pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 5 replies \ @denlillaapan 29 Jul \ on: Minimalism is Pro-Social econ
Fact.
... is in contrast to that beautiful @SimpleStacker remark ("think about quantities, not prices)"; in real life, prices don't move that much whereas quantities do.
ALSO, hot take:
- it's not more expensive than in the past;
- decline in childrearing isn't so much in marriage/couples as it is in fewer people partnering up (so the cost impact downstream of this is immaterial)
- various schemes, all across the world, to throw money (sometimes quite a lot) at new families having babies, produce effect sizes of ~0. So "cost" as a given reason is clearly bs.
I largely agree with that latter part, but the important point is about perceptions since that's what people act on.
I do think people would have kids sooner (and subsequently have more of them), if they felt less stress about their costs. Again, the perception matters. The financial incentive programs feel like a drop in the bucket when weighed against all the costs of raising kids, while reducing costs of living removes it as a concern.
reply
no I'm saying efforts/arguments like that are fishing in the wrong pond.
It's not the reason peeps ain't having kids or forming families. There's a bigger culture/mindset idea around -- individualism, feminism, career/boss lady, self-actualization, IG blah-blahblah. Those don't get fixed by costs
reply
I know first and second hand that people do postpone having kids for financial reasons. It's also known that having kids earlier increases the number of total kids.
I agree with your bigger causes but I'm not convinced this isn't a factor on the margins.
reply
I did it but I was sure I gonna get a younger wife so as to at least have two babies before I'm 40 and possibly the third one, just in case, before 40 too. My decision was purely based on one thing and that was that I wanted to be sure that my kids wouldn't need to struggle financially that I went through as a kid.
reply
reply