Are people who don't have kids selfish?

[Black Dog]

Canada’s latest batch of 2011 census numbers was released Wednesday and revealed that 44.5% of couples are “without children” compared to 39.2% with children.

...

Having children used to be the point of being a pair. It was the great aspiration — along with finding love everlasting — a biological impulse to go forth and multiply and, later, once your babies reached a certain age, to cajole them about the merits and benefits of doing their bit to join the ranks of parenthood while giving Mom and Dad some grandkids.

...

Studies have revealed that there is a mismatch between the messaging we receive about parenting, about how sweet it is — with its inherent emotional rewards — and the reality of the mayhem-ridden slog many moms and dads face when wrangling their brood.

“I’d be reluctant to say that people are waking up and deciding not to have kids because they are realizing how demanding it can be,” says Steve Mock, an assistant professor in the health studies and gerontology department at the University of Waterloo.

Gone are diaper changes and ballet classes, replaced by hot yoga and shopping trips to New York City

Indeed, there are more finite calculations involved: Career demands. Timing. Not having a partner, or not having the right partner. Flaky fears about overburdening our already overburdened planet, personal choice and a bunch of other hooey that serve to hide the fact that happy couples that choose not to have kids are, at root, well, let’s see: selfish.

...

In Canada, a new normal could be on the rise, a great divide where, standing on one side will be the old guard — the haggard, the proud, the poor-looking schleps with their baby strollers and shrieking brats — while on the other will be childless twosomes, sipping their lattes and skipping off to a 10:15 a.m. appointment with their personal trainer.

What will it mean, for us, as a nation? What could be lost? And what will become of those trim, fit and fat-free-yogurt loving folks when decrepitude inevitably creeps in; when they age, as we all inevitably do, and the children they chose not to have aren’t around to look after them?

Trend of couples not having children just plain selfish

As someone who is pretty vocal in his life about his desire not to have kids, I completely own up to the fact that my reasons are completely selfish. I simply don't want the responsibility, the hassle, the expense that goes along with having kids. Having a kid would mean giving up the lifestyle I enjoy on the off chance that I might find parenthood even more rewarding (though research has shown that parents are far more likely to be depressed than the childless). I certainly get the notion that having kids helps keep this great machine of society chugging along, but I don't see why that's my responsibility . I'd definitely point out that having kids in order to have someone to look after you when you are old is hardly a selfless act. I'm fortunate to live in an age when we can choose to have kids or not. I refuse to apologize for wanting to exercise that right in a way that benefits me.

[Shady]

Trend of couples not having children just plain selfish

As someone who is pretty vocal in his life about his desire not to have kids, I completely own up to the fact that my reasons are completely selfish. I simply don't want the responsibility, the hassle, the expense that goes along with having kids. Having a kid would mean giving up the lifestyle I enjoy on the off chance that I might find parenthood even more rewarding (though research has shown that parents are far more likely to be depressed than the childless). I certainly get the notion that having kids helps keep this great machine of society chugging along, but I don't see why that's my responsibility . I'd definitely point out that having kids in order to have someone to look after you when you are old is hardly a selfless act. I'm fortunate to live in an age when we can choose to have kids or not. I refuse to apologize for wanting to exercise that right in a way that benefits me.

I completely agree.

[Boges]

Society has changed where having kids is far more expensive than it used to be. Couples want to have disposable income. Financial independence is happening a lot later for young people these days. The census number also show a large percentage of people in their 20's still live at home.

I'll admit that I only moved out once I got engaged so the pooled income allowed both of us to have a similar standard of living than I did living with my parents.

But I'll admit being married for a few years now and in my 30's I see that window closing and I think I should probably have kids soon.

A friend of mine who's the same age and has two kids says you'll never be able to afford having kids. You'll always have to make sacrifices.

[Black Dog]

Society has changed where having kids is far more expensive than it used to be. Couples want to have disposable income. Financial independence is happening a lot later for young people these days. The census number also show a large percentage of people in their 20's still live at home.

I'll admit that I only moved out once I got engaged so the pooled income allowed both of us to have a similar standard of living than I did living with my parents.

But I'll admit being married for a few years now and in my 30's I see that window closing and I think I should probably have kids soon.

A friend of mine who's the same age and has two kids says you'll never be able to afford having kids. You'll always have to make sacrifices.

The thing that's never clear to me are benefits from having kids. Most of my peers and older siblings have kids and, from my outside standpoint, I couldn't think of a more unappealing. It's basically like taking on a second full time job, only this one actually costs you money. I've read that it costs about $200,000 to raise a kid to age 18; I expect that's probably on the low side. So if one wants kids because they hope to have someone to look after them when they are old, you'd literally be better off saving the money and paying someone else to do it later in life.

[guyser]

The thing that's never clear to me are benefits from having kids. Most of my peers and older siblings have kids and, from my outside standpoint, I couldn't think of a more unappealing.

I am curious what age bracket you are in.Im now in the 50+ bracket (barely )

I too subscribed to much the same, although I dont think in my earlier life that I considred any of the whys about why no kids.

But as I age , I find myself with a healthy does of doubt with 'did I do the right thing?' Being around all my friends kids, and now some of them are having kids, I see a lot of value and pleasure in my friends lives.

It appears fun, always something going on either in their lives or in their households.Some of it a pain, granted, but the pleasure seems to outweigh the pain by a large margin.

I dont know if the right words can be found, as I think about this quite a bit and never can find the reason why I feel like I missed out on something rewarding and cool.

I suppose the best way to articulate my feelings is that their households are full of life. Noise, laughter , tears,rewards, disappointments, comradery, and mostly contentment.

I on the otherhand can have an empty house (most the time) all the live long day, day in and day out.While I quite enjoy that aspect when Ive had busy times elsewhere, I find more and more that I wish it wasnt so empty.

As we age it appears that we become more slotted into family life , the extended family life. As my parents aged they would see less of their freinds and more of the family. And when my dad died, my mom had her friends rally around, but being now in their 80s, that rallying is sparse as they all deal with issues of their own. So then that social net dwindles over time. My moms has severely, and something that pisses me off since she was there for all of them in need and now no return assistance. So ...that family thing comes full circle. My mother gets her prime enjoyment out of her grandchildren and now great grandchildren. Remove any of that and I am convinced she would be dead soon or a crotchety old coot (and some days is) If I put myself in her 83 yr old shoes, without family natch, I am confident I would be a rude old man.

I think my only saving grace, rather two of them, is that my sister has 2 boys and one has 3 kids, and my brother has 3 girls (all unmarried Uni students) who will likely have kids. But even at that, it does , at times,feel like I am while not quite an outsider, someone just over the line for lack of better words.The other being Im dating a much (as in much) younger woman. So one never knows.

Of course I am not suggesting you are wrong, nor do I suggest you will regret it, but things change, opinions change everything changes.

I can pompously say, I suspect in some small part the same pangs will resonate for you at some time in the future.

[BubberMiley]

Those who don't have kids are often the most awesome parents though. They usually have very correct ideas about what actual parents are doing wrong and how they could improve.

[guyser]

Those who don't have kids are often the most awesome parents though. They usually have very correct ideas about what actual parents are doing wrong and how they could improve.

Detatchment has its rewards. The cant see the forest for the trees thing.

[Guest American Woman]

So if one wants kids because they hope to have someone to look after them when they are old, you'd literally be better off saving the money and paying someone else to do it later in life.

Who in this day and age has kids so they'll have someone to look after them later in life? Today's 'kids' have jobs, their own lives, often miles away from their parents. How many kids in this day and age take in their parents? How many parents want to live with their kids?

I loved raising my kids. They brought me such joy and the activities they were involved with enriched my life. Now that they are adults, they are my best friends. I have such pride and gratitude that these little children of mine have grown into such beautiful, responsible, loving, caring adults. As for my grandson - the love he gives me, the hugs, the way he singles me out at family gatherings, fills me with such love. I love him, my family loves him - and he is a part of my Dad who passed away not too long ago - I see my Dad in him, I'm constantly reminded of the love my Dad had for him and the light he brought into my Dad's life.

I realize kids are not for everyone, so to choose not to have them because of the responsibility, hassle, and expense likely means that you aren't a great candidate for parenthood anyway. If you don't want them, if you don't think the love they bring is worth the hassle and the money, it's not for you.

But I've said this before and I'll say it again - as less people are having kids, there will be less money going into programs such as social security and medicare. That could end up being a real problem.

Yes it costs a lot of money to raise kids and it takes a lot of time and effort - but to me, the love and rewards are priceless.

[Canuckistani]

We'd better hope more and more people are being selfish. 7 billion and counting is way too many already. The argument that we need more and more kids to support all the old folks, then those kids get old and require even more kids to suppors them, breaks down at some point when the planet just can't support more people. I think we're seeing that already and it will only get worse.

[Black Dog]

I am curious what age bracket you are in.Im now in the 50+ bracket (barely )

In my mid 30s, just heading into the downslope towards 40.

I can pompously say, I suspect in some small part the same pangs will resonate for you at some time in the future.

It's possible. I guess I'll just have to subdue them with bottles of fine wine in some exotic locale...

Seriously, though I do appreciate your perspective. And to be honest, the kids/no kids debate is a bone of contention in my current relationship. My big issue is that kids are completely non-refundable; parenting isn't something you can simply dabble in.

[Guest American Woman]

We'd better hope more and more people are being selfish. 7 billion and counting is way too many already. The argument that we need more and more kids to support all the old folks, then those kids get old and require even more kids to suppors them, breaks down at some point when the planet just can't support more people. I think we're seeing that already and it will only get worse.

Why do more and more people have to choose not to have kids? Why can't more and more people just have a couple of kids instead of a whole brood* if overpopulation is the concern?

*As in "19 Kids and Counting"

Edited September 20, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

In my mid 30s, just heading into the downslope towards 40.

Ok.

I remember those years well. Never thought back then I would think like I do now. B ut thats me, anyone else could have the opposite reaction

It's possible. I guess I'll just have to subdue them with bottles of fine wine in some exotic locale...

Make enough money and you can do both!

Seriously, though I do appreciate your perspective. And to be honest, the kids/no kids debate is a bone of contention in my current relationship. My big issue is that kids are completely non-refundable; parenting isn't something you can simply dabble in.

Youre more than welcome.

It will remain a bone of contention for the forseeable future too. At some point (and I had a few of them) she will tell you to either piss or get off the pot. Dont string her along with "well maybe some day'

It aint the same as "Does my ass look fat in these jeans" <----that you can lie about and get away with, same as many other things, but .....for a woman, the truth about having kids has to be front and centre.

[Canuckistani]

Why do more and more people have to choose not to have kids? Why can't more and more people just have a couple of kids instead of a whole brood* if overpopulation is the concern?

*As in "19 Kids and Counting"

We're already at that point in Canada. Below replacement numbers. But people who advocate that we need more young people to support the old, forget that all those young people will also get old and need even more young people to support them. We've come off a period of the baby boom - a huge, very productive cohort that built up our social safety nets. No way we can replicate that phenom, nor should we try. We have to figure out how to solve the problem without population growth. Personally I think we've already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet for humans, and will find natural forces causing a population reduction one way or another. Probably in several ways, like resource depletion causes war, say.

[Black Dog]

Who in this day and age has kids so they'll have someone to look after them later in life? Today's 'kids' have jobs, their own lives, often miles away from their parents. How many kids in this day and age take in their parents? How many parents want to live with their kids?

That was the crux of the article I posted.

But I've said this before and I'll say it again - as less people are having kids, there will be less money going into programs such as social security and medicare. That could end up being a real problem.

Well, I'm paying into those programs. I'd also argue I'll be a far more productive member of society from a pure financial standpoint as a childless person: I won't need as much time off, my health care costs are lower etc etc. And really I'm only talking about my choice. In my experience, though, people who choose not to have children face a level of judgement for that choice than parents simply do not.

[Topaz]

Perhaps those poeple who don't have kids are the smart because they know they wouldn't make a very good parents and there's also those people who want to pick up and go on a vacation when they want but who says when they are in thir 40's, that they wouldn't change their mind.

[Canuckistani]

Perhaps those poeple who don't have kids are the smart because they know they wouldn't make a very good parents and there's also those people who want to pick up and go on a vacation when they want but who says when they are in thir 40's, that they wouldn't change their mind.

If those people are smart, then there are a lot of stupid people around, ie very poor parents.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps those poeple who don't have kids are the smart because they know they wouldn't make a very good parents and there's also those people who want to pick up and go on a vacation when they want but who says when they are in thir 40's, that they wouldn't change their mind.

And do you think some people who have kids never regret that decision? At least if yo choose not to have kids and regret it later, the only person you hurt is you. If you have kids and regret it, who knows how that will affect your children.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

That was the crux of the article I posted.

It sounded to me as if you were agreeing; I thought it sounded as if you were the one raising the point on the board.

Well, I'm paying into those programs.

Yes, but they were set up on the premise that there would be a continuing population paying into them.

also argue I'll be a far more productive member of society from a pure financial standpoint as a childless person: I won't need as much time off, my health care costs are lower etc etc.

And I could counter-argue that you are a less productive member of society as you are not providing any police officers, health care providers, teachers, soldiers - any members of the work force whatsoever, as well as no members contributing to social security type programs. You are going to get your healthcare provided by other people's children; society and your well being will depend on other people's children.

And really I'm only talking about my choice. In my experience, though, people who choose not to have children face a level of judgement for that choice than parents simply do not.

As I said, I don't believe parenthood is for everyone, and since it does change one's life forever, if someone doesn't want to be a parent, I think it's a responsible choice on their part not to have children. Of course there are no guarantees, either. No guarantees that one will have a healthy child, a productive child, etc., so IMO one truly does have to want to be a parent above all else to become a parent.

I cannot imagine life without my daughters. The relationship that we have as adults is a benefit I never considered when having kids. We tend to think of the joys - and responsibilities, and yes, cost - of raising of them, but to have your children become your best friend is priceless, and a reality that I never considered at the time. Also, if one prioritizes, one can have the best of both worlds - I traveled with my kids, brought them to the theatre, etc. and enjoyed it all so much more as I was sharing their discoveries, their excitement, too.

But again, I don't think parenthood is for everyone, and I respect people's decision not to have children. In fact, I think there are quite a few parents who perhaps should have opted for that choice.

[The_Squid]

And I could counter-argue that you are a less productive member of society as you are not providing any police officers, health care providers, teachers, soldiers

this is totally backwards.... he pays the same as someone with children, but, as a household, would use them much less. So, in fact, he is paying more than he should, if it were measured on a per person or household use of services basis.

He pays for teachers as much as someone with kids, but gets absolutely no benefit, other than a societal benefit. He also doesn't get the tax breaks someone with kids would get. This means that those without kids pay more taxes just because of the fact that they don't have kids.

I am not saying it should be measured that way... we should all contribute regardless, because it is for the betterment of society, not necessarily the individual.

Edited September 20, 2012 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

this is totally backwards.... he pays the same as someone with children, but, as a household, would use them much less. So, in fact, he is paying more than he should, if it were measured on a per person or household use of services basis.

Not at all...... He's not paying out any money to raise future doctors, future soldiers, future police officers, future teachers, future construction workers, future anything. Other people are putting out the money to raise the kids who will become his doctors, the police officers, the firemen, the soldiers, etc., who will keep be there for him. If no one had kids, who would attend to his needs? He will enjoy these services without having to put a cent into raising the people who will see that he gets the services that he needs.

He pays for teachers as much as someone with kids, but gets absolutely no benefit, other than a societal benefit. He also doesn't get the tax breaks someone with kids would get. This means that those without kids pay more taxes just because of the fact that they don't have kids.

I would say that societal benefits would be a pretty huge benefit in and of itself, as it's thanks to other people putting out the money to raise our future generations that society will continue. But I'm speaking of his personal benefit. If no one wanted to put out the money to raise kids, and it often includes helping pay for a university education, there would be no doctors, for example, to treat him personally.

Furthermore, people with kids are also paying taxes - on top of the expenses of raising kids, which lower taxes don't even begin to compensate for.

I am not saying it should be measured that way... we should all contribute regardless, because it is for the betterment of society, not necessarily the individual.

It's also very much for the benefit of the individual. Every time someone waits on him, answers a service call, provides dental and medical care, takes care of him in a nursing home down the road, plows his road, one of many services that others provide for us, he's enjoying those services without having incurred the cost of raising any of them - it's thanks to the fact that someone had that child and put money into raising him/her. Sure he pays taxes, sure he pays for their services, but so do parents - and they incurred the cost of raising that productive member of society on top of it.

Edited September 20, 2012 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

It sounded to me as if you were agreeing; I thought it sounded as if you were the one raising the point on the board.

Well maybe you should pay closer attention to the original material.

Yes, but they were set up on the premise that there would be a continuing population paying into them.

Yeah: and? I'm not advocating everybody stop having kids.

And I could counter-argue that you are a less productive member of society as you are not providing any police officers, health care providers, teachers, soldiers - any members of the work force whatsoever, as well as no members contributing to social security type programs. You are going to get your healthcare provided by other people's children; society and your well being will depend on other people's children.

Again: I'm paying for that stuff with my own tax dollars. And I may not be providing labour, but neither am I sticking society with the cost of creating more cogs for the machine (such as education). And I'm subsidizing other people's kids while I'm at it.

[carepov]

Trend of couples not having children just plain selfish

As someone who is pretty vocal in his life about his desire not to have kids, I completely own up to the fact that my reasons are completely selfish. I simply don't want the responsibility, the hassle, the expense that goes along with having kids. Having a kid would mean giving up the lifestyle I enjoy on the off chance that I might find parenthood even more rewarding (though research has shown that parents are far more likely to be depressed than the childless). I certainly get the notion that having kids helps keep this great machine of society chugging along, but I don't see why that's my responsibility . I'd definitely point out that having kids in order to have someone to look after you when you are old is hardly a selfless act. I'm fortunate to live in an age when we can choose to have kids or not. I refuse to apologize for wanting to exercise that right in a way that benefits me.

Choosing not to have kids is not an indicator of being selfish. And even if someone "selfishly" decides to not having kids there is nothing wrong with that. I also think that if people want 19 kids that's fine too. We should all try to be less judgemental.

[Guest Manny]

I think we change as we grow older, so that we eventually come to seek something a little less tangible. After a while, the fine wine kinda tastes the same, and the exotic locales just another place. Even though it's still good, we've had so much different by now that it really doesn't matter any more.

[Bonam]

Choosing not to have kids is not an indicator of being selfish. And even if someone "selfishly" decides to not having kids there is nothing wrong with that. I also think that if people want 19 kids that's fine too. We should all try to be less judgemental.

Agreed. Whether to have kids, and how many, is a matter of personal choice.

Personally, I've seen some of my grand parents grow old, their friends and siblings and spouse die off, and they have nothing else in life to do but live vicariously through their children. I think most people would just get lonely without family, and if you don't have kids, that's exactly the position you'll end up in in your old age. Yeah, maybe society will take care of you, especially if you've saved up tons of money to pay society to do so, but having a doctor and nurse take care of your needs does not satisfy your emotional needs, only your physical ones.

On the other hand, I'm precisely the kind of person that enjoys a lifestyle that is completely incompatible with having kids. Whether it's climbing mountains, going on long vacations in the middle of nowhere, working every waking moment for days on end, or whatever else. Just having the freedom to, at any moment, do whatever the heck you want. And obviously having kids totally restricts that, as you must now be responsible for their care, safety, education, company, etc, 24/7 for years (at least if you aspire to be a good parent anyway). Most of my friends have the same attitude: they cannot wrap their heads around the idea of giving up all that freedom. Now, of course I'm sure the process of raising kids is also very emotionally rewarding, but the shear amount of work and responsibility is staggering to think about.

Basically, putting it in the bluntest terms I can, I guess it's a tradeoff of freedom in your adult years vs company in your old age.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

On the other hand, I'm precisely the kind of person that enjoys a lifestyle that is completely incompatible with having kids.

Well duh... You're a kid! No offense...

Almost nobody your age plans to have kids, but nearly 85% of the population eventually reproduces. When I was in my early 20's or late teens I would have said the exact same thing you did. Its statistically very likely however that your outlook on this will change.

Edited September 21, 2012 by dre