Kids And Happiness

[EEVblog]

I would argue that a couple bringing up a child in Australia would be a lot happier than a similar couple bringing up a child in America, given identical economic and financial circumstances. And we don't yet need to send our kids to school in Kevlar vests.

The obvious thing here being health care.
Even an average medium to even low-ish wage couple can afford the $500/month private health insurance that covers private hospital and obstetrics if you are looking to get pregnant. But you can always choose the free medicare option in a public hospital that covers most things.
And yes, public schools are essentially free.
There is also a small family tax benefit for lower incomes.
Not to mention compulsory paid parental leave.
https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/publications-and-news-pages/publication-pages/brochures-and-factsheets/factsheets/private-health-insurance/obstetrics-and-pregnancy

We used to have a baby bonus scheme. I think we need to bring that back.

[EEVblog]

Am I the only one surprised to see this topic in the "General Technical Chat" section?

This could lead into inconsistent discussion forum moderation.

We don't have another "off-topic" section.

[thm_w]

Or an overestimate because someone might have regretted having children, when asked the question, yet change their mind later.

Depending on the age of the child, etc, sure, might happen.

There's also no way of knowing that whether those who regret having children, would have also regretted it, had they chosen not to have children.

That is valid. But that applies both ways. Someone who regrets not having may have regretted if they did. Doesn't change anything here unless you have more data to provide or can see multiple versions of the future.

These studies, by their very nature, are flawed.

Disagree, and a hell of a lot less flawed than the biased anecdotes being thrown around.

I think there are many valid reasons not to have kids, or regret having them, including "lack of freedom" (in the sense that kids require a lot of your presence and affecft where you can go), but "cannot financially afford to have kids" is one of the stupidest "reasons"/explanations.

I don't disagree overall, though obviously there are some scenarios where it is not a stupid explanation (homelessness), and it varies by location. Anyway if you read the study above, statistically poor are less happy when having children, which is logical (child can cost $10-20k+ annually in US and Canada, Finland is ~$1k/year, so it may not apply there).

I put forward the moral argument in favour of having children, because it benefits society over all, rather than from a purely individualistic perspective. I believe this is also the case, irrespective of whether one can afford to look after their them or not. Because children benefit society; society, the state, employers, voluntary organisations etc. should all help people raise children. One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Obviously, on the whole it is necessary for society, that does not mean that everyone has to do it. If you have a reason not to, and are forced to, what do you think the outcome will be?
Hell you gave an example, "help raise children" where society benefits but the person helping to raise the child may never be a parent (teachers, nurses, doctors, child care, tax payers in certain countries, etc.).

A stable or growing population is good in some ways (economy) and bad in others (resources, pollution). You may have population decline while various jobs are taken over by AI/robots/automation, and society could still benefit, as long as it doesn't decline to 0.

Now I'm not arguing for any authoritarian polices to force people to have children, just gentle encouragement and nudges in that direction.

Yes that is fair, I don't complain about child benefits, free education, etc., I think most people agree those are positives.

[EEVblog]

("Occasional off-topic stuff is ok"), and also respect the fact that said forum owner chose to make this thread? He will be fully capable of closing it down after he is no longer satisfied. You can go contribute something instead of complaining.

It was not a complaining, nor an attack to anybody writing something here...
I trust Dave knows when it is "occasional" and when it is not.

Being a admin/moderator with such rules is definitely a tricky job.

We literally have an entire Cooking section on this forum.
Some off-topic things are ok, especially ones that involve the human condition that impacts most of us.
The major rule is no politics, religion, guns, and other "hot button" social issues.
A topic on having kids is pretty basic boring stuff really.

[EEVblog]

Obviously, on the whole it is necessary for society, that does not mean that everyone has to do it. If you have a reason not to, and are forced to, what do you think the outcome will be?

Who on earth is "forcing" you to have kids? 
Are we now talking fictional dystopias?

[thm_w]

Obviously, on the whole it is necessary for society, that does not mean that everyone has to do it. If you have a reason not to, and are forced to, what do you think the outcome will be?

Who on earth is "forcing" you to have kids? 

No one, its a hypothetical situation as part of an argument.

[Analog Kid]

One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?
Like some stupid thing parents tell their kids: "Well, what if everyone did _______? How would you like that?"

I'm not sure if this has been classified as a fallacy, but it sure should be.
(Unless it's an extraordinary situation where it's possible that everyone might actually do [x] ...)

[Marco]

civilisation would cease

In and of itself not morally bad. If we can't progress beyond the current situation, going back to monkey isn't much worse. Conservatism makes no sense without religion. There is little worth conserving, either in nature or current society.

Existence has no inherent value, the only argument which convinces me is that since life will persist any way you have a responsibility to drive all conscious living creatures above hedonic zero (including other animals). For that you need technological progress and sustain human society, till AI can sustain society anyway.

[Bud]

My best memories are about my years at the university when i was a student, and about the times our child was a little kid. Can't trade those memories for anything.

[EEVblog]

One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?

Actually, it's not. The extreme case aside, a large drop in children has drastic practical consequences for even your own lifetime (depending on age).
Let's say you are 20yo old now, and your countries birth rates plummets. You still have a good 60 maybe 70 years left.
What does that mean for your own future? We are talking three generations here. That's actually a very dire outcome for the your future and that of your country.

On a country basis, there are two solutions here:
1) The native population has more kids, back up to replacement rate. You get to keep your culture.
2) You import the third world (who in practice, are having kids. It's the western countries where birth rates have plummeted) and your culture completely and permanently changes.

[thm_w]

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?
Like some stupid thing parents tell their kids: "Well, what if everyone did _______? How would you like that?"

I'm not sure if this has been classified as a fallacy, but it sure should be.
(Unless it's an extraordinary situation where it's possible that everyone might actually do [x] ...)

There is literally a "What if everyone did that" fallacy: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155043 but its not commonly used.
Maybe a bit of "Slippery slope" and "appeal to nature/tradition". Obviously not to say there is clearly truth here, touching anecdotes, etc. I completely believe what is said from their point of view only. It does not apply to me or ~15-25% of western society.

[Analog Kid]

One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?

Actually, it's not. The extreme case aside, a large drop in children has drastic practical consequences for even your own lifetime (depending on age).

What you mention is within the realm of possibility, even if it's unlikely to be caused by something like a simple change in attitude of potential parents towards having children.

It's useful to look at this situation using the model of the population pyramid; this is a simple bar chart showing the proportion of the population at different age levels. The model is so called because ideally the "pyramid" is just that, a more or less triangular chart showing proportionally more young people at the bottom than old people at the top:



Why is that ideal? Basically because old farts (like me) take up proportionally more resources when it comes to things like health care, and also contribute less to the economy (because retirement), which is a double whammy. A top-heavy pyramid is economically unviable.

This particular chart shows your country's population pyramid in 2006. It comes from this very useful web site: you can choose the country (from a limited list) and the year. It's interesting to click through the years (using the -1 and +1 links) to see how the pyramid changes over time.

So to address your point: I remember hearing that Japan in the early 2000s was in a shrinking population crisis. I don't think that's the case now. I don't know how it ended up resolving itself; any explanation here would be appreciated.

[EEVblog]

So to address your point: I remember hearing that Japan in the early 2000s was in a shrinking population crisis. I don't think that's the case now. I don't know how it ended up resolving itself; any explanation here would be appreciated.

It didn't resolve itself.
Japan started to allow immigration because trying to get the population to have more kids failed. Once immigrants hit about 3%, the national protests began.
I'm surprised you haven't heard, it's been all over the news in the last 6 months.
Japan famously has the oldest average population in the world.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-04/japanese-island-etajima-migrants-oyster-industry/106176486
https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/08/29/unpacking-the-anti-immigrant-rhetoric-of-japans-rising-far-right/

[Electrodynamic]

On a shrinking population crisis, I think it depends on the country and culture. As more things become streamlined and automated we won't need as many people because there won't be as many jobs.

In business automation is a big deal. Software and AI are now my legal counsel, accounting, marketing, graphic design, machine design/control and so on. Why would I hire more people when they are not required?. I mean, companies now have automated factories working in the dark with no people in them. Amazon has automated warehouses full of robots and drone delivery is coming next. It's not only on my mind but every business owners mind.

I think Mark Carney, the Canadian PM nailed it in a recent speech, "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu". My guesstimate is maybe 25% of the present jobs could disappear within 15 to 20 years due to automation and AI. In other words, eat or be eaten.

[Zero999]

Or an overestimate because someone might have regretted having children, when asked the question, yet change their mind later.

Depending on the age of the child, etc, sure, might happen.

There's also no way of knowing that whether those who regret having children, would have also regretted it, had they chosen not to have children.

That is valid. But that applies both ways. Someone who regrets not having may have regretted if they did. Doesn't change anything here unless you have more data to provide or can see multiple versions of the future.

These studies, by their very nature, are flawed.

Disagree, and a hell of a lot less flawed than the biased anecdotes being thrown around.

I dissagree. These studies are mostly junk science. I bet if they asked questions about whether one regrets their choice of career, they would get similar results.

I put forward the moral argument in favour of having children, because it benefits society over all, rather than from a purely individualistic perspective. I believe this is also the case, irrespective of whether one can afford to look after their them or not. Because children benefit society; society, the state, employers, voluntary organisations etc. should all help people raise children. One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Obviously, on the whole it is necessary for society, that does not mean that everyone has to do it. If you have a reason not to, and are forced to, what do you think the outcome will be?

Not forcing, but general encouragement. I remember what happened when people were forced to get vaccinated and it wasn't good. Irrespective of whether an argument could be made that it was for the greater good.

A stable or growing population is good in some ways (economy) and bad in others (resources, pollution). You may have population decline while various jobs are taken over by AI/robots/automation, and society could still benefit, as long as it doesn't decline to 0.

A stable population would be best, but birth rates are so low in many advanced countries, it won't be a slow decline, but more rapid.

civilisation would cease

In and of itself not morally bad. If we can't progress beyond the current situation, going back to monkey isn't much worse. Conservatism makes no sense without religion. There is little worth conserving, either in nature or current society.

Existence has no inherent value, the only argument which convinces me is that since life will persist any way you have a responsibility to drive all conscious living creatures above hedonic zero (including other animals). For that you need technological progress and sustain human society, till AI can sustain society anyway.

I dissagree. Preserving our advanced, modern societies is the right thing to to. There is no moral argument for returning to the stone age, with all the hardship people had suffer back then.

So to address your point: I remember hearing that Japan in the early 2000s was in a shrinking population crisis. I don't think that's the case now. I don't know how it ended up resolving itself; any explanation here would be appreciated.

It didn't resolve itself.
Japan started to allow immigration because trying to get the population to have more kids failed.

Many rich countries have done that and it doesn't appear to be working. Immigrants tend to be from poorer, low wage economies and are less skilled. It turns out that lower skilled workers, don’t boost productivity. Swapping highly qualified Japanese workers for those from some third world country doesn’t result in the same outcomes.

On a shrinking population crisis, I think it depends on the country and culture. As more things become streamlined and automated we won't need as many people because there won't be as many jobs.

In business automation is a big deal. Software and AI are now my legal counsel, accounting, marketing, graphic design, machine design/control and so on. Why would I hire more people when they are not required?. I mean, companies now have automated factories working in the dark with no people in them. Amazon has automated warehouses full of robots and drone delivery is coming next. It's not only on my mind but every business owners mind.

I think Mark Carney, the Canadian PM nailed it in a recent speech, "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu". My guesstimate is maybe 25% of the present jobs could disappear within 15 to 20 years due to automation and AI. In other words, eat or be eaten.

AI is overhyped and automation doesn't pay taxes or pensions. Care work can be to some extend automated, but there are limits.

[Siwastaja]

I dissagree. These studies are mostly junk science. I bet if they asked questions about whether one regrets their choice of career, they would get similar results.

The same popped into my mind. A proper study would at very least do control questions, to set a baseline for overall "regret". Furthermore, one of the news articles above quoted one individual from a study saying that they "regret" having kid (would not do again if back in time) but the kid is the best gift they ever had. These two claims are contradictory (unless the subject is masochist enough not to want "the best gift ever"). In a proper study, I think contradictory answers like this should be ignore, documented separately, or, the whole study thought again, but instead the scientists chose to count it as "regret". They could also choose the opposite conclusion.

The fundamental question "if you could go back in time, ..." is flawed. If people really could, even with message from their future selfs, they would realistically end up doing the same choice.

It's easy to do a thought experiment, using the example from one of those studies: OK, so I'm imagining myself having good time with my wife making the kid in January 2022. Let me imagine myself from the future popping up in the ceiling and say: "Hey there, I'm your future self. I came to say that the kid you are now making is the best gift ever, but I would not do it if I could go back in time." Think about it. Would I say to my wife: hey, let's stop, I don't want to? I think the answer is blatantly obvious. Hence, I strongly question numbers like >10% "regretting" because they gave this answer, completely questionable. Instead, the explanation is simple: people who answered "No" to "Would you do it again if you could time travel", did not do a real though experiment. Because the thought experiment required is pretty complex. You need to motivated for such experiment.

What I do believe is that the hypothetical time travel question is unintuitive to 10% or so of population - too hard to digest. They are not replying to that question literally. They are replying to a more obvious, simpler question: "would you have another kid now", for which the answer is completely different, especially if they are already old enough and have enough kids.

Therefore, I think control questions about time travel metaphors, to maintain a baseline of population who cannot answer reliably to the actual question, because they are incapable or unmotivated to do the relatively complex thought experiment, would be in place.

Junk science. Better number could be achieved by proper psychologist discussing with randomly sampled population of parents and making their professional judgement about true regret.

[EEVblog]

I dissagree. These studies are mostly junk science. I bet if they asked questions about whether one regrets their choice of career, they would get similar results.

The same popped into my mind. A proper study would at very least do control questions, to set a baseline for overall "regret".

I tend to agree, any such poll/study would be difficult.
I can only go on everyone I know with kids, they all love their kids. I don't know anyone that hates their kids and wants nothing to do with them, and booted them out first chance they got etc, which would be a pretty good definition of true "regret" I'd imagine. Not a single person.

Having said that, I'm talking about those that chose to have kids (or chose to keep them if an accident). I do know of one guy who got someone I know pregnant at 17yo after a one night stand, and he wants nothing to do with the kid or her. But not all that uncommon under such circumstances. So I wouldn't class that under the "regret having kids" category.

[paulca]

The population thing is interesting.  There is an argument to be made that humans have over-extended themselves for the resources available.

Trouble with that is "humans" is a very wide cohort and not all sub-cohorts will progress in the same ways.  Leading to mass migration and or wars.

The birth rate data, for instance, has to be taken in context of death rate and infant mortality rate in particular.  When you add that in the decline in population grown and even negative growth in some areas, isn't as extreme looking.

In Victorian times the infant mortality rate (expired before age 5) was something eye watering like 80%.  4 out of 5 children didn't make it to 5.  Medicine has come a LONG way.  The birth rates have to fall, they cannot be sustained by the planet.

[jpanhalt]

You have a choice:  pay per use or get insurance.  Government provided healthcare is just an inefficient form of insurance.

Riiiight, that's why Americans come here to Canada to buy insulin because here it's 5-10 TIMES cheaper than in US? Because your system is so "efficient" - at extracting money from those who have no choice but to pay.
Also - what are those who can not pay for whatever reason are supposed to do? Go on the street and die there quietly?

You pay either way, but you pay more with the government as intermediary.  Our VA medical care system is "free" to veterans and very poor quality.  It still costs taxpayers a lot and would be cheaper if privatized.  If you pay taxes and are not a veteran, you are paying for something you can't get.

Do you have any idea how much would two 11 hrs long open heart surgeries on infant cost? I probably won't pay that much to provincial health in my entire life. And he received (and will continue to receive) a lot more than that.

You better drop this conversation about efficiency of US healthcare, as it won't be good for you.

Your quotes are out of context and misleading.  You are comparing out-of-pocket retail prices when you should be comparing what those providers actually receive and what actual insured patients pay.*    Moreover, I stated clearly that health insurance of some form was absolutely necessary in the US, so that an 11-hour surgery might cost the patient nothing, and the providers would get maybe 30% of the paper charges.

Unfortunately our moderators decided to delete my post to provide a very twisted view.  I have said several times that our charge and reimbursement system is totally out of wack and have explained how that came about on this site.  I'm not wasting time repeating it. 

No system is perfect and Canada's is one of the worst.  It let a child die without treatment to save money.  When a US hospital offered accept and give treatment without charge, Canada would not the the parents and child come here.  They were held prisoners while Canada abandoned their dying child..

While pharmaceutical tourism does occur, those people are probably breaking American law.  Some people even go to Asia or Mexico for cheaper, supposedly equivalent drugs and narcotics.   On the other hand desperate Canadians continually come to the US for better and more accessible care.

The deletion of my previous post without even a mention of what part of the TOS was/were violated does not sit well with me, particularly in light of so may uninformed posts her belittling America.

[pcprogrammer]

The deletion of my previous post without even a mention of what part of the TOS was/were violated does not sit well with me, particularly in light of so may uninformed posts her belittling America.

  I noticed one of mine has been removed as well.

Why, most likely weapons and politics.

You mentioning maybe having some to stand up against infringement on your rights, and mine for mentioning a political name I will not repeat.

[Marco]

Preserving our advanced, modern societies is the right thing to to.

Our comfy one or the one in Gaza, Sudan, Kiev etc?

I find the average progress disappointing and minimal. The way we treat other animals as deplorable as ever everywhere (yes, nature does it too, no, that's not an excuse)

[nctnico]

One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?

Actually, it's not. The extreme case aside, a large drop in children has drastic practical consequences for even your own lifetime (depending on age).
Let's say you are 20yo old now, and your countries birth rates plummets. You still have a good 60 maybe 70 years left.
What does that mean for your own future? We are talking three generations here. That's actually a very dire outcome for the your future and that of your country.

Yep. Many countries are facing problems with aging populations already. Japan and China are prime examples. And Europe as well to some extend but lots of people are migrating to Europe filling in the voids.

[Zero999]

One might say, well I don't want children for whatever reason, but if everyone said that, then the civilisation would cease.

Why do you keep bringing that up?
You do realize how absurd an argument that is, don't you?

Actually, it's not. The extreme case aside, a large drop in children has drastic practical consequences for even your own lifetime (depending on age).
Let's say you are 20yo old now, and your countries birth rates plummets. You still have a good 60 maybe 70 years left.
What does that mean for your own future? We are talking three generations here. That's actually a very dire outcome for the your future and that of your country.

Yep. Many countries are facing problems with aging populations already. Japan and China are prime examples. And Europe as well to some extend but lots of people are migrating to Europe filling in the voids.

But the problem is, it isn't working. Productivity in Europe should be increasing, due to continued technolgical advancements, but it isn't.

Preserving our advanced, modern societies is the right thing to to.

Our comfy one or the one in Gaza, Sudan, Kiev etc?

I find the average progress disappointing and minimal. The way we treat other animals as deplorable as ever everywhere (yes, nature does it too, no, that's not an excuse)

That's a bit of a political statement.

Modern technology, developed in the West, was brought to third world countries and it has benefited them hugely. Of course there has been downsides, due to colonialism and weapons, but they're greatly outwieghed by modern medicine, mechanisation and agricultural methods, which have saved hundreds of millions of lives. Progess has been slow, but life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, as increased markedly over the last 60 years.

If technically advanced societies stopped having children, then what do you think will happen to the third world? Medicines, machinery, vaccines, sanitation equipment, mosquito nets etc. are neither designed nor manufactured in sub-Saharan Africa, where the birth rate is highest.

The poorest countries in the world are dependant on the most technically advanced. People in developed countries should have enough children to sustain their population. It's the moral thing to do, both for their own societies, as well as the world's poorest.

[Marco]

life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, as increased markedly over the last 60 years.

Which says little about the hedonic value of that life.

what do you think will happen to the third world?

A blip, then back to less developed living.

[Zero999]

life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, as increased markedly over the last 60 years.

Which says little about the hedonic value of that life.

what do you think will happen to the third world?

A blip, then back to less developed living.

Who said anything about hedonism? So you think a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is better than what we have today? Perhaps you should go any live somewhere with poor sanitation and don't complain when you get sick.