zlacker

I still don't understand how the opportunity cost can be 0 for the rich. Women still have to get pregnant, and sacrifice a lot of things at the cost of 1 year per kid. Like sure, they'll have nannies, but the years of "when you can have fun and do all the self-fulfillment stuff" is gone. Usually that cohort of people are also fairly educated, so they have even more connections and opportunities to lose during those lost years.

Sure, if your goal is to have as many kids as possible, that's a different topic. But that's statistically insignificant amount of people as of now.

>>kredd+(OP)
Pregnancy applies to the poor too.

But agreed, there are costs that might not be offset by the rewards. Nevertheless the statistics remain filthy rich and dirt poor are acting as mirrors on the curve.

>>kredd+(OP)
I can't say for everybody but around 30 "fun and self-fulfilling stuff" becomes repetitive and bland. You see the end of it and then having a baby changes everything. Fun but bland thing become funnier once you experience them together with the little person.

>>thrift+Ny
To each their own. I've heard second hand accounts for all kind of scenarios - parents regretting their decisions in their 30s, extremely happy parents, childless extremely happy couples in their 50s, and some with their regrets. That being said, even if you have 1 child to "have some fun with the little person", it's still below 2+ children a couple is supposed to have to fix the birth rate problem.

>>kredd+861
I advise having at least two since they will make each other busy and get out of your hair sometimes. And these arguments are totally decoupled from birth rate problem.

>>thrift+2a1
Thanks, I’ll think about it!