• @MindSkipperBro12
      link
      431 year ago

      Imagine being such a selfish person to only have kids so they can support you.

    • BlinkerFluid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      281 year ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      271 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
        link
        fedilink
        51 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 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).

    • @KoalaUnknown
      link
      111 year ago

      Bold of you to assume humanity will make it that long.

    • @De_Narm
      link
      7
      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.