Our culture was hoodwinked into thinking raising children was somehow less important than having a career. Child rearing is a full time job if performed optimally and it's importance should be recognized and championed.

What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? He or she has to either start a career or go to school and then face the ageism for entry level positions. And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? My wife was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce and she complained frequently about the loss of identity.

The real problem and solution, as other posters have mentioned, is a strong support structure from friends and family. We live in a wonderful area of Colorado, but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany and it just isn't going to happen that we move closer. So we struggle and get by, but having a parent stay home to be daycare full time wouldn't serve either of us.

Is stimulation the most important thing in childrearing?

> What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day?

Volunteer? Find self-fulfillment in something other than a career?

Plus, I think you may be begging the question: while older children require less immediate attention than younger ones, they still require plenty of care. It just tends to be more planning and less direct interaction.

Plus, why do you assume only one kid? My mother spent more than a quarter-century with children at home. She certainly was never bored.

> And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals?

Maybe work from home? Ultimately, though, parents today must sacrifice for their children, just as parents have done for millennia. Kids aren't expensive status symbols: raising them well is a duty, not a lark.

There's all sorts of caveats with this, of course, and not every family can make it happen. We definitely don't regret the choice, and I'm certain our kids are better for it.

I make it a point not to judge other parents' choices (except parents who let their kids wear camo - that's just inexcusable).

But you've touched on something that could get me talking for hours... Namely, the detrimental affects of inflation on a society and why the populace hasn't had the politicians' collective head in a noose for it.

Of course deflated real wages operate in tandem with inflation to put pressure on the family but that blame lies more with the populace. I mean why did we ever think that significantly adding to the labor pool (double income families) wasn't going to suppress real wages?

1. Free trade and aggressive foreign monetary policy. The ability to manufacture good with much cheaper labor.

2. Automation.

3. The shift in the workforce to skilled labor. This has some overlap with 2. Even if the manufacturing industry that enabled the heady economic days of the 1950s and 60s return to the US, the people who get them will need some education. This problem was laid bare after the housing crisis. The problem of the "unemployable male", a man with a high school education who was doing fairly well working low skill labor jobs in construction. When all that came crashing down, those men were left with nowhere to go. One of the ironies is that, at least where I am, we are very lacking in some jobs. Skilled labor, such as carpenters, welders and technicians of varying kinds are in demand. There's still wage deflation, but certainly there are jobs.

WRT point 1; I remember 30 years ago thinking if the U.S. consumes such a disproportionate amount of the world's resources just how it was possible to bring the rest of the world up to the U.S's standard of living. Seems like the math doesn't add up here.

Your points in item 3 are well taken. It's interesting, or maybe obvious, that the skilled labor examples you've listed can't be off shored.

Often I think inflation has caused people to subconsciously choose to buy cheap, less quality goods. For example, buying furniture at IKEA versus buying hand made from someone local craftsman. Do people really demand the cheaper (price and quality) furniture or are they forced to accept the cheaper furniture because they're real disposable income is diminished? When we're talking about furniture it's not such a big deal but what about food? Are people really demanding carb, corn syrup laden crap with maximum calorie density or are they forced to make that choice because of the lower real wages?

Finally, I'm generally for free markets and against the idea of tariffs. However, it seems to me business and labor are not playing on a level field here because business (specifically multi-nationals) are allowed to take advantage of labor arbitrage but labor is not allowed to take advantage of rent arbitrage; meaning labor just can't up and move to Thailand or where ever to take advantage of the cost of living difference.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not trying to make excuses for people's choices, but kids cost money and financial hardship happens. People get laid off, they make bad decisions, the economy goes boom or bust, changing the cost of living and incomes, shit happens. You also have long term security to think about, making sure you're putting money away for retirement and so on. It would be hard to raise kids on $50,000 a year, and I suspect the median income in most of the country is actually less than that.

[0]:https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plan...

Are you sure? I remember daycare and it was mind-numbing torture. The parents all thought it was great but I would have preferred to be anywhere else.

So I take either you or your wife is German. If your child doesn't spend enough time with the German parent, he or she will not know the German language, so please be careful with that.

Disclaimer: I don't speak the language of my father (Vietnamese), for the reason I mentioned, and as a French expat I try to make my two kids speak French when I can, but they don't have the same level as "normal" French kids, especially my older son who is 6.

So, if your connections in a city are only five years old, and you then have a child and start to care for that child full-time - you're probably going to find out that indeed you really didn't have much of an "identity" in that town, after all.

I admit it's a bit perverse (and not very zen) to equate personal identity and social contacts. But we all do - we are social creatures. When I was a teenager and my elders were saying "he hasn't found his identity yet" they precisely meant "role, group he identifies with." It took me forever to figure out that's what they meant. I still think that's a bit or more than a bit screwed-up, but it is how we conduct ourselves. Not necessarily how we should conduct ourselves, or how an enlightened Zen master would conduct themselves.

So I would count the first poster whose contribution is now greyed-out as naive and unsympathetic, rather than as deliberately abusive or trolling.

We also both drastically underestimated just how lifestyle altering a child would be. My wife spent those five months in a tired, zombie-like haze with a baby who was much more on the colic side than not, and with very little family support it took its toll on both of us.

Reclaiming her "identity" has looked much more like you describe - reengaging with friends, activities, and other things she enjoyed before they were stripped away for simple survival.

Replicating socialized daycare on your own is massively inefficient (often one or two children max per caretaker) and really challenging financially. Instead of paying for child care over the course of say 10-12 years, many countries in Europe effectively spread that out over your entire working life (40 or so years) via taxation. Clearly the American way needs to get someone a Child-Care Bond or Annuity or something...

Have you ever spent all day with toddlers? It's enough to make you go mad sometimes, and it also starves you of adult interaction. Chasing little wild humans and occasionally commanding, "No! Spit that out!" isn't really interaction.

You need a support system when raising kids. Traditionally, this has been family, but people move around for work so much in the US, that many of us don't have that support system, and we outsource that to professionals - day care, nannies, co-ops. All that stuff costs money, and so, we both have to work.

If you both are so busy and "barley" (not homeless barley, but like needing dual-income) can afford living in the SF Bay Area, then why have kids?

Similarly, why live in the SF Bay Area?

Tech experience in the Bay by no means guarantees the ability to find employment outside it.

When it comes to having children, at some point, you decide you're ready and find a way to make it work. We're managing, but we both have to work. We love the area, our friends are here, are careers are here, we're up in the mountains every few weeks enjoying nature, this really is a beautiful part of the country, and you pay for that. Life isn't only about minimizing costs.

Long term, we probably can't afford to stay here unless I win the startup lottery, so we have an exit plan, but for now, we're enjoying this place.

{1}: https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/ASA2010_Kreider_E...

Why can't parents work (earn) and take care of their kids at the same time? Why assign a (permanent) role of stay-at-home-parent to essentially half of the adults (with children) risking unnecessarily trapping them in roles and financial state that's unfair.

Most larger dwellings are similarly set by the price that can be afforded by two full time adult workers.

This leaves no room for reduced time workers, such as two adults with jobs that allow them to work within the hours that children are typically in public daycare (warehousing in schools).

It also doesn't help anyone that the building codes are very lousy at requiring sufficient acoustic isolation. I'd sure like to not be woken up early / kept up late by the noises of those in other units.

Not having family, or people that are that close to you in your general vicinity makes a hard task incredibly more so.

To me this would be the factor that beats all others. Having raised a kid in perfectly nice area but with zero family or friends close by that could really help out, I'd probably consider moving to just about anywhere on earth to be closer to someone who could lend a hand.

I have a very very tiny tiny inkling of how difficult, after spending several weeks with my sister, her husband, and their (now) 8-month-old. And I know that what I see and feel is only a tiny fraction of what they see and feel. It's the best shot of birth control I could ever get.

And yet, parents -- on the whole -- love their kids, would do anything for them, and believe that their decision to have kids was the correct one. Holy biological imperatives, Batman.

I really hate that there are so few kids in SF. I wish SF could be a more kid- and family-friendly city. It just seems like too many things need to be fixed to make that happen in any reasonable time frame, and it's tempting to suggest that other things -- such as the housing crisis -- are more pressing and deserving of people's time and attention.

Putting those aside, from a purely logical perspective, someone has to have kids or the human race won't last much longer.

> problem solved.

Keeping it a flat rate also incentivizes wealthier (and thus on average higher educated) people to have more children.

https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/media_release/f...

> “Our analysis of mothers’ intentions to have a child, and an examination of reported births statistics, suggested that the baby bonus increased the fertility rate by 3.2 per cent”, said co-author of the study, Mark Wooden Professorial Research Fellow and Deputy Director, Melbourne Institute.

I thought that it was well known that economic considerations such as career, daycare costs & even how many children does the car fit affect family size.

SF kid raising wasn't ideal, and when we realized what would be involved w/r/t schooling, we left.

It's not normal for a city to have these things. It's unacceptable that one of the richest cities in the world has normalized (or become conditioned to) such a sad state of affairs. You shouldn't be afraid to raise a young child in the city.

"Stimulating urban environment". What do these words mean to you? Cities strike nothing but fear into me.

A major reason young kids are so stressful is they're relying on parents for play and social stimulation when they need more unstructured time with other kids. This is not the preferred way for either parent or child. Parents get fatigued entertaining three and four year olds because they are not three, and kids will choose other kids over parents most of the time if it's available.

The problem with parks and play spaces is that the kids don't know each other. Family life is segregated so kids don't get to form bonds.

This is a common thing to hear from parents but I feel it misses the mark for some couples that have rationally decided not to have children for precisely the reasons you stated. I think the difficulty you mentioned is actually a large reason as to why less couples are having kids in the first place.

Edit: completely reworded.

Everyone knows that kids are a pain in the ass. Everyone who has kids says "I knew they were a pain in the ass but they are way more of a pain than I even anticipated."

So no, you don't know. You think you know but you don't. Continue not having kids. I will also continue not having kids. But don't be the "well I haven't seen it because I don't have a tv" guy because nobody gives a shit.

You can understand that well enough to decide that you don't want any part of it, without understanding it to the depth of a person who has experienced it.

For me, having a kid has certainly been an (expected) money drain. But beyond that, my life is pretty similar to pre-kid. Wife and I still work our day jobs. Outside of work we still enjoy the same sorts of things we enjoyed before having a kid and continue to do those things. Now we just have an extra source of entertainment and responsibility in the kid as well.

Stand up comedy - people with no kids don't know

[edit] being serious here -- I needed to read what you wrote.

OP just made me realize how lucky I am in my current situation, is all :)

[edit] I'll add I've spent enough time in SF too to know what OP is talking about quite well

Having kids with two full-time working parents totally changes you. So much that it took 3 job changes to finally find the right balance - no more interesting startups, it's relatively boring web stuff as freelancer for me. It's worth sacrificing a little of my work pleasure for the simplicity and extra money.

You can still do interesting startups! But I would strongly recommend:

1. Startups which support remote work well. (If you can survive and thrive as a freelance consultant, you've got the discipline to make this work.)

2. Startups with enough money to pay you salary.

3. Startups where at least some of the cofounders have kids.

So no more pre-money startups in dubious makeshift "offices" in San Franciso run by brilliant and ambitious 23-year-olds, basically. I know, that spoils some of the fun, but it also reduces the outcome variance.

(I also wake up at 5am and start my working day very early, giving me more flexibility later in the day. It helps.)

thats what the two Au pairs sunbathing on your porch are for.

While most of the US is far too intolerant of homeless, and general issues of poverty, I think SF's brand of tolerance can sometimes swing too far in the other direction. SF's tolerance almost borders on apathy at times.

I would also add that in addition to making the city less hospitable to children and the elderly, it can also make it tough to survive as a homeless person who doesn't want to have to use physical force to protect themselves from other homeless.

Isn't it obvious that the better off folks are doing this to themselves? If your a resident, you've got the money. Build them some public toilets and showers. Heck build them some housing. I think we are only talking about 10-20k units. If you even put $50M a year into this (small potatoes for SF), you'll see some marked improvements in a few (3-4) yrs.

I've talked to many homeless on the streets and most don't want to go to the homeless shelters, they prefer their tents. And just about all of them have some sort of mental illness and/or drug addiction.

I don't think sf realistically has enough money to properly address the issue. And if we did give the best care in the nation, we'd get even more homeless at our door.

My hope is that homelessness becomes a national issue and that we can send the homeless to states with a cheaper cost of living where we can afford to provide them the help which is necessary.

I'm in favor of the government supplying drugs with clean needless and massive disgusting adverts on the needles about how bad it is for you. Saves cost on aids and other diseases related to the problem. Bonus money if you can keep your friend clean. Try to help the community help itself. Stuff like that.

Also, I can think of lots of tech that would help the situation, but there isn't a profit motive, so it doesn't exist (yet).

I believe the cities cost per unit is more then 500k. 50mil of housing in sf would barely make a dent.

Now 50mil in Mississippi would go a long way. Which is why I hope this becomes a national issue where we can use money from sf and use it to address the issue in cheaper places. It also might help the cheaper places economies.

Hotspots get 14 day max stay, inland you stay till u you find another place.

Would agree, a sister city with comparable warm weather and you might persuade people to live in other warm areas like Mississippi.

Phone makes elaborating challenging , sorry about any confusion.

In particular, Lava Mae [1] is providing mobile showers (in old refurbished buses!) but they only have a few. Google.org gave them a small grant to expand to LA [2], which also has a large homeless population but is massively spread out. My hope is that once they've proven the model a bit, that someone like Benioff comes in big (I'm not idealistic enough to hope that we could actually do this through a city bond).

[1] http://lavamae.org [2] https://blog.google/topics/google-org/bay-area-nonprofits-ho...

I'd also add that solving the problem isn't simply a matter of throwing money at it, although that may be a better alternative than not putting any money towards it. I've seen figures cited that SF spends well over $100 million on homeless issues. Building housing specifically targeting the low income and homeless population, rather than increasing density overall, also doesn't seem like a winning solution. I believe the average BMR unit built by the city of SF ends up costing the city around $700k-$800k per unit.

Something that surprised me when I visited SF (I am not from the USA) is that the "type" of homeless seem to be people with some mental handicap or drunk. I would imagine that some of these for some reason don't make use of the help provided.

Where he's mixed up seems rather to be in imagining every day in SF is the Folsom Street Festival, and every store is Mr. S. Admittedly I've only visited SF myself, and rarely at that, and in considerable part specifically for the purpose of partaking in activities which are in no sense proper for children. But the very strong impression with which I've come away is that of a relatively ordinary town that's a bit unusually up itself but which also really knows how to let its hair down, rather than the latter-day Sodom which our interlocutor makes it out to be.

I imagine Amsterdam is doing fine too

One of those is not like the others.

i think your mind is playing tricks on you. most people over 25 without children know exactly how difficult life is with children -- that's why they don't have any.