Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since you mention it, Persians aren't having kids. They've had the most epic drop in fertility of any people ever, and it is thought that possibly more than 20% of their population is infertile.

"It is thought"? By whom?

Also, the reason the fertility drop is epic is because the fertility rate was previously so high.

By people who study the issue:
http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

Fascinating article. Thanks for posting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since you mention it, Persians aren't having kids. They've had the most epic drop in fertility of any people ever, and it is thought that possibly more than 20% of their population is infertile.

"It is thought"? By whom?

Also, the reason the fertility drop is epic is because the fertility rate was previously so high.

By people who study the issue:
http://www.meforum.org/5000/strategic-implications-iran-std

Anonymous wrote:I think you all are missing the point that American society is not kid friendly. Instead of encouraging people to have more kids, we either need to discourage the poor from having so many kids or make life easier on families. Or both.
-school day could match work days
-public preschool
-12 weeks of paid maternity leave, or at least 6 weeks.

The poor are not actually having "so many kids". In 2010, the average number of children per woman among women aged 40-44 with less than a high school education was about 2.7.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/lets-not-panic-over-women-with-more-education-having-fewer-kids/273070/

I think you all are missing the point that American society is not kid friendly. Instead of encouraging people to have more kids, we either need to discourage the poor from having so many kids or make life easier on families. Or both.
-school day could match work days
-public preschool
-12 weeks of paid maternity leave, or at least 6 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Since you mention it, Persians aren't having kids. They've had the most epic drop in fertility of any people ever, and it is thought that possibly more than 20% of their population is infertile.

"It is thought"? By whom?

Also, the reason the fertility drop is epic is because the fertility rate was previously so high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a pan-white sadness and gloominess going around that is causing whites everywhere around the globe to have sub-replacement birth rates?

It has more to do with wealth and standards of living. It's a well-established demographic fact that wealthy societies have lower birth rates (more kids survive to adulthood, not as many needed to help support the household).

Most "white" countries are developed and relatively wealthy with high SOLs. If by whatever accident of history most economic development and global colonization came out of, say, Iran, this thread might be titled "Why are Persians all around the world not having kids?"

Since you mention it, Persians aren't having kids. They've had the most epic drop in fertility of any people ever, and it is thought that possibly more than 20% of their population is infertile.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, have we diagnosed the issue in this area as selfish people who insist on having it all as our biggest reason why folks aren't having kids?

No. We have merely established that there are people who say that they don't have kids because they can't afford it, whereas what they actually mean is that they can't afford to have kids while maintaining the life they lead, and they would rather maintain the life they lead than cut back and have kids.

Which is fine. It's absolutely fine. There is no moral obligation to cut back and have kids. It doesn't make you a better person (or a worse person). It just makes you a person who would rather maintain the life you lead than cut back and have kids.

And in a better society, people would not be shamed (and called "selfish") for saying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people should only have kids if they want them. Truly. But acting as if it's common/normal to not want kids is disingenuous. Like every other species, we are biologically programmed to want kids. It's the biological norm, and our genetic fitness is 0 if we don't reproduce. So, no, I'm not buying that "most" people of any group don't want ANY kids.

But there are at least two groups of people who don't have children.

1. People who don't want children and don't have them
2. People who do want children but don't have them

New poster here. Fact is:

80 percent of american women have at least one child at some point in life.

Despite what they or anyone proclaims on the internet.

The 20 percent includes the childless (infertile, couldn't find a partner in time, etc) and the childfree (never wanted kids), and historically included many lesbians, though that last one is changing fast.

Albeit, many women are having kids later these days. That is the big demographic change.

It is just that the childfree segment of the 20 percent has become very vocal, and there are a lot of 22 year olds who think that they are part of the 20 percent but when they get older they join the 80 percent.

I will grant that, with childbirth delayed more and more, that 80 pct may drop as women miss the window despite wanting kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am 30 and know maybe 3 people who had a child at age 30 in this area. One had incredible financial support from family (bought them a house) and the other had to move from the city to the burbs into a family-owned condo. The third couple got pregnant on accident and the child had severe needs. They had to move way out into MD and the wife had to quit her job. They are barely getting by.

People means people. Not people in the DCUM demographic. People. All people.

We are talking about people in this area. It is expensive. Who cares what people in BFE do?

Thread title is "people all around the world". It includes people here, who have a low-but-not-zero number of kids, versus the people who have many kids.

Learn to read. The quoted poster I was responding to said "There are plenty of 30-year-olds in the DC area who have children."

There are plenty of people RIGHT HERE IN THE DC AREA who are not in the DCUM demographic.

"People in the DC area" does not mean "me, my friends, and my friends' friends".

Anonymous wrote:First child-free by choice poster back again...

I completely agree that the posters saying they can't afford it are being ridiculous.

I can totally afford it. I could afford it 10x over. I just don't want it.

+1. I don't WANT to afford it.

The higher income and social status you have, the more expensive the proposition of having children becomes.

Workers on a farm in Asia view their children as assets who can help plow the fields for them.

In upper class urban America, children are liabilities, costing $250,000 to raise and then another $250,000 for college. Children don't have to be this expensive, but society constructs dictate that upper class children must have numerous expensive enriching activities, tutors, nice wardrobe, vacations, etc.

So, self-interested people opt out. I have 4 kids, and I admit it is all give and no take. I have given up my own interests and pursuits (other than work) for the benefit of my children.

In the whole scheme of things, the world is becoming overpopulated, so maybe that's a good thing and a natural evolution. However, in a perfect world, I think everyone should have 1-2 kids. Simply for replacement value, but also, I think a child quickly chisels away the undesirable, overly self interested traits of an adult. It makes you start to be more concerned about others and the community and the well being of those around you. In summary, having (limited) children is good for society.

First child-free by choice poster back again...

I completely agree that the posters saying they can't afford it are being ridiculous.

I can totally afford it. I could afford it 10x over. I just don't want it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you here, PP? Just curious.

This is a very good question. This website is not geared to those NOT having kids.

You must be new around here. This question is asked time and time again. DCUM was originally a list-serve for parents way back when. For many years now it has attracted users from all walks of life and from areas outside DC. If you browse the forum index you will see many topics unrelated to children or parenting. If you are looking specifically for a parent-centric discussion I suggest subscribing to your neighborhood list-serve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you here, PP? Just curious.

There's multiple PPs.

Any and all are welcome to answer

Anonymous wrote:Ok, have we diagnosed the issue in this area as selfish people who insist on having it all as our biggest reason why folks aren't having kids?

I thought I was living the American dream until we wanted to have kids. We just don't have the money to spare for 2 kids. ONE is 25k a year, two would break the bank. We aren't living high on the hog. 10 year old cars, 3 bedroom house that we love with a low mortgage, etc. Unpaid maternity and daycare was the straw that broke the camels back.