• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 months ago

    It might be an unpopular view here but I don’t think it really has anything to do with finances. Fertility rate goes up the poorer people are.

    I think it’s more to do with the general sense of no future worth continuing that people have, and a cultural attitude of hating kids that seems to have built up in western countries. People didn’t hate children 30 years ago the same way they hate children today. Children were a part of everyday life outdoors on every street, you really didn’t do well in the world if you got mad about kids every time you saw them because outside of school hours they were omnipresent outdoors.

    • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fertility rate goes up the poorer people are.

      I think it’s more that families that have been poor for generations know how to raise kids on a budget but people who grew up middle class don’t want to have kids unless they can offer them roughly the same quality of life they had, which is increasingly inaccessible.

      • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I feel like all life advice in “the middle class” is like… Don’t have kids until you have an established career, mortgage, and can afford a babysitter/daycare.

        That’s not to say the modern situation is entirely caused by that. One thing I thought of is if you’re a peasant, kids might not actually be that helpful in the field but you can keep an eye on your kids fucking about while you plow fields or whatever. Once urbanisation and bosses happen, you can’t just bring your kid into the office while you make sales calls (unless your child is also losing fingers in the textile factory). Modern farms are also different to older farms; you don’t really want your kids to be around heavy machinery too much, though farmers kids I know spent a decent amount of time hanging out with their parents in the combine harvester etc (unlike literally every urban worker I know).

        The survey answer of global hopelessness feels a bit post-hoc to me. I know its a popular narrative, but many doomed societies that have felt doomed have had very high birthrates.

        Individualism is also another one.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s more to do with the general sense of no future worth continuing that people have, and a cultural attitude of hating kids

      Yeah, while finances are an issue i agree its more that sense that the future will be worse. Blaming finances is easier, not just to communicate but also for people to wrap their minds around without having to confront the dread of the future if things continue the way they are.

      Part of me feels the hatred of children and antinatalism in general is a reaction to people not being able to afford kids/feeling there’s no future for children of their own. The way antinatalists speak, there has to be something more there

      • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Agreed. I’ve been a teacher before and I don’t hate kids. So I think the problem is that “I hate kids” is more of a lie we tell ourselves because we cannot in good conscience have kids.

        There’s also the fact that the onus is always on women, so we know this is a proxy for something else. If more kids was that much of a priority the bourgeoisie would make some concessions in order to get it. They’d allow more building in “prime real estate” walkable cities and introduce the idea of “community” to America. They’d take a hit on their rent prices and let young people move to the walkable cities they yearn for so they can actually meet people, and you know, get laid to have kids.

        But no, their idea is that they want to mandate that women reproduce or be tossed in jail, and further hammer in the idea for men that if they don’t get laid by age 30 they’re a hopeless loser.

        • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          If more kids was that much of a priority the bourgeoisie would make some concessions in order to get it.

          They are making about as much concession as for mitigating climate change, so they are consistent.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      It might be an unpopular view here but I don’t think it really has anything to do with finances. Fertility rate goes up the poorer people are.

      The Global South has a higher birth rate than the imperial core. I don’t think it has anything to do with finances at all. Are Congolese artisanal miners and Bangladeshi sweatshop workers somehow more financially secure than some software developer living in the West?