When you're poor and child-less, you can still sleep in on weekends, watch Netflix/game all day/night or whatever other (cheap) hobby you have. It's even possible to do a decent amount of travelling on a very tight budget these days (low-cost airlines, couchsurfing...). All things considered, today is not a bad time to be a poor person in terms of being able to have fun.

I think even for middle class, the main cost is actually the time rather than the monetary cost.

But I do agree that opportunity cost is the right framing.

I doubt that anyone would prefer gaming to children because they hold gaming in the kind of profound esteem you feel for the task of "raising a literal human child"; more likely, they simply don't feel much of anything about having kids, or perhaps they feel some aversion. It's not hard for even a comparatively trivial activity you enjoy to feel more appealing than an alternative you don't actually desire.

I understand procrastination for sure, but the idea that someone would avoid having kids to do the above is absolutely bizarre to me.

One thing which I kind of regret about having children relatively late in my life (although I wasn't that much older when I had my first than you are now) is that I won't be there for them (and potentially grandchildren) as long as I wish I would be, esp. in good health. A depressing way to think about this is that every year I've enjoyed the freedom before them is a year I'm not going to spend with them.

In any case, it’s just a plain fact that some people don’t desire to raise a child. Many, probably most, do, but many don’t. Personally, I’d pick the video games. Heck, I’d pick nothing as a preferable alternative to raising children. Not everyone considers it a positive.

crazy thought i know.

https://x.com/theHauer/status/1222514313723875332/photo/1

From "Population Pyramids Yield Accurate Estimates of Total Fertility Rates", https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s13524-019-00842-x?sh...