Re: Kids are time drainers
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:22 am
---an online community leveraging 14 years of experience in resilient post-consumerist praxis
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/viewtopic.php?t=11487
I have to say I've never needed a government agency to find a date, despite been a female graduate. Although I don't have children so maybe they have a point.A census conducted in 1980 revealed that a large number of highly educated women were still unmarried, despite being above 40 years of age. It was also noted that there was an inverse relationship between a person's educational level and the number of children he/she had.[4] The SDU was thus formed in January 1984 to provide opportunities for single men and women to interact socially.
Since it was first established, SDU's target group was limited to university graduates. The government justified this elitist approach by announcing that they had identified graduates—and in particular the females among them—as a group which required assistance in terms of finding lifelong partners. According to the government, non-graduates did not seem to have any difficulty in finding partners.[6] .
Prior to the founding of the SDU, a Great Marriage Debate had been raging. During a speech made at the National Day rally in 1983, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew alleged that the phenomenon of graduates remaining single would result in a projected loss of about 400 talented people per year...he had promised that tough measures would be taken by the government to curb the problem.
Am I being too optimistic in thinking, just maybe, we're starting to see the cracks of the meritocracy bubble, with middle-class and even upper middle-class parents in the developed world starting to realize that the fancy university pedigree they've been so desperately pushing their kids towards for so long--living in homes they can't afford to be in the "good" school districts, and spending money and time they don't have to get their kids to the tutors, academy sports leagues, enrichment afterschool activites, etc.--just has a really crappy ROI? Perhaps that's just me transferring my own realizations of late to the wider society, but let's be honest, I'm not exactly someone who is in the know. But the more we hear folks like Musk et al. (see, e.g., https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 263074001/) talk about how little value they put in college degrees, I have to think (hope) that this blind faith in higher education is starting to crumble; meaning, perhaps, millennial and gen z parents won't be as obsessed with the "affordability" of procreation as my own Gen Z peers.UK-with-kids wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:16 amYes, developed countries have seen a plummeting birth rate. Only the very rich and very poor feel they can afford to have 2 or more children. And adolescence stretches up to about the age of 25-30, leaving little time for it to actually happen.
These conversations are certainly happening in my social circle, even amongst the kinds of people I would never expect to start thinking that way. And I'm also seeing the realisation (too late) in 20 somethings doing entry level jobs who have a crappy degree and a big pile of debt. If and when they have kids of their own it's hard to see how they won't pass that worldview down. It's really just the inevitable consequence of a decision in the UK around 20 years ago to turn vocational colleges into "universities" teaching crazy subjects like media studies and to get 50% of all 18 year olds to get educated to degree (bachelor) level. In order to pay for this we saw student grants abolished and tuition fees charged where university had previously been free to attend.Hristo Botev wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:48 amAm I being too optimistic in thinking, just maybe, we're starting to see the cracks of the meritocracy bubble, with middle-class and even upper middle-class parents in the developed world starting to realize that the fancy university pedigree they've been so desperately pushing their kids towards for so long--living in homes they can't afford to be in the "good" school districts, and spending money and time they don't have to get their kids to the tutors, academy sports leagues, enrichment afterschool activites, etc.--just has a really crappy ROI?
It certainly used to be more fashionable to look at ways of reducing world population, but that's become more controversial now and perhaps that ship has sailed. The focus has moved much more towards unequal use of resources rather than the simple fact of there being too many people. And you see solutions like veganism rather than depopulation being lauded as the best way to feed the world.Hristo Botev wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:48 amAnd to pivot a bit (or a lot), I know there are a lot of folks who, unlike me, equate selfishness with procreation, and I sort of understand the environmental arguments. But just at a fundamental level, any worldview that takes seriously overpopulation theory, and that thinks the government should do something about it, scares the absolute s*#@ out of me.
This is a very real consideration for me. I have no interest in young children, but would like to have adult children I can interact with or at least follow their progress from a distance. Having six children 18-25 would be interesting. I would only be 45 when the youngest is an adult. The idea of having one child at age 38 is much less interesting. Being at odds with the current social preference reduces the return on the whole thing, making the probability of any children much less lower.UK-with-kids wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:16 amYes, developed countries have seen a plummeting birth rate. Only the very rich and very poor feel they can afford to have 2 or more children. And adolescence stretches up to about the age of 25-30, leaving little time for it to actually happen.
If you're ERE and want many kids in the UK, why not just go on welfare by choice? It covers ERE level expenses.Yes, developed countries have seen a plummeting birth rate. Only the very rich and very poor feel they can afford to have 2 or more children. And adolescence stretches up to about the age of 25-30, leaving little time for it to actually happen.
Well that's true, although of course the low birth rate and ageing population is driving demand for migrate workers. And it becomes a bit 'blood and soil' esque encouraging procreation.
Golden advice.Aspirant wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:56 pmAlso do take time for your relationship. It doesn't seem high priority now, but imagine next 17 years stuck with a disfunctional relationship. I am stuck in a couples therapy now for not taking regular date nights with DW. Dating would have been more fun (and cheaper).
One of my favorite professors taught a marriage and family course in the sociology department. I took the extra elective for no reason because he was simply dynamic, the type of guy you know you need to learn from. He had a huge Morman family, literally 12 kids. He said the best thing for kids is the parental bond. This is so true. Do they trust and respect each other? How are differences resolved? Parenting is hard work. If one can’t adult and work as a marriage team, the kids suffer.Hristo Botev wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:25 pmGolden advice.
DW and I make it a point to remind ourselves, and our kids, that as levels of relationship priority our concerned, spouse trumps kid. Kids benefit when their parents make each other their primary priority.