So, regarding happiness and life satisfaction, the results are complicated. Studies show that parents of newborns have higher levels of overall happiness but this tapers off and returns to baseline as parenting is difficult. However after children grow into adulthood, their parents often report greater life satisfaction and a stronger sense of purpose compared to non-parents. This suggests that while the day-to-day experience may be more challenging, having children adds a deeper sense of meaning to life. This echos the results of Harvard's famous 85 year study on happiness as well. Basically, if you want short-term happiness, don't have kids. If you want lasting long term happiness and a greater sense of purpose and meaning, have lots of kids :)

@@RealJoshBinder Oh, yes of course: the famous "having children adds a deeper sense of meaning to life". I am well aware of this interesting theory...

@patcartier8171 Another interesting difference is people who decide not to have children experience significantly higher levels of loneliness in the later years of life. Studies: (The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (2015), (Study by Grundy & Read (2012)) British Household Panel Study, (2005)American Health and Retirement Study (HRS)

@@RealJoshBinder Very interesting difference indeed. I'll have to move from the theoretical to the purely subjective to make a relevant comment on that one, since I am not the social scientist armed with academic references that you seem to be. I am the male in a French DINK couple (Dual Income No Kids), we are now 64 and 63, newly retired, and I can testify that for the both of us having few, indeed very few social relationships is not a bug of old age without kids: it's a feature. In addition: no kids ==> no grandkids ==> no fear of abandonment by a non-existent new generation. Loneliness in old age should terrify parents, who do not desire it and are very much hurt when and if it hits them, since they did not plan for it possibly happening to them.

You're absolutely correct, this was pointed out by another comment and is addressed in the video's description. Unfortunately most people don't read video descriptions (myself included most of the time)

I agree that it's apples and oranges, it's more to show that people don't have kids because they can afford them, it's more based on cultural and economic forces - this is true in both developing and industrialized nations

“People in Congo are making 6 kids” People in Congo live in farms.

Agreed -- It's sad we're still having this debate. I guess there will always be people with a scarcity mindset 🤷

Until natural death, too.

@derek4412 Of course.

Google what happened to Romania when they tried to ban abortions. Then look up South America, abortion is mostly banned but their fertility is already crashing nevertheless. Abortion doesn’t influence total fertility that much.

@@deaththekid3998 I Google about Romania, all was good when abortions was banned and when abortion became legal fertility rate decline below replacement rate. If country do not protect child life so people think that country do not need children. Google better Ireland were after legalization of abortions fertility decline below replacement level. And for society to start again think that it is good create children need about 100 years after banned abortions, humans do not changed their mind. Poland banned only 30 years ago.

@@deaththekid3998 South America example say that we do not need abortions to have not growing global population. We can have stable population with banned abortions.

There’s a lot more than economics, but it’s one factor among many. If you gave the typical childless millenial an extra $500k and asked them if they’re more likely to have a kid now, they would still choose to spend it on vacations and creature comforts.

​@derek4412 Agreed. The lowest income countries have the highest birth rates. The wealthier people become, the less kids they have. People blame economics but it's a cope

@@RealJoshBinder“but… the rent is so high!” Extreme amounts of cope. Back when the rent was cheaper a decade ago (or in the 1980s) the birthrate was still below replacement. Although strangely enough, there might be a caveat to this understanding… have you guys seen Canada’s dramatically declining TFR? They’re on pace for something like 1.25 this year, down from 1.6 in 2015. I’ve seen a theory posited that if there is a “price shock” in housing over a very short period of time, it might actually delay household formation (everyone decides to live with their parents and fewer young people get married) and cause lower TFR. And if house prices stay high (as in the case of South Korea and China, which has the highest housing cost to income ratio in the world), it can permanently shift a society’s understanding of marriage and children; and thus permanently cause TFR to crash (as it appears is happening in SK and China). So maybe high housing is contributing like 10-20% of the decline? But it’s certainly not even the biggest factor right now, and doesn’t deserve to be Top Comment beneath every fertility video on this site.

@derek4412 That's an interesting point. It makes sense. I think we're seeing a version of that playing out in the US post-COVID, with housing prices vs. income ratio being at an all-time high for this country, it seems reasonable that this would be enough of a shock to influence a significant percentage of people to spend more years at home saving for a down-payment/etc. I'm curious if this trend will continue or if there will be a counteracting force that could get us back to where we were. Trends from around the world seem to point to a one-way street down the fertility ladder...but time will tell.

@@RealJoshBinder It's baked in. Declining fertility rates have been at least a 250-year process, with only the 30-year window of 1940-1970 seeing a fertility increase. SK shows us there does not appear to be a bottom. I'm convinced the bottoming out will only occur once we are a majority rural society once again, as that's the only reason fertility goes above replacement.

You're half-right! According to the most recent estimates, women make up about 50.5% of the world’s population, while men make up about 49.5%. But you're absolutely correct that there are more boys born than girls -- but since men tend to have higher mortality rates at every age, often due to factors like health risks, lifestyle choices, and access to healthcare, which leads to women outnumbering men, especially in older age groups. In many countries, particularly in Europe and North America, women tend to live longer than men. Good catch! Appreciate the comment 🙏

@@RealJoshBinder Well, I hope I did not sound pushy or anything. I am not trying to engage in a fight for the right one. But still I have not find data backing up that there are more women than men. Sex at birth start from 1.056 males to 1 female, in some countries it reaches 1.3 males per 1 female. China and India have respectively 1.12 and 1.18 males per each female born. That is to have a simple perspective on 2/5 of human population. Yes, in the ''western world'' there are more females because the deadliest conditions are applied to the male cohort. But in a general world view the violence and health factors are equally applied to male and female (if not over applied to females in most cases). So I will stand my claim that there are more males than females, even though we have tend to live 6 years less than women on average.

​@WilliamSantos-cv8rr I appreciate the follow up. You're right about China/Indias numbers! From a global perspective they're outliers driven by cultural societal and economic factors (the 1-child policy in China's case, families favored having boys) --- the data we used primarily came from the United Nations Population Division (UNPD), they publish a new global population report bi-annually. Some other solid sources are the World Bank's Demographic Report, the WHOs annual health stat report and the CIAs annual Factbook. It seems that men are great at being born but terrible at staying alive haha

But cities have the best food options! Lol My compromise is suburb-life: close to the action but not in the action.

@ you must not have small kids, Josh. Going out to eat with kids 0 to 6 years old as hell and not worth it. Learn to cook.

I'm just joshin ya loll

@@RealJoshBinder well played

then ask for some indians, i think theyd be happy to join.

@@zzzmzzz4466 god no i wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy

You’re also singing a “tired old tune”. The argument that there can be more people because there’s a lot of free space, is dumb. The limit is not due to space but to resources. Also people need way more space than just the space they occupy with their bodies. You can fill the world with people but then what are they gonna do? Shit on each other? Also a lot of the world is not livable (deserts, barren lands, etc) If you just think about it for a minute it’s really stupid.

👍

😂

Toiiii😊

tao

That's true. Debt falls off one's credit score after 7 years, but the debt is still there, and a creditor can still attempt collections and potentially sue if they don't get it. Plus within those 7 years it can be rough not having good credit. Pros/cons.

@@RealJoshBinder true but from my understanding north carolina ors not sue

the Human condition. You are trying to have a system without even considering it. You, I, we are all human. Maybe understand what humans are and you would understand why your recommendation makes no sense in the context of humans. If you think it is just a matter of greed and selfishness, you are on the wrong track.

Just so I understand your argument, you're saying less competition = lower prices?

@@RealJoshBinder no, I’m saying essential services, like hospitals, schools, police departments, shouldn’t be submitted to competition, they should be a service to the population. If you don’t agree emergency services should be offered like public schools and police, than they could have their prices tabled so they don’t overcharge and end up suffocating the poor.

@ivoo00 Price controls sound good but don't work. They distort supply and demand signals, leading to shortages, surpluses, and reduced economic efficiency, which results in unintended negative consequences like black markets or lower quality goods. (Venezula, Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, Argentina, etc) Your example of 50 hospitals in the same region all agreeing on higher prices isn't how free markets work. In a free market, one of those 50 hospitals could lower their prices and immediately increase the demand for their services, which would encourage the other hospitals to lower their prices or risk going out of business. And, in a true free market, nothing prevents a new hospital from starting and offering the same services at a lower price, attracting all of the dissatisfied customers from the 50 existing hospitals. Simply put, the free market incentivizes higher quality services at lower cost. And monopolies, as you describe, create an inferior, overpriced product that is subsidized by taxes and inflation, the latter of which creates an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.

@@RealJoshBinder I disagree with you because we have different premises, I don’t believe that a “free market” exists because the person or company with more resources can always lower and keep their prices down to destroy/absorb competition, that’s what happened here in New Haven, where Yale bought all hospitals, or if you take Amazon as an example with any type of retail, but mostly with bookstores. But, since you believe in a fair competition and free market in our reality, I don’t believe you see the problems that I pointed as problems, just as the market “regulating” itself.