are not fun. People wanna have life.
Money.
$
The same poeple who wanted to ban having anyone else pay off kids school lunch debt, besides the parents, are the same people who get offended when we aren't popping out kids. The same poeple who want zero maternity leave and zero prenatal support act like we are the worst of the worst. Don't have children you can't afford, no state welfare for you! So when we were like okay we won't have kids they are all shocked Pikachu face.
I have a child and I'd be the first to recommend not having one. It's expensive, it wrecked me emotionally and physically, and I worry every day about what kind of world my kid will grow up into.
But all those things are worth it in the end to me because I really wanted to be a parent. My kid is an absolute treasure to me and I put up with the suffering because I do genuinely love parenting and love seeing him grow up. If I was any less enthusiastic about the process going in, I would have either run away or killed myself by now. That's how demoralizing and traumatic parenting can be. Granted I have a special needs kid but so do probably 10% of parents so do you want to roll those dice?
All that aside, the fact is that parenting these days is filled with societal obstacles. With both parents working, you're rationing sick days and constantly running out, leaving no time for vacation or personal days off. This leaves the option of either taking unpaid days off or reducing one's working hours. Since no one is home doing housework all day, working parents spend their evenings and nights doing housework. If you need to run an errand or take the kid to a doctor's appointment, that comes out of either your paid work time or your free time. Childcare is both expensive and hard to get, with wait-lists for daycares in some cities of several months. And once your kid is in public school, you have to find after school care, which is not guaranteed for every kid at every school.
And don't even get me started about summer. Three months of cobbled-together summer camps and asking/begging family members and friends to watch your kid when their busy schedules permit. If your kid has special needs or requires trained caregivers, you are out of luck.
These are fixable problems, but they require massive government-subsidized investment in childcare and parental leave structures and the government is not doing that. Childcare salaries are so low that the supply of daycare teachers is basically dried up. Same with public school teachers and afterschool caregivers. Why work as an afterschool teacher when you can be an independent nanny and make twice as much per hour? As for parental leave, there is no requirement that parental leave cover anything beyond the bare bones of the time needed to give birth, leaving most new parents to burn through their entire year's worth of sick time during their babies first month of life when there is a doctor's appointment just about every week. Then blow through it again next year when the kid gets sick twice a month in daycare. My kid is six years old and this is the first year I haven't run out of sick days before June.
Our society was designed for families with at least one full-time caregiver, and now that is basically impossible but the system has not been updated. This game is not designed for us. So why would anyone choose to play?
After just putting two through college it’s pretty simple: They’re fucking expensive !!!
NO STABILITY.. landlords can raise rent as much as they want.. And houses are out of reach of most people