Kids And Happiness

[Zero999]

Unfortunately not a reason for many who basically can't afford to have kids to still have them. 

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.

Specifically, there is inverse relationship between average number of kids vs. gross product of nation. Poorest people have the most kids.

It could be down to r/K selection theory. People in poorer societies tend to have more children, because fewer of them will survive and they can be put to work, performing domestic chores and farmwork. Richer people generally have fewer children and invest more time and money in them. It's not proven of course, but seems to make sense.

To put some hard numbers on this beyond "very few", its anywhere from 8-20% of parents that regretted having children (germany, poland, and US studies). So the "orders of magnitude" claim is incorrect.

I also suspect that numbers there are likely underestimates, as there is so much social stigma to saying "I don't want my kids."

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

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.

These studies, by their very nature, are flawed.

[pcprogrammer]

Poorest people have the most kids.

That was the intent behind my statement. Guess who ends up paying for the support of those kids. Yes society. Is that ok, sure when these kids become useful members of society, but loads of them don't do they. I know, I have a gloom outlook on the world.

And some best toys include a piece of wood bark she found herself, it's her "tree baby".

That is very good. Let her use her imagination while playing, instead of overloading with lots of toys that end up in a corner never to be looked at again.

I recently saw a video on youtube about the benefits of growing up in the seventies. You learned to keep yourself busy and entertained with minimal resources. Something that seems lost nowadays.

[Analog Kid]

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.

Specifically, there is inverse relationship between average number of kids vs. gross product of nation. Poorest people have the most kids.

I can assure you, having kids costs nearly nothing. Many of those people who say they can't have kids due to financial reasons do have pets, and pets are more expensive really.

I find this very hard to believe; pets more expensive than kids: really?

Does your dog or cat or bird need clothes? school expenses? pediatric medical expenses (definitely more than veterinary)? all the other stuff they need?

I don't have any figures at hand but I think you'd be hard put to prove that point.

[Zero999]

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.

Specifically, there is inverse relationship between average number of kids vs. gross product of nation. Poorest people have the most kids.

I can assure you, having kids costs nearly nothing. Many of those people who say they can't have kids due to financial reasons do have pets, and pets are more expensive really.

I find this very hard to believe; pets more expensive than kids: really?

Does your dog or cat or bird need clothes? school expenses? pediatric medical expenses (definitely more than veterinary)? all the other stuff they need?

I don't have any figures at hand but I think you'd be hard put to prove that point.

It depends on whether you're talking about the long or short term? Children more often than not, help care for you later on in life, thus saving you care costs and it's better to be cared for by someone who you know, than a random stranger, who in many cases nowadays is a foreigner who speaks with a thick accent, which can be difficult to understand, especially for someone with dementia and poor hearing.

Also note the flag in the profile of the person you're discussing this with.

[Siwastaja]

Poorest people have the most kids.

That was the intent behind my statement. Guess who ends up paying for the support of those kids. Yes society.

Maybe, maybe not. You are looking at some sort of middle group. Actually poor people in actually poor countries get absolutely no help from the "society". Yet they have absolutely the most children.

So you are bitter at those "poor" people who are actually far from poor, and live off other's money in well-developed countries. Well guess what, it's totally orthogonal question to having kids. They also buy Gucci handbags and whatever. Yes, I have gloom view of society as well, but I don't blame it on having kids.

It seems that nowadays buying luxury items and having pets and paying expensive veterinary costs is considered normal standard of living to anyone; in absence of large enough paycheck, by taxpayer's money and/or loan money causing a huge problem a year or two later with the debt (which eventually again falls to taxpayer).

The fact many of these people also happen to make kids is orthogonal.

Interestingly, when looking at bare numbers, our income was (still is) in the absolutely lowest group which is now for some reason considered "poverty" yet we are doing absolutely fine and consider our own standard of living excellent. But we don't have any Gucci products or pets, and cafeteria culture or nightclubs are not part of our daily lives, so 

The kid doesn't cost much at all.

[Siwastaja]

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.

Specifically, there is inverse relationship between average number of kids vs. gross product of nation. Poorest people have the most kids.

I can assure you, having kids costs nearly nothing. Many of those people who say they can't have kids due to financial reasons do have pets, and pets are more expensive really.

I find this very hard to believe; pets more expensive than kids: really?

Does your dog or cat or bird need clothes? school expenses? pediatric medical expenses (definitely more than veterinary)? all the other stuff they need?

I don't have any figures at hand but I think you'd be hard put to prove that point.

Here the veterinary costs have exploded due to the pet boom and monopolization of private vets (large corporations buying out smaller ones), really, that's the root cause of the expenses. The life cycle of a pet is faster than that of a human. Human beings would receive some of the "free" healthcare (which isn't free) but that's not the point, even if it was private, during 15 first years of human, chances that you don't need to see a doctor more than once or twice with anything serious enough to matter are high. Like, maybe you go to doctor "just in case" exactly because you can afford that, but if you couldn't, then... you just wouldn't go and it's not a big deal?

School is free-of-charge here. This is of course cultural, maybe in the land of freedom it does have a cost. "All the stuff they need" is a catch-all I don't like. This is exactly the thing which ends up including Gucci handbags. If you have money at your disposal, fine. But if you find you are financially struggling, keep close track on how you are spending. We humans need very little actual material, and most of it is available for cheap.

Used clothes are available. Used strollers are available. We buy everything new and of decent quality despite being in lowest 10% income class. It is still such a small expense. Clothes are expensive only if you are looking at something luxury branded things. What, I might be spending 50€/year on my own clothes. Maybe we spend 100€/year on the kid's clothes because she is growing fast. And we buy everything new. This is totally negligible. We spend the same money in only two months to get sunflower seeds and peanuts for the birds in the winter.

Housing is costly! Heating is costly. Food is somewhat costly. But children really do not require some mansion to live in, and do not eat huge amounts of food. If you have housing and food for yourself and your partner, adding a kid or two is very small increase to that. In some Asian countries it is normal and considered good living standard to live with 2-3 kids in an apartment resembling a closet. The fact that some of us westeners think that a small apartment is not "good enough" if you have kids, is not based on real physical or emotional need of kids, it is purely cultural toxicity.

[paulca]

I get the impression that the ladies have it much easier in STEM. They get to pick out a partner among the countless many who are into STEM while the guys have to find one of the few ladies who are into STEM and are still single but want a partner.

Your partner does not have to be from the same field as you are.

I had a girlfriend who was a QA engineer.  Can you imaging the conversation the emerged when the topic of "Qualifications" and "Grading" came up?  Generally speaking... QA engineers are the rejects from Developer streams.

Not a nice conversation and I didn't win.  When it was demanded that "I" sleep on the sofa, I replied that I am a rent paying adult and will be sleeping in the bed.  She is welcome to join me and we don't need to even talk. 

She slept on the sofa. 

Can you guess it didn't last long?

[paulca]

On Kids.  I didn't want to have kids.  Then one happened.  I found the nearest bucket of sand I could fit my head into and stayed there until the call came.

"Your daughter has arrived, come and meet her."

Then in the moment I held her tiny little head in my hand, her eyes beamed directly into my soul, she held my finger in her hand and giggled at me.

A big blade switch in my soul went "CLUNK!"  - Parent mode engaged.  NOT OPTIONAL!

I was never the same again.

[nctnico]

But children really do not require some mansion to live in, and do not eat huge amounts of food.

I can tell you that beyond 10 years, kids eat large amounts of food and costs do add up! 

[jpanhalt]

In the US, university education is not free, but in-state tuition is a lot less than out-of-state tuition for state schools. 

As for veterinary costs, remember that Medicare and most other insurances don't cover them.  Thus, DVM's (veterinary doctors in the US) don't have to take huge discounts  from insurance.  The actual amount of charges paid by Medicare and other insurance  for a university practice was about 30% in 2006.  There is insurance for veterinary costs, but it is quite expensive.  Dentistry is different.  In general, it is not covered by Medicare, but some Part C plans ("Medicare Advantage") plans cover limited dental costs.  Dentists have resisted accepting insurance plans.  Medicaid is different.  Private insurance for the whole family is a must in the US and is expensive.  I am not sure how that cost changes with respect to number of children.

From my limited experience, veterinary costs are a more accurate measure of reasonable costs. 

[fzabkar]

I find this very hard to believe; pets more expensive than kids: really?

Does your dog or cat or bird need ...  pediatric medical expenses (definitely more than veterinary)?

Thankfully, in a civilised country like Australia, and probably Finland, we have a national health system that bears this financial burden. It's like Obamacare, but on an even larger, even more humanitarian scale.

[asmi]

Thankfully, in a civilised country like Australia, and probably Finland, we have a national health system that bears this financial burden. It's like Obamacare, but on an even larger, even more humanitarian scale.

Yeah if not for the universal healthcare, I would likely be bankrupt by now after all medical services my son has received.

[Zucca]

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

This could lead into inconsistent discussion forum moderation.

[asmi]

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.

[SteveThackery]

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

This could lead into inconsistent discussion forum moderation.

It was Dave who spun this thread off from the Sparkfun/Adafruit thread. It's Dave's forum, so.....

[Zero999]

I've noticed that most of the arguments put forward here are individualistic. Have children or not. It's your choice. Sometimes it's the right thing to do, sometimes it's not.

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

Being stigmatised for not having children is good, even though I'm subject to that myself: sometimes stigma exists for the greater good. I would definitely look on a potential candidate for a job more favourably if they have children. This of course doesn't mean I wouldn't employ someone who's childless. It's just another advantage. One learns skills which are valuable in the workplace by being a parent. Yes there are some downsides such as needing random days off for whatever reason, but annual leave is generous where I work, so that doesn't matter.

[Siwastaja]

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

Am I the only one capable of  reading the forum owner's description for this section ("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.

[Siwastaja]

Thankfully, in a civilised country like Australia, and probably Finland, we have a national health system that bears this financial burden. It's like Obamacare, but on an even larger, even more humanitarian scale.

Yeah if not for the universal healthcare, I would likely be bankrupt by now after all medical services my son has received.

Ours has pretty much collapsed; getting to see a doctor requires quite a bit of luck and effort, but this is not unexpected given the unsustainable inverted pyramid, which happened pretty much everywhere, with boomers making a bit too many babies a bit too quickly, followed by the opposite counter reaction of making too few babies. Of course, this perturbance will settle (it's not amplifying with infinite positive feedback) but now (and in the near future) is a pretty bad time to need medical care.

Children do get some sort of prioritization in the system which is right in my opinion.

We can also buy healthcare with money, like those in the freedomland, and incresingly many actually do (because they want to see a doctor now, not after 3 months after playing computer games and sitting on a telephone for 10 hours first), also fast and serious price inflation of private healthcare sector is now visible.

We can blame both making and not making babies for this. Both boomers and their kids are at fault, but for the opposite reasons.

Resourcing in itself doesn't seem to be a problem. We have a huge number of nurses per capita, whose job is to act as a 2-step Kerberos system preventing access to the doctors, which we have too few per capita. And now with digitalization there is the computer game puzzle step as well. Every time they want to spare the resources, they just put the digital appointment system give random error messages for a week straight, so that everyone has to call, and no one gets through, so can't have an appointment, so now those who can will drive to the emergency for any non-emergency reason, and some % gets through. That's how it's managed. No appointments given at all -> better service % and better time-to-service for those who pass so metrics look good!

[asmi]

Ours has pretty much collapsed; getting to see a doctor requires quite a bit of luck and effort, but this is not unexpected given the unsustainable inverted pyramid, which happened pretty much everywhere, with boomers making a bit too many babies a bit too quickly, followed by the opposite counter reaction of making too few babies. Of course, this perturbance will settle (it's not amplifying with infinite positive feedback) but now (and in the near future) is a pretty bad time to need medical care.

Children do get some sort of prioritization in the system which is right in my opinion.

People like to complain about long wait times here, but when it was determined that my son needed a second heart surgery, they scheduled it in 3 days - and that was as far as it can possibly be because it required 2 days long pre-op. Elective surgeries can take a while, but when it comes to serious stuff, my personal experience and that of my family is that wait times are very reasonable.

We can also buy healthcare with money, like those in the freedomland, and incresingly many actually do (because they want to see a doctor now, not after 3 months after playing computer games and sitting on a telephone for 10 hours first), also fast and serious price inflation of private healthcare sector is now visible.

Here you can easily spend 4, 6 or even 8  hours in ER if you just show up cold, but in most of those cases it's better to go to a walk-in clinic where wait time is usually around 1 hr. Our family clinic has set up and afterhours rotation when you can just show up and see one of family physicians within 30-40 minutes without appointment at all for urgent cases. But more importantly, everybody can access a first-class healthcare for free, and so we don't really have a situation like down south, when half of population are delaying visits to a doctor until their condition progresses to a point when it forces them into ER - where everything is even more expensive than via family doctor. When we had our son's surgeries, our biggest expense was parking fees for hospital's parking - and even those as it turned out could be expensed out of your taxes in certain cases (when you live more than 40 km from the hospital).
Commercial health care in our province only exists for things not covered by provincial healthcare program - like dental care, or more upscale (semi-private or private) room for in-patients, but one can always go to a different province - or just drive down to US, and get all the care they want for money. In practice very few people do that because it's so freakin expensive.

We can blame both making and not making babies for this. Both boomers and their kids are at fault, but for the opposite reasons.

Here population is pretty much flat due to immigration, so system is not really starved for money - of course more is always better, but healthcare financing is on a good level.

[pcprogrammer]

Ours has pretty much collapsed; getting to see a doctor requires quite a bit of luck and effort, but this is not unexpected given the unsustainable inverted pyramid, which happened pretty much everywhere, with boomers making a bit too many babies a bit too quickly, followed by the opposite counter reaction of making too few babies. Of course, this perturbance will settle (it's not amplifying with infinite positive feedback) but now (and in the near future) is a pretty bad time to need medical care.

Children do get some sort of prioritization in the system which is right in my opinion.

We can also buy healthcare with money, like those in the freedomland, and incresingly many actually do (because they want to see a doctor now, not after 3 months after playing computer games and sitting on a telephone for 10 hours first), also fast and serious price inflation of private healthcare sector is now visible.

We can blame both making and not making babies for this. Both boomers and their kids are at fault, but for the opposite reasons.

Resourcing in itself doesn't seem to be a problem. We have a huge number of nurses per capita, whose job is to act as a 2-step Kerberos system preventing access to the doctors, which we have too few per capita. And now with digitalization there is the computer game puzzle step as well. Every time they want to spare the resources, they just put the digital appointment system give random error messages for a week straight, so that everyone has to call, and no one gets through, so can't have an appointment, so now those who can will drive to the emergency for any non-emergency reason, and some % gets through. That's how it's managed. No appointments given at all -> better service % and better time-to-service for those who pass so metrics look good!

Completely different topic for sure. Nothing to do with having or not having kids. Has to do with other human traits like greed, and everybody wanting to be a manager instead of a worker*. Hits all of the industry, not just the medical service.

A wide spread of mismanagement and reduction of funds drives up stress and more and more people get burn outs, leaving less people to do the work. This leads to disgruntle people and overheating of society.

* I know a bit of an overstatement, but still partially true.

[Zucca]

("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.

[fzabkar]

I don't want to live in a society where everything, including my education and health and wellbeing, is left to the rapacious "efficiency" of private enterprise. Greed isn't good ... ever.

The subject of this thread is "kids and happiness". Clearly, the government can play a significant role in a couple's decision to have children. Things like child care subsidies and tax breaks for dependents are just some areas where the burden can be lightened, especially in cases of unplanned parenting. 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.

[asmi]

The subject of this thread is "kids and happiness". Clearly, the government can play a significant role in a couple's decision to have children. Things like child care subsidies and tax breaks for dependents are just some areas where the burden can be lightened, especially in cases of unplanned parenting. 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.

Just giving birth is going to cost 10k+ in US without insurance from what I heard. So - yeah, having kids is literally expensive over there. And if you have some pre-existent conditions, your healthcare premiums are going to be as high as skyscrapers on Manhattan. Here the actual delivery (or C-section in our case) was completely free (sans parking fees of course), but we did opt for a private room for 2 days at a rate of 600 CAD/day just because we could and we wanted to.
But another unrelated benefit is that since government picks up a tab for healthcare, it's in their interest to do what it can to make population as healthier as possible. And that includes a whole host of things from semi-mandatory health checkups, regular screening tests for stuff like breast cancer and other potentially serious diseases, to making sure there are enough places and facilities accessible to people to live healthier lifestyle. Oh, and there is no sugar lobby here which forbids doctors from referring to sugar as a "white death". Heck even donuts here are less sweet than they are in US - though even Canadian donuts are way too sweet for me personally.

[EEVblog]

The kid doesn't cost much at all.

Not a huge lot, unless you choose too. Very common to get 2nd or 3rd level hand me down clothes, cost, etc for example. Everyone I know with kids does this.

One of the Youtubers I watch has 6 kids and has videos on this:

[Halcyon]

But children really do not require some mansion to live in, and do not eat huge amounts of food.

I can tell you that beyond 10 years, kids eat large amounts of food and costs do add up! 

I remember when I was a teenager, I would eat anything and everything after school and that was before dinner. I ate like a goat.