Yeah it could be that. Or it could be the last 40 years of massively ballooning costs of having children (chiefly childcare) that are driving this change.
Child care costs have massively ballooned? Really? They've gotten more expense like everything else but I wouldn't say they've massively ballooned.
In the United States, per-child spending doubled from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to a 2013 paper by Sabino Kornich of the University of Sydney and Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. Parents spent more on education, toys, and games. But nothing grew faster than per-child spending on child care, which increased by a factor of 21—or approximately 2,000 percent—in those 40 years.
Yeah it could be that. Or it could be the last 40 years of massively ballooning costs of having children (chiefly childcare) that are driving this change.
Child care costs have massively ballooned? Really? They've gotten more expense like everything else but I wouldn't say they've massively ballooned.
In the United States, per-child spending doubled from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to a 2013 paper by Sabino Kornich of the University of Sydney and Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. Parents spent more on education, toys, and games. But nothing grew faster than per-child spending on child care, which increased by a factor of 21—or approximately 2,000 percent—in those 40 years.
It's because of divorce rates and women in the workforce. No shit costs go up when there isn't a parent at home to watch the kids.
Agreed. But the effect that everyone is further disincentivized to have children still remains.
What's a greater disincentive? Not getting married or the cost? And why do poor folks continue to have so many kids if the cost of kids is a disincentive?
Yeah it could be that. Or it could be the last 40 years of massively ballooning costs of having children (chiefly childcare) that are driving this change.
Child care costs have massively ballooned? Really? They've gotten more expense like everything else but I wouldn't say they've massively ballooned.
In the United States, per-child spending doubled from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to a 2013 paper by Sabino Kornich of the University of Sydney and Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. Parents spent more on education, toys, and games. But nothing grew faster than per-child spending on child care, which increased by a factor of 21—or approximately 2,000 percent—in those 40 years.
It's because of divorce rates and women in the workforce. No shit costs go up when there isn't a parent at home to watch the kids.
Agreed. But the effect that everyone is further disincentivized to have children still remains.
What's a greater disincentive? Not getting married or the cost? And why do poor folks continue to have so many kids if the cost of kids is a disincentive?
Yeah it could be that. Or it could be the last 40 years of massively ballooning costs of having children (chiefly childcare) that are driving this change.
Child care costs have massively ballooned? Really? They've gotten more expense like everything else but I wouldn't say they've massively ballooned.
In the United States, per-child spending doubled from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to a 2013 paper by Sabino Kornich of the University of Sydney and Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. Parents spent more on education, toys, and games. But nothing grew faster than per-child spending on child care, which increased by a factor of 21—or approximately 2,000 percent—in those 40 years.
It's because of divorce rates and women in the workforce. No shit costs go up when there isn't a parent at home to watch the kids.
Agreed. But the effect that everyone is further disincentivized to have children still remains.
What's a greater disincentive? Not getting married or the cost? And why do poor folks continue to have so many kids if the cost of kids is a disincentive?
Because they're irresponsible
And then we subsidize the "irresponsible" and then for some strange reason we get a lot more "irresponsible". Na
Yeah it could be that. Or it could be the last 40 years of massively ballooning costs of having children (chiefly childcare) that are driving this change.
Child care costs have massively ballooned? Really? They've gotten more expense like everything else but I wouldn't say they've massively ballooned.
In the United States, per-child spending doubled from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to a 2013 paper by Sabino Kornich of the University of Sydney and Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. Parents spent more on education, toys, and games. But nothing grew faster than per-child spending on child care, which increased by a factor of 21—or approximately 2,000 percent—in those 40 years.
It's because of divorce rates and women in the workforce. No shit costs go up when there isn't a parent at home to watch the kids.
Agreed. But the effect that everyone is further disincentivized to have children still remains.
What's a greater disincentive? Not getting married or the cost? And why do poor folks continue to have so many kids if the cost of kids is a disincentive?
Because they're irresponsible
So then being poor in this country may have more to do with personal responsibility than does skin color? Or are you like Kobe and believe that Systemic white racism makes POC irresponsible?
Comments