Green estimated that food makes up just 5% to 7% of household spending, but put housing at 35% to 45%, childcare at 20% to 40%, and health care at 15% to 25%.

Yeah that tracks. For my family we spend about $500/month on groceries, around 35% of our income on housing (call it about $1600/mo including utilities), and until our vehicle was paid off around 25% of our income went to that.

We got lucky in that we had a family member willing to babysit for us while I went back to college then when they started getting too toxic I snagged a job making just enough for my wife to be a stay at home mom. We absolutely could not have afforded kids if it weren't for either of those factors didn't work out. We'd probably still have my wife and I working opposing shifts and both being just sleep deprived enough to be biting each other's heads off and possibly divorced by now (we had the opposing shifts thing going when we got married, and when she had a week off for her wedding, we both started getting good sleep again and stopped fighting and I had a second honeymoon phase as I was like "oh yeah I remember why I fell in love with you again!")

They don’t want babies. They want robots.

Well, they want slaves. And they're still figuring out which direction to go

The fortunes of a few matter more than the lives of rest of us, and we'll just watch from the sidelines I guess whilst dying of starvation.. They say social cohesion starts to fall apart when people can't feed their kids, but if they have no kids to feed, I guess it's a win win for the ultra wealthy. They get planet earth to themselves, whilst the rest of us just wither away and die, no societal uprising, no revolution, just distractions, everywhere, all by design, it's kinda genius to be fair.

Inequality is the primary factor. If people making $150k to $200k can reasonably conclude that having children would be a burden on their future economic prospects (in an already uncertain future), they will decide against it. $50k to $75k is probably more in the "fuck it, we might as well have more sources of potential labor and income and maybe a subsidy or two since we're already at this point", and people making $400k or above have nothing to fear from child expenses.

A lot of that might also be location based. Where I am right now we're paying ~1700/mo for daycare. Wife got a job for nearly double our current combined income (for 260k) so moving to Boston, daycare going to ~3000/mo and housing going from 2k/mo to looking at 6-10k/mo. It almost feels like a paycut...but at least driving should become more optional.

If you're looking at people in developed countries where more kids doesn't necessarily mean more labor, the difference can also be somewhat explained by religion and quality of life concerns. Extremely religious people in the us, who tend to be less educated and have lower incomes, may not believe in contraception and believe that "god will provide". That may sound like an exaggeration, but I personally know someone with 7 kids who cannot afford to feed them but thinks that they will go to hell if they use condoms and denying their husband is also a sin somehow. They just talk about how god intended for their family to struggle. That's not a mindset you generally see in high income families.

The other factor is quality of life (and yes, education). If you're making enough to afford a home and a good education for 1-2 children, you may be looking to give your child a good life and a good springboard for their future. If you know that no matter what you do, you will never be able to afford a college education for your child, then that makes having a child "less expensive" in that regard. You know you won't be able to afford sports or extracurricular activity equipment, or new clothes, so while a family earning more may spend a smaller percentage of their income on any single child, the resources they are expecting to be able to provide them increase. A lot of low income families may have the approach that if a child is fed they've done the thing. Check mark on parenting for the day. If that's the approach to parenting then it's less resource intensive than a more involved approach that some high income families may have. I want to be clear that this is not a moral failing or some kind of judgement being passed. I think a lot of people don't realize the day to day of very low income families. There are still people in the US raising families with no access to electricity or even running water. They have a very different background and understanding of what a family looks like. I don't think they are inherently evil for having more kids and being unable to provide for them in the way others may expect, but I also think that's not an excuse to allow children to live in unsafe conditions. I legitimately believe that if we had better education in low income and rural areas that you'd see this disparity drop, as they learn the different options education can provide and strive to ensure their own children get the best education and support possible.

Protip: the low incomes are dependent on children. If you have a kid your income goes down

Federal guidelines say that childcare is affordable if it consumes no more than 7% of household income. Citing data from Child Care Aware of America, LendingTree found that the average annual cost of care for an infant and a 4-year-old is $28,190 nationwide.

That would require household income of $402,708 a year to meet the 7% benchmark.

Childcare doesn't cost $400k (at least not according to the article, or even the headline). The article says it costs $28k. Most people are going to make more than $28k/yr, so keeping the second job is still a financial positive.

What are housing prices in Germany?

I find housing is the thing that really drives down birth rates, coupled with rapid inflation that the CPI doesn't capture.

Are you serious?

This shithole country I live in. We have funds to create a gestopo and ice camps here in the US and there's no real support for new parents.

Birth rate is, as inconvenient a truth that it is, inversely proportional to education and the liberty of women. You'd be hard pressed to give any developed nation that has a high birth rate.

God, that would be amazing. I pay $1200 CAD for my child care.

Try not to dwell in the "woe is me" narrative. Today's younger generation has some challenges, but thinking "this is the worst any generation has ever had it by far" is total bullshit.

From a pragmatic point of view?

"In a time of dragons, raise dragon slayers."

Those fighting for a better future now will get old. Thankfully, so will those seemingly-immortal bastards ruining that future.

We need future generations, educated and supported and prepared to take up the mantle.

As Bruce Lee put it: "Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to overcome a difficult one."

We need to come back around to the idea that we are here for a bigger purpose than to be comfortable and happily wither, as even ~~if~~ when we are victorious, someone needs to maintain the solemn responsibility to keep evil at bay, because it will try again.

We all want our children to be happy and healthy and safe. But we also must prepare them to bear the same responsibility we do. Part of resistance and war against the principalities and powers and forces of darkness in this world, is to make sure righteous ideals live on.