U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2020, 03:59 AM
 
2,563 posts, read 1,899,717 times
Reputation: 3444

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
Women are also pushed right out of the workforce when they have children. 70% of mothers leave the workforce after having children, and those that remain face great difficulty in their careers due to discrimination. Men do less childcare and housework in Japan than in any other wealthy nation, even if both parents work.


This even impacts daycare workers - a field that is overwhelmingly women. It is one of the lowest paid professions that requires a college degree, and then women are expected to leave the field when they become mothers themselves. It's created a real daycare shortage in Japan.


It's not hard to imagine why educated women might be reluctant to become mothers in Japan.
I am surprise some did not start a company with all part time women working from home 2/3 and at office 1/3. Yes double the employee but half the salary plus with WFH most women will put in more unconventional hours at late night/evening just because they are happy to have a job. Most will use it as bridging job until the kids will start school which is good 5 years. Maybe its not worth logistically
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2020, 07:14 AM
 
3,925 posts, read 1,636,173 times
Reputation: 10147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20 View Post
Because none of that welfare comes close to supporting kids from birth to 18, and smart people know that. You can’t bribe intelligent people to have kids.
Yes, that's part of it, too. Babies are pretty cheap to keep and feed unless they have medical issues. No state welfare system is rich enough to support and feed an 18-year old with a a few frills (athletics, music, any extra tutoring, vacations), nor should it be. Even if college is paid for by the state, there's a whole lot of expenses for which parents are on their own in the meantime. Poorer people who don't have those aspirations for their kids probably don't look beyond the initial increase in family income for a new baby.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 07:48 AM
 
1,377 posts, read 813,845 times
Reputation: 2278
Why is it all or nothing? Music lessons, sport lessons, camps, trips, etc. etc. are all well and nice, but they’re really more of an icing on the cake and not the foundation for raising a well-rounded child. I didn’t have any of that and turned out ok.

In fact, I think I probably learned more, and developed most of the same skills, than kids exposed to these expensive, structured, ‘necessities’. From what I see now, many teens don’t even work a real job, which provides immeasurable learning experiences. That costs nothing, yet provides kids with so many intangible and tangible benefits towards growing into functional, contributing members of society.

I think the financial necessities many think are needed for properly raising a child is overblown. It can, and used to, be provided by letting them free range, giving them chores, and providing them with opportunities to learn on their own and be self-motivated. None of that needs to be cost prohibitive.

Last edited by mingna; 05-26-2020 at 08:02 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:03 AM
 
3,925 posts, read 1,636,173 times
Reputation: 10147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mingna View Post
Why is it all or nothing? Music lessons, sport lessons, camps, trips, etc. etc. are all well and nice, but they’re really more of an icing on the cake and not the foundation for raising a well-rounded child. I didn’t have any of that and turned out ok.

In fact, I think I probably learned more, and developed most of the same skills, then kids exposed to these expensive, structured, ‘necessities’. From what I see now, many teens don’t even work a real job, which provides immeasurable learning experiences. That costs nothing, yet provides kids with so many intangible and tangible benefits towards growing into functional, contributing members of society.

I think the financial necessities many think are needed for properly raising a child is overblown. It can, and used to, be provided by letting them free range, giving them chores, and providing them with opportunities to learn on their own and be self-motivated. None of that need be cost prohibitive.
I know what you mean- I jokingly refer to my upbringing as "few frills" because there were 5 kids and my parents were saving for our college educations. The frills in our case, determined by my parents, included college educations, private (church-based) school and road-trip vacations where we rented a house. Among the 5 of us we have 2 advanced degrees and 3 respected professional designations. My sister and I made our own clothes and she turned out to be an excellent surgeon! Our upbringing was still more expensive than anything a state system would provide and I will be forever grateful that they paid for college.

I raised DS with few frills, too- I had to because the cost of buying a house in an area with a good public school system in NNJ didn't leave a lot left over. I also funded his college- fortunately he was an "only" since the cost of a college education had skyrocketed since I attended.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:10 AM
 
6,852 posts, read 2,050,371 times
Reputation: 11757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddie104 View Post
I don't view removing "disincentives" as equivalent to providing "incentives." The idea behind removing "disincentives" is women who may want children but due to getting career established, paying off college tuition, saving for a house, saving for retirement and other related reasons defer having children and/or decide not to have children. These women have a lost opportunity cost. This is different from providing financial incentives to women who decide to have children to maximize income.
Thank you. I've been a bit surprised (almost dismayed) that so few posts in this thread have looked at opportunity costs.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
36,289 posts, read 16,878,573 times
Reputation: 26821
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
This is a very troubling economic trend:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-bir...ow-11589947260
The economic consequence 21 years from now in 2041 will be severe. Every credible econometric model of the US economy shows population growth as a principle driver of future economic growth.

In many senses, this decline is associated with the incredibly strong economy we've enjoyed over the past several years - economic opportunity for women has resulted in their personal decisions to work and defer/decline to procreated.

More and more, it is clear the USA needs a policy of encouraging immigration of fertile women who are of childbearing age.
I've brought this up in at least a dozen times against proponents of stopping virtually all immigration in the US. I'm kind of leery of your last sentence though, it sounds a little like Handmaids Tale
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
36,289 posts, read 16,878,573 times
Reputation: 26821
Quote:
Originally Posted by mingna View Post
Why is it all or nothing? Music lessons, sport lessons, camps, trips, etc. etc. are all well and nice, but they’re really more of an icing on the cake and not the foundation for raising a well-rounded child. I didn’t have any of that and turned out ok.

In fact, I think I probably learned more, and developed most of the same skills, than kids exposed to these expensive, structured, ‘necessities’. From what I see now, many teens don’t even work a real job, which provides immeasurable learning experiences. That costs nothing, yet provides kids with so many intangible and tangible benefits towards growing into functional, contributing members of society.

I think the financial necessities many think are needed for properly raising a child is overblown. It can, and used to, be provided by letting them free range, giving them chores, and providing them with opportunities to learn on their own and be self-motivated. None of that needs to be cost prohibitive.
Most parents start thinking about their kid graduating from college the day they are born. The struggle to give the kids all the opportunities they can that might help them get into a good university and that usually involves music lessons, tutors, sports camps. It would be hard to convince those parents that all of that is unnecessary and if they would stop all of that they could afford to have another kid.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:37 AM
 
1,377 posts, read 813,845 times
Reputation: 2278
Re: opportunity costs.

Depending on your career, you may be able to re-enter with little lost opportunities, depending on re-entry time. And many careers can be worked remotely from home now, an opportunity that did not exist for previous generations. As well, you can embark on an entirely new career as you family grows and conditions are right. Maybe even as an entrepreneur.

My old neighbor, from the Greatest Generation, returned to school for an accounting degree, after all her kids were grown and had moved out. Worked as an accountant up to almost the end (80s yr. old). Granted she was able to work for her family business, but she didn’t have to, financially. How inspirational is that?

And my MIL used her M.A. in English as a tutor while raising her kids, and later sold her handwoven and hand-knitted items at high-end craft and gift shops back in pre-internet days. Imagine her business opportunities had she access to a website to reach a wider customer base.

So, yes, you can have your cake and eat it too. But maybe not at the same time.

Last edited by mingna; 05-26-2020 at 09:07 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
36,289 posts, read 16,878,573 times
Reputation: 26821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
In many cases, it's a simple lack of compatible partner or no desire to have children. I'm a 34 year old man. I'll be 35 next April. I've never had any desire to have children. I wouldn't mind dating a 30 something with a 10+ year old kid. I don't want kids of my own. That's a huge disincentive for women there.
You could look for a woman in her 40's there are plenty of them who had kids young, have raised them and don't want any more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Niceville, FL
8,824 posts, read 17,415,429 times
Reputation: 10097
Quote:
Originally Posted by keraT View Post
I am surprise some did not start a company with all part time women working from home 2/3 and at office 1/3. Yes double the employee but half the salary plus with WFH most women will put in more unconventional hours at late night/evening just because they are happy to have a job. Most will use it as bridging job until the kids will start school which is good 5 years. Maybe its not worth logistically
Some companies have been experimenting with that kind of 'job sharing' since the 90s bu it's never really seemed to take hold in the USA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mingna View Post

In fact, I think I probably learned more, and developed most of the same skills, than kids exposed to these expensive, structured, ‘necessities’. From what I see now, many teens don’t even work a real job, which provides immeasurable learning experiences. That costs nothing, yet provides kids with so many intangible and tangible benefits towards growing into functional, contributing members of society.
A lot of the McJobs now require greater schedule flexibility than someone going to school 8-3 M-F can offer and have ended up the realm of the working poor who have to take hours wherever they can get them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top