Posted on 07/05/2018 2:53:18 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Jessica Boer, 26, kissing her cat Kip at her home in Portage, Mich. Like an increasing number of people in her generation, she does not plan to have children. “Now we know we have a choice,” she said.
Wanting more leisure time and personal freedom; not having a partner yet; not being able to afford child-care — these were the top reasons young adults gave for not being sure they wanted children, reports a new survey conducted by Morning Consult for the NYT.
About a quarter said they expected to have fewer than they wanted. The largest shares said they delayed or stopped having children because of concerns about having enough time or money.
It is partly about greater gender equality. Women have more agency over their lives; motherhood has become more of a choice.
But it’s also a story of economic insecurity. Young people have record student debt, many graduated in a recession and can’t afford homes — all as parenthood has become more expensive.
[humungous snip]
David Carlson, 29, graduated from college in 2010, when the job market was still rough. He and his wife had $100,000 in undergraduate debt between them. They both work full time — he in corporate finance and she in counseling — but they don’t yet feel they can take time away from their careers.
He said they’d consider adoption if they decided to have children but had waited too long. Another option for having children later in life is egg freezing. Only 1 percent of female survey respondents said they had frozen their eggs — but almost half said they would if not for the cost.
Whether the young generation will catch up later is not certain, but will depend on their capacity to combine work and family.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I have to agree with this. If you don't live around family, affordable quality child care is a pain. Partly because of overly intrusive government.
You can’t see them. They’re private, just ask the boys at the bar.
She has a cute “pooch” belly<;>)
Kids aren’t for everyone.
The poor never seem to worry about not having enough money to raise a family of four or six or eight.
I thought she was pregnant but wasn’t going to say anything
OTOH...some Millennials are married, have kids and savings, today, but they are NOT Libtards.
Not so much. Abortion rates today are below pre-Roe v. Wade levels.
>>A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N<<
After
F-E-M-I-N-A-Z-I-S
Before.
It used to be guys would laughingly repeat the liberal line to get aid, but the line has gotten so fascist that even the chance to score doesn’t offset it.
And it will get worse in the #MeToo era.
You missed the point. Watch Idiocracy. That was a quote.
I was talking to a young co-worker once, and she told me that after paying for childcare and taxes, she was basically clearing only about $2,000 a year.
It made absolutely no sense to me. If she quit work, she’d be able to spend all here time with her child and still probably be live off just her husband’s income. But when I asked it she’d ever considered that she looked at me like I was a fossil.
But she’s just had it drummed into her head for the entire 26 or so years of her existence that a woman has to have a career.
>>Most young couples i know both work b/c they have to . They cannot afford kids.
<<
That is a myth.
It is they cannot have kids and continue to live the almost-single lifestyle they have become accustomed to.
Watch TV from the 70s through now — EVERY ONE starts with “In THIS economy???
They are talking the a word re Sureme picks and single issue voting on talk radio. If I hadn't been waiting for a call, I would have liked to refute the early caller who implied women living with a bf who "tortured" the baby was justification to abort them and host seemed to agree (regular one on vacation wouldn't agree). I don't deny it happens too frequently but (1) it's not justification for killing it (or becoming a criminal, etc.) but it makes me angry with our culture that we have become so permissive about women have a *right* to live with anyone they choose. It has made me angry for a long time that we are so permissive about lapses in morality most of us on FR would consider just plain wrong.
Some couples manaage to time it right, get thru college first then marry and start families but everything has gone topsy turvy in the world. High cost of living, commute costs, job instabillity, blurring traditional roles, food costs dental and medical costs; it's a terrible shame. It's like the cards are stacked against the traditional family.
Many couples I knew did like your parents and the kids turned out great overall. I don't know anyone who could support a family on minimum wage without Government help or relatives.
Was bored so picked up the latest National Geographic off a counter and read its article on demographics. They were almost in glee writing about how China’s one child policy slowed population growth. Their numbers were right but conclusions so wrong. The only place left in the world that has a replacement birth rate seems to be Africa and the Muslim world. Hell, who needs terrorists when the Muslim world were just beat us into the ground demographically.
It used to be if the wife went to work part or full time, the family got ahead. Life was good. The dems saw this and taxed the heck out it. Then the put fees and taxes on everything you need. It costs a lot to just squeak by now. Add a kid and if you are not being subsidized, you can’t make ends meet. So it is welfare or no kids for many.
Because people had less.
You can do it if you are willing to have a garden, eat at home, one phone, no cable or internet, about one eighth of the clothes you currently have and so on and so forth.
People are just not willing.
When we were house hunting our agent warned us that the older homes we were looking at "did not have the closet space".
Our stuff fit with room to spare but one of my nieces could have filled every closet in our house and still would not have had enough room.
one bathroom
2 or three bedrooms
for three to four kids and parents.
You are so correct. I did a little comparison on three products awhile ago, comparing 1975 to now. Apples, bread and automobiles. All went up in price far greater than wage inflation.
No. They just think they both have to work.
I'm an E6 in the military, a college drop-out with four kids and a stay at home wife. Somehow we make it work.
With a wife at home, we have less wear and tear on her car, no childcare expenses, and we eat home-cooked food. It's doable.
Though I would be remiss if I didn't mention that being in the military, healthcare costs not a penny for my family other than the gas money it takes to go to appointments.
If your family has enough to eat, you live in a safe neighborhood, and the local schools are decent, then you are not poor.
It is harder to find that safe neighborhood with decent schools than it used to be. Some of the old ones have been wrecked. Sometimes it takes two incomes, and sometimes people want too much (a 4000 sq ft house)
But there were times when I was a child when we lived what people today would think poor - small house or apartment, no money for extras.
Decent but not great schools, safe neighborhoods, parks, library, community pool, or just the open country, no, the only poverty was comparative and self-consciousness. I might add the socialized medicine of Canada and Sweden contributed to our security.
If the fabric of the community is damaged, it’s still easy enough to conceive children, but it’s much harder to raise them and thoughtful people see that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.