More to the point, there is a curious social stigma around having children before you enter your 30s that has developed.
The idea that you should "play the field" is part of it, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story. There seems to have been a concerted effort to reduce pregnancies among younger women. In fact, programs like "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom", which follow young mothers in their teens and 20s, were, according to their creator, meant as a "cautionary tale" to reduce pregnancy rates. In modern culture, "rural hick" even conjures up images of a young mother. Not the image most want to portray, which is a powerful social tool.
Equally curious, once you enter your 30s all of a sudden the social norms flip to "why haven't you had children yet?", "the clock is ticking", etc. However, once you are in your 30s, there are some rather hard limits to how many children you can practically have.
As others have said, having children very early is unsafe, and it's a demanding job that requires emotional maturity to do well. Having children before you have economic independence is also a very bad idea.
But your 20s are also critical from a career point of view. Women still have to fight a lot of prejudice from employers, which translates into trying to show commitment to career by delaying children.
The UK now has a very soft "two child policy": you won't normally get paid child benefit for children beyond two. The US has a ludicrous healthcare system where simply giving birth can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Also, they don't call it labour for nothing: it's a physically demanding, uncomfortable process.
I think its less stigma but economic realities that are driving this. People have too much debt and not enough income and are too early in their careers in their 20s to comfortably take time off to have a kid or pay for childcare.
For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take on debt.
You no doubt describe a minority, but the majority aren't putting any effort into picking up the slack. Birth rates are falling in all walks of life.
> not enough income
Or too much income? There is a very strong correlation between being poor and having more children.
At the extreme, the women of Niger have over 7 children each, on average. Even the least paid people in America are living like kings in comparison to the people of Niger.
But even within America, the reason the "rural hick" is oft associated with young mothers is because rural areas tend to be poorer and poorer people are more likely to have more children.
> are too early in their careers in their 20s to comfortably take time off to have a kid
While the average reader on HN is certainly career driven, most people are not. "You need to focus on your career" is a line that has been used to deter 20-somethings from having children. I'm not sure that is the same as them actually focusing on their career. Most people simply find what work is available to them, trudge through the day, and then go home as soon as possible to not have to think about work again until tomorrow.
> For what? Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary education. Less than half of Americans in the same age range own a home. The same age group are much more likely to reject car ownership than generations past. Outside of those purchases, it is not common for young people to take on debt.
But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a college degree have cratered, and so they're still unable to support a family. Pick your poison: either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but no income, and neither is a good place to start having children. College in America now is damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> But the job prospects and odds of financial security for people without a college degree have cratered
Are you sure you are not confusing that with the fact that post secondary attainment is rising, which means that those who are unable to attain a post secondary education, and find work, due to challenges in their life (disability, for example) take a larger share of the lower education segment?
Let me put it another way, as that may be confusing. Take two people. Let's say one is a highly intelligent, hard working, person who had to drop out of high school to care for his ailing parent. The other a drug addict who dropped out of high school because the drugs started to take over his life.
The highly intelligent person has a job. The drug addict does not. His addiction has left him unable to keep employment. Given this scenario, 50% of those who are high school dropouts are unemployed.
Okay, now let's say the first person's parent got better and he was able to return to high school and graduate. He is no longer in the high school dropout category, but now the high school completion category.
That means that 100% of those who are high school dropouts are now unemployed. If you weren't paying attention, you might think that the job market for those who are high school dropouts cratered, but in reality nothing really changed except a rise in high school attainment.
> either stable income but a shitload of debt, or no debt but no income, and neither is a good place to start having children.
There is never a good place to have children. But the data clearly shows that the richer you are, the less likely you are to have children. How are you resolving that discrepancy?
> But the data clearly shows that the richer you are, the less likely you are to have children. How are you resolving that discrepancy?
Without taking a stand on the greater discussion here, I'd just like to add: birth control is not all that cheap, and poorer people are much less likely to be as educated on all the birth control options available to them anyway. I would also reason that the feeling of having limited life prospects would make one more likely to have kids as it becomes a larger milestone at that point.
> Less than half of Americans, aged 25-34, have a post secondary education
Are you sure? Unless you mean post-secondary education means graduating college as opposed to attending college without graduating, the information I could find doesn't support this (with the caveat I didn't find info specific to the 25-34 demographic)
There's certainly lots of people who attend college (with loans) and dropout. They presumably may have the worse of both scenarios, college debt and no degree to show for it.
Pregnancies at 16 have very real health risks and 16 years old are not ready to be parents yet, not ready to be independent either. There is nothing curious or odd about the end.
The idea that you should "play the field" is part of it, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story. There seems to have been a concerted effort to reduce pregnancies among younger women. In fact, programs like "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom", which follow young mothers in their teens and 20s, were, according to their creator, meant as a "cautionary tale" to reduce pregnancy rates. In modern culture, "rural hick" even conjures up images of a young mother. Not the image most want to portray, which is a powerful social tool.
Equally curious, once you enter your 30s all of a sudden the social norms flip to "why haven't you had children yet?", "the clock is ticking", etc. However, once you are in your 30s, there are some rather hard limits to how many children you can practically have.