| |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For that, one prerequisite would be housing that can house such families. Which, in times of working from home, means 4 bedrooms, 2 offices, 1 living room. Ideally with walls not built from paper mache, so that they can actually be used for encapsulation of different requirements. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Traditionally families often just had one bedroom for children. That's what things like bunkbeds are for. | | |
| ▲ | kubb 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone who ho grew up in a smalll bedroom with multiple siblings until I was 19… Fuck that. | |
| ▲ | hypfer an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That might very well be, but now people evidently seem to prefer not doing that, so what is your point? "Just stop preferring that"? Good luck enforcing that. | | |
| ▲ | bragh 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It is not about preference, but because of regulation. Nowadays the government demand is that each child needs to have a separate studying and sleeping area. If a sliding wall in a room counts as a separate area is up to the officials' discretion. On one hand, all of this is understandable, but on the other hand these policies do indeed raise the cost of having children. | | |
| ▲ | vidarh 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I have never heard of a government demanding that. Where does that happen? | |
| ▲ | hypfer 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | What government does that? That's something new to me. |
| |
| ▲ | KptMarchewa 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That still works up to like age 7. It really is needed for that age up to ~18, which means you can get with providing that service for ~15 years (multiple children) and then going back to smaller apartments. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sacado2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not everyone works from home. But if you do, you can live in unexpensive areas of your country, so it's a non-issue. | | |
| ▲ | hypfer an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well I mean the whole discussion was about "why is the fertility rate so low it should not be so low". So that does sound like it is very much an issue. To someone, anyway.
I don't really care. I have no horse in this race. __ To cover the expected pedantic reply: Of course technically it's everyone's problem. But just because it technically affects you doesn't mean that you have to emotionally involve yourself in stupid online discussions that don't comprehend systemic views and mistake them for personal whining. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | So, in your opinion it is not possible to have kids unless you have 7(!) rooms? | | |
| ▲ | hypfer an hour ago | parent [-] | | Possible for sure, but not necessarily pleasant, which is for sure a significant part of the reasons why people decide against having (more) children. If we want them to have 3+ children, we need to reduce these sources of friction of doing so. |
|
|
|
| I thought it was clear from context that I was referring to people who want to have kids with a romantic partner (I suppose for fertility rate purposes it doesn't even necessarily need to be with just one romantic partner, or within a monogamous relationship). Lots of people don't want kids these days relative to 50 years ago, but even among those who do, they're delaying the process, often to the point where it becomes less ideal due to age. Many people who wanted kids when they were younger end up not having them as a result (and many who want them haven't had them yet). Having a partner (or partners) to do it with is a significant factor for many, among other factors like concerns about affording food and housing for oneself, let alone for additional dependants. |
