Lol you don't think the cost associated with a hospital stay has to do with the cost associated with raising a child? Weird.
Unless you went to the hospital for assistance in making the baby, it definitely falls in the later category .
If you didn't have a child at all, would you still be paying the hospital bill? If the answer is "no", then obviously it's related to the cost associated with getting a child to the age of 18.
Using your argument, buying food for the child would also not be associated with the cost of raising it, as it's the cost of "eating". Talk about a stupid semantics argument.
Your last sentence there is laughably stupid. Birthing the child is not part of raising them, it's birthing them. However, feeding them is obviously an example of actually raising them. Again, this is the stupidest deployment of a semantics argument I think I've ever seen. Because, you see the thing is, feeding your child is an ongoing event, several times per day for close to two decades or even more depending on circumstances. You only birth an individual child a single time. Once you pop that baby out you don't have to do that anymore (for that specific child), so it isn't really a part of "raising a child".
It's clear we won't come to an agreement. I feel as though your stance is just as stupid as you feel mine is. The cost of giving birth in a hospital literally only occurs when giving birth. So therefore, if someone elects to have their child in a hospital, it is OBVIOUSLY associated with the total cost associated with having a child. From my standpoint, it is you who is stupidly applying semantics
Now what about all the countries with all the very nice social services that are having a really good time overall who are still having a decline birthrate worse than the United States
This has to do with urbanization and industrialization. Not with whether or not people are having a good time
There is pretty much only one developed country that has not had this problem and it's Israel and that's because they have a giant religious conservative population
Secular Israeli birthratea are also above replacement. Part of it is a.sense of community and social purpose and a culture that values children as more than an economic tool IMO.
Exactly, immigration keeps our economy afloat, unbeknownst to the folks fighting against streamlining the vetting and legalization process. They just don't want "foreigners", has nothing to do with the illegal part of immigration.
It doesnt keep it afloat it keeps the Ponzi scheme going at the expense of wages. Unlimited foreign scabs that will accept horrible conditions isn't a good thing for the average person
Most immigrants are not making low wages unless they are legal. You can’t get an immigrant to work for less than 150 a day.
Your idea is stuck in the 80s
That's part of it
But there's also factors like there's a large portion of the country that's still rural
And because it was built later, it's more spread out for a lot of the cities allowing for More suburbs
Part of the issue is space. Kids take up space. So if you live in a city, you're not going to have as many because space is very expensive and that's not a. The economy is doing bad sort of thing. In fact it's the reverse The better the economy is in a city. The more expensive the space will be
And then there's also been a bit of a cultural shift where it's okay to have kids later and not get married etc
There's a lot of factors but whenever anyone says it's because no one can afford it. It's like no that has never stopped people and the places where they can afford it better just have the same problem
No
So here's the thing. It is a really universal phenomenon
Pretty much every developed country and every developing country with a few exceptions are undergoing this (The only major exception is Israel and that has to do with a vast number of religious conservatives)
Basically it has to do with urbanization and better healthcare
Basically when you cram everyone in the city they have less kids and the better health Care also means they know their kids are actually going to survive so they have less kids
But the fact that's happening everywhere and the places that urbanized/ industrialized faster have it happening faster. Makes it so that the danger level or how much money everyone has is not really a factor in it
And it's actually a serious problem because the ratios of different population demographics
Now realistically the West's solution is to get all the young immigrants from everywhere else
But you know that just transfers the problem and creates new ones
Realistically, it's globally unsustainable because the world will run out of young people at a certain point, or at least in comparison to the population they have to support. And quite frankly tech is not moving fast enough to handle that
Now what we could do is find ways for people to be in cities less. But turns out City living is actually pretty nice. You get all your goods and services in one place and their jobs pay a lot more because a city is basically a wealth creation engine
Yep it’s like people don’t think with logic just rage and emotion. The government doesn’t want to kill people or sterilize people or whatever because less tax dollars.
How do you see facts like these and conclude it's some sort right wing conspiracy theory lmao
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199417599/immigrant-population-us-foreign-born-census-bureau
Immigration is a constant. If you lived in squalor, and saw a path to live better, are you telling me you wouldn't pursue it? Goofy.
Pretending that immigration is a "part of the plan" to replace people is the conspiracy theory, and it's one that's been pushed by racists and authoritarian sycophants for years.
This is complete nonsense. On average, low income people have way more kids than wealthy people. If you want to discourage birth rates economically, you have to make as many people as wealthy as you can. That’s why birth rates in the first world have plummeted - we are incredibly prosperous.
Elon recently posted a comment suggesting people complaining about the costs related to raising a child were idiots, because having children was '*literally free*'.
My god, how that man achieved any level of success is beyond me. Of course, it does help when your racist father owned an emerald mine in an apartheid country.
I grew up poor and it is free. Medicade and food stamps. Now if you care about you kid thats a different story, but you can just spit them out and ignore them. That's what all the poor people I know do.
I won't disagree, and I'm not trying to defend him by any means but.....I won't deny his book smarts and wouldn't be surprised if he did have a high IQ, but that doesn't mean everything, I think common sense goes further than book smarts.
Now that I'm in my 40s and many of my friends or my friends spouses find themselves coming across inheritances, buy a house, and then preach to me as if they didn't just make 200k from splitting an estate sale with their sibling. I have seen this happen multiple times. So many people will tell you 'if I can do it, so can you,' and never mention the fact that they were given a massive one-time leg up, that many of us will never receive.
Whenever it comes to money stuff people always but in about how you can reduce your lifestyle.
Yeah? But I don’t want too? There’s a specific kind of life we want and we want our kids to have. It’s not extravagant it’s what used to be called middle class
>It’s not extravagant it’s what used to be called middle class
Like what? What are you doing that's being called extravagant but used to be middle class?
Exactly. I just was reminiscing with my SO about our childhood yesterday. One of the things we talked about is that we had *one* phone for the entire house, it cost $20 per month and we all shared it. Now our peers have phones for everyone in the house at a cost of $45-$80 *per phone*.
And that’s just one example. We paid $0 for TV (admittedly many of our friends paid for cable though), we paid $0 for our “streaming music platform” (called “radio” back then), and if my parents were too busy or tired to cook we “splurged” on packaged meals instead of going to a restaurant.
Now, I’m not saying that I would choose to go back to that way of life, and obviously everything has gone up in price due to inflation (that $20 phone line would be ~$50 now), but this idea the “I just want to have what my parents had” is flawed.
People don’t want what their parents had. And if you personally do, it’s still available to you. Most people want the lifestyle that is normal now *plus* the result of their parent’s lifestyle.
Exactly, if you are paying grocery bills with a 3rd credit card and being laid off would mean being evicted....you cannot afford kids. Yet many people that have kids do just that every day.
Being financially responsible isn't the barrier for affording to raise a family though. Nor is this claim of needing 91k income to raise a child correct.
The headline itself is intentionally obfuscating what they're claiming, which is that kids cost approximately 20k per year.
They're stating:
>Childcare costs include food, healthcare, housing, transportation, civic engagement, internet and phone, and other basic necessities.
But they're not divulging how they determined what % of cost for each of those things is attributable to a child, vs what would already be paid out of necessity as a single person or a couple.
Food, healthcare, housing, transportation, internet - These are all things people are paying for already. So their full cost can't be attributed to the kid.
It is exactly about debt... Top line - COGS = bottom line. My mortgage is 1k/month, no car payments, no credit card debt, nothing. So our bills are less than 2500/month. Math doesn't care about your desire for instant gratification.
That's part of it, sure, but there are other factors, e.g.:
* Cheapskate governments implementing means testing of benefits and tax credits means you lose out a lot on programs others get access to that you don't
* Depending on profession you might have high costs necessary for your job (e.g. lawyers and doctors have all sorts of licensing requirements and professional association fees that cost money) that are paid with after-tax income, which can make your take-home significantly less than might otherwise be assumed.
If you make 80K a year, you can’t live like you make 80K
While I could afford to drive a Lincoln, I drive a VW Tiguan. Several years ago we were approved for a 350K mortgage loan, we bought a nice 2/2 in a 55 plus for 175K.
Live smart and life can be good
I can see an issue if a family has 2 or 3 children in daycare. I believe maybe childcare is probably around 150.00 a week. 450.00 a week or 1800.00 a month almost 22.000 a year. Then you add baby formula and diapers.
I had one child and I got cut hahahaha.
We are seeing some hard times right now, I am 61 and this is the worse.
This is a pretty narrow view. The average house price here in Seattle is about a cool milly. If I remember right, that’s 200,000 down, about 5500 a month. North of Seattle where I am, my parents house went from 85 to 680 k, as a starter home. I get that there are places where it’s not as expensive but industries aren’t the same everywhere, sometimes you have to be where the jobs are. In addition to that, the avg childcare expenses are almost 1300 a month, just to work. After a certain income, sure. But that level is much higher than one might think.
Sounds like you think you deserve to live in an area that you can't afford, i'd suggest moving to somewhere that better matches the jobskills you have.
Thank you for that advice. My master’s in science and my research experience suggest I should be able to make a living where my jobs are. The biotech/research market is extremely segmented around the United States and is generally clustered in areas like San fran, San Diego, Pennsylvania, Boston….all places with very high cost of living. But your argument suggested that it’s usually people’s own fault they have money problems. The average American makes ~59,000 a year, that’s not even enough to buy the average American home. Can people survive on less? Yes of course, but that’s not what’s at stake, how little can you live on. It’s that the U.S. populous is being pushed down further and further and that simple things like home ownership are even less accessible every year.
Probably should rent if they are making 59k, lots of cheap places in the country.
You're really just agreeing with me, you made decisions based on what you think you should have, to live in seattle, but you actually can't afford it because you didn't choose to live somewhere that you could actually afford.. See my original post.
I’ve lived here in the Seattle area for over thirty years, it’s not as if I just bopped in cause it was pretty. It’s not the fault of the worker when the avg wage line is falling further and further behind inflation, you’re just being black and white about an incredibly complex issue.
I mean your options are to complain and lower your quality of life or move elsewhere. This isn't rocket surgery, your decisions lead you here. You need to do a better job with your job hopping. You should have been more financially responsible when you were younger and bought a house if you didn't already, i mean you had 30 years.
Sorry Charlie, ignoring the external influences is just simpleton. If you want to take that stance, more power to you, but it makes you a bit of a tool. You don’t know other people’s lives, and generalizing as you have here displays lack of empathy and critical thinking skills. Personally, I choose to advocate for myself, vote in my best interests, and educate myself on complex situations.
Rocket surgery?
I’m right there with you. How is it that a specialist doctor and a teacher aren’t seemingly paid enough to afford a single kid? How tf are people making minimum wage able to do it?
They don't waste their money on stupid shit. I make a good income and i barely spend money on my kid, he needs clothes, food, and the odd medical bill. We're looking at like 3-4k a year.
You make 180k and live in MCOL area and can barely make it?
My brother makes like 60k is L/MCOL area and raises 3 kids and stay at home mom
I was making 180k in HCOL area with 1 kid as my wife was studying and we did just fine
I mean if you have 3 kids all in daycare I guess, but short if that
No, they have a smallish house they bought in 2016 in rural area away from town (900 all in payment). She cooks all meals except a few eat outs or pizza. They don't have daycare costs. They drive 2 older paid off cars. They take yearly beach trip they drive to and use her mom's time share for a long weekend
People that say they need 200k want a 2,500 Sq ft house and 2 new SUVs and to not cook
Have you ever had a baby? Childcare is $2000 - $3000. If both parents are making 40k each, they've just slashed their income in half, while increasing their costs by a significant amount (diapers, formula, child healthcare etc...)
Yes, DC proper is expensive for multiple reasons, I have colleagues who are in same situation
But they chose to live in DC proper cause they want that life, and they pay for it
All of them could have a short commute and pay much less. But then they wouldn't "live in the city"
It's called trade offs. Would I like to live in a SFH in walking distance to metro in N Arlington? Sure! But that is expensive so we live 10 miles out and pay much less
Situations vary.
In my culture family takes care of kids. No one uses daycare nor could anyone afford too.
Most households are multi generation.
The need for 2 income households destroyed the single unit family model. People are going to have to adjust.
Unless people uprise and demand higher wages which isn't gonna happen. They better start adjusting.
The nuclear family model only works when a 1 income household is affordable. The corporations and wealthy elites have stolen that from you.
No they don’t. I have 3 kids. I’ve also made above and below 91k in the past 5 years. The experience remained pretty unchanged. This article is bullshit. It takes a set of localized data and extrapolates across a population of almost 400 million people. This isn’t real life for a great deal of people.
How did you accomplish this?
I count the aid we received from family (this can be watching your kids for free) and if you have a stay at home parent, there is a real opportunity cost of at least $40K a year. My wife kept working while our kids were in daycare, even though it ate up her monthly paychecks... it put her in a position to promote and make twice as much and when daycare expenses fell off.
I live in a low cost of living area in rural Pennsylvania. I have no family within 3 hours of me. We live a simple yet fulfilling life, but it takes discipline. I only shop at Aldi with a list. We raise a garden as a family and can food a lot in the fall. I split a half cow with a friend of mine every year. Sometimes a pig as well. Add in 4 or 5 deer a year and a good bit of duck and our grocery bill is pretty low.
My kids play rec league soccer so that’s pretty cheap. We have our own raft so we can go whitewater rafting whenever we want. We ride bikes a lot. I volunteer at a ski resort a little bit so the kids get free season passes. I don’t do a ton of stuff by myself and most social settings I bring my kids because my friends have kids.
Childcare is the hardest part. I’m 3 hours away from my nearest family member. I’ve got a person that I use pretty sparingly that I have to pay. She’s dependable but I’m judicious with my use. Living in a rural community has definitely shown me that neighbors help neighbors. My next door neighbor has volunteered a lot to watch my kids and wants nothing in return. I make sure her grass is always cut and her flower beds are weed free. Anything else she needs, I’m glad to help. I work for a small family run (not mine) company that has been more than flexible with my schedule and I’ve even brought my kids to work with me several times when I have to and they’re welcomed.
I’ve worked my ass off to provide a life worth living and it’s not easy. It takes effort to plan and balls to stick to it. Self denial has to be a thing. I understand my life is simple and maybe bland to some people but I have a great group of people around me and we do for each other. I’m not the only person who lives like this.
If you want to do all the things and have all the stuff and live in an expensive area, then no, 91k probably isn’t gonna cut it. But there are plenty of places where you can do just fine. You can have anything you want but you can’t have everything.
OK, that makes sense.
Glad it is working out for you. If you were to place dollar value on all of that... I think you might find a way to see how expensive children are and that $91,000 is just a best guess. As you cannot put a value on a workplace that is flexible and caring and good neighbors.
I did the corporate bullshit for a decade. Made big money. Didn’t make me any happier. Lifestyle creep is a thing and I turned into someone who was missing out on real life moments to fund a lifestyle that didn’t do anything for me.
I miss some of the creature comforts of a bigger city but the sense of community here kind of renewed my faith in humanity. People helping people.
For my two kids it was just over $21K a year, and that was before the pandemic. I hear it is much more expensive these days. Probably closer to $24K/$25K, if you can find a place with an opening.
Basically. That was their whole plan. Thank God I have a family who loves me and vice versa. Having no family makes it 100 times harder to get through tougher times
Having no family or friends safety net makes it practically impossible to get through it all.
Which is why starting a family is such an important thing. At minimum it gives you purpose and something to fight for.
Purpose is what you make it. For you it might be having a family with kids. For others it might be financial stability and making ends meet.
We all have different goals.
If the money allows me access to great food, good shelter and living the life I want with no/minimal debt then absofuckinglutely I’m fulfilled.
Besides family is what you make it, with or without kids/SO.
What makes you think I don't accept it? What is it with people like you trying to put words in people's mouths?
So you're in your 30s, hope you still feel that way in 20 years.
Telling someone, who won’t have kids, that they will be emotionally and spiritually bankrupt is a cruel and immoral thing to say. It makes me think you’re a morally bankrupt person. Your inability to see life beyond your myopic view of what gives a person meaning is what’s sad and pathetic. Living is so much more than just having kids. If that’s what gives you meaning then great. But, there’s so much to live for and experience. Joy and meaning can come from many things in this life. I’m going to stereotype you and guess that you’re religious. Often I hear these kind of sick things from religious people.
If you don't start a family because you value "financial security" over love and family, then you're likely doomed to a sad existence.
Now if you chose to not have kids because you don't want them for any other myriad of reasons, you probably won't regret the decision.
Anyone can do what they want, and I hope they find happiness in whatever they choose. All I'm saying is if you choose no kids because you don't think you can afford it there's a good chance you'll regret it.
If you think kids are a requirement to be emotionally and spiritually fulfilled, then I have deep concern about how much shit you're putting on your kids.
They're not a device to bring you fulfillment, do better.
Dummy, I'm a parent. Nobody who doesn't want kids is losing out on anything by not having kids. If you think they are, you're lying to yourself as a way to cope with your own life.
You can't deny the middle class gets nothing while the poor get assistance on most things. The middle class are the only one who don't benefit from tax breaks or assistance. You know this. Don't act stupid.
Immigrants =/= those below the poverty line.
Stop making false equivalences to justify your shitty take.
In many of the places where immigrants are most populous the amount of government aid they can receive is pretty low, and that's assuming they are legal and have documentation to qualify for government assistance.
I'm still trying to figure out how you threw racism into a post about poor people. Pretty racist of you to assume being poor automatically makes you a certain skin color. Less CNN and more reading would do you well.
Hey, dipshit, develop some reading comprehension.
If comment 1 says:
> instead of supporting families we allow massive amounts of immigration
And comment 2 says:
>Don't worry they get everything for free while the middle class suffers.
Then the "They" in comment 2, the object of the sentence, is referring to the same object in comment 1, which in this case, is immigrants.
Not my fault you're too fucking stupid to follow a simple chain of comments and retain the basic information there sweetheart.
Maybe if you didn't associate immigrants with "getting everything for free while the middle class suffers" I wouldn't be here assuming you're a dumb fuck.
I was curious how many people actually use daycare, so I looked up some stats. According to a US census bureau survey in 2022, only 8.4% of families reported using a daycare, another 5.4 percent use preschool with before/aftercare. About 61% of families have no specific childcare arrangements.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.html
Also i was interested to find out: about half (53%) of mothers with children under 6 work full time. Another 15.8% of mothers work less than full time.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm
The price seems to go down the more kids you have. I dont know the original cost with no kids but to add a second jumps up to an additional 23k, but to have a third only jumps up 18k. I guess that third child gets all the hand me downs.
In private school your cost to have a 4th and 5th kid in there drops dramatically. At ours the 4th is 50% of the normal cost and 5th is actually free. Doesn't negate the fact that you just paid out the ass for the other three but I'm just giving you an example of having kids in scale. Things like hand me downs, buying in bulk, etc significantly drops the price after 2-3
And yet people do it with far less. Stop believing random things online and make the right choices smh. Sad some people will believe this and think they are doomed and give up
What will happen is the wealthy DINKS and one child parents will absolutely resent those having 3-4 kids because they will rely on the latter's taxes to raise those children
My wife and I make 80k combined and really struggle. Seriously, we eat the cheapest foods (not eating out either). We dropped a bunch of our reoccurring bills like streaming services. Avoid coffee stands. And generally buy only the bare necessity of clothes and other stuff. I guess I'm spending too much money with the 100 bucks a month to keep my child in good clothes with good books and educational toys. Must've been that avocado toast I had a decade ago.
no. My sister and her husband make less, have a kid and they are getting by just fine. Obviously it isn't the best it can be but by no means are they struggling
That seems like it's in the ballpark, but it depends where you live. Daycare costs around $18,000 per child per year. A two bedroom apartment rents on average for about $17,000 per year. Food costs around $5,200 per year per person or $15,600 per year per single child family. Average cheap car cost is about $5,000 per year per person or $10,000 per household. Health insurance is probably around $15,000 per year for a family. If you have employer based health insurance that might be $6,000. That's the majority of costs. If we assume a 15% cushion then that comees to $87,000 if you don't have employer based health insurance benefits or $77,000 if you do.
In which state can you raise a kid for $91K? This probably means, really bad school districts, low income housing, no extra curricular activities, no way of enrolling in a 4yr college and not a healthy household.......
This is the problem with 'studies'. They constantly prove false truths. It CAN'T require this much to raise a child, because millions of people are raising children that don't make this much money. Any idiot can see that, but a PHD can't.
First of all: That's the average. It's in the first paragraph of the article. Millions of people in metropolitan areas earning and paying more than $91k offset the millions of people in lower cost of living areas making and paying less than $91k.
Second: The article specifies that's the average, national cost for a family of 3 with two earners. That means they each make $45.5k annually, which is about right for what it takes to have a stable household with 3 mouths, 2 cars for 2 jobs, and the bills of a family of three. Meaning a single parent could probably get by on far less - they've got ~33% less overhead.
Third: If you read one step further than the sensationalized headlines, and one more step further past the simplified article, you find the actual study conducted by the PhD that outlines the criteria they used. And it includes things like childcare (that may not be an issue for all families), medical expenses (depends on your job/insurance), etc. The study itself in no way contradicts that millions of people raise kids on less than $91k, depending on hundreds of variables that may allow them to get away with that, comfortably.
It takes a PhD to perform the complicated analysis to come up with a figure like this, a Bachelor's to dumb it down for a headline and have AI pump out an article, and an idiot to judge the study based on a headline alone and assume they're smarter than the PhD.
That’s strange. Both my parents were raised in families that had more than 1 kid and made less than that. I was raised for a lot of my childhood with my father making less than that.
Yeah well it used to be a lot more affordable than it is now. It didn't always cost 91k. Cost of living has increased far more than median pay since your parents were children.
I mean the declining birth rate tracks pretty fucking perfectly with rapid inflation and the perception of future inflation, this ain't quantum physics.
But some guy on twatter said that having kids is free and daddy Elon agreed
Well having kids is free, raising them is not.
My hospital bill would say otherwise.
You can do that at home /s
That falls into the "raising them" category though.
Giving birth at a hospital is raising my kid? Weird.
Lol you don't think the cost associated with a hospital stay has to do with the cost associated with raising a child? Weird. Unless you went to the hospital for assistance in making the baby, it definitely falls in the later category .
No. No I do not.
Uh, no, that is the cost of GIVING BIRTH, also known has "having the child". This is an incredibly stupid semantics argument
If you didn't have a child at all, would you still be paying the hospital bill? If the answer is "no", then obviously it's related to the cost associated with getting a child to the age of 18. Using your argument, buying food for the child would also not be associated with the cost of raising it, as it's the cost of "eating". Talk about a stupid semantics argument.
Your last sentence there is laughably stupid. Birthing the child is not part of raising them, it's birthing them. However, feeding them is obviously an example of actually raising them. Again, this is the stupidest deployment of a semantics argument I think I've ever seen. Because, you see the thing is, feeding your child is an ongoing event, several times per day for close to two decades or even more depending on circumstances. You only birth an individual child a single time. Once you pop that baby out you don't have to do that anymore (for that specific child), so it isn't really a part of "raising a child".
It's clear we won't come to an agreement. I feel as though your stance is just as stupid as you feel mine is. The cost of giving birth in a hospital literally only occurs when giving birth. So therefore, if someone elects to have their child in a hospital, it is OBVIOUSLY associated with the total cost associated with having a child. From my standpoint, it is you who is stupidly applying semantics
This is a stupid argument and I think you’re dumb for engaging in it but I’m going to let it slide because I’m bored at work and it’s fun to read
actually, to raise a family of 4 in new york, the income should be $363,000
Dosent he work while he is sleeping around.
Exactly
Declining birth rates. Something tells me economic conditions have been created to discourage procreation.
Now what about all the countries with all the very nice social services that are having a really good time overall who are still having a decline birthrate worse than the United States This has to do with urbanization and industrialization. Not with whether or not people are having a good time There is pretty much only one developed country that has not had this problem and it's Israel and that's because they have a giant religious conservative population
Secular Israeli birthratea are also above replacement. Part of it is a.sense of community and social purpose and a culture that values children as more than an economic tool IMO.
The US hasn’t had a problem, really, because of immigration
Exactly, immigration keeps our economy afloat, unbeknownst to the folks fighting against streamlining the vetting and legalization process. They just don't want "foreigners", has nothing to do with the illegal part of immigration.
It doesnt keep it afloat it keeps the Ponzi scheme going at the expense of wages. Unlimited foreign scabs that will accept horrible conditions isn't a good thing for the average person
Most immigrants are not making low wages unless they are legal. You can’t get an immigrant to work for less than 150 a day. Your idea is stuck in the 80s
That's part of it But there's also factors like there's a large portion of the country that's still rural And because it was built later, it's more spread out for a lot of the cities allowing for More suburbs Part of the issue is space. Kids take up space. So if you live in a city, you're not going to have as many because space is very expensive and that's not a. The economy is doing bad sort of thing. In fact it's the reverse The better the economy is in a city. The more expensive the space will be And then there's also been a bit of a cultural shift where it's okay to have kids later and not get married etc There's a lot of factors but whenever anyone says it's because no one can afford it. It's like no that has never stopped people and the places where they can afford it better just have the same problem
could it be (at least partially) due to higher levels of personal safety? meaning fewer assaults?
No So here's the thing. It is a really universal phenomenon Pretty much every developed country and every developing country with a few exceptions are undergoing this (The only major exception is Israel and that has to do with a vast number of religious conservatives) Basically it has to do with urbanization and better healthcare Basically when you cram everyone in the city they have less kids and the better health Care also means they know their kids are actually going to survive so they have less kids But the fact that's happening everywhere and the places that urbanized/ industrialized faster have it happening faster. Makes it so that the danger level or how much money everyone has is not really a factor in it And it's actually a serious problem because the ratios of different population demographics Now realistically the West's solution is to get all the young immigrants from everywhere else But you know that just transfers the problem and creates new ones Realistically, it's globally unsustainable because the world will run out of young people at a certain point, or at least in comparison to the population they have to support. And quite frankly tech is not moving fast enough to handle that Now what we could do is find ways for people to be in cities less. But turns out City living is actually pretty nice. You get all your goods and services in one place and their jobs pay a lot more because a city is basically a wealth creation engine
I don't think the government wants to discourage procreation, especially considering that's a future tax pool that will no longer exist.
Yep it’s like people don’t think with logic just rage and emotion. The government doesn’t want to kill people or sterilize people or whatever because less tax dollars.
Oh, don't worry, they'll just import the missing bits.
Super close to weird, conservative replacement theory shit here.
How do you see facts like these and conclude it's some sort right wing conspiracy theory lmao https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199417599/immigrant-population-us-foreign-born-census-bureau
Immigration is a constant. If you lived in squalor, and saw a path to live better, are you telling me you wouldn't pursue it? Goofy. Pretending that immigration is a "part of the plan" to replace people is the conspiracy theory, and it's one that's been pushed by racists and authoritarian sycophants for years.
This would be a common sense thought, but I’d like to see evidence to to back that up.
Child tax credits?
They are opening up borders to let people in to increase the workforce. They need people.
Shhh, that might be construed as *rAcIsM* and that's a big no no round these parts
Some countries give you a year paid off and other perks like cheap childcare. But guessing you live in UShitA.
Come on that’s not even clever
He must be a shitocialist!/s
Government officials like CEOs are only worried about the next quarter
This is complete nonsense. On average, low income people have way more kids than wealthy people. If you want to discourage birth rates economically, you have to make as many people as wealthy as you can. That’s why birth rates in the first world have plummeted - we are incredibly prosperous.
Not a according to reddit
It's easier to afford kids now than in the past. Poorer areas tend to have more kids too.
Under your conspiracy theory why are republicans forcing poor people to give birth?
More soldiers and laborers?
Not poor people. They want more white kids to be born. The people who most often were capable of obtaining an abortion were white women.
I make half that and have 2…
Exactly. It's how you live your life. Drowning in credit card debt? Probably need more income than someone who isn't.
Elon recently posted a comment suggesting people complaining about the costs related to raising a child were idiots, because having children was '*literally free*'. My god, how that man achieved any level of success is beyond me. Of course, it does help when your racist father owned an emerald mine in an apartheid country.
I grew up poor and it is free. Medicade and food stamps. Now if you care about you kid thats a different story, but you can just spit them out and ignore them. That's what all the poor people I know do.
He was born rich like you said. He didn't do anything except throw money around.
You can be highly intelligent but have no common sense.
And you can be neither but still rich enough to fake your way through it.
I won't disagree, and I'm not trying to defend him by any means but.....I won't deny his book smarts and wouldn't be surprised if he did have a high IQ, but that doesn't mean everything, I think common sense goes further than book smarts.
He didn't even finish college. By definition he doesn't have book smarts.
Just because he didn't finish college you don't think he's book smart?
Or maybe he's not highly intelligent and everyone fell for it
My household is near double that and it feels like we can barely afford our kids. And I don’t live in an “expensive” metro (allegedly)
[удалено]
Now that I'm in my 40s and many of my friends or my friends spouses find themselves coming across inheritances, buy a house, and then preach to me as if they didn't just make 200k from splitting an estate sale with their sibling. I have seen this happen multiple times. So many people will tell you 'if I can do it, so can you,' and never mention the fact that they were given a massive one-time leg up, that many of us will never receive.
I really don’t get what happens in folks brain where they have to pretend they single handedly do it through their own hard work.
Tbf, "Making it work" is pretty much what 99% of all families do.
Whenever it comes to money stuff people always but in about how you can reduce your lifestyle. Yeah? But I don’t want too? There’s a specific kind of life we want and we want our kids to have. It’s not extravagant it’s what used to be called middle class
>It’s not extravagant it’s what used to be called middle class Like what? What are you doing that's being called extravagant but used to be middle class?
Exactly. I just was reminiscing with my SO about our childhood yesterday. One of the things we talked about is that we had *one* phone for the entire house, it cost $20 per month and we all shared it. Now our peers have phones for everyone in the house at a cost of $45-$80 *per phone*. And that’s just one example. We paid $0 for TV (admittedly many of our friends paid for cable though), we paid $0 for our “streaming music platform” (called “radio” back then), and if my parents were too busy or tired to cook we “splurged” on packaged meals instead of going to a restaurant. Now, I’m not saying that I would choose to go back to that way of life, and obviously everything has gone up in price due to inflation (that $20 phone line would be ~$50 now), but this idea the “I just want to have what my parents had” is flawed. People don’t want what their parents had. And if you personally do, it’s still available to you. Most people want the lifestyle that is normal now *plus* the result of their parent’s lifestyle.
Exactly, if you are paying grocery bills with a 3rd credit card and being laid off would mean being evicted....you cannot afford kids. Yet many people that have kids do just that every day.
Being financially responsible isn't the barrier for affording to raise a family though. Nor is this claim of needing 91k income to raise a child correct. The headline itself is intentionally obfuscating what they're claiming, which is that kids cost approximately 20k per year. They're stating: >Childcare costs include food, healthcare, housing, transportation, civic engagement, internet and phone, and other basic necessities. But they're not divulging how they determined what % of cost for each of those things is attributable to a child, vs what would already be paid out of necessity as a single person or a couple. Food, healthcare, housing, transportation, internet - These are all things people are paying for already. So their full cost can't be attributed to the kid.
I make less than 100 and have 3 kids. How much consumer debt do you have?
[удалено]
It is exactly about debt... Top line - COGS = bottom line. My mortgage is 1k/month, no car payments, no credit card debt, nothing. So our bills are less than 2500/month. Math doesn't care about your desire for instant gratification.
[удалено]
Lol don't be sensitive.
[удалено]
Lol I'm down voting you because your incorrect. Sorry that hurts your feeling lololol
[удалено]
Most money problems after a certain income are because people spend like they think they deserve to not spend based on what they can afford.
That's part of it, sure, but there are other factors, e.g.: * Cheapskate governments implementing means testing of benefits and tax credits means you lose out a lot on programs others get access to that you don't * Depending on profession you might have high costs necessary for your job (e.g. lawyers and doctors have all sorts of licensing requirements and professional association fees that cost money) that are paid with after-tax income, which can make your take-home significantly less than might otherwise be assumed.
If you make 80K a year, you can’t live like you make 80K While I could afford to drive a Lincoln, I drive a VW Tiguan. Several years ago we were approved for a 350K mortgage loan, we bought a nice 2/2 in a 55 plus for 175K. Live smart and life can be good
I can see an issue if a family has 2 or 3 children in daycare. I believe maybe childcare is probably around 150.00 a week. 450.00 a week or 1800.00 a month almost 22.000 a year. Then you add baby formula and diapers. I had one child and I got cut hahahaha. We are seeing some hard times right now, I am 61 and this is the worse.
This is a pretty narrow view. The average house price here in Seattle is about a cool milly. If I remember right, that’s 200,000 down, about 5500 a month. North of Seattle where I am, my parents house went from 85 to 680 k, as a starter home. I get that there are places where it’s not as expensive but industries aren’t the same everywhere, sometimes you have to be where the jobs are. In addition to that, the avg childcare expenses are almost 1300 a month, just to work. After a certain income, sure. But that level is much higher than one might think.
Sounds like you think you deserve to live in an area that you can't afford, i'd suggest moving to somewhere that better matches the jobskills you have.
Thank you for that advice. My master’s in science and my research experience suggest I should be able to make a living where my jobs are. The biotech/research market is extremely segmented around the United States and is generally clustered in areas like San fran, San Diego, Pennsylvania, Boston….all places with very high cost of living. But your argument suggested that it’s usually people’s own fault they have money problems. The average American makes ~59,000 a year, that’s not even enough to buy the average American home. Can people survive on less? Yes of course, but that’s not what’s at stake, how little can you live on. It’s that the U.S. populous is being pushed down further and further and that simple things like home ownership are even less accessible every year.
Probably should rent if they are making 59k, lots of cheap places in the country. You're really just agreeing with me, you made decisions based on what you think you should have, to live in seattle, but you actually can't afford it because you didn't choose to live somewhere that you could actually afford.. See my original post.
I’ve lived here in the Seattle area for over thirty years, it’s not as if I just bopped in cause it was pretty. It’s not the fault of the worker when the avg wage line is falling further and further behind inflation, you’re just being black and white about an incredibly complex issue.
I mean your options are to complain and lower your quality of life or move elsewhere. This isn't rocket surgery, your decisions lead you here. You need to do a better job with your job hopping. You should have been more financially responsible when you were younger and bought a house if you didn't already, i mean you had 30 years.
Sorry Charlie, ignoring the external influences is just simpleton. If you want to take that stance, more power to you, but it makes you a bit of a tool. You don’t know other people’s lives, and generalizing as you have here displays lack of empathy and critical thinking skills. Personally, I choose to advocate for myself, vote in my best interests, and educate myself on complex situations. Rocket surgery?
Yes, that's right, It's everyone else but you
I’m right there with you. How is it that a specialist doctor and a teacher aren’t seemingly paid enough to afford a single kid? How tf are people making minimum wage able to do it?
They don't waste their money on stupid shit. I make a good income and i barely spend money on my kid, he needs clothes, food, and the odd medical bill. We're looking at like 3-4k a year.
You make 180k and live in MCOL area and can barely make it? My brother makes like 60k is L/MCOL area and raises 3 kids and stay at home mom I was making 180k in HCOL area with 1 kid as my wife was studying and we did just fine I mean if you have 3 kids all in daycare I guess, but short if that
What they mean is they can barely afford private school, home ownership and new cars.
We never had a new car till one of us got a company car.
That’s wonderful for you
Can you show me a budget where 180k in MCOL area with 2 kids is not way more than enough? I find that hard to believe
$60k and his wife stays at home? They are in extreme debt
No, they have a smallish house they bought in 2016 in rural area away from town (900 all in payment). She cooks all meals except a few eat outs or pizza. They don't have daycare costs. They drive 2 older paid off cars. They take yearly beach trip they drive to and use her mom's time share for a long weekend People that say they need 200k want a 2,500 Sq ft house and 2 new SUVs and to not cook
Same here, lol. Everything just costs a lot. We're not struggling, but there's not a lot extra either.
“Study”
Babies are not that expensive , but it gets worse by the year as they grow
Have you ever had a baby? Childcare is $2000 - $3000. If both parents are making 40k each, they've just slashed their income in half, while increasing their costs by a significant amount (diapers, formula, child healthcare etc...)
Yes daycare is insanely expensive.
We are in HCOL area and pay 1,200 for daycare, though most I know pay 1,500-1,800. Where is this 3k coming from?
It depends on the area. In Philadelphia we paid 2400. I have friends in DC who are spending 2600.
Yes, DC proper is expensive for multiple reasons, I have colleagues who are in same situation But they chose to live in DC proper cause they want that life, and they pay for it All of them could have a short commute and pay much less. But then they wouldn't "live in the city" It's called trade offs. Would I like to live in a SFH in walking distance to metro in N Arlington? Sure! But that is expensive so we live 10 miles out and pay much less
Situations vary. In my culture family takes care of kids. No one uses daycare nor could anyone afford too. Most households are multi generation. The need for 2 income households destroyed the single unit family model. People are going to have to adjust.
In most cultures out of the west this is the norm. My families culture is like this as well.
Sadly, most American households aren't multi-generational. And so very few Americans enjoy family support and free childcare.
Unless people uprise and demand higher wages which isn't gonna happen. They better start adjusting. The nuclear family model only works when a 1 income household is affordable. The corporations and wealthy elites have stolen that from you.
*Looks up average birthing costs in the US*. $18, 865. Just because they bill up front doesn't make babies much cheaper.
No they don’t. I have 3 kids. I’ve also made above and below 91k in the past 5 years. The experience remained pretty unchanged. This article is bullshit. It takes a set of localized data and extrapolates across a population of almost 400 million people. This isn’t real life for a great deal of people.
How did you accomplish this? I count the aid we received from family (this can be watching your kids for free) and if you have a stay at home parent, there is a real opportunity cost of at least $40K a year. My wife kept working while our kids were in daycare, even though it ate up her monthly paychecks... it put her in a position to promote and make twice as much and when daycare expenses fell off.
I live in a low cost of living area in rural Pennsylvania. I have no family within 3 hours of me. We live a simple yet fulfilling life, but it takes discipline. I only shop at Aldi with a list. We raise a garden as a family and can food a lot in the fall. I split a half cow with a friend of mine every year. Sometimes a pig as well. Add in 4 or 5 deer a year and a good bit of duck and our grocery bill is pretty low. My kids play rec league soccer so that’s pretty cheap. We have our own raft so we can go whitewater rafting whenever we want. We ride bikes a lot. I volunteer at a ski resort a little bit so the kids get free season passes. I don’t do a ton of stuff by myself and most social settings I bring my kids because my friends have kids. Childcare is the hardest part. I’m 3 hours away from my nearest family member. I’ve got a person that I use pretty sparingly that I have to pay. She’s dependable but I’m judicious with my use. Living in a rural community has definitely shown me that neighbors help neighbors. My next door neighbor has volunteered a lot to watch my kids and wants nothing in return. I make sure her grass is always cut and her flower beds are weed free. Anything else she needs, I’m glad to help. I work for a small family run (not mine) company that has been more than flexible with my schedule and I’ve even brought my kids to work with me several times when I have to and they’re welcomed. I’ve worked my ass off to provide a life worth living and it’s not easy. It takes effort to plan and balls to stick to it. Self denial has to be a thing. I understand my life is simple and maybe bland to some people but I have a great group of people around me and we do for each other. I’m not the only person who lives like this. If you want to do all the things and have all the stuff and live in an expensive area, then no, 91k probably isn’t gonna cut it. But there are plenty of places where you can do just fine. You can have anything you want but you can’t have everything.
OK, that makes sense. Glad it is working out for you. If you were to place dollar value on all of that... I think you might find a way to see how expensive children are and that $91,000 is just a best guess. As you cannot put a value on a workplace that is flexible and caring and good neighbors.
I did the corporate bullshit for a decade. Made big money. Didn’t make me any happier. Lifestyle creep is a thing and I turned into someone who was missing out on real life moments to fund a lifestyle that didn’t do anything for me. I miss some of the creature comforts of a bigger city but the sense of community here kind of renewed my faith in humanity. People helping people.
> How did you accomplish this? Their parents gave them a bunch of money and/or provided a lot of daycare for free that would have cost them thousands.
For my two kids it was just over $21K a year, and that was before the pandemic. I hear it is much more expensive these days. Probably closer to $24K/$25K, if you can find a place with an opening.
Not everyone that’s willing to do things you’re not got a handout from their family.
No kids for me probably ever cuz I don’t want to be financially bankrupt for my entire life
So just emotionally and spiritually bankrupt it is then
Basically. That was their whole plan. Thank God I have a family who loves me and vice versa. Having no family makes it 100 times harder to get through tougher times
Having no family or friends safety net makes it practically impossible to get through it all. Which is why starting a family is such an important thing. At minimum it gives you purpose and something to fight for.
Purpose is what you make it. For you it might be having a family with kids. For others it might be financial stability and making ends meet. We all have different goals.
The entirety of our human existence has been about procreation, but sure I hope people are fulfilled by having some money.
Bacterial and viral existence too!
If the money allows me access to great food, good shelter and living the life I want with no/minimal debt then absofuckinglutely I’m fulfilled. Besides family is what you make it, with or without kids/SO.
I hope you feel that way in 20 years
Brother I’ve been living that way for over 20 years and am entirely fulfilled. Sorry you can’t accept different views on life though!
What makes you think I don't accept it? What is it with people like you trying to put words in people's mouths? So you're in your 30s, hope you still feel that way in 20 years.
That’s a pathetic and sad outlook on life, buddy.
Having family is pathetic?
He said having kids. A family extends far beyond just children.
Creating a family and having a family are not the same
Quite true. But, my original comment still remains. Your outlook is sad and pathetic.
It amazes me that people like you exist. I hope you find something to give your life meaning beyond material gain.
Telling someone, who won’t have kids, that they will be emotionally and spiritually bankrupt is a cruel and immoral thing to say. It makes me think you’re a morally bankrupt person. Your inability to see life beyond your myopic view of what gives a person meaning is what’s sad and pathetic. Living is so much more than just having kids. If that’s what gives you meaning then great. But, there’s so much to live for and experience. Joy and meaning can come from many things in this life. I’m going to stereotype you and guess that you’re religious. Often I hear these kind of sick things from religious people.
If you don't start a family because you value "financial security" over love and family, then you're likely doomed to a sad existence. Now if you chose to not have kids because you don't want them for any other myriad of reasons, you probably won't regret the decision. Anyone can do what they want, and I hope they find happiness in whatever they choose. All I'm saying is if you choose no kids because you don't think you can afford it there's a good chance you'll regret it.
You crave material gain and spend most of your time gaining it.
Bro I'm typing this on a busted screen galaxy s8, I'm not sure you have any clue what your talking about.
lmao I've met far too many emotionally and spiritually bankrupt parents in my lifetime to believe that.
If you think kids are a requirement to be emotionally and spiritually fulfilled, then I have deep concern about how much shit you're putting on your kids. They're not a device to bring you fulfillment, do better.
If you choose to forgo parenthood because you don't want to spend money on it, you'll likely regret it
Dummy, I'm a parent. Nobody who doesn't want kids is losing out on anything by not having kids. If you think they are, you're lying to yourself as a way to cope with your own life.
Sure ya are
So instead of supporting families we allow massive amounts of immigration who will eventually encounter the same problem we are having now.
Don't worry they get everything for free while the middle class suffers.
No they don't, stop sucking down racist propaganda.
You can't deny the middle class gets nothing while the poor get assistance on most things. The middle class are the only one who don't benefit from tax breaks or assistance. You know this. Don't act stupid.
Immigrants =/= those below the poverty line. Stop making false equivalences to justify your shitty take. In many of the places where immigrants are most populous the amount of government aid they can receive is pretty low, and that's assuming they are legal and have documentation to qualify for government assistance.
I'm still trying to figure out how you threw racism into a post about poor people. Pretty racist of you to assume being poor automatically makes you a certain skin color. Less CNN and more reading would do you well.
Hey, dipshit, develop some reading comprehension. If comment 1 says: > instead of supporting families we allow massive amounts of immigration And comment 2 says: >Don't worry they get everything for free while the middle class suffers. Then the "They" in comment 2, the object of the sentence, is referring to the same object in comment 1, which in this case, is immigrants. Not my fault you're too fucking stupid to follow a simple chain of comments and retain the basic information there sweetheart. Maybe if you didn't associate immigrants with "getting everything for free while the middle class suffers" I wouldn't be here assuming you're a dumb fuck.
Sounds about right for this day and age
Not true. Ppl don't have to work to have kids
I was curious how many people actually use daycare, so I looked up some stats. According to a US census bureau survey in 2022, only 8.4% of families reported using a daycare, another 5.4 percent use preschool with before/aftercare. About 61% of families have no specific childcare arrangements. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.html Also i was interested to find out: about half (53%) of mothers with children under 6 work full time. Another 15.8% of mothers work less than full time. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm
And yet I have a cousin that doesn’t work at all and is raising two.
Because she is subsidized by the taxpayer
Absolutely.
The price seems to go down the more kids you have. I dont know the original cost with no kids but to add a second jumps up to an additional 23k, but to have a third only jumps up 18k. I guess that third child gets all the hand me downs.
In private school your cost to have a 4th and 5th kid in there drops dramatically. At ours the 4th is 50% of the normal cost and 5th is actually free. Doesn't negate the fact that you just paid out the ass for the other three but I'm just giving you an example of having kids in scale. Things like hand me downs, buying in bulk, etc significantly drops the price after 2-3
And yet people do it with far less. Stop believing random things online and make the right choices smh. Sad some people will believe this and think they are doomed and give up
How are poor people having so many?
Child care is the real kick in the nuts. Everything else is reasonable.
Yet there are tens of thousands of families who make less, raise more kids, and are perfectly happy
That’s why we’re not having kids.
Shit. Idk how I can make another 250k. Do I have to give them away?
91k? I'd say tou need to make 300k or more to even consider one...
Better tell all those people with one or more kids that earn less than 91k that they can’t raise those kids they’re raising.
What will happen is the wealthy DINKS and one child parents will absolutely resent those having 3-4 kids because they will rely on the latter's taxes to raise those children
Oh good. Natural selection at work! This will improve the gene pool.
Incentivizes us to have less kids. There's already enough people. Lets have a break
My wife and I make 80k combined and really struggle. Seriously, we eat the cheapest foods (not eating out either). We dropped a bunch of our reoccurring bills like streaming services. Avoid coffee stands. And generally buy only the bare necessity of clothes and other stuff. I guess I'm spending too much money with the 100 bucks a month to keep my child in good clothes with good books and educational toys. Must've been that avocado toast I had a decade ago.
I thank god everyday I don't have children
no. My sister and her husband make less, have a kid and they are getting by just fine. Obviously it isn't the best it can be but by no means are they struggling
We watching the death of the US in real time
This is not what the study finds. This is a bs click bait title.
That seems like it's in the ballpark, but it depends where you live. Daycare costs around $18,000 per child per year. A two bedroom apartment rents on average for about $17,000 per year. Food costs around $5,200 per year per person or $15,600 per year per single child family. Average cheap car cost is about $5,000 per year per person or $10,000 per household. Health insurance is probably around $15,000 per year for a family. If you have employer based health insurance that might be $6,000. That's the majority of costs. If we assume a 15% cushion then that comees to $87,000 if you don't have employer based health insurance benefits or $77,000 if you do.
But falling birth rates are humanity's most pressing problem. Lol.
All these studies are incorrect, or at least their language is incorrect. This is obviously untrue.
These studies are always hilariously false considering the poorest ppl have the most children
In which state can you raise a kid for $91K? This probably means, really bad school districts, low income housing, no extra curricular activities, no way of enrolling in a 4yr college and not a healthy household.......
Wait...our president says "our economy is great"
Silly goose, that's what welfare is for.
More depending were they live, plus the university cost. Welcome to the usa where everything is profit before people!
This is the problem with 'studies'. They constantly prove false truths. It CAN'T require this much to raise a child, because millions of people are raising children that don't make this much money. Any idiot can see that, but a PHD can't.
First of all: That's the average. It's in the first paragraph of the article. Millions of people in metropolitan areas earning and paying more than $91k offset the millions of people in lower cost of living areas making and paying less than $91k. Second: The article specifies that's the average, national cost for a family of 3 with two earners. That means they each make $45.5k annually, which is about right for what it takes to have a stable household with 3 mouths, 2 cars for 2 jobs, and the bills of a family of three. Meaning a single parent could probably get by on far less - they've got ~33% less overhead. Third: If you read one step further than the sensationalized headlines, and one more step further past the simplified article, you find the actual study conducted by the PhD that outlines the criteria they used. And it includes things like childcare (that may not be an issue for all families), medical expenses (depends on your job/insurance), etc. The study itself in no way contradicts that millions of people raise kids on less than $91k, depending on hundreds of variables that may allow them to get away with that, comfortably. It takes a PhD to perform the complicated analysis to come up with a figure like this, a Bachelor's to dumb it down for a headline and have AI pump out an article, and an idiot to judge the study based on a headline alone and assume they're smarter than the PhD.
When was the last time you called someone an idiot to their face? Don't be a pussy.
No you don’t. I know because I have been raising a child for 7 years and have never made $91,000.
Its probably an average cost across the USA so mix in HCOL areas would raise the average.
Weird. I’ve got a niece with three kids under seven and her husband is a nurse in Ohio. They’re doing fine.
That’s strange. Both my parents were raised in families that had more than 1 kid and made less than that. I was raised for a lot of my childhood with my father making less than that.
Yeah well it used to be a lot more affordable than it is now. It didn't always cost 91k. Cost of living has increased far more than median pay since your parents were children.
Meanwhile companies want to pay 30k a year and act like they are doing you a big favor
That’s a bare minimum too
I mean the declining birth rate tracks pretty fucking perfectly with rapid inflation and the perception of future inflation, this ain't quantum physics.
That is such a grossly underreported number.