Do you think DINKs are the future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If so, I am optimistic that this will result in the added bonus of diminishing their progressive political ideaology since the couples who will likely opt into continuing to reproduce will trend conservative.

It's a dynamic equilibrium.

Conservatives create more conservatives by birthing them, and then create progressives by raising them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can DINKs be the future? Once we reach negative population growth, we wind up with massive economic problems. It doesn't work. Our whole society depends on the idea of there always being a replacement workforce (who will pay taxes and take care of the elderly) coming up.

I don't care if any individual person has kids or not, and I myself decided to only have one so my spouse and I didn't even reach replacement level. But the idea that "the future" is people just choosing not to have kids is crazy because that future would be extremely short lived and ultimately really unpleasant.

This a Malthusian pre-industrial myth.

Growing population creates poverty because people need to eat, so the elites owners of capital can make them compete for subsistence wages.

Yes, fewer children means fewer young people for old people to rob. That problem fixes itself in one generation, as the number of old people shrinks.

[Anonymous]

Women have seemed to crave children biologically for millennia. Has that really changed, statistically?

Personal preferences of women not yet premenopausal are less relevant than those of women who've been through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my nieces in their 30's and married do not want kids. They have beautiful homes, travel, workout and like their lifestyle.

Rich people are interesting but not statistically relevant for overall population trends.

Very rich men have lots of kids with many poorer women.

Poor people (the majority) don't have fancy houses and vacations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think DINKS are now. Less than 40% of my friends from college have kids and we are 40-47. Those who don’t already have them are committed to the DINK life. I say good for them! Parenting is not for everyone.

I'm 45 and almost all of my friends from high school and college have kids. The only one who doesn't had infertility.

[Anonymous]

I am 46 and a DINK. Almost all my friends are DINKs as well, but this is more common in NYC than many other parts of the country, for various reasons--people have really big jobs, the cost of living is expensive, and "alternative lifestyles" (horrid term), i.e., anything other than the 2 kid, white picket fence setup, are simply more accepted here.

I think DINK-hood will become more common as the safety net weakens, housing remains scarce and expensive, and the transfer of wealth to a small percentage of Americans continues and even intensifies. But I don't think that we are "the future" because how can we be, as our line ends with us? I don't say this in a bad way, just being realistic. I'm happy with my choice. But my nieces and nephew are the future.

[Anonymous]

I definitely think the "trend" is going. Many people (generally women) are realizing they don't have to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. They want to contribute and make money and travel and make the world a better place.

There will always be people popping out kids like no tomorrow. If more people decide not to, more power to them.

[Anonymous]

In my circle/family there are about 16 people, mostly men, in their late 30s and 40s with no children or even a partner. The other five have only 4 kids between them.
Several reason for the lack of kids:gay man, infertility, slight special needs, taking care of elderly family members.
Only one couple chooses to be DINKS as far as I know.
Expensive life probably has been consideration too, but this was not the case when they all started out. They probably postponed coupling up and then life got expensive even as a single person earning a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women have seemed to crave children biologically for millennia. Has that really changed, statistically?

Personal preferences of women not yet premenopausal are less relevant than those of women who've been through it.

Women didn't have reliable contraceptives for most of human history and mother hood was the only acceptable goal for women.

[Anonymous]

It's not just "people like us." The whole world is shifting to families with fewer or no kids.

What happens when the world's population stops going up?
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1167665.page

[Anonymous]

Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Now, women have options. Those who want kids can spend their time earning a living and tying to raise those kids to be good citizens. The childfree have more time to contribute to society in other ways. Everybody wins, the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I definitely think the "trend" is going. Many people (generally women) are realizing they don't have to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. They want to contribute and make money and travel and make the world a better place.

There will always be people popping out kids like no tomorrow. If more people decide not to, more power to them.

TBH, women have known this realization for decades now. The previous generation (x and boomer) did both, had amazing careers and had families. The millennials don’t want to make the trade offs, which I can understand. And yes power to them. As for your second statement, also true, but there will be a seismic demographic shift in one generation as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely think the "trend" is going. Many people (generally women) are realizing they don't have to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. They want to contribute and make money and travel and make the world a better place.

There will always be people popping out kids like no tomorrow. If more people decide not to, more power to them.

TBH, women have known this realization for decades now. The previous generation (x and boomer) did both, had amazing careers and had families. The millennials don’t want to make the trade offs, which I can understand. And yes power to them. As for your second statement, also true, but there will be a seismic demographic shift in one generation as a result.

"Decades" is still very new in the relative sense. My mom was born before she could she could get her own credit card, as a woman. How is someone who can't even pay for their own groceries, with their own money, not feel like they have to rely on a man and his whims for a family? I'm glad women are standing up and doing what they want, instead of caving to patriarchal/societal pressure. I'd really much prefer if only people who wanted children had them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely think the "trend" is going. Many people (generally women) are realizing they don't have to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. They want to contribute and make money and travel and make the world a better place.

There will always be people popping out kids like no tomorrow. If more people decide not to, more power to them.

TBH, women have known this realization for decades now. The previous generation (x and boomer) did both, had amazing careers and had families. The millennials don’t want to make the trade offs, which I can understand. And yes power to them. As for your second statement, also true, but there will be a seismic demographic shift in one generation as a result.

The duggars of the world havent overtaken us yet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can DINKs be the future? Once we reach negative population growth, we wind up with massive economic problems. It doesn't work. Our whole society depends on the idea of there always being a replacement workforce (who will pay taxes and take care of the elderly) coming up.

I don't care if any individual person has kids or not, and I myself decided to only have one so my spouse and I didn't even reach replacement level. But the idea that "the future" is people just choosing not to have kids is crazy because that future would be extremely short lived and ultimately really unpleasant.

This a Malthusian pre-industrial myth.

Growing population creates poverty because people need to eat, so the elites owners of capital can make them compete for subsistence wages.

Yes, fewer children means fewer young people for old people to rob. That problem fixes itself in one generation, as the number of old people shrinks.

This is so cute, because you are overlooking what the DINK lifestyle is and the way it relies heavily on capitalism and population/GDP growth in order to function.

The ideal of the DINK lifestyle is having two decent jobs, a home in a place with plenty to do (good restaurants, nightlife, parks, etc.), and the disposable income to not only enjoy those things but also to outsource the stuff you don't want to do. DINKs like their house cleaners, their meal kits, their dog walkers and sitters so they can travel and go out to dinner, yes? Also consumer goods -- TVs and computers and new furniture and fancy running shoes? Workout classes and food halls? Well all of that requires moderate population growth to support. You cannot have that lifestyle if suddenly everyone stops having kids. It would not "fix itself" in a generation. It would be a massive shift in way of life and not one that many current DINKs would enjoy. What if being a DINK meant having to do literally everything yourself because there's no workforce to outsource it to? What if many of the fields DINKs work in die because they rely on a large workforce of relatively cheap labor (i.e. young people and immigrants) to function? What happens when your dual-income shrinks because there aren't consulting jobs and Big Law jobs and non-profit jobs because those industries can't sustain themselves without either a larger low-level workforce OR a larger consumer base (or both?).

Also, if literally everyone became a DINK, the population would just die out. Do you know what population death would look like? The last 50 years of that would be painful and cruel. You want to live through that? Enjoy.

But okay, please entertain with your crack-pot pseudo-intellectual theories on capitalism (which I don't even like, I would support European style socialism which keeps the worst aspects of capitalism in check, but anyway). It's hilarious.