To have kids or not to? Your opinion from economy perspective

[passwordnow]

There is the common abbreviation that you'd see in social media now like in TikTok about couples decided to be a DINKWAD.
"Double income no kid with a dog/s".
They like to have no kids at all and as a couple, they're pouring their love to the dogs that they have. And there is nothing wrong if you don't want to have kids. But a country that has a lot of citizens that have this mindset could impact their future economy. I think Japan and South Korea are having this less birth rate on them and the people from their economy could be lesser but a good thing is they can always export people from foreign countries to have their jobs filled by them through a working visa.

Being DINKWAD is a life choice and is no one to judge someone who does not want a child and would rather spend their time raising pets or do something less restrictive in their life. Nevertheless, when large numbers of people in a country follow this lifestyle, then there is likely to be impact on the population growth and may slow down economic growth over the long term. Countries such as Japan and South Korea already experience aging populations and decreasing birth rates, which can cause problems to both labor supply and the social system. Immigration and foreign workers can contribute at the same time, but it is not the ideal solution. It is the compromise between the choice of individuals, as well as national demographics.

Yes, we have nothing to say to the dinkwads who have decided it because that's their lives to live of and that's what they're available to raise and they understand how tough life is when raising kids. And for the countries who have a lot of aging people, they're accepting more immigrants for their economy to keep up. But we can't also guarantee that they'll be treated fairly because that's where the inequality comes based on the society that they're living. Even if we praise these countries to be a good and first world countries, the racism that's done to immigrants can't be gone.

[₿itcoin]

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

Sorry I am late to the conversation OP.  What is this "I" you write of if you do not exist?

I had about a week in the hospital recovering from surgery to think about these things, esp since I do not remember anything that happened once I was put on the operating table until I woke up in ICU.   Did I exist during those couple hours?  I had no power to do anything or even think, so if I still existed, what does "I" mean?

Parents of children in poorer countries rely on them as domestic slaves.  The more girls they have, the more boys they can support.    But there is no reason to have children to help you the same way there is no reason to plant trees for CO2 capture - both will be destroyed before they become net positive.

@libert19, you are partially right, children do cost big financial blows, at least to parents who do not earn that much. Mothers are likely to experience a 3-7% motherhood wage penalty per child & the penalties are much larger for lower wage workers.

Nevertheless, not everything is so bad. The other is the fact that having children can lead to better financial planning since individuals become disciplined and save more and work on creating actual wealth

I would say that use of ‘not well-off’ should not be used as blanket rule for not producing children. But be honest about accountability, be prepared, be safe and, when you are ready, then take the initiative and do not just use it as a response to pressure.

[Solodoski]

For me I think having kids is the right thing to do, but you should give birth to kids you know you can take care of, and not give births to kids you can't cater for, although it's a commandment for God to go to the earth and replenish, but make sure you can take care of the child or children you choose to bring to this world.
I believe when you have a kid, you tend to be more responsible, because you know you have a child that you are responsible for, and it also makes you work harder to provide.

[iv4n]

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

I had a couple of friends (I haven't seen them in a long time) who had a similar mindset to yours... They were & still are alone, without a wife, children, close to fifty, it all seems too late. I understand why that is, but that is a story for another topic.

About 10-15 years ago, I was talking to an old man on this same topic, and I still remember his words: "If everyone had waited for perfect conditions, there wouldn't be any children." Think about that...

So I wasn't "well" alone... but with my wife, that means together, we started to build something... Little by little, helping each other, both on the same page, we make progress. That's something we both care about, and everything we do we both get credits for that... each of us is good/better in some field than the other.

If you are "well off yourself", then your partner should do what? Nothing except pleasing your desires? Just to please you &  take care of you in all ways because you provide money & shelter? 50 Shades of gray or something similar?

One should not have kids if one is not ready to take the responsibility... It's the same for men & women. If you find a good partner, you will get much further than you can on your own... because with a good partner, you complement each other, what you don't have, she have and vice versa.

I must add, it's like gambling... this choice requires luck, perhaps much greater than when gambling. In gambling, if we are not lucky, we can lose some money (we can always earn more somehow), but if we make a wrong choice with a partner (without luck), we fuck up our entire life and the lives of others involved... an error that cannot be corrected/repaired/compensated (there is no reset button ). Hard truth...

[ShowOff]

-

Being DINKWAD is a life choice and is no one to judge someone who does not want a child and would rather spend their time raising pets or do something less restrictive in their life. Nevertheless, when large numbers of people in a country follow this lifestyle, then there is likely to be impact on the population growth and may slow down economic growth over the long term. Countries such as Japan and South Korea already experience aging populations and decreasing birth rates, which can cause problems to both labor supply and the social system. Immigration and foreign workers can contribute at the same time, but it is not the ideal solution. It is the compromise between the choice of individuals, as well as national demographics.

Yes, we have nothing to say to the dinkwads who have decided it because that's their lives to live of and that's what they're available to raise and they understand how tough life is when raising kids. And for the countries who have a lot of aging people, they're accepting more immigrants for their economy to keep up. But we can't also guarantee that they'll be treated fairly because that's where the inequality comes based on the society that they're living. Even if we praise these countries to be a good and first world countries, the racism that's done to immigrants can't be gone.

Developed countries will campaign for having children, and the state will provide free education, healthcare, and benefits for every family. On the other hand, developing countries will tend to campaign for better planning when deciding to have children, with one or two children being enough. Based on this reality, I think anyone can easily understand that the decision to have children is also heavily influenced by economic background and state encouragement.

Some families who are unprepared in many ways, including mentally, will tend to choose not to have children, and to avoid loneliness, they sometimes choose to raise pets instead. I think the choice to have children or not is situational, and for now, I see many people will tend to choose to have children.

[Zoomic]

...
If it is rich in having children and poor do not have children, it means that the world is unbalanced.
Example:
In the company there are 1000 employees who work mostly poor people, if the poor do not have children automatically the rich will die no one works, The rich child does not want to be a laborer or other person's employees, he thinks his parents are rich and vice versa so all of this hangs with each other.

If poor people stop breeding, there will be less competition in jobs and this will lead to better wages, thus better qol; plus you realize, you just said, poor people should continue to breed, so their children toil just as their parents did!? How bad that is?

Funny enough, the poor keeps breeding and will keep breeding more than the rich.
You know what? When the rich couples are bored, they go vacation and have fun;
But if the poor couple gets bored, they go have sex and make babies

[Cookdata]

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

If you are not ready to take full responsibility of any child, it doesn't make any sense to bring them to this world to suffer. I have had my own share of suffered to my standard and with the experience I have gotten, I don't want want to see my own children have such experiences, that's all I can say but if you have the money and you choose not have kids, I feel like you are as a human being yiu have cheated the nature no matter how you try so hard to justify it.

I have seen people that doesn't want to birth children yet they want to adopt and I don't support that. If you have made up your mind not to have kids, you don't deserve to have one unless you are not healthy to have one. People will push all sort of believe and motions for the society to suit their lives but will want to have what it takes to be part of what nature has made for us. You see people that says they are LGBT whatever and doesn't want kids and want to adopt one, why? Make it make sense.

[ejikeme24]

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

Sure, alot of people have decided not to have kids due to this reason. And sometimes I don't blame them for making such decision because I have seen a lot of kids been abused due the fact that their parents does not have all it takes to train them. You will see some kids hugging  different kind of things along the road, when their mate is in school learning. So I will advise that anyone that does not have all it takes to train up a child should not think of having one.

What about you?

Honestly I'm looking into having kids but first of all I really want to plan for it because everything is about planning because i want my kids to be in a better position which is why I'm struggling hard to put things in the right place before looking into that aspect.

[tygeade]

As long as people are good parents, their financial situation shouldn't matter at all. I have seen very poor single parents raise the greatest kids ever, I have seen two wealthy people who leave their kids to nanny's and go do whatever.

So financial situation doesn't matter at all, it all depends on being a good parent or not. Most people are good parents, because it's a natural instinct, we love our children, so we try our best, not that many people are bad parents. Of course bad parents do exist, we have seen and heard examples all around the world, it is not impossible. But I am talking about majority, like 80% of the world become good parents, so that means not all of them are rich, because not 80% of us are rich.

[viljy]

The OP's opinion seems too categorical to me. On the one hand, the OP is actually right. On the other hand, if most people thought the same way, then humanity would have died out long ago. In general, why is there such a dilemma that turns the birth and upbringing of children into a problem for the majority? This is a consequence of the catastrophic growth of inequality in society. In essence, rising inequality is beginning to limit population growth.

But if you look at it from the point of view of an individual, then rejecting heirs because they are expensive to raise is simply absurd. Then everything that this person has earned in his life will go to no one knows who. So he ended up earning money not even for his own children, but essentially for other people's children. Isn't that silly?

[Despairo]

If you are "well off yourself", then your partner should do what? Nothing except pleasing your desires? Just to please you &  take care of you in all ways because you provide money & shelter?

Probably some people wants that, but I'm not.

My mindset is like this, if there was no woman who support me during my process, then I make sure I will marry with woman which the value equal with me. If I'm well off, I will marry with well off woman or no marriage at all.

But if you look at it from the point of view of an individual, then rejecting heirs because they are expensive to raise is simply absurd. Then everything that this person has earned in his life will go to no one knows who. So he ended up earning money not even for his own children, but essentially for other people's children. Isn't that silly?

I don't think it's silly.

Just like the content I watch on Instagram "Plan A: Married by 28, have kids by 30, Plan B: Be That Cool Uncle".

I'm more happier to see my nephew or someone else kids appreciate my small gift instead of living with someone who can't be grateful even I've give 80% of my money and keep pushing to earn more, it's more or less like living in hell.

[bakasabo]

But if you look at it from the point of view of an individual, then rejecting heirs because they are expensive to raise is simply absurd. Then everything that this person has earned in his life will go to no one knows who. So he ended up earning money not even for his own children, but essentially for other people's children. Isn't that silly?

I don't think it's silly.

Just like the content I watch on Instagram "Plan A: Married by 28, have kids by 30, Plan B: Be That Cool Uncle".

I'm more happier to see my nephew or someone else kids appreciate my small gift instead of living with someone who can't be grateful even I've give 80% of my money and keep pushing to earn more, it's more or less like living in hell.

I think you have wrong perspective on children. Why would your child be grateful that you spend all money on him, if he dont understand what money and be grateful are until he hits some age? There are things you do in life, but nobody say you thank you for doing them, and I know that you dont stop doing them because of that. If you want to talk from money perspective, than children are like investment with expecting something in exchange or profit. Seems silly, but then food also is silly and absurd waste of money, as we eat, food is being digested, and we are hungry again. What a waste of money.

[libert19]

...

I have seen people that doesn't want to birth children yet they want to adopt and I don't support that.

I like adoptions tbh, if there is already a baby that could be taken care off, might as well decide to take care of it instead of creating one's own. However, I also understand why people might not want to adopt and rather have kids of their own as I personally can't even imagine having feelings for adopted kid at all.

You see people that says they are LGBT whatever and doesn't want kids and want to adopt one, why? Make it make sense.

What? Are you asking me to give reasons why I ain't gonna have kid?

[justdimin]

You say people are egotistical and selfish to not have kids meanwhile at the start of your comment, you mention, having children was good idea so they could be used as working force — you realize how absurd that sounds?

Why absurd?

That was one of the main purposes people had lots of children in ancient times. People lived in countryside and needed abundant workforce to plant, gather and to feed the animals. There weren't automatic procedures to make it for them. Then within time, the number of children per family have been decreasing, until the point nowadays there are many people who don't even want to have a single child.

If it wasn't for this concept of family, probably those people would starve, unable to keep all the daily tasks completed. Then there wouldn't be anyone here today to claim how absurd that was...

That is sort of true, because farmers of the time, mostly did not even have enough kids staying alive. No matter how horrific that sounds, you have to remember medical world wasn't as improved as todays, and that meant a lot of people died at young age, the rate of people who didn't see even age 5, was insanely high. So they had to keep having children, enough so that they could grow up to help with the farm or whatever they were working on.

And even back then, even in those ancient times, people like senators, or whatever city job you had, didn't had that many kids, because they didn't need that many kids. Plus, protection wasn't as easy as today, so every time you be with your spouse, there was a chance of pregnancy, higher than today.

[Despairo]

I think you have wrong perspective on children. Why would your child be grateful that you spend all money on him, if he dont understand what money and be grateful are until he hits some age? There are things you do in life, but nobody say you thank you for doing them, and I know that you dont stop doing them because of that.

I realize that my reply was off topic, that post was intended for my partner, not my child.

You're correct, I won't complain if my child didn't show a gratitude because they're still young and don't understand about money at all. It just probably I would be angry if I've sent them to private school and pay the expensive tuition, but I hear them saying 1 + 1 = 3, 1 + 2 = 5 and so on.

If you want to talk from money perspective, than children are like investment with expecting something in exchange or profit.

Even though I see most thing in money perspective, but I didn't see child was like investment. What I want is my child married with well off partner.

Seems silly, but then food also is silly and absurd waste of money, as we eat, food is being digested, and we are hungry again. What a waste of money.

Are you serious? food is important.

You have to eat enough protein, veggies, and fruits, you can't compare it with cheap food with high carbs.

I don't see it wasting money as long as you not eating in luxury restaurant.

[bakasabo]

I think you have wrong perspective on children. Why would your child be grateful that you spend all money on him, if he dont understand what money and be grateful are until he hits some age? There are things you do in life, but nobody say you thank you for doing them, and I know that you dont stop doing them because of that.

I realize that my reply was off topic, that post was intended for my partner, not my child.

You're correct, I won't complain if my child didn't show a gratitude because they're still young and don't understand about money at all. It just probably I would be angry if I've sent them to private school and pay the expensive tuition, but I hear them saying 1 + 1 = 3, 1 + 2 = 5 and so on.

If you want to talk from money perspective, than children are like investment with expecting something in exchange or profit.

Even though I see most thing in money perspective, but I didn't see child was like investment. What I want is my child married with well off partner.

Seems silly, but then food also is silly and absurd waste of money, as we eat, food is being digested, and we are hungry again. What a waste of money.

Are you serious? food is important.

You have to eat enough protein, veggies, and fruits, you can't compare it with cheap food with high carbs.

I don't see it wasting money as long as you not eating in luxury restaurant.

I think I have got your post wrong. I understood it as following: a child is something you spend money on, but get nothing in return; no thank you, no potential profit. Many in this topic see it like this actually. You spend now, but not sure what you get in future. People think that if they spend a lot of money on child now, when child turn 18, he will leave them, forget to support when parents becomes old and retire. Some dont plan children, because they think they can afford expenses (but they never though about cutting expenses on themselves to have a bigger budget for a child).

[Zackz5000]

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

Economy situations are never permanent one might be struggling now and enjoy in the future economy hardship shouldn't prevent one of not having kids if you can comfortably take care of one kid at the moment you stike with it if it's just 2 kids you keep on with it and gave birth to more when things changes for good, you might regret not having at all because at old age you will need one who will take care of you too sometimes children bring blessings to their family some persons life change when they start having kids.

[Dareo]

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

Economy situations are never permanent one might be struggling now and enjoy in the future economy hardship shouldn't prevent one of not having kids if you can comfortably take care of one kid at the moment you stike with it if it's just 2 kids you keep on with it and gave birth to more when things changes for good, you might regret not having at all because at old age you will need one who will take care of you too sometimes children bring blessings to their family some persons life change when they start having kids.

Not having kids until you are, in other words, well off is a trap. Life is uncertain economy, health and circumstances all can vary in a twitch of an eye. If you are comfortable with one child at present, have it. Waiting until you feel you could do three or four is not a good idea; that much-desired right moment may never happen. Children add responsibility, insight and sometimes blessed surprises to your life. You may be sorry you never had any. Financial planning issues, yes, however in overthinking them you can lose more than a few dollars you can lose a family and life experiences.

[bakasabo]

Sure enough raising a child is expensive, and as child grows up, expenses increases, but that isnt as expensive as most think. It it was, then only rich people would have kids and we would have a huge disbalance in population and in job sector. Many people cant admit, that they are not ready or dont want to sacrifice free time and cut expenses on themselves, and dedicate all that to a child. Simply saying, people dont want to change.

[Curious T]

I disagree with the premise of the question. The economy should be fairly secondary when considering having children, unless we are talking about extreme cases. I see many people in developed countries who do not have children or postpone having them indefinitely because they have to go on trips to upload photos to Instagram. It is better to be clear about the unity of the couple, the common life project, and if you have limited resources, you will manage. That is how it has always been done. Another thing is that if you have limited resources, do not be foolish and have 10 children; take precautions.

As someone who is from an underdeveloped country, you can't place the economy as secondary when talking about having kids. It's part of the most important things. In an economy like mine, you have to have different streams of income or a very large income if you're going to have a kid, because the government won't help you in any way. No free education at any level, inflation continuously on the rise, you have to find ways to provide your own electricity and other basic things the government should be providing for you, like water. You also have to consider the security. How safe will that child be? Will he be safe enough to and from school unharmed? each day? If you can't guarantee these things, I don't think you should have a child.