|
|
#21
09-18-2005, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Most of this thread is psychobabble, apparently by posters who are too young to have children. The basic facts are that children are icky and annoying, but until relatively recently in the history of humanity, they were necessary for their productive value. Children were cheap labor, either as farm labor in the family or apprenticed out to a trade, and they were the only available retirement program for people who grew too old to work and support themselves. And folks in the golden olden times had to have a bunch of them, because the little buggers tended to die off early due to childhood diseases, plagues, wars, etc. People today are having fewer kids, and having them later, because kids have evolved from necessities to luxuries. When you are young and struggling, you work and save for the necessities. When you have a career and some money, you go for the luxuries. A good car, then a nice home, a trendy dog, and then a kid or two. Preferably when you have enough money to hire a nanny for the ungrateful little bastards. [/ QUOTE ] I like this post since I am getting older and have no children. "Icky and annoying" and "ungrateful little bastards". Is this really true? I kinda hope so cause I really don't want kids, but my wife does. What about the "change your life (for the better)" and "greatest blessing" stuff I usually hear? [/ QUOTE ] Kids are high maintenence, both economically and emotionally, and you are the only one who can decide if they are worth the price to you. The economic costs are obvious. They are a black hole of time. If you want to be a good parent, figure on no free time for about 16 years. As to the rewards, talk to a friend/neighbor/coworker. They are cute for a year or so (so are puppies), they are a terror once they begin to think, they rebel against authority from about age 7 to 22, and they start to think that you might not be so dumb after about 25. The decision is easier if you already have a dog, as a basis of comparison. A kid takes up a lot more time, energy, and money than a dog, and returns much less loyalty and affection. You make the call. 
|
|
#22
09-19-2005, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
[ QUOTE ]
less people = better world do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] amen
|
|
#23
09-19-2005, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Most of this thread is psychobabble, apparently by posters who are too young to have children. The basic facts are that children are icky and annoying, but until relatively recently in the history of humanity, they were necessary for their productive value. Children were cheap labor, either as farm labor in the family or apprenticed out to a trade, and they were the only available retirement program for people who grew too old to work and support themselves. And folks in the golden olden times had to have a bunch of them, because the little buggers tended to die off early due to childhood diseases, plagues, wars, etc. People today are having fewer kids, and having them later, because kids have evolved from necessities to luxuries. When you are young and struggling, you work and save for the necessities. When you have a career and some money, you go for the luxuries. A good car, then a nice home, a trendy dog, and then a kid or two. Preferably when you have enough money to hire a nanny for the ungrateful little bastards. [/ QUOTE ] I like this post since I am getting older and have no children. "Icky and annoying" and "ungrateful little bastards". Is this really true? I kinda hope so cause I really don't want kids, but my wife does. What about the "change your life (for the better)" and "greatest blessing" stuff I usually hear [/ QUOTE ] Denial and a method of coping. Those people just want to lure you into their hell so that they won't have to suffer alone. I have no idea why a man would ever want to get his wife pregnant. She'll become a fat sack, the breast-feeding will make her boobs sag prematurely, and she'll stop giving you blowjobs because she'll be too tired from running after the little brat all day.
|
|
#24
09-19-2005, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
This article from Harvard Magazine makes some interesting points.
"Current low birthrates among highly educated women pose a challenge to the U.S. economy and may compound existing social problems, says David Ellwood, Black professor of political economy and dean of the Kennedy School of Government. As a result, the United States faces an imminent shortage of well-educated workers aged 25 to 54. That may mean lower productivity growth, less competitive U.S. companies, and even greater inequality between America's rich and poor." An interesting stat is that college-educated women are having only 1.6 children (not even enough for "replacement"), while those who don't finish high school are having 2.6 children (significant growth). -ptmusic
|
|
#25
09-19-2005, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most of this thread is psychobabble, apparently by posters who are too young to have children. The basic facts are that children are icky and annoying, but until relatively recently in the history of humanity, they were necessary for their productive value. Children were cheap labor, either as farm labor in the family or apprenticed out to a trade, and they were the only available retirement program for people who grew too old to work and support themselves. And folks in the golden olden times had to have a bunch of them, because the little buggers tended to die off early due to childhood diseases, plagues, wars, etc. People today are having fewer kids, and having them later, because kids have evolved from necessities to luxuries. When you are young and struggling, you work and save for the necessities. When you have a career and some money, you go for the luxuries. A good car, then a nice home, a trendy dog, and then a kid or two. Preferably when you have enough money to hire a nanny for the ungrateful little bastards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like this post since I am getting older and have no children. "Icky and annoying" and "ungrateful little bastards". Is this really true? I kinda hope so cause I really don't want kids, but my wife does. What about the "change your life (for the better)" and "greatest blessing" stuff I usually hear -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denial and a method of coping. Those people just want to lure you into their hell so that they won't have to suffer alone. I have no idea why a man would ever want to get his wife pregnant. She'll become a fat sack, the breast-feeding will make her boobs sag prematurely, and she'll stop giving you blowjobs because she'll be too tired from running after the little brat all day. you still get blowjobs?
|
|
#26
09-19-2005, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Social change and rising ages for having first child
[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty good reason, but I bet it goes beyond just economics. Even rich people aren't having as many kids, it has to be social as well. [/ QUOTE ] It has a lot to do with people just not wanting to take the time to have kids. If you think about it, once you have a kid, it's pretty much 18 years of baby sitting (not a parent, just what it looks like to me). And if you have more than one, you're talking 20 to 25 years of having your life revolve around other people. Sure kids are great and most people eventually want them, but a lot of people are just enjoying life and having fun for longer. I bet if you looked at the trend in the average age of marrage, you'll also see it's going up for the same reason.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
