The poorest people have the most children, and they are not starving; they're usually obese. What has changed is that your definition of "afford children" has come to encompass a vast amount of requirements that your grandparents did not have.

▲

iamnothere 3 days ago | parent [-]

And if you don’t provide those requirements, you risk jail time and/or having the kids removed from your care.

▲

eudamoniac 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not really. The only expense that could lead to that is child care, so I'll assume you mean leaving preteens home alone as a nosy neighbor calls CPS. First of all that doesn't really happen and it's national news when it does. Second of all at least a few states have passed laws enshrining children's freedom.

But usually the "requirements" that get parents to spend too much money are entirely optional things, of which a few are college tuition, a car for the child, camps, tutors, music lessons, vacations abroad, innumerable toys, iPads, etc etc

▲

iamnothere 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is not what average people are talking about when they say it’s unaffordable. Top 10% of incomes, sure.

The median household income is under $80k, while median yearly housing cost is around $25k, food expenses for a family of 4 are $12k-$19k, median utility costs around $4k, health insurance $27k (about to go up), and median cost of vehicle ownership is $12k. Yearly figures. That’s sharing one car between both working parents and we’re using median numbers here, and the median person doesn’t live in a place with great public transit options. Already that leaves almost nothing to deal with emergencies, saving in case a parent loses their job, and miscellaneous expenses like school books/supplies and clothing. And perhaps contributing to elder care for 1-4 grandparents.

Also, this is just the median; people in the lower 50% are much worse off, except for those poor enough to receive substantial aid. And don’t forget that young people typically have lower incomes.

You really don’t want half of your society to decide that pets are cheaper, unless you want to end up with an inverted population pyramid and eventual collapse, or unlimited migration to replace lost workers (which creates its own problems).

▲

eudamoniac 3 days ago | parent [-]

But children don't add much marginal cost to those figures, except insurance. Housing stays the same (no you don't need a bigger house), food goes up slightly (12-19k for 4 people is absurdly luxurious), utilities barely increase, you don't buy them a car, clothing can be had at goodwill or handed down, etc etc. I think maybe you don't understand what little the median family had materially in 1940. They were not buying their six kids clothes from Gap or going out to eat even monthly. They were in very small homes with very cheap clothes and the wife cooked every meal from plain cheap ingredients. They didn't have phone plans or Internet bills or take 20 minute showers.

▲

iamnothere 3 days ago | parent [-]

I was using USDA figures for median food costs, do you have a better source? And I did not say to buy them a car, I was giving the median cost of single vehicle ownership for the whole family (which factors in purchasing, licensing, insuring, maintaining, and fueling the vehicle). These are median numbers.

This is not the 1940s:

Cheap homes are unavailable. Even single family homes are becoming unaffordable except in isolated areas without jobs. Housing costs, even apartments, have gone up enormously as a percentage of income and building/health codes don’t allow you to live in shanties.

You need a phone now for most jobs. People aren’t hiring you if you can’t be contacted except for bottom of the barrel work. You likely need internet if your job requires remote work and kids probably need it for homework.

People in the mid 1900s had single earner households and households or neighborhoods with extended family. That means more time for cooking, sewing and repairing clothes, and other housework. Work often wasn’t as far away, especially in working class neighborhoods, so you might not even need a car.

Besides all this, literally nobody is going to have kids if it requires going back to a 1940s standard of living. That’s society’s problem, if as an aggregate entity it cares about perpetuating itself. If nobody cares, fine, let it fall apart.

	▲	eudamoniac 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I was using USDA figures for median food costs Median people in the USA eat extremely lavishly. Your series of comments, to me, boils down to a complaint that you can't maintain this extreme luxury while having children. Yeah, nobody ever could. The time frame in which people were "able" to have a lot of children was the time when they weren't living such extravagant lives of consumption. So yeah if the complaint is "Why can't I afford a lifestyle that would make my grandparents blush with shame at its luxury, and have as many kids as them, wtf?!" then I'm not very sympathetic to it.