It mostly appears as immigration restriction or excuses for why you're doing so much better at your intellectual job than those other people.
I was looking at the kind of off topic thread about how Mexicans shouldn't immigrate to Japan because they're genetically cursed to have unruly personalities…
I've read both of them (actually, I've read the former before this was posted).
The problem with the second article is the belief that conservative patriarchy was and is still the only way to sustain/grow population levels. This can problematic in an anthropological angle (there are still debates among anthropologists over how some prominent ancient societies were more matriarchial than we've realized), but more importantly I find this belief limiting our imagination as to the various ways in how humanity can manage to have and nurture kids. Familial values aren't only compatible with patriarchy, it can also mesh well with matriarchy (The fertility of women becoming important can also lead to women having more power over men, vice-versa). And is family the only way we can have childcare? Maybe we might have a society where everyone collectively cares each other's kids? What would happen if we have artificial wombs, wouldn't it significantly lower the barrier to having offspring? Obviously the hyper-individualism induced in our current configuration of capitalism is a huge cause for the fertility crisis, but I don't think old rehashed conservative values are the only solution for this individualism.
Now the first article (written by Nick Land), is much more nuanced, and doesn't strictly limit itself to patriarchy being an 'ultimate' evolutionary destiny. It's trying to dissecting the historical dynamics of population inside cities and between other cities (as a global phenomenon), and plotting the future trajectory of political theory from there. It states a fundamental problem of modernity which I can maybe agree with (although I have other problems with the author in general, mainly him also frequently spouting out right-wing reactionary politics)
housing prices, larger vehicle, or more vehicles, and other cost of living associated with more children are the private burden of the family. add to that the income loss of pregnancy and early motherhood and the cost of child care.
and it becomes easily obvious that a young family calculates twice before having another child.
and that's coming from a European country, where schooling is free.
is anybody aware of an opportunity cost calculation for raising 1, 2, 3, 4 kids? what is the TCO, the true full package material impact of raising children? ideally per country?
At least in the US, opportunity costs are likely dwarfed by actual costs in many cases, particularly as you move up the income scale. Despite heavy assortative mating you do usually end up with income disparity between spouses, so you give up less than half of the income for the time(s) that the mother cannot work; when the opportunity cost becomes great enough, then paid child-care starts looking like a win. Lower on the income bracket child-care is often subsidezed.
Then the richer you are, the more it is typical to spend on your kids. I live in an affluent area; my daughter just finished 6th grade and several of her friends are going to middle-schools with tuition in the low $30k range (yes, there is more than one in that price-range in town).
I would also argue that there is a cultural expectation you don't let your kids just wander about and take care of themselves as people used to do decades ago makes it harder as well. Now if you aren't concerned there is a pedophile around every corner, you're the crazy one. If you don't take an instagram photo of your child every week, you clearly don't care much for your kids.
There's also a wide range of costs for kids extracurriculars.
Programming could be nearly free (get a $200 computer of craigslist, add internet and electricity), soccer is relatively inexpensive.
IMO one of the major costs is because parents use their kids as conspicuous consumption symbols. "My kid does BJJ, equestrian, and snowboarding cause they're #blessed..." (cringe).
Personally, I'll be leveling with my kids, if they want something beyond the basics it's going to be up to them to find a way to pay for it. Soccer/basketball/swim lessons etc is in, super expensive clubs are out, and mom & dad's love for them is not a function of money spent.
I grew up with my parents behaving as you are suggesting. Anything extracurricular I wanted to do, beyond a token cost, was my responsibility to pay for. That ended up having some consequences you might not be thinking of, so I thought I’d share them with you.
1.) It made me way less likely to try any extracurricular because I knew I’d have to work to pay for them. This includes several that I was really interested in and showed aptitude for.
2. I had a job from age 12 on. I started with a paper route, then a dishwashing job, then a cashier at a mini mart. The result was that I was tired - the dishwashing and mini mart gigs kept me out until close to midnight several days per week. My grades, and my interest in school took a nosedive. My parents couldn’t figure out why. They thought it so impressive that I was so industrious to have these jobs. They loved the bootstrap narrative.
3. Working jobs in food service introduced me to all manner of drugs and alcohol. I was a regular smoker by 15, and binge drank with my coworkers from 16-19, and I smoked weed every chance I got.
I don’t really hold it against my parents consciously; they were older and really bought in to the bootstrap narrative. They genuinely thought I could work part time in the summer and pay for college, in the mid 2000s, just like my dad did in the 60s. But I do hold it against them subconsciously. I know there are things I really wanted to do back then that my family could hav afforded to pay for, and it’s a bitter pill to swallow knowing that they refused to out of misguided principles. I didn’t really realize that until I met my wife, who was told that it was her job to go to school and get good grades, not make money. Her parents didn’t spend lavishly on her, but if she could make a reasonable case for why she should have something they’d pay for it. When she told me that, it made my own parents way of dealing with these things really sting.
Anyway, thought that might be interesting to you as a parent.
Those consequences are not a given. I too, had to work from 14 years old, and beyond the basic sports interests had to pay my own way (for example, guitar and guitar lessons).
I might agree a little with point 1, but I never felt penalizingly tired like you say in point 2, and I also never picked up smoking or boozing like you say in point 3.
Aside from that, having your kid work at least a little (even if they would only earn 20 bucks a week with a few hours on a Thursday evening) massively improves their respect for earning something, and actually managing money.
What extracurricular activities were this and how much did they cost to make you work until midnight and do drugs because of the stress?
Do you think your drug use (+booze and cigarettes) became a considerable part of the costs that made you work so much?
I come from a lower middle class family in a non-urban area and there were neither the jobs nor the activities (much less costly ones) nor any sort of pressure to do such activities. Yet I believe I was fine, I am doing now (25ys later) several such activities
