By not having children and saving up the money instead will make you rich?

[Rawmac]

Nope, as a married man with no kids, I can confirm you will just find something else to spend the cash on, you'll have nice things and go on holidays more than your friends, but you'll feel a slight emptiness from time to time that's probably the gap a child would fill. (Or at least I think about this from time to time)

Its more about if you want kids or not, you'll always find the money for things you want or things you need and most people live to their means, if you're really motivated to retire early and have nice things, you have to work hard at something you love or get lucky, there aren't many ways around that.

[Lahis]

Plus state doesn't need too many educated people, state needs workforce (and the less complex the job the bigger workforce is required for it) and state needs soldiers (not physics majors).

Though soon we don't need a biological workforce for less complex (or any??) jobs, so no need for uneducated people there.

[HavokHeart]

This infographic is misleading. 250k over 18 years- that's like... 14k a year... which is ~2/3 of many Americans annual income. I guarantee the low income (majority) of parents spend considerably less than that on their children. In addition, having multiple kids often enables such families to receive welfare benefits for food and housing, as well as medicaid for the children and, in many states, the parents. In either case, 250k/18 years will not make you rich. In fact, it may be more economically viable for the poor to have children due to the availability of welfare programs that will more than offset the cost in food/housing/medicaid.

[Kathandira]

As this chart (from 2013, so might be even worse today) estimates, raising a child from 0-18 will cost you a small fortune. People often have multiple children, so it's just crazy expensive.

So what if you would not have children and save up the money instead? You could retire a rich man/women at a young age?

I just recently got a raise at work. This will help me push to finish off my student loans and car loan. I should be able to knock those out in the next 2 years (rather than 3-6) If I had a child, all that extra money would be going into caring for them. Once my car and student loans are paid off, I am considering getting a townhouse. With a child, I could not do that. I also am going to max out my 401k to 15%. If I had a child, I wouldn't be able to do that.

Basically, if you have a child, any and all progress you make in your career gets absorbed by caring for that child. This is of course considering we are talking about the average middle class person under the age of 40 years old.

[matt4pack]

The mental gymnastics in this thread. Civilization is in the best state in recorded history but this is such a shit world no child should bear it! Lol some of you would fit in at Jamestown.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Well people are far less ignorant of the world today thanks to mass communication. It might not be as bad overall but people are exposed far more to the realities of the world while before the internet people lived in their isolated bubbles.

[Taso]

Yes you woud save a lot of money but outside of the branchs of religion where people are forced to have multiple kids it's entirely up to the couple to decide that.
The cost coincides with a growing population and diminishing resources. The bigger the population the harder it is to share resources so having kids especially six or more will definitely put a dent in the pocket now days compared to the past.

[alt-ithist]

Diapers arent all that expensive. $16.20 for 108 diapers at Walmart https://www.walmart.com/ip/Parent-s-...Count/37792362. Use 2 a day thats over 3 months worth for 16 bucks. And if that is too much then get cloth ones like my Mom used on me. You just have to take some time to wash them and not be lazy. Its a one time cost

You obviously never had kids if you think 2 diapers a day is possible. I've had moments with my son where he went through 2+ in an hour.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

and state needs soldiers (not physics majors).

Why would the state not want both?

[shifu]

Here is a news flash, you aren't going to the stars and guess what neither are your children in fact nobody living today will be doing any intergalactic travel any time in the real or relative distant future. That is already cold hard fact, for even if a plague wiped out half the planet of it's people right now you and most of the people living on the planet still aren't going to the stars.

Mostly because you would need a population about the size we have no to even do it, and you would have to have an economic system not based on what we have to day, which is the accumulation of complete and utter material wealth and even that isn't enough to keep people fucking up the planet and destroying innovation and any real chance to make those kinds of advances.

And even if a fucking miracle happened and all that other stuff did something else, YOU are still not going anywhere and neither are your kids, and the slim to no chance that YOU or your kids or any linage would it would be in such a insignificant amount, if you hadn't contributed at all it would be pretty much about the same result.

You're DNA and anything else about you isn't magical, and you aren't suddenly going to have any gratification when you die alone one way or another because you will experience any of what you perceive will go on as your lineage

Oh my goodness i think you just became my new favorite person.

As much as inhabiting the stars was and will always be a dream of mine. This unfortunately is a not a possibility due to current status Que. In order to one day inhabit the stars. The world as a WHOLE would need to drastically change its way of thinking let alone the way our market and economy is now. So in other worlds NEVER GOING TO FUCKING HAPPEN.

So yeah if we ever have dreams of our descendants inhabiting the stars. The world as a whole must scrap the current system and create a new one. Having children will not make this a reality.

[HavokHeart]

You obviously never had kids if you think 2 diapers a day is possible. I've had moments with my son where he went through 2+ in an hour.

Cloth diapers are a thing. Disposable plastic diapers are an optional luxury.

[Wilfire]

No kids = more free time = more time to develop your talents and hobbies + more disposable income + more time to work + more time to invest successfully = happier existence with more money.

If you still feel bad don't worry, someone will pick up the slack and have 10 kids.

[Afrospinach]

Oh my goodness i think you just became my new favorite person.

Oh shut your ass!

I have to admit Mall security is a lot more fun now than he used to be. I think we have all been Tennisaced to death.

[Illana]

Not every kid is "troubled kid with lackluster education", no matter the origin story. State aims to keep demographics HEALTHY. Plus state doesn't need too many educated people, state needs workforce (and the less complex the job the bigger workforce is required for it) and state needs soldiers (not physics majors).

That's up to the kids, not me. I don't care about the kind of world kids are going to grow up in if I'm not there.

Just look at the statistics, saying #notall is useless when you look at the statistics. 70%+ of dropouts come from single parent families (most single mother cause lets be real how many single dads are there), 70%+ of kids in juvenile detention are from a fatherless home

It doesn't take a genius to see that an unstable home environment is likely to produce an unstable person.

It's less to do with education but more to do with social values and that's what a lot of people lack when they grow up with a single mother who just pumps out babies looking for a government check every month.

[shifu]

Oh shut your ass!

I have to admit Mall security is a lot more fun now than he used to be. I think we have all been Tennisaced to death.

hahaha ok I must admit the existence of tennisball on these fourms makes Mall Security much more likable. haha.

[Faenskap]

What? How can that be right? I cost about 1k/month, including food, rent and everyday expenses. It's lower than what I as kid consumed, about 1136 USD/month, according to the diagram. I'm not living in a poor manner now, I think I have everything I need.

In Sweden the cost is about 120000 USD from 0 to 18 years. We don't have to pay for school and most healthcare is more or less "free". What does USA have which increase the cost by that much?

I believe it's the education that's expensive in the US. Decent education, that is. So in Norway, you pay rent for your place, you pay a small tax each semester, and you need to buy books, but in the US and also I believe UK, prestigeous education is clostly with fees and all that, as it's not a governmental service - the instituions are private.

But I could be wrong

[Enthusiastic Steward]

No kids = more free time = more time to develop your talents and hobbies + more disposable income + more time to work + more time to invest successfully = happier existence with more money

This is all contingent on the individual though. It could very easily be:
No kids = more free time = more time to develop your talents and hobbies = more money spent on hobbies = equivalent remaining disposable income. I have a co-worker who is childless but whose hobby is working on cars and he sinks more money into that then my wife and I do into our children.

'Happier existence with more money' is subjective. I know happy and miserable people with and without children. For some people nothing makes them happier than their children and I know plenty of childless people who aren't bouncing around happy with money falling out of their pockets. And of course I know people with children who seem to do nothing but complain about it and childless people who are taking vacations traveling all over.

[Jibjub]

Good luck when you're old and no one loves you and you die alone in a swanky nursing home...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Tell me, which way you have higher chance of winning in the lottery. By playing, or not playing?

Not playing is the same as playing you have no chance, and if you understood the statistical probability, you would understand why

[Lahis]

Why would the state not want both?

Physics majors are educated and can question the state's decisions.

Soldiers are grunts, they do what the state orders them to do.

[Jibjub]

Apropos: