Do you think DINKs are the future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

It IS affordable. Especially compared to other western countries. Americans have one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

For whatever reason, younger generations resent spending their income on housing, food etc. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to be spending it on. Not luxury vacations, dog walkers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are now DINKS, wanted to have children but couldn't naturally, so stopped trying medical intervention when it all became too much.

In our 50s now and a number of friends from high school and college are in the same boat. A few have adopted, but like us, most have not.

Not everyone is rabidly "child free" and for most of us it's just how things turned out, even when we wanted otherwise. No one wants to hear that, because it's and downer which means that they too might not get a "rainbow baby."

Agree with this. Most of the people I know without kids are single or divorced. I do know a number of married couples without kids, and for three I can think of, it was an affirmative choice (which they shared with me). But I also know a bunch of people who got married in their late 30s or early 40s and either experienced infertility or decided that they were past the age when they wanted to have kids. This is different than not wanting kids at all -- I think many of them might have had kids if they'd found their partners earlier. But with careers and moves and challenges with dating, sometimes you don't.

I married at 34 (spouse was 36) and we had a baby when I was 37 (spouse was 39). We've talked about how if our timeline had been pushed back even one year, we probably wouldn't have had a kid. We are really glad we did, but it's interesting how small shifts in timing can make a difference. Now that people are marrying later, I think this is a factor. When most people got married in their 20s, I think the assumption was that most people would have kids and if they didn't it was considered weird. Now that more people get married in their 30s or even 40s, you just can't assume that kids are even a feasible option for every married couple.

I think this is a really good point. The pandemic upended our lives right when we were going to try for a second kid. Most of our friends are one and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

Ok, but deal with your trauma bc your aggressive posturing is rooted in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

It IS affordable. Especially compared to other western countries. Americans have one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

For whatever reason, younger generations resent spending their income on housing, food etc. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to be spending it on. Not luxury vacations, dog walkers, etc.

Look…no 1st world country has a birthrate that supports growing the country, so unclear what the “answer” may be.

Norway has free everything…childcare, healthcare, college and a birth rate of 1.48 kids. Now groceries, restaurants, etc are very expensive.

Korea has a great “education” although if going to school for 6 hours and then going to cram school for 6 hours is how you want to define great…well their birth rate is 0.72

The US at 1.64 is actually probably still the highest of the 1st world countries.

It’s really African countries with high birth rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

So it's all about money and sleeping in until 10am? OK.

One of the more immature responses.

Who are your friends?? Opioid addict, bank robbing, teen pregnancies??

Kids will help you get ahead in life more than you think. Since having kids my income has gone up immensely. I work in a service based business and people love that I have kids. Most of my client convos are about my kids. Referrals come in a lot more regularly.

Grow your income and have kids. Life isn't about going to Chiang Mai and sleeping until 10. Our country is so F'ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

So it's all about money and sleeping in until 10am? OK.

One of the more immature responses.

Who are your friends?? Opioid addict, bank robbing, teen pregnancies??

Kids will help you get ahead in life more than you think. Since having kids my income has gone up immensely. I work in a service based business and people love that I have kids. Most of my client convos are about my kids. Referrals come in a lot more regularly.

Grow your income and have kids. Life isn't about going to Chiang Mai and sleeping until 10. Our country is so F'ed.

It’s not about money? In the finance forum? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

Hey I agree.

But population growth basically depends on forcing women to have kids and complete vast amounts of unpaid labor.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see forced childbirth (like a required quota) a few decades down the line. It will depend on how successful the current tend towards fascism is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

Perspectives like this are the problem. This is just sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

Geez...I have no problem with your decision, but who do you hang out with that you know all these derelict kids? Where are you from/do you live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

So it's all about money and sleeping in until 10am? OK.

One of the more immature responses.

Who are your friends?? Opioid addict, bank robbing, teen pregnancies??

Kids will help you get ahead in life more than you think. Since having kids my income has gone up immensely. I work in a service based business and people love that I have kids. Most of my client convos are about my kids. Referrals come in a lot more regularly.

Grow your income and have kids. Life isn't about going to Chiang Mai and sleeping until 10. Our country is so F'ed.

It’s not about money? In the finance forum? Really?

Blaming money to not have kids is a sell out answer..particularly if you already own a home, max our 401ks, etc.

Word of advice..as a grown adult you shouldn't be bragging about sleeping in until 10am on the weekends...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of SINKs. Mostly women. In my family out of ten cousins, three are single women without kids. At work, there are several women in their 30's and 40's who are single without kids.

Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are millennial DINKs. Couldn't be happier. Own a home. Max out retirement accounts. Take multiple trips per year. Have very little debt except a mortgage. Sleep until 10 AM on the weekends.

Kids ruin everything. I paid $85k off in student loans. I will absolutely NEVER pay another college bill again in my life. F that. Then they gouge the crap outta you for $3000-4000 per mo for childcare. Ridiculous. There's also no guarantee your kid won't turn out to be a F up even if you raise them right. I know so many kids raised in good homes who ended up becoming opioid addicts, so one robbed a bank, and others popping out kids out of wedlock by the time they're 21. The worst ones are kids who get into serious trouble and the parents blow their entire life's savings on legal fees or rehab to save their precious little Hunter or Emily.

Nope, nope, nope. Finally getting ahead in life because of no kids.

Most Millennial post ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

It IS affordable. Especially compared to other western countries. Americans have one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

For whatever reason, younger generations resent spending their income on housing, food etc. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to be spending it on. Not luxury vacations, dog walkers, etc.

Look…no 1st world country has a birthrate that supports growing the country, so unclear what the “answer” may be.

Norway has free everything…childcare, healthcare, college and a birth rate of 1.48 kids. Now groceries, restaurants, etc are very expensive.

Korea has a great “education” although if going to school for 6 hours and then going to cram school for 6 hours is how you want to define great…well their birth rate is 0.72

The US at 1.64 is actually probably still the highest of the 1st world countries.

It’s really African countries with high birth rates.

I mean, what do I know, but it seems like lowering the number of people overall in the world - but allowing more migration/immigration - is probably a pretty good balance. Consume fewer resources overall but allow people to go with they have the most economic opportunity. Then see how things balance out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids. If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?

It IS affordable. Especially compared to other western countries. Americans have one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

For whatever reason, younger generations resent spending their income on housing, food etc. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to be spending it on. Not luxury vacations, dog walkers, etc.

Look…no 1st world country has a birthrate that supports growing the country, so unclear what the “answer” may be.

Norway has free everything…childcare, healthcare, college and a birth rate of 1.48 kids. Now groceries, restaurants, etc are very expensive.

Korea has a great “education” although if going to school for 6 hours and then going to cram school for 6 hours is how you want to define great…well their birth rate is 0.72

The US at 1.64 is actually probably still the highest of the 1st world countries.

It’s really African countries with high birth rates.

I mean, what do I know, but it seems like lowering the number of people overall in the world - but allowing more migration/immigration - is probably a pretty good balance. Consume fewer resources overall but allow people to go with they have the most economic opportunity. Then see how things balance out.

This is the dirty little secret that gets lost in politics...more people = growing GDP. It doesn't matter how you get the people, whether through natural birth or immigration.

Immigration actually fuels GDP growth in the US compared to other 1st world countries.