Growing share of childless adults in U.S. don’t expect to ever have children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think about, purely from a financial perspective, I am doing way, way worse than my friends who did not have kids (chosen not to or just couldn't because of biology, relationships, circumstances, etc).

It is an interesting thing to see right now since I'm in the thick of it, but US society doesn't encourage having children. If anything, there are economic disincentives built into the economy. No paid leave after having a child, an expensive childcare framework that is regulated to high hell by the government (for safety reasons, is unquestionably a good thing) with no financial support of the government (which people endless dispute as to whether it is shitty or not). Tax benefits are minimal. College savings programs aren't deductible federally and student loan interest is subject to income limits that drive people out of being able to take the deductions. Factor in the caps on SALT deductions (local property taxes pay for schools and surprise, the federal government DOESN'T want to encourage this I guess) and well...here we are.

This. We have policies that do not encourage having children. And we tell people that no one else should have to pay for their kids, and if you want kids, it's an individual lifestyle choice and you shouldn't expect anyone to help you. So, now that there is less social pressure to have kids (especially on women), I don't know why we'd be surprised that a lot of people aren't planning to have kids. We've basically said that having kids is only for rich people with a lot of support -- so people who aren't that are saying, "Okay."

I have well off friends in Canada who got paid for either six or 12 months of staying home after they had their kids (can't remember which). They went on some big trip during that time. It made having kids look so much more appealing than what I see here in the US - a measly few weeks of leave, all that time spent messy and depressed with no help unless you get super lucky and are rich enough for a nanny or have involved grandparents. Then there's daycare, endless sports, impossible to pay for college, etc.

I am 48 and chose not to have kids. I couldn't fathom how I'd ever ever ever realistically make it work. If I'd really wanted them I could have - my sibling has two, and we're similar enough that at least I have that model to go on - but it just seems to effing hard.

I’m Canadian, living in Toronto. The key words in your comment are “well off”. Yes, overall our policies are better, but having children is still very difficult for those who aren’t wealthy.

I'm sure it is - Canada is expensive, too! I was just blown away by what they were able to do during their state-sanctioned family time. It sure looked like the opposite of the grind I see in the US.

Living in Canada does not mean that you get paid to stay home when you or your spouse gives birth. It is entirely dependent on your career, if you’re lucky enough to have one. And your friends were able to take a trip because they had a lot of money.
Your example is nothing like the experience of 99 percent of Canadian parents.

+1 I'm so tired of this board posting baseless facts about benefits abroad and skipping some rather salient points.

You don't get paid for 12 months of leave in Canada. You are entitled to four months of paid leave at a maximum of $400/wk - up to 55% of your salary (USD to CAD). After that you're on your own.

Similarly in the U.K. - you get six weeks of maternity benefits at 70% of full pay. Every week after that is a maximum of $150/wk (USD to GBP) up until 50-ish week or so.

Translation - if you can't survive on a payout of $400/month in the UK and nothing past the first four months of $1,600/month in Canada, you don't get to take a year off. Especially considering the high cost of living in Canada.

This. It’s so incredibly misleading how parental leave is reported in news articles. There is never any mention of limits on the pay. The average American truly thinks someone in the UK earns their entire $80,000 salary for 12 months

Almost all European countries have a cap as to how much you can earn and it’s usually pretty similar to what an unemployment benefit would be here in the US ($300-400 a week).

In the US, most women (over 75%) have access to short term disability, which is usually 80% of pay. In terms of dollar amounts, most European countries aren’t paying much more out in leave. Women do have the option to stay home later but they usually aren’t receiving their full salary or anything close to it

Source for 75% of American women having access to short-term disability? I've always seen numbers under 50% for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think about, purely from a financial perspective, I am doing way, way worse than my friends who did not have kids (chosen not to or just couldn't because of biology, relationships, circumstances, etc).

It is an interesting thing to see right now since I'm in the thick of it, but US society doesn't encourage having children. If anything, there are economic disincentives built into the economy. No paid leave after having a child, an expensive childcare framework that is regulated to high hell by the government (for safety reasons, is unquestionably a good thing) with no financial support of the government (which people endless dispute as to whether it is shitty or not). Tax benefits are minimal. College savings programs aren't deductible federally and student loan interest is subject to income limits that drive people out of being able to take the deductions. Factor in the caps on SALT deductions (local property taxes pay for schools and surprise, the federal government DOESN'T want to encourage this I guess) and well...here we are.

This. We have policies that do not encourage having children. And we tell people that no one else should have to pay for their kids, and if you want kids, it's an individual lifestyle choice and you shouldn't expect anyone to help you. So, now that there is less social pressure to have kids (especially on women), I don't know why we'd be surprised that a lot of people aren't planning to have kids. We've basically said that having kids is only for rich people with a lot of support -- so people who aren't that are saying, "Okay."

I have well off friends in Canada who got paid for either six or 12 months of staying home after they had their kids (can't remember which). They went on some big trip during that time. It made having kids look so much more appealing than what I see here in the US - a measly few weeks of leave, all that time spent messy and depressed with no help unless you get super lucky and are rich enough for a nanny or have involved grandparents. Then there's daycare, endless sports, impossible to pay for college, etc.

I am 48 and chose not to have kids. I couldn't fathom how I'd ever ever ever realistically make it work. If I'd really wanted them I could have - my sibling has two, and we're similar enough that at least I have that model to go on - but it just seems to effing hard.

I’m Canadian, living in Toronto. The key words in your comment are “well off”. Yes, overall our policies are better, but having children is still very difficult for those who aren’t wealthy.

I'm sure it is - Canada is expensive, too! I was just blown away by what they were able to do during their state-sanctioned family time. It sure looked like the opposite of the grind I see in the US.

Living in Canada does not mean that you get paid to stay home when you or your spouse gives birth. It is entirely dependent on your career, if you’re lucky enough to have one. And your friends were able to take a trip because they had a lot of money.
Your example is nothing like the experience of 99 percent of Canadian parents.

+1 I'm so tired of this board posting baseless facts about benefits abroad and skipping some rather salient points.

You don't get paid for 12 months of leave in Canada. You are entitled to four months of paid leave at a maximum of $400/wk - up to 55% of your salary (USD to CAD). After that you're on your own.

Similarly in the U.K. - you get six weeks of maternity benefits at 70% of full pay. Every week after that is a maximum of $150/wk (USD to GBP) up until 50-ish week or so.

Translation - if you can't survive on a payout of $400/month in the UK and nothing past the first four months of $1,600/month in Canada, you don't get to take a year off. Especially considering the high cost of living in Canada.

This. It’s so incredibly misleading how parental leave is reported in news articles. There is never any mention of limits on the pay. The average American truly thinks someone in the UK earns their entire $80,000 salary for 12 months

Almost all European countries have a cap as to how much you can earn and it’s usually pretty similar to what an unemployment benefit would be here in the US ($300-400 a week).

In the US, most women (over 75%) have access to short term disability, which is usually 80% of pay. In terms of dollar amounts, most European countries aren’t paying much more out in leave. Women do have the option to stay home later but they usually aren’t receiving their full salary or anything close to it

Source for 75% of American women having access to short-term disability? I've always seen numbers under 50% for that.

This article says 78% of employers but doesn’t define employers

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/31/your-most-valuable-workplace-benefit-may-be-the-most-overlooked.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think about, purely from a financial perspective, I am doing way, way worse than my friends who did not have kids (chosen not to or just couldn't because of biology, relationships, circumstances, etc).

It is an interesting thing to see right now since I'm in the thick of it, but US society doesn't encourage having children. If anything, there are economic disincentives built into the economy. No paid leave after having a child, an expensive childcare framework that is regulated to high hell by the government (for safety reasons, is unquestionably a good thing) with no financial support of the government (which people endless dispute as to whether it is shitty or not). Tax benefits are minimal. College savings programs aren't deductible federally and student loan interest is subject to income limits that drive people out of being able to take the deductions. Factor in the caps on SALT deductions (local property taxes pay for schools and surprise, the federal government DOESN'T want to encourage this I guess) and well...here we are.

This. We have policies that do not encourage having children. And we tell people that no one else should have to pay for their kids, and if you want kids, it's an individual lifestyle choice and you shouldn't expect anyone to help you. So, now that there is less social pressure to have kids (especially on women), I don't know why we'd be surprised that a lot of people aren't planning to have kids. We've basically said that having kids is only for rich people with a lot of support -- so people who aren't that are saying, "Okay."

I have well off friends in Canada who got paid for either six or 12 months of staying home after they had their kids (can't remember which). They went on some big trip during that time. It made having kids look so much more appealing than what I see here in the US - a measly few weeks of leave, all that time spent messy and depressed with no help unless you get super lucky and are rich enough for a nanny or have involved grandparents. Then there's daycare, endless sports, impossible to pay for college, etc.

I am 48 and chose not to have kids. I couldn't fathom how I'd ever ever ever realistically make it work. If I'd really wanted them I could have - my sibling has two, and we're similar enough that at least I have that model to go on - but it just seems to effing hard.

I’m Canadian, living in Toronto. The key words in your comment are “well off”. Yes, overall our policies are better, but having children is still very difficult for those who aren’t wealthy.

I'm sure it is - Canada is expensive, too! I was just blown away by what they were able to do during their state-sanctioned family time. It sure looked like the opposite of the grind I see in the US.

Living in Canada does not mean that you get paid to stay home when you or your spouse gives birth. It is entirely dependent on your career, if you’re lucky enough to have one. And your friends were able to take a trip because they had a lot of money.
Your example is nothing like the experience of 99 percent of Canadian parents.

+1 I'm so tired of this board posting baseless facts about benefits abroad and skipping some rather salient points.

You don't get paid for 12 months of leave in Canada. You are entitled to four months of paid leave at a maximum of $400/wk - up to 55% of your salary (USD to CAD). After that you're on your own.

Similarly in the U.K. - you get six weeks of maternity benefits at 70% of full pay. Every week after that is a maximum of $150/wk (USD to GBP) up until 50-ish week or so.

Translation - if you can't survive on a payout of $400/month in the UK and nothing past the first four months of $1,600/month in Canada, you don't get to take a year off. Especially considering the high cost of living in Canada.

This. It’s so incredibly misleading how parental leave is reported in news articles. There is never any mention of limits on the pay. The average American truly thinks someone in the UK earns their entire $80,000 salary for 12 months

Almost all European countries have a cap as to how much you can earn and it’s usually pretty similar to what an unemployment benefit would be here in the US ($300-400 a week).

In the US, most women (over 75%) have access to short term disability, which is usually 80% of pay. In terms of dollar amounts, most European countries aren’t paying much more out in leave. Women do have the option to stay home later but they usually aren’t receiving their full salary or anything close to it

This. Go and google about Swedish parental leave. You’ll find pages of positive articles about the 420 days of leave, splitting between the couple, etc.

Every article seems to note the 80% of salary up to a cap, but fails to mention the cap.

If you look very hard, you can start to uncover what the cap is. For one part of the benefit, it’s equivalent to $28 dollars a day. For another, it’s around $110 a day. I assume this is based on working days (?) so it looks like the cap would be around $2,000 a month. Hey, that’s great but I’m not interested in trying to live in Sweden on $2,000 a month. That’s like trying to live in the US on $1,000 a month. Yes it’s better than $0 but it’s also hardly the benefit that the news articles make you think you’d receive (80% of salary for 420 days!!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wanted children. But a larger and larger number of us can't afford either IVF or adoption and to make a good like for the child once they are here.

So when I couldn't get pregnant naturally, I have up entirely. Had I lived in an area where it was easier to adopt from foster care, I might have done that.

I can certainly see where, in a time if limiting reproductive rights, more younger people would chose to get sterilized or have a vasectomy at an earlier and earlier age. That way, no unhappy surprises they can't afford to pay for.

Ivf could be next on the chopping block with abortion. They are flip sides of the same coin.

+1 Freezing eggs too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how much garbage gets generated by a single person? The less people there are, the better. The world is overpopulated.

I wanted to be a mother, however I did not want to contribute to an already overpopulated world. I chose to adopt a child that needed a forever home, and I did not adopt an infant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think about, purely from a financial perspective, I am doing way, way worse than my friends who did not have kids (chosen not to or just couldn't because of biology, relationships, circumstances, etc).

It is an interesting thing to see right now since I'm in the thick of it, but US society doesn't encourage having children. If anything, there are economic disincentives built into the economy. No paid leave after having a child, an expensive childcare framework that is regulated to high hell by the government (for safety reasons, is unquestionably a good thing) with no financial support of the government (which people endless dispute as to whether it is shitty or not). Tax benefits are minimal. College savings programs aren't deductible federally and student loan interest is subject to income limits that drive people out of being able to take the deductions. Factor in the caps on SALT deductions (local property taxes pay for schools and surprise, the federal government DOESN'T want to encourage this I guess) and well...here we are.

This. We have policies that do not encourage having children. And we tell people that no one else should have to pay for their kids, and if you want kids, it's an individual lifestyle choice and you shouldn't expect anyone to help you. So, now that there is less social pressure to have kids (especially on women), I don't know why we'd be surprised that a lot of people aren't planning to have kids. We've basically said that having kids is only for rich people with a lot of support -- so people who aren't that are saying, "Okay."

I have well off friends in Canada who got paid for either six or 12 months of staying home after they had their kids (can't remember which). They went on some big trip during that time. It made having kids look so much more appealing than what I see here in the US - a measly few weeks of leave, all that time spent messy and depressed with no help unless you get super lucky and are rich enough for a nanny or have involved grandparents. Then there's daycare, endless sports, impossible to pay for college, etc.

I am 48 and chose not to have kids. I couldn't fathom how I'd ever ever ever realistically make it work. If I'd really wanted them I could have - my sibling has two, and we're similar enough that at least I have that model to go on - but it just seems to effing hard.

I’m Canadian, living in Toronto. The key words in your comment are “well off”. Yes, overall our policies are better, but having children is still very difficult for those who aren’t wealthy.

I'm sure it is - Canada is expensive, too! I was just blown away by what they were able to do during their state-sanctioned family time. It sure looked like the opposite of the grind I see in the US.

Living in Canada does not mean that you get paid to stay home when you or your spouse gives birth. It is entirely dependent on your career, if you’re lucky enough to have one. And your friends were able to take a trip because they had a lot of money.
Your example is nothing like the experience of 99 percent of Canadian parents.

Sorry, I realize how ignorant that was. I relied on their mother - a friend of my mom's - who told me that they got all this because Canada's so great. I didn't look into it more. They are academics so I'm sure their lives have loads of benefits and flexibility not available to most people.

It was dumb to post. I apologize. Having kids is hard all around, I'm sure - looked so hard to me I didn't have any.

[Anonymous]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/anti-abortion-grant-rights-embryos-limit-ivf-2019-12%3famp

This was two years ago. Just think what will happen once Roe v. Wade is overturned by this court.

[Anonymous]

I love my kids but I wouldn’t have them today vs a decade ago. Things looked more hopeful then. Climate change, rise of authoritarians throughout the world, scarce resources, widening divisions in the US. Things look bleak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love my kids but I wouldn’t have them today vs a decade ago. Things looked more hopeful then. Climate change, rise of authoritarians throughout the world, scarce resources, widening divisions in the US. Things look bleak.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think about, purely from a financial perspective, I am doing way, way worse than my friends who did not have kids (chosen not to or just couldn't because of biology, relationships, circumstances, etc).

It is an interesting thing to see right now since I'm in the thick of it, but US society doesn't encourage having children. If anything, there are economic disincentives built into the economy. No paid leave after having a child, an expensive childcare framework that is regulated to high hell by the government (for safety reasons, is unquestionably a good thing) with no financial support of the government (which people endless dispute as to whether it is shitty or not). Tax benefits are minimal. College savings programs aren't deductible federally and student loan interest is subject to income limits that drive people out of being able to take the deductions. Factor in the caps on SALT deductions (local property taxes pay for schools and surprise, the federal government DOESN'T want to encourage this I guess) and well...here we are.

This. We have policies that do not encourage having children. And we tell people that no one else should have to pay for their kids, and if you want kids, it's an individual lifestyle choice and you shouldn't expect anyone to help you. So, now that there is less social pressure to have kids (especially on women), I don't know why we'd be surprised that a lot of people aren't planning to have kids. We've basically said that having kids is only for rich people with a lot of support -- so people who aren't that are saying, "Okay."

I have well off friends in Canada who got paid for either six or 12 months of staying home after they had their kids (can't remember which). They went on some big trip during that time. It made having kids look so much more appealing than what I see here in the US - a measly few weeks of leave, all that time spent messy and depressed with no help unless you get super lucky and are rich enough for a nanny or have involved grandparents. Then there's daycare, endless sports, impossible to pay for college, etc.

I am 48 and chose not to have kids. I couldn't fathom how I'd ever ever ever realistically make it work. If I'd really wanted them I could have - my sibling has two, and we're similar enough that at least I have that model to go on - but it just seems to effing hard.

I’m Canadian, living in Toronto. The key words in your comment are “well off”. Yes, overall our policies are better, but having children is still very difficult for those who aren’t wealthy.

I'm sure it is - Canada is expensive, too! I was just blown away by what they were able to do during their state-sanctioned family time. It sure looked like the opposite of the grind I see in the US.

Living in Canada does not mean that you get paid to stay home when you or your spouse gives birth. It is entirely dependent on your career, if you’re lucky enough to have one. And your friends were able to take a trip because they had a lot of money.
Your example is nothing like the experience of 99 percent of Canadian parents.

Sorry, I realize how ignorant that was. I relied on their mother - a friend of my mom's - who told me that they got all this because Canada's so great. I didn't look into it more. They are academics so I'm sure their lives have loads of benefits and flexibility not available to most people.

It was dumb to post. I apologize. Having kids is hard all around, I'm sure - looked so hard to me I didn't have any.

It wasn’t dumb to post or ignorant! Europeans are frequently misleading about their long paid leaves and what paid actually means. Paid leave in Europe is frequently advertised to Americans like it’s 100% for every single person and equal to one’s salary. Go and read some of the numerous articles lauding European paid leave policies and there is rarely a mention of the weekly or monthly caps.

My friends in Norway love to talk about their five weeks of paid vacation. They usually fail to mention that it’s paid for out of their salary as a deduction. They aren’t paid for 52 weeks + 5 weeks of paid leave like you would be here in the US if you receive five weeks of leave. Instead, you pay for the five weeks yourself over the course of the calendar year via a deduction.

[Anonymous]

I think it is because women and men are more lazy. I say that as my mother in law and father in law both with HS degrees had there kids.

My father in law after first took a part time job 20 hours a week after his full time job, they both a single failing house with two “boarders” in house in upstairs of cape. They rented rooms. They never went out to eat and mom went back to work when youngest turned 12.

Today most men would not get a second job, take in a boarder or skip luxuries a few years so wife could stay home and have three kids. They just whine and watch Netflix and play fortnight whine they hire gardeners, gutter cleaners. and handymen to do their work whine their wife struggles to work full time and raise kids. No wonder women are pushing back.

[Anonymous]

Not surprising given that most people who never wanted kids use the environment and climate as their reason. I mean, it sounds better than saying they don’t want kids because they don’t like them or don’t want to take on the responsibility. It sounds altruistic when you blame global warming while patting yourself on the back for shrinking your carbon/waste footprint.

There’s nothing wrong with not wanting kids btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising given that most people who never wanted kids use the environment and climate as their reason. I mean, it sounds better than saying they don’t want kids because they don’t like them or don’t want to take on the responsibility. It sounds altruistic when you blame global warming while patting yourself on the back for shrinking your carbon/waste footprint.

There’s nothing wrong with not wanting kids btw.

Oh please. Having kids is literally the most
Selfish thing you can go. Nobody needs your genes to be replicated. There are plenty of humans on earth.

[Anonymous]

Wish I had thought of this. I am over the assh*les telling me I shouldn’t have had kids if I couldn’t take care of them as if I could anticipate the pandemic where I would have no child care or family support. I am over schools totally abandoning any pretense of education and society totally screwing parents with zero leave ( I have a cushy 6 figure job and was expected to be back to work essentially right after birth, others have it worse.). I’m over my boomer parents who drive 2 giant SUVs, jet set and tell me the fact that their Florida home being underwater in 25 years because they will be dead by then.

Honestly it isn’t worth it. I’ll support this decision for others and yes, bonus for the planet, though I’ll be dead before it matters too I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean women aren’t signing up to marry spoiled, entitled assholes and then get penalized financially, health-wise, and career-wise for having children? Gee, I wonder why.

Honestly, there’s no good reason to have one child, let alone children.