outside of famine/war conditions, birth rates have historically been (much) higher among people (much) poorer than most americans. I think the difference is more that social support structures are weak, “standard of living” expectations are high, education is both expensive and necessary, and contraception/abortion are widely available and relatively destigmatized
Yeah this is a huge part of it. Boomers were able to give their kids good lives. Millennial can’t even give their kids the same standard they have. People want to give their kids a better life than they had, but this is impossible without a house and a yard and extra money for game consoles and extracurricular and playmates and all the shit that was taken for granted in a 90s childhood.
This is arguable as a lot if the “all people before capitalism were mud farmers” claptrap comes from the fact that the priests of capitalism always leave non market/capitalist goods out of their calculations. Like medieval pesants were wealthier than early modern farmhands because they had the commons.
At least two incomes are pretty much a necessity for most families. But childcare itself is expensive AF, and the boomers that didn’t step out during the great resignation are probably going to working until they meet the grave, so we have no generational support like our boomer parents did.
It’s a damn hard choice between “pay more for daycare than than the lowest-earning parent earns” or “put one of the parents careers on pause for 5-15 years and never be able to meet their childless peers in salary”.
Especially when you consider there are plenty of potential parents well into their thirties who are still struggling to get ahead on their student loans. I’m fortunate enough that we are able to get by on one salary and my wife was a SAHM for 6 years. Now she’s 33, working part time in retail (completely unrelated to her degree), and it burns every month paying her student loans knowing that there’s absolutely 0 return on the investment from a decision she made when she was barely more than half her current age.
It’s kind of ironic that “the pill” was the catalyst for women’s rights that got them into the workforce in near-equal numbers, which ultimately reduced the value of labor enough that it made two-income families necessary, which makes it more difficult now to actually plan a family in the first place.
Edit: in case it’s not clear, I’m not faulting women, women’s rights, or birth control here. These are all great things. For lack of a better phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
outside of famine/war conditions, birth rates have historically been (much) higher among people (much) poorer than most americans. I think the difference is more that social support structures are weak, “standard of living” expectations are high, education is both expensive and necessary, and contraception/abortion are widely available and relatively destigmatized
People are poor but if you are poor and have kids there is a huge stigma attached to it if you were raised middle and upper middle class.
Yeah this is a huge part of it. Boomers were able to give their kids good lives. Millennial can’t even give their kids the same standard they have. People want to give their kids a better life than they had, but this is impossible without a house and a yard and extra money for game consoles and extracurricular and playmates and all the shit that was taken for granted in a 90s childhood.
Nail on the head. Would my hypothetical kids be fine without the treats I was given as a child? Probably.
Would it be exhausting to justify internally, explain to people, and face judgement from family? Definitely.
This is arguable as a lot if the “all people before capitalism were mud farmers” claptrap comes from the fact that the priests of capitalism always leave non market/capitalist goods out of their calculations. Like medieval pesants were wealthier than early modern farmhands because they had the commons.
hm the fed’s survey of consumer finances says the median household wealth in the us is $192,900 as of 2023 and that seems pretty high
That covers ~15 years of the average cost to raise a child. Huh, maybe this is the source of the child labor push.
Not sure what this has to do with my comment.
This is a huge part of it.
At least two incomes are pretty much a necessity for most families. But childcare itself is expensive AF, and the boomers that didn’t step out during the great resignation are probably going to working until they meet the grave, so we have no generational support like our boomer parents did.
It’s a damn hard choice between “pay more for daycare than than the lowest-earning parent earns” or “put one of the parents careers on pause for 5-15 years and never be able to meet their childless peers in salary”.
Especially when you consider there are plenty of potential parents well into their thirties who are still struggling to get ahead on their student loans. I’m fortunate enough that we are able to get by on one salary and my wife was a SAHM for 6 years. Now she’s 33, working part time in retail (completely unrelated to her degree), and it burns every month paying her student loans knowing that there’s absolutely 0 return on the investment from a decision she made when she was barely more than half her current age.
It’s kind of ironic that “the pill” was the catalyst for women’s rights that got them into the workforce in near-equal numbers, which ultimately reduced the value of labor enough that it made two-income families necessary, which makes it more difficult now to actually plan a family in the first place.
Edit: in case it’s not clear, I’m not faulting women, women’s rights, or birth control here. These are all great things. For lack of a better phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid”.