• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have kids; neither me nor the other parents I know show off our pictures of them. If we do, it’s usually because we’ve been asked, or it’s people posting stuff to social, which I don’t think is quite the same. If I had to guess, it’s an older generation thing. That said, I DO take pictures of my kids, but that’s almost always exclusively for sharing within the family.

  • Blastasaurus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    Forgot the last panel where the guy with money dies alone with nobody to take care of him.

    • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least his kids won’t die in the irradiated wasteland of the post-apocalypse, if they’re lucky.

    • Player2
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re making children so that you can have indentured servants when you’re old? That’s pretty weird.

      (ps. money can be exchanged for goods and services, including caretakers)

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apparently the average cost is $233,610. If you save all of that and assume that the child is 18 when the parent is 45, then there’s another 20 years til 65, which is enough to more than double. So $500,000+ extra at retirement per child, or about $20k spending per year (if you can delay in-home care for 10 years and use higher estimates, its as much as 45K/year extra). Apparently average cost of in-home care is ~$60k/year. So not having 2 children and saving all of the difference could make-up for that.

        • Player2
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Plus have to consider that a child more likely than not isn’t interested in being your in home caretaker for many years straight, not to mention potentially not being qualified for it (so you would need some sort of actual caretaker anyway).

    • De_Narm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At least in western countries it is pretty likely your children will move far away from you anyways. Sure, it’s still nice to have someone, but it was far more valuable when you usually died in same town you were born in.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ones with kids are purposefully thrown into care homes so the kids can steal their house and all of their retirement money.