Pretty silly all around. The main thesis here seems to be "raising children costs money and is sometimes frustrating, and it is therefore illogical and foolish". When parents say that even though children are raised at significant emotional and financial expense, they are great and awesome, researchers write it off as "illogical" or stupid, and hold up the study as evidence of human irrationality and stupidity, with the implication that smart people wouldn't want children after seeing they cost money. I don't know whether the study really makes the conclusions the article claims, but the article at least is ridiculous in its supposition.
If you only care about money, having children is obviously not smart, as children generally cost money and don't produce it, even later in life. If you care about a fulfilling life more than a filled bank account, then raising children is one of the most important activities a person can do.
I have two kids. I've spent a lot of money to make them healthier, smarter, and happier. I want nothing in return except to see them smile and growing to be a wonderful human being.
while I don't necessarily agree with the article, it does point out (and other research has shown) that it's not just about money, it's about _happiness_. Despite what most parents will tell you the studies have shown that they are generally happier both before and after the children are in the house, and would probably be happier if they didn't have children.
You can't argue "I'm happy because I have children" because you don't know how happy you would have been without them (and with all the money and freedom they cost.) I want kids myself but it's not an easy question to answer if they actually make parents happier. It obviously makes parents _think_ they're happier but that's not the same thing.
children generally cost money and don't produce it, even later in life.
Not in all cultures. In mine, kids are expected to grow up and help parents retire and take care of them in old age. From our eyes, seeing a parent off to a retirement home is the worst thing and reflects poorly on the kids.
The economists' models of the world are notoriously flawed and dangerous precisely because they leave out non-easily-measurable results and consequences.
I couldn't disagree more. It's normal human judgment reactions that are notoriously flawed. For example, the USA's absurd over-reaction to terrorist attacks is something that any economist can tell you is stupid.
Modern statistical tools allow economists to ferret out the most obscure factors. They're remarkably good at this, although not infallible -- our continued poor understanding of macro issues is a glaring example, but the topics being discussed here are decidedly micro.
I think the real answer to your comment is that economic models are (frequently) far more pointed than people like to admit. When they're forced to confront the fact that their observed behavior doesn't match what they espouse, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than admit that they're not practicing what they preach.
Modern statistical tools allow economists to ferret out the most obscure factors.
Did you read the article? It doesn't ferret out any obscure factors? It has people read an article and then make some statement. And even then it doesn't even compare against those who don't have kids, but wanted kids or a whole slew of other useful controls.
But more importantly read the headline to the article, "Does having kids make parents delusional" -- yet NONE of the tests were about that. The tests were "Does Pointing out the Benefits of Parenting Reduce Its Perceived Benefit". That's a totally different story.
you sort of imply that in order to have a fulfilling life, you should have children, which is not remotely true. I agree with your point that it's utterly stupid to look at raising children from a purely financial perspective, but choosing not to have any doesn't mean you're thinking only about money.
Both are true and valid, and neither needs to be judged. I just want to point out that the decision to have kids isn't necessarily about rational happiness-maximizing choice.
>Couples who choose not to have kids also have better, more satisfying marriages than couples who have kids.
Well, of course, given that some couples have kids by accident. If you agree to wait on having kids for five years, then -- whoops! -- pregnancy, that would have a bad effect on satisfaction. Also there's the fact that couples who choose not to have kids have thought about and discussed their opinions on children. Couples who do that are likely to communicate better -- another reason they'd be more satisfied. I looked at the cited study, but could only read the first page. I didn't see anything saying they did anything to address this. Of course, I didn't see anything saying they didn't.
Additionally he doesn't apply the same rationale here. Maybe couples w/o kids report more satisfying marriages, because they need to rationalize it more since they didn't have kids.
May be its a cultural thing. I know a few couples in India with no kids and more they age, more their life self-admittedly sucks.
Then again, the culture I grew up in sees kids as an investment. The investment pays off when kids grow up and help their parents retire and support them financially and otherwise.
As countries develop and increase their social services, having kids becomes less of an advantage / asset and more of a liability. Also, in more mobile countries where people move around more for work (like the US) it's less likely that a child will still be in the same city as their parent by the time the parents are elderly.
Probably not. Pooling the resources is more likely to be efficient. If you do it at the individual level, everyone has to allocate resources for some kind of maximum likely cost versus allocating for the average need. That's also why it's more efficient to say, buy fire insurance than set aside the amount of money necessary to cover a fire - pooling risk.
I'd much rather be in a society where there are sufficient social services for the elderly and higher taxes than one where I have to depend on either my own savings or my children's earnings to cover my (very unpredictable) post-retirement needs. (Unpredictable because of the wide range of years I may live post-65.) Otherwise you have huge opportunity costs because of the need to allocate for a worst-case scenario.
"Yes, I am very satisfied with my decision to become a parent. My children add a lot of stresses to my life, but the deep satisfaction of seeing them grow and mature, laugh and play and cry, is more than worth it."
"No, you're not, actually. I have scientific studies showing that you are actually very unhappy and unsatisfied."
"..."
Don't we each, as individuals, get to decide whether we are happy, joyful, satisfied with our lives? Is not the right to define what happiness means to us inherent in our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
I dunno, I think it's kinda funny. It's the sort of jab that points out that the kind of person who bluntly asserts raising kids is stupid is happier boozing at status joints and pursuing endless 'city glamor'.
I don't know about that; it's not every day you see a masterpiece of ad hominem distilled down to its very essence, uncontaminated by the slightest hint of relevance.
Kids aren't for everyone. For that matter, neither are marriage, startups or traveling. The only difference with kids is there is no "undo" and you can't quit. If you don't want to live a selfless lifestyle, don't have kids.
My son just turned 18 months and my wife and I couldn't be happier. We won't be able to buy the new iPad but my son is far more entertaining. And I feel like my wife and I have grown closer since having him. So, to each their own. It's laziness to pretend life is as black-and-white at the writer presents.
My baby boy was born 3 weeks ago and the moment I first saw him was truly the happiest one I've ever experienced. I would waste letters trying to describe it but let me tell you: I could own 3 Googles and 2 Apples and I still wouldn't be as happy as I was in that moment. No amount of comfort can buy such happiness.
Having a kid means experiencing both emotional highs and lows but the former certainly outweigh the latter. If you could -- and you can't -- compare this to business, then not having kids would be like spending the rest of your days in a secure, well-paid, boring, lifeless, 9-to-5 job.
Interesting piece, but overall, I want to see hard data about family make up. Ideally you would have surveys and learn more about the couple's state of minds before, during (pregnancy stage) and after having a kid.
Just from my observation, I don't have facts, just opinion, but couples who wanted to have kids will be the first to tell you they love it. Couples that had kids by accident are either not happy, happy, or indifferent. The last category are couples where one of the two wanted kids and the other didn't so overall, there was dissatisfaction.
To me it seems to be all about expectation and reality.
There's ownership bias at work, as well. Regardless of the value of something, if you feel that it's the result of your "work", you feel more positive about its value than if it's just "given" to you.
Buy something from Ikea and put it together, and you'll feel better about it than if you bought it already put together for the same price. It's totally irrational, but it's also true.
What a boring, pathetic, self indulgent existence to never participate in creating something of value. Even screwing some legs on to a table adds a tiny little bit of value to the world around you.
"What a boring, pathetic, self indulgent existence to never participate in creating something of value."
Please don't make broad value judgements about other people's existence and value systems, based on a single HN comment. Thanks.
It's only "rational" to place more value on the final result if it is objectively of higher quality than the alternative where someone else makes it. Hence my original comment. I made no comment about any side-effect benefits from doing it yourself.
no, it's not. facebook, love it or hate it, has contributed more value to the world than the average well raised child. then again, some might say it's easier to raise a child well than to start another facebook :P
One of the interesting dilemas with the whole idea of "invest in future care instead of kids" is the question of whom you'll be purchasing that care from? And at what price?
If society collectively gets more 'rational' (as per the author's'view of rational) then the cost of end of life care, due to a massive supply drop off since fewer people having had workers/babies, would quickly eclipse even the most ausiduous of saver's life savings.
And who's'the only one that would take care of you at a price below the running market price for the service you need? One of your offspring?
When stuck in the myopic world of dollars and cents caution is advised, lest you end up in a world. Where you are only seen yourself in terms of dollars and cents
On at least two occasion I was speaking with people relatively old, one who was close to dying, and one thing they said they were sad about was not having kids.
How you feel or how happy you are in the moment is unrelated on what your future self will think is important.
I suspect that one could show, by the same methodology, that each of the following is foolish: buying a house; going to graduate school; starting a business; mastering something difficult; volunteering; being active in the community; ...
In a nutshell, she looked after this autistic child who was abandoned by his parents at 3 and is now 13, and was quoted as saying "I don't expect him to take care of me in the future. I just hope he can take care of himself"
What the Eibach and Mock studies show is that if someone criticizes something you have a lot invested in, like having kids, you will get defensive and exaggerate the upsides. That doesn't say anything about whether having kids is foolish - maybe the upsides really DO outweigh the downsides.
From an evolutionary-biology perspective, the author is simply competing. If he convinces you not to procreate, his children will have less competition to worry about. He's probably not even self-aware to the point where he realizes what he's doing. Lame.
Nothing is stopping him from having a revelation that he's totally wrong a few years down the road and pop out a kid. I doubt he thinks that far ahead though. Probably just likes knocking up random women.
Stopped reading because I promised myself I would never let Time and other "mass circulation" magazines teach me new scientific arguments or concepts now that superior resources are so convenient.
I agree with this article's central theme. People who don't grasp the basic concepts of economics or parenting should not have kids, its not fair to the economy and its not fair to the kids.
I can't imagine how people with kids get jobs. I suspect there is a double standard, if you have no kids, we are going to give you 3 or 4 rounds of interview hazing, but if you have 2 or 3 kids then the bar for entry is much lower because he can't be expected to work like a single male with almost no social life.
That's an interesting thought, but do you have evidence supporting this?
Another interesting tidbit about society favoring families with children is the tax implication. In particular, you can claim kids as dependents (which, of course, they are), but claiming dependents gets you tax breaks (and other tax credits).
I'm not saying that's wrong :)
It would be interesting to look at all the tax credits and build the profile for the "optimal" family from a (US) society perspective (as expressed in tax advantages). Then compare that to other countries. This could make a sweet info graphic...
Because people with children have more to care more about than themselves. They are more grateful for the job they have, and less willing to just walk away from it, because they have other people's lives depending upon them. People with children make for more stable employees, and that is something employers value.
And add to that, an employer is more likely to see parents as contributing to the society by rearing children. If you honestly do not see the value to society of rearing children, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise. Hint: It's the people willing to work hard at a job to provide for their family that you want procreating.
If you only care about money, having children is obviously not smart, as children generally cost money and don't produce it, even later in life. If you care about a fulfilling life more than a filled bank account, then raising children is one of the most important activities a person can do.