It Costs More to Raise Children Now

“People in the past had (more) kids even though they had less wealth.”

That statement is made to try to cajole people into having (more) kids, as though other factors haven’t come into play.

Life has changed.

More people used to live on family farms or above family shops. The kids were working in the family business as soon as they could walk. Or the kids were going to work in factories, mines, or other income-earning jobs.

If mom and dad weren’t working the family farm or shop together, dad could be working his entire career for the same employer, in the same town.

High school is not much more than a century old, and a much smaller percentage of the population went to college.

Now, for many “professional” or career-type jobs, at least a Bachelor’s degree is required by employers. Landing a job, and subsequent promotions, often requires jumping from company to company and relocating. When you have kids, that becomes very difficult. Layoffs don’t help! If you’re getting your health insurance through your employer, it’s much less of an issue if you’re childfree.

Kids were financial assets from an early age, now they are liabilities for 26-plus years.

Most people don’t think it’s good or even acceptable anymore to have kids, especially kids of the opposite sex, sharing small bedrooms, so each additional child can mean needing an additional bedroom. Even if you’re willing to cram your kids into a small place, housing costs have outpaced inflation.

As have automobile costs, and each child needs their own seat, with a special child’s seat contraption, and then a booster seat, almost until they’re ready to drive themselves. This isn’t the old days of packing onto the floor of a van or the back of a station wagon. Speaking of driving themselves, there are more restrictions on teens driving. Having kids usually means needing larger automobiles.

Healthcare costs have also outpaced inflation. Oh, there are glasses/contacts, dental work, orthodontics, therapy…

College costs have also outpaced inflation. But before college, there’s hiring tutors. Public schools involve certain costs, too, but if you find them unusable, how much do you think private schools cost, hmmm? Oh, “Just homeschool!”? Who’s paying off mom’s student loans then, eh? Homeschooling usually isn’t entirely free, and means much less time and ability to earn income.

I won’t even get into the costs of day orphanages (daycare).

Birthdays. More kids today have a party every year. That doesn’t just mean you have to pay for your own kid’s party every year. There’s buying gifts for, and attending their friends’ parties, too. The time itself is costly. And of course there’s the really big birthday parties: Sweet 16, quinceañeras, bar and bat mitzvahs, which are rivaling weddings for expense and trouble.

Recreation and entertainment costs have gone up. Do you know what it costs to visit a major theme or amusement park now? Professional sports games/matches?

Are you going to pay for your child’s wedding??? 

None of this is even taking into consideration that your child might get involved in something as simple as a schoolyard fight that, nowadays, will require you to hire lawyers. Those aren’t cheap.

What if your child has special needs or a disability? This can not only be costly in money, but time, effort, and freedom as well. And that might continue the rest of your life.

Let’s not forget taxes and all of the other ways government of various levels collects money from us that have increased.

And what happens if the person you made the kid with decides they don’t want to be married anymore? How much is a divorce and ongoing battles over custody, support, and other matters going to cost? How much will the support cost? Therapy for the kids?

No matter how much the fertility rate panic pushers try to gloss over things, children are expensive, draining, and limiting.

People often want to have the same “things” others have, if they see it’s a better life. People also see what other people go through and realize they don’t want that in their life. Many childfree people see what parents deal with, and say “No thanks!” The panic pushers don’t want people to believe their “lying eyes.”

Maybe some of those people in the past or elsewhere are poor mainly because they had more children? It’s also possible poor people have (more) kids because they are something that is “theirs” and they think they can control. Everything else is only theirs until it gets repossessed or their landlord raises rent.

None of these people telling you to have (more) kids are going to be there to pay your bills, or deal with the toils and troubles. No, that will be up to you. And some of those people will be first in line to criticize you if you don’t handle parenting exactly the way they want you to. Because it isn’t simply, “Have kids.” No, no, no… it’s “Have kids, then do everything else the way we say, too.”

They want you to feel guilt and shame for wanting to be somewhat secure, wanting to enjoy your life and freedom, not wanting to struggle. They’ll say what approaches “But you CAN afford kids! You can rent a few square feet in Montana & live in a tent!”

Haven’t we heard over and over again that people sacrifice and struggle and work hard so that future generations have a better life, and can live better than previous generations? And yet if you try to actually fulfill that by living a better life, these panic pushers freak out. These fertility cultists seem to be saying, “No, not a better life for you! Someone else, down the line!”

In addition to monetary costs, many people staying with the default of being childfree also think children should have parents who will stay together, cooperate, and treat each other well, but are perceiving, correctly, that they can’t provide that, or there’s a significant risk of not being able to provide that.

The claim that concerns about the costs of raising children aren’t warranted doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

The Costs of Raising a Child

Are There Really Seven Million American Men Refusing to Work?

Senator Josh Hawley was on Hour 2 of the Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Dennis Prager Show to promote a book. [This entry is being bumped up because I just saw the claim in the post title again -things haven’t changed in years?]

Senator Hawley and Mr. Prager were lamenting the "crisis" that supposedly seven million able men of employable age are NOT working in the USA, and that is supposedly NOT including men who are on Unemployment. Of course one of the biggest problems they see with this is that women don't want to marry guys who aren't gainfully employed, because Heaven forbid women not get whatever they want and some people NOT marry.

The assumption is that these men are sitting around playing video games, watching adult media, and getting high.

Curiously, there were no figures provided for women who aren't working to provide as a comparison. That's because it is OK for women not to work. It's not OK, in the minds of some people, that a man doesn't work.

It is unlikely that there are really seven million men who are perfectly healthy who are sitting around just doing whatever they want and nothing else even though they're financially dependent on family, a girlfriend, a wife, etc. There might be a few men doing exactly that, but if I was a betting man I'd bet that almost all of those 7 million men have one or more of the following going on:

• Undiagnosed/untreated/unregistered physical and mental disorders
• Homeless
• Retired, even if unofficially and early
  
• Stay at home dad or house husband (yes, some women agree to this, and some men are with other men who agree to it)
• Helping to care for younger or disabled siblings, elderly or disabled parents
• They own enough (investments, real estate, etc.) they don't need employment
• They have their own business but haven't officially registered their business
• They work gigs
• They buy, sell, and trade without being registered as a business
  
• Under the table work
• Work in the family business, off the books 
• They consider themselves artists and are supported by others enough (even if just their parents) they don't need a registered job
  
• They're getting their education
  
• Black market
• Going through the criminal justice system
  
• Traveling or exploring
• Working on their skills outside of formal education
• Jobseeking while not formally on Unemployment 

Obviously, men being in some of those categories is a bad thing, but for other categories, it's not a problem at all.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of men who play games, watch adult media, and/or do drugs are employed. Most of them are married or in some form of romantic or sexual relationship.

If a man has gotten the message that he's not needed or wanted in workplaces and doesn't want to sign a terrible state contract, and he's found a way to stay off the public dole that isn't destructive, good for him. I don't see a need for him to change to please a Senator, a talk show host, or a woman.

The Senator claimed this has been building for fifty years. Now why would that be? What happened 50 years ago? Hmmmm…

He also says America needs you to get a job and start a family. How about... America needs you to not be dependent on government. We don't need every man out there to start a family. Want more men to marry? See what I wrote here.

She Digs Masculine Men

When I saw that today's Prager University video was going to be on masculinity, I braced for another video telling men that they should get married. We last addressed the Prager U videos doing that in this entry.

Let's look at the transcript they provided. (If you want to comment on the video, you can do so on YouTube in addition to commenting below.)

Rape, murder, war—they all have one thing in common: Men.

Taken by itself, this sentence ignores that women rape and women murder. And why does war happen? Sure, territory, resources, power... but why do the men engaged in war want those things? Quite often, a large part of it has to do with women. Women are attracted to men with money, power, and fame. War is one way men get those things.

Aggression, violence, ambition unchecked by conscience—all the stuff of “toxic masculinity,” right? 

And, the solution is obvious: make men less toxic. 

Make men less masculine. 

Make men more like women. 

But I’m here to tell you that this way of thinking is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

Good.

Here’s why: When you try to make men more like women, you don’t get less “toxic masculinity,” you get more. 

Why? Because bad men don’t become good when they stop being men; they become good when they stop being bad.

Still good.

Aggression, violence, and unbridled ambition can’t be eliminated from the male psyche; they can only be harnessed. And when they are harnessed, they are tools for good, not for harm. 

The same masculine traits that bring destruction also defeat tyranny. The traits that foster greed also build economies. The traits that drive men to take foolish risks also drive men to take heroic risks. 

The answer to toxic masculinity isn’t less masculinity; it’s better masculinity. And we know what that looks like.

Still good.

It’s a young man opening the door for a girl on their first date. It’s a father working long hours to provide for his family.

Sigh. I just knew that was coming!

A Bad Choice With Permanent Results

I recently went to a gathering/reunion of sorts. It was hosted to remember someone with whom I use to work who took his own life.

Aside from the fact that I do not believe we are, in the ultimate sense, our own (I believe we belong to God) and this kind of suicide is morally wrong, I also believe that life is way too short as it is.

But "John", I'll call him, obviously didn't feel that way. I don't have much information with which to work, but from what I understand, the suicide could have been motivate by the fact that he'd essentially been unemployed for the last four years.

He was a handsome, friendly guy with a great smile and a great sense of humor, and he did have artistic talent. He just wasn't make a living with it.

For most men, being unemployed that long is spirit-crushing. Career women are an extremely important part of today's world, and for some women, their careers are everything. But the fact remains, women tends to marry men who earn more than they do. Quality women who want a family tend to look for men who will provide enough "security" for them to not have to work full time. When a woman hears from a female friend that the friend is seeing a new man, the first, or one of the first questions will be "What does he do for a living?" if it wasn't immediately stated. Men don't care all that much what each other's girlfriends do for a living (a guy will boast about his date's job only if it implies she is beautiful/sexy).

For men like John, not having a successful career is devastating.

John had a brother and countless cousins. He probably looked around him and saw all of them in their marriages and raising children. He was in his mid-40s and hadn't been able to build enough stability or savings to support a family, and probably realized that even if his career were to take off tomorrow, it was going to be too late for him to build a relationship, marry, have children, and fit in to the culture of his extended family.

It is too bad he didn't see the good possibilities ahead, even if he never married, even if he ended up working a low-level job for the rest of his life. It is too bad that he did this to his family and friends.

I've known too many people who have taken their own lives.

Life is too short as it is. There are always good times ahead. There is help. Get help instead of doing this to those who love you.

Major Retailer and Employeer Announces Male-Friendly Initiatives

Wow, Wal-Mart has announced several initiatives to promote men workers and men-owned businesses, since men have been hit harder by the recession.

These are some of the things included:

It will source $20 billion from men-owned businesses in the U.S. and will double its sourcing from such businesses in every market globally.

It will also offer training, market access and career opportunities to 60,000 men working in factories to help them "develop the skills they need to become more active decision-makers in their jobs and for their families."

In markets around the world, Wal-Mart will work with major professional service firms and merchandise suppliers with more than $1 billion in sales to increase male representation on Wal-Mart accounts.

Wait... wait... Aw, shucks, I got that wrong. I had to go back and read the story by Andrea Chang at LATimes.com again. Switch the sexes, of course. Uh,except that men HAVE been hit harder by the recession.

Increase in Shacking Up

A report says more couples are shacking up, and the spin is that it is because of the recession. Hope Yen reports for the Associated Press.

The number of unmarried couples living together is rising sharply as many young adults who are having a hard time finding jobs are now "doubling up" with significant others.

That is a really bad solution. If you are financially struggling, you need to concentrate on improving your finances, not becoming dependent on someone you’re not ready to marry. And if you are the one who is doing okay, you should be dating other people, too, not restricting yourself to someone who wants you to pay their bills.

The number of opposite-sex unmarried couples who shared living arrangements jumped 13 percent this year to 7.5 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. That's compared to a 2 percent decrease between 2008 and 2009.

Get a roommate, or move back in with your parents, or relocate to a different area.

Demographers say a sluggish job market is the likely factor.

How about a lack of propriety or sense of shame?

If you want to get married and stay married, shacking up bodes ill for that. If you mostly want sex and/or companionship, you’re still better off not shacking up as you can easily have those things without shacking up.

Marriage Means More Money For Men?

It's being reported all over the news that men get an "economic boost" from marriage. See this story from Associated Press writer David Crary. Let's take a look.

The changes, summarized in a Pew Research Center report being released Tuesday, reflect the proliferation of working wives over the past 40 years - a period in which American women outpaced men in both education and earnings growth.

Ah. So if a man has a wife who is out there fighting in the corporate world, he'll be better off financially. What they don't tell you is that your wife will be too tired or too upset about something at the office to make love, strangers will be raising your children (and you'll be paying for them to do it), and you'll be paying more in taxes. But hey, you'll have more money! And if she earns more than you do, she'll likely have more resentment for you and less respect.

A larger share of today's men, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own, and a larger share of women are married to men with less education and income.

Well, yes, but the majority of women still marry men who earn more than they do.

One barometer is median household income — which rose 60 percent between 1970 and 2007 for married men, married women and unmarried women, but only 16 percent for unmarried men, according to the Pew data.

Ah-ha! Clearly an example of sexism against unmarried men, right? Actually, unmarried men were already earning more before. So this is married men playing catch-up.

In 1970, according to the report, 28 percent of wives in this age range had husbands who were better educated than they were, outnumbering the 20 percent whose husbands had less education. By 2007, these patterns had reversed — 19 percent of wives had husbands with more education, compared with 28 percent whose husbands had less education.

Academia is more hostile to men now, and a man is expected to go out and support himself and his family, which often means dropping out of school. It is more socially acceptable for a woman to live with her parents, or go to school to find herself while her husband works.

Only 4 percent of husbands had wives who earned more than they did in 1970, compared with 22 percent in 2007.

If I were a wagerin' man, I'd bet that the wives who earned more were more likely to be unattractive/overweight than the wives who earned less/nothing. The higher the income of the husband, the more physically attractive the wife is likely to be. These are generalities to be sure, but you see this verified everywhere.

Here comes the tired old comparison – you knew it would be included:

According to 2009 Census Bureau figures, women with full-time jobs earned salaries equal to 77.9 percent of what men earned, compared with 52 percent in 1970.

Women, as a group, earn less than men, as a group. This is true. But men are more likely to die on the job. Men and women often do DIFFERENT JOBS. Men are naturally more aggressive and work more hours, so they may earn more in commission-based jobs, and are more likely to ask for larger raises more often. When you compare men and women who are doing the same kind, level, quality, and quantity of work, with the same amount of experience – there is little to no gap.

The Pew researchers noted that the economic downturn is reinforcing the gender reversal trends, with men losing jobs more often than women.

Yup. I won't expect NOW to fret about this.

The Pew report found that unmarried women in 2007 had higher household incomes than their 1970 counterparts at each level of education, while unmarried men without post-secondary education lost ground because their real earnings decreased and they didn't have a wife's wages to offset that decline.

Unmarried men with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent, but were outpaced by the 28 percent gains of unmarried women with degrees.

I'd like to know about married men who are the sole breadwinners, and how they are doing compared to 1970.

So the lesson of this report is that women are earning more than before, so when a man marries one of these women, they have a higher household income. Duh.

What these reports don't mention is that men who earn more than their wives will lose some of that in the event of divorce, more if there are children. For a husband who is the sole income earner, even if he is earning more than his unmarried counterpart, the fact is – half of that is his wife's, and more if she leaves and takes the kids.

I do believe that the average man is much better off if he marries the right woman than if he stays unmarried – a woman who is fiscally responsible and shrewd when it comes to shopping and spending; one who offers helpful feedback about professional matters and helps her husband with networking. If she cooks, and he'd otherwise eat out, it is even better. But a married man is likely paying for all sorts of things an unmarried man isn't.

Also, something the report touched on was a drop in the percentages of households that are married. People are waiting longer to marry, giving men a chance to establish themselves and earn more before marrying. So of course the guy who marries at 32 is earning more than the guy who married at 19 and had to forgo certain educational and professional opportunities. It is easier for an unmarried man to continue his education, network over lunch and after-hours social events, work longer hours and extra days, relocate, take a new position, etc.

From what I've read, studies show married men in general – so not just the ones marrying career women – do earn more than unmarried men. But as I already pointed out, that income is not his to do with it as he pleases. Also, perhaps it is the men who earn more or have the potential to earn more who get married. As was said over at The Opine Editorials:

As a married man, I'd like to believe that marriage does make someone [wealthier], as many studies report. But I do have to wonder if the correlation is entirely one-directional, or if [wealthier] people or people with [more earning potential] are more likely to get married in the first place? I mean, all other things being equal, who is attracted to and wants to marry someone who is [poor]? While we can get averages, we can't compare me, a married father at my age, to me at the same age having never been married or a father. We can't compare John Doe #1, unmarried and childless at his age, to John Doe #1, same age, married and with children

Ultimately, though, even if marriage could be proven to be a cause of men earning more, there are unmarried men who maintain they'd rather have a lower income than get married. They can do just fine with a lower income, and enjoy the freedom of being able to work less and spend their free time doing whatever they want to do.

More Men Losing Jobs

Greg Burns wrote in the Los Angeles Times that men are suffering the brunt of layoffs.

To a much greater extent than in past recessions, men are bearing the brunt.

In December 2007, when the economy started tanking, unemployment ran nearly even at 4.4% for men and 4.3% for women. In February, that tally had shot up to 8.8% for men and 7.3% for women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 1.5-point spread is historic and likely to widen as the overall numbers keep soaring, said Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. "I don't see it turning yet."

I'm sure Obama will get right on this and other issues disproportionately hurting men by creating a Commission on Men and Boys. I'm so confident he will I'm going to hold my breath.

Here I go...

...

Okay, so I decided that wasn't a good idea.

A bona fide "man-cession" invites all sorts of social theories: Maybe women are cheaper to keep on the payroll because they tend to make less. Maybe women are better communicators, which helps shield them from the ax. Maybe women feel they have more to prove, so they get retained for trying harder.

Such sexism! Such stereotypes!

Since 1981, women have earned far more bachelor's degrees, collecting 135 for every 100 awarded to men, Perry said. At the master's level, the "degree gap" is an even wider 150 to 100.

So much for the patriarchy.

Counting farm labor and the self-employed, working men outnumber women by about 10 million. It's not 50-50, but it's moving that way.

Ah! And here was I just about to suggest women should take over paying for dates.

All that higher education and the economic devastation of traditional male strongholds won't make much difference in cracking a "really prevalent" glass ceiling, said Jenny Hoobler, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Business Administration.

"As far as leadership, it doesn't translate," Hoobler said. "Women don't ascend to the top ranks."

Oooh, so that evil patriarchy does exist! What else could explain this? Certainly not the articles we've read on women taking more time off, women deciding to place family before their careers (which I applaud, if they want a family), or women sabotaging each other.

Seriously, the bottom line is that there are more men in the workforce, so more men are losing their jobs. Likewise, the "wage gap" that is touted as favoring men is almost entirely explainable without sexism.