Yet, hilariously, the average home size keeps on growing. Where I live, the average home built today is 25% larger than in 1990 and 100%+ larger than the average house prior to 1950. There is a pretty strong inverse correlation between family size and housing size – as families get smaller, houses get bigger.
It seems people have no trouble bearing the cost of larger housing. They just don't want to fill them with people. Again, because people don't want the children.
Why would they? You don't need the 'mule' anymore. Rich people can hire someone else from outside of the family to do the work. Today, you don't need a kid slaving away in the kitchen to ensure you are fed, you can simply go to McDonalds.
https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigge...
Also, while past generations may have expected much from children in terms of work, I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.
No doubt. Poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life. There weren't enough resources found "at home" to support multiple adult generations. But when one is rich, they don't have to set out unto the world. They can bring the resources to where they already are.
> I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.
Alone? Probably not. Alongside a parent? Most definitely. There wasn't enough time in the day to get everything done if you didn't have their help. I will also note that rich people today also have modern kitchen appliances to further replace those children, so even if you're not going to McDonalds, you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done. So, again, no need for the 'mule'.
> you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done
That recontextualizes your earlier statements, which are made even more dubious. Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”
Where the people were rich, sure. Of course you were going to have all the generations living in your castle. Why wouldn't you? But for a poor family in that 200 sq.ft. thatch hut? Yeah, no.
> Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”
Fine, slave away in the dining room. I don't care where the actual chore was done. The significance is the act, not the precise location.
That is not borne by the historical record.
> for most of American history, multigenerational living has been the norm, not the exception. […] Throughout the 19th century, most Americans lived in a multigenerational household, with a majority of elderly Americans living with an adult child. The main driver of this living arrangement was the country’s agrarian economy. For farmers, there was an incentive to have many children, as this meant more help around the farm. It was common for one child to remain at the farm after reaching adulthood to continue working with the anticipation of eventually inheriting it. If more than one child stayed, the land was sometimes divided between children, forming smaller farms.
https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-ameri...
> The significance is the act
The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore.
Each rebuttal grows flimsier and flimsier. Have you even seen a child? Has this entire discourse been with ChatGPT?
You must have copied the wrong account, then. The American farmer in the 19th century owned their land. They were not under serfdom. These were quite wealthy people. By the 19th century, anyone who was poor was relegated to the city.
> The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore.
Is there something actually here or are you just trying to go down some silly semantic rabbit hole because you don't want to admit that people don't have children simply because they don't want to have children?
He says following pulling out the historical record that contracts his own claim. At least your comedy routine is down pat.
> You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger?
We are not talking about having no children. We are talking about why people might have one or two children instead of more. The focus of this conversation is on costs of living, of which housing is the chief expense. More children means more space means more cost.