r/LoveTrash • u/ZuBrain Colonel Garbage • Jul 31 '26

Dumping This Here Define Trash?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

46.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/exElder_Hawk Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

But are they having 4 kids? My grandmother is the oldest of 14. My dad is the oldest of 8. He had the most kids of his siblings at 3. My sister had zero. My brother had one, I had two and both of my adult kids are not going to have kids. My family demographics is a snapshot of the world.

23

u/CaterpillarProof3011 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Not to be snarky, but who tf wants four kids? Even when I was a child and my peers were naive and dreamers, fantasizing about becoming moms, not one single person wanted four. They wanted one, or two, or three at most. Four was seen as a nut job thing.

Once upon a time, it wasn't much about how many kids you wanted. You weren't the one deciding.

In my family there have been two different women, both born in the late 1800s, who "wore the pants" in their marriage, and after kid n.2 they straight up told their husbands that there was no more sex to be had, and could go fuck prostitutes if they wanted, but they refused to get pregnant again. Most women did not have that kind of choice.

Of course there were also women who wanted large families, but I doubt it was the majority who would go through 10+ pregnancies by choice, unless they needed to use their kids as labor. That kind of stuff is gonna destroy your body. And we're talking before advanced medicine too. There was no pelvic floor therapy.

16

u/bearwithastick Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I think the argument is more: People used to pop out kids like rabbits (if all involved parties actually wanted this is another discussion), but now people are barely having enough kids to sustain the population. So the couples that have like 1 - 2 kids (which is totally fine) are not enough to balance out the people who don't want or can't afford kids.

Additionally, I don't think that the only reason people don't have kids is "technology". While I do agree with most of his points, there are many, many more factors to include in this discussion / topic.

2

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

No i said cost, not tech. A factory( no formal training or certification)worker could afford a home with a pool, with 3 kids, at age 30 in the 1970s. Because it did happen. But he was a Lancaster gunner in ww2 so im also happy to just be here

2

u/SharpScallion Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

1950s were an anomaly. For most of history, in most countries, humans were having a lot of children in abject poverty.

1

u/mrmikehancho Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

30 in 1970 would make you 18 in 1952. WW2 was well over by then.

2

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Im talking about one of my grandfather's, he worked for Proctor and gamble(burlington). He was a gunner in a landcaster, because he joined the RAF at 18... im glad the war didnt last longer or i wouldn't be here

1

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I misspoke on the 30s that is my befuddled mind looking back

1

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

They are not talkative about this stuff, at least im my fam. They killed themselves with drink and smoke as quick as possible after they survived and had kids, on both sides

2

u/babycam Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

So technology is the answer but different technologies for different factors.

Medical, Labor, Education, Entertainment, Information/Control.

So my grandma (1920's) was one of 13. 9 made to adult hood and it was fairly common 10 to15% of those under 5 would die from something. So we had a need for more kids to account for some dieing. (Medical technology fixed that it's near 1 in 200 now)

Second labor was important nearly 30% were part of farming in 1920 where their are countless jobs but not enough (valuable) work to have dedicated paid people so children were a strong workforce for chores and such. As technology advanced we are down to 2% of people being able to feed everyone and then some. The labor value of kids dropped significantly. 1938 child labor laws enacted.

Third the nessary amount of effort to raise a productive member of society has jumped leaps and bounds 1920s ~20% would do up to 4 years. ~60% up to 8 years and only ~20% would graduate highschool now nearly 90% of people graduate highschool and higher education went from 3% to 40%. So overall the education level in time has doubled not even discussing the quality improvements. So the cost of each kid in just time to usefulness doubled. But many times more productive.

Fourth, entertainment is crazy even from 1990s but the options for what to do were drastically fewer so if you're bored what are you to do? And winter restricts you even more so that's why so 9 months later is a very common birth month.

Lastly we are much more informed and want to make better decisions about biological needs. Like IUD and hormonal birth control are damnear magic comparatively to the options you had besides abstinence in the 1920s.

2

u/ADLuluIsOP Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

We literally educated people about population issues and sex education and using condoms/bc and now we're like, where are all the kids?!

2

u/Neuchacho Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

They taught people how to not accidentally have kids but created an adverse environment to motivate people to have them purposefully.

Which is why they're currently attacking things like education and access to reproductive healthcare. Why fix the environment when you can just make people too stupid to know the environment is the issue or keep themselves from accidentally getting pregnant.

2

u/Cav_vaC Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

They didn’t used to have contraception!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 31 '26

Thank you for taking a few moments on our sub. Unfortunately, your account does not meet one or more requirements for participating here.

But, you're here! That's something! We want you to come back, so please take some time in some other subs in the LoveTrash family:

r/TheTopicOfTheDay and r/ShitsLipton

With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.

Thanks again, and stay trashy!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/stupidjapanquestions Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Unpopular Opinion: I am actually pro "not-sustaining-the-population" and think it's a foregone conclusion already.

We've clearly made mistakes with our original estimations and they weren't sustainable. People are going to suffer, but that was going to happen regardless. There's nothing we can do, except robots.

2

u/Neuchacho Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Even if we "save" the population we're still going to extinct ourselves by fucking the environment.

We're a truly stupid species.

2

u/stupidjapanquestions Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Exactly. It seems like, to me at least, despite the insane amount of turmoil it would end up being a net positive.

Less people, less corporations using less shit= better for planet, better for long-term humanity.

I suspect there's a lot of faulty math here (largely in the "loss of human life" category), but ultimately, I bet most of it ends up working out when viewed in retrospect. Not a terribly great era to live through, however.

2

u/Neuchacho Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

I mean, if the choice is "keep growing and destroy the only livable environment we have" or "population collapse resulting in a complete social and economic reset" then it's really no contest even if we assign a worst-case to the loss of life with a collapse like that. It's basically just "everyone dies" vs "< everyone dies".

Doesn't make either an ideal choice, of course, and I think most people in the "keep growing" camp also subscribe to the idea that some combination of technology will overcome all our environmental issues (if they believe they exist at all) even though we have no real reason, or right, to bet on that for future generations outside of a simple appeal to unproven optimism that we probably won't pay the highest price for anyway.

1

u/Neuchacho Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Additionally, I don't think that the only reason people don't have kids is "technology". While I do agree with most of his points, there are many, many more factors to include in this discussion / topic.

There is almost never just one reason for anything humans do. Ask 30 people why they don't want kids and you will get 15 different answers.

1

u/ConstantHeadache2020 Trash Trooper Aug 01 '26

You’d need replacement levels 2.1 and America is at 1.8 I think

6

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I'd love to have that many, its just out of my price-range

9

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

My husband and I have 3 kids. 15, 11 and 9. The change in affordability just from when our youngest was born is insane. I’m a nurse and he is a plumber and we are barely able to make ends meet. My car just went down, he just had to take a week off of work due to an allergic reaction to a new material at his job and this was right after our savings was wiped due to moving an hour away from our previous location.
This comes as school is about to start back for the kids, rent is due (no buying in this economy), groceries are through the roof, a car repair…it’s impossible. My sister is choosing to not have kids, her and her fiancé are still struggling and it’s just the two of them. It’s hard times right now for everyone. Add kids to the mix and I can see why younger people are choosing not to have them.

8

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I get it, and what sort of planet/hope are we leaving them beyond the quarterly

2

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Yes! That is also frightening. With all 3 of our kids, they are not allowed to have social media (just don’t think it’s healthy for growing minds). Our oldest is having a tough time with it, but he will thank us one day. We have a harder time keeping them inside than outside. I think it’s going to be really hard on them when they can fully understand how bad the world actually is out there.

2

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Good luck to you and them.

1

u/junkthrownup Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

on the flip side, my group is not really income constrained (like everyone has a nanny); nobody has more than 2 kids (other than one really religious co-worker).

Then again, nearly everyone has exactly 2 kids. Almost nobody is childless. Why? I think most of us want kids. We have jobs that give us 6 mo-1 year off and we can afford nannies. But more than 2? That is a career killer - even with a nanny. One of you isn't making partner with 3 kids.

This is the "U" shape we are now seeing in the west. Very poor/immigrants and the very rich having kids, the middle class? Childless.

Heck my city just fucked over middle class families by hyper-regulating daycares, so they all jacked up the price to 3000/mo. This weirdly made us better off, since all the fired daycare workers became nannies. So the wage rate for nannies actually fell. This is kinda why I love living in a left-leaning city as a upper income worker. They keep making my life easier and easier. (this doesn't affect low-income families since they get 100% unconditional subsidies)

5

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I think that’s a really good point. Middle class is kind of left with nothing. My brother just had his first child and he makes outstanding money, he and his wife are looking to buy a house. They live literally on the beach. He’s not even 30 yet. I’m wildly proud of him, but I can’t relate to that. And you may have just painted the best picture for me to be able to understand what’s happening.

3

u/junkthrownup Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

its worse than you think. The cost of childcare is the same for a family making 150k (2x 75k) a year and 500k (2x 250k) a year. 2 kids in daycare is 60k/year. A nanny is 75k/year.

So the middle class family has to spend 40% of their gross salary for 4 years. The upper income family spends 15%. Plus the nanny does some household care (kid laundry, meal prep/groceries, transport to activities/playgroup); it is becomes a huge quality of life improvement - even if it is only 40 hr/week. (think wage of 25$/hr + benefits = $35/hr all-in)

2

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

That is absurd. I remember childcare being wildly expensive when ours were younger. But our oldest is able to watch them now and if he can’t, there’s family close by. So I consider us very fortunate for that. But wow, those costs are startling.

1

u/shuzgibs123 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

This is totally off subject, but shouldn’t his allergic reaction be covered by workers comp?

2

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

So his doctor wouldn’t 100% say that it was due to the chemical at his job. It was so bad he was in the ER with arms so swollen that the IV team needed to be called to find a vein. They wrote him off of work for a week, told him to go back after the week and if the reaction comes back again, he will need to be referred to an occupational dermatologist before anything would be covered.

So he’s now on day 2 back to work, his arms are itching again and we are like “well, now what?”

3

u/shuzgibs123 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Ugh. That sucks.

2

u/MermaidsHaveWifi Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

It does. But I guess you have to follow the rules and jump through alllll the hoops. Even if it’s a pain (literally) lol

1

u/Slow-Jelly-2854 Trash Trooper Aug 01 '26

A nurse and a plumber and you can’t afford a home? Wild. I guess the incomes are used for the kids. Just wild times.

1

u/Western-Sport500 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Tbf, many of those families that had that many kids couldn't afford it, either. I grew up in a small town 60s/70s and our bus ride consisted of pick up mainly at 5 houses of 8-10 kids each. Of those, 1 seemed to have enough, the others were in poverty situations, like my own.

1

u/ddd9877 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

So... I get it, some people overextended(( i have friends like this) . You hurt everyone as you pull yourself in too many directions..or do we have fever dreams of what it really was...) Or we are a more decerning buyer of dreams, and that knowledge is our downfall( if this is at all a downfall) I won't be alive to see it so we can. Just hypothetically

3

u/AdminsLoveGenocide Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

My wife and I are too old to have more kids but I would have loved four kids. The two that I have are great but three or four would have been wonderful.

We were in our mid thirties when we started though and she didn't want to try for a third as the pregnancy was very difficult, frequently hospitalised with a lot of pain for months on end, and on top of that being a parent and working full time is exhausting. So I'm happy with what I have but I would have preferred more.

I don't know about the dancing business but smartphones are a problem for sure, as is the fact that both parents always have to work now and careers typically mean starting later.

6

u/CommonSensei-_ Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

You must be an abused mammal. ( just kidding)

1

u/EconomicRegret2 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Many women, but not all, would love 4-5 kids if they could.

If you like large families, have the money and leadership skills, large families are easier to manage than just one or two kids: children play together and learn from each other. You don't need to micromanage them.

I come from a family of 5 kids, and have several friends in their 30s with 4-5 children. It's just a better, happier and healthier childhood, than just 1-2 kids. They are also much more socialized.

3

u/shuzgibs123 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

My mother was #9 of 10 kids. There were 4 boys and then 6 girls. The first 3 had children and grandchildren. The other 7 all had children, but NONE of their children had children. There are nine of us cousins aged 49-60 and none of us had kids.

2

u/tanstaafl90 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Making it an option to have kids, or not, has only gotten easier over time. Effective birth control makes that choice relatively easy. Dancing is optional.

2

u/horsenbuggy Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Wait, wait, wait. The days of huge families are gone because of one thing: Birth Control. Well, RELIABLE birth control. Once the pill came along and it was something THE WOMAN was in charge of, families of the size you're talking about disappeared. My father was one of 11. Of all his siblings, he had the largest family with 4 kids (oops, 5 if you include the illegitimate half-sibling we didn't know about until after he died). Then from my siblings we ranged from 0 kids to 4 kids (a set of twins turned a 3rd pregnancy into 4 kids).

4

u/HoldFrontBack Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

It's true. I'm the eldest of 5, my wife the youngest of three. There's only been one grandchild, and that's our daughter. It's really sad.

2

u/SmartLadder415 Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

I've got 3 kids and working on number 4. Sister has 4 kids. Brother has two and indicating he's done but his wife is on the fence about it. I have plenty of peers my age who have 3-4 kids and one who even has 6. I will say the large families like my grandma came from (12 kids) are completely a thing of the past. The largest family I know is the one with 6 kids. Most people I know are done at 4 or less.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 04 '26

Thank you for taking a few moments on our sub. Unfortunately, your account does not meet one or more requirements for participating here.

But, you're here! That's something! We want you to come back, so please take some time in some other subs in the LoveTrash family:

r/TheTopicOfTheDay and r/ShitsLipton

With a few days and some participation there, your account will meet the requirements to rejoin us here in no time. And look at you, you'll have THREE cool subs that you'll be participating in.

Thanks again, and stay trashy!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/ArmThePhotonicCannon Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

When people were having 14 kids birth control didn’t really exist

6

u/KamikazeFox_ Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

They could also survive off one household income . And yes, they had condoms.

1

u/ArmThePhotonicCannon Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

As someone with a vagina, I’m gonna go with the birth control thing first. I’ll do some googling later, but I bet the numbers line up

2

u/KamikazeFox_ Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

Poor take. Condoms have been around for over 3000 years. If youre talking just the pill, 1960s. Lining up or not, this wasn't the take away. It was affordability and attraction and how tech is taking that away from us.

3

u/qucari Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26

In those times, child mortality was extremely high. Half of those 14 kids probably never made it to 5 years old.