Don't Have Kids because of AI

My husband no longer wants to have

children because he's worried about the

rise of AI.

Divorce this loser. I'm 30. He's 45.

We're supposed to start trying for a

baby next month. We've already done all

the preconception tests. Everything was

ready. Do people do preconception tests

these days? Is that is that a thing?

Like I thought you just like, you know,

do it and then like if you have problems

you go test or something. Anyway, today

he told me he was doing his research,

reading Goldman Sachs projections,

and talking to people who know things.

Well, if he's listening to Goldman

Sachs, I'm already lost here, but he now

believes there's no point in having

children because future adults won't be

able to find a job of any kind due to

AI. And since statistically speaking,

it's highly unlikely that our child

would be one of the lucky exceptions in

a world of desperation, he thinks it's

wiser not to bring anyone into it. He

works in finance and is well educated.

No, he's a dumbass. If he worked in

finance and knew anything about history,

it's that innovation breeds more jobs

and more uh uh prosperity.

As per capita GDP rises, we lift people

out of poverty through innovation. Now

whether that's through some form of in

the future universal basic income is

regardless is is beside the point.

Obviously, if you have extreme very few

extremely rich corporations, governments

sign some form of safety net like uh you

know a Medicaid uh for poor uh or

welfare for poor, right? Those are

social safety nets that exist today.

That would only become more extreme in

the future if you had very few extremely

rich and many that did not have assets,

right? So, your social safety net would

likely be larger. Aside from focusing on

the social safety net, let's put some

logic on for a moment. When people

thought that there would never be a need

for human labor again because of the

cotton mill, the machines that ended up

leading the lite revolution

to raid factories and destroy looms and

mills and machines because they were

worried that their jobs were being

replaced. What ended up happening

per capita GDP is 100x what it is today.

You know what it was back then. Life

expecties substantially longer today

when we factor in infant mortality. You

got to remember how many how many

children died in the past relative to

children who die today.

So we should look at per capita GDP

global per and then we'll keep reading

his pros. global per capita GDP uh

historical overtime like some kind of

chart right so in other words how much

money does every head uh receive over

time this is just the last 60 years here

look at per capita GDP over the last 60

years now yes the dollar has also lost

value in fairness okay we'll give you

that uh but uh let's say the dollar

since the 1980s has lost you know 3x its

value okay so let's just 3x2500 for a

moment. That's 7,500. So still, and I'm

throwing an inflation adjustment on

this, assuming that this is not already

real GDP, which there's no indication

that this is real GDP. This appears to

be just nominal GDP. So not inflation

adjusted. You still have about twice the

per capita GDP that you did in the 60s.

Take this all the way back to the uh you

know 1800s and it's even more extreme.

So really, yes. Is it possible? Oh yeah,

look at this. Per capita GDP over the

long term. Look at this. This is

actually remarkable. Oh, and this one's

adjusted for inflation. Wow. Global

average GDP per capita over the long

term. Our world in data historical GDP.

Look at this. This is insane. If

innovation led to more pain for

children, we would not see the per

capita uh basically value of every human

head skyrocket like this. I mean, look

at this $1860 Civil War era inflation

adjusted $1,800 per year of GDP

all the way out to today where your per

head GDP is about 20,600.

What you could actually do is you could

type in let's do Ventura County per

capita GDP for example you could type in

just a Google really quickly a per

capita GDP search uh typically for each

era uh and and get a per capita for a

particular area. So you could even get a

little AI overviews. This is not per

capita. This is going to be like a

household. I don't I don't think it's

this high. I think the AI is wrong. Let

me try

Los Angeles County per capita GDP.

Usually it's somewhere between 35 to

40,000 per head. Yeah. Okay. Whatever. I

I I'm not trusting some of these numbers

right here. Here we here we go. Per

capita Census Bureau per capita 2019 to

2023 44,000 per capita GDP for LA

County. That's normal. Household income

is probably the 87 number that they're

showing you, right? So, you take some of

the numbers with a grain of salt when

you get the AI results. AI is famous for

pissing me off. uh but uh on a per cap

basis per person

GDP has skyrocketed. So this idea of

like oh let's not have children because

people are not going to have jobs. Yes.

Is it possible that the unemployment

rate is going to rise? Sure. In fact I

project that in the next few years the

unemployment rate will probably rise to

10% and stay at 10% for quite a while.

But wait a minute that still means 90%

of people have jobs who are in the labor

force.

you know, probably more than 85% of

people once you account for the longer

term unemployed individuals. And so

there is going to be an adjustment phase

where skill sets have to adapt. But I

mean, think about what jobs children can

do in the future, at least with what we

know today. We don't even yet know what

new jobs are going to be created in the

future. But jobs that we know that are

going to be hard to replace with AI in

the near term, construction,

uh, electrical, plumbing, framing,

roofing, uh, could you imagine an

Optimus robot climbing the ladder, put

roofing shingles down without sliding

off the side? It could happen in the

future, but I think it's going to be

decades.

Uh, in-person care, setting anesthetic

needles, IV lines, nursing, doctors,

healthc care, therapy. So when I talk

therapy, I'm talking, you know, not only

therapists, but I'm also talking real

estate agents who are basically

therapists for their clients. Uh, you

know, there are a lot of things that we

can do. Uh, and so this this depression

over, oh my gosh, I'm going to have

nothing to do because of AI in the

future. This is insane. Investment Joy

says, shout out to Investment Joy. Kids

don't have to be expensive. Get in a

church with people who don't worship

their kids, only God, and you'll find

out having a child isn't that expensive.

Our group is less than $5,000 per kid

per year. I think children are amazing.

The poor live like the wealthy from a

hundred years ago. Oh, interesting uh

way to put that. Here's a life hack.

Kids don't have to play sports. Oh, is

is that potentially because of the

expenses that there are comments here

from investment joy? Check out his

channel on YouTube. But anyway, so look

at this here. Uh and since statistically

speaking, it's highly unlikely that a

child would be one of the lucky

exceptions. I think this person

misunderstands the unemployment rate.

Even during the Great Depression, 70% of

people still had jobs, you know. So,

like, what history are you looking at?

This is quite sad.

Uh, he thinks it's wiser not to bring

anyone into it. This is so defeist. I

have seven children and I want to have

more children. Five babies are eating

and two children are sleeping. What is

this, summer break or something like

this? Strapped into their high chairs.

Anyway, he works at finance and is well

educated, but to me, his reasoning

sounds terribly simplistic. I like this

girl. This 30-year-old needs to find

someone else. He's not a futurologist.

Hell yeah, woman. Nor a sociologist.

Let's go. Or an anthropologist. I don't

even know what these three things are,

but hell yeah. How can he make such a

drastic and catastrophic prediction with

so much certainty? Do you have any

sources or references that he can help

me challenge or soften his rigid view?

And this guy's in finance. Man, that's

embarrassing for the finance industry.

Let's see what some of the comments are.

There's a deeper issue. There's no

correlation with wanting to have kids in

the rise of AI. What is it? What are you

saying? Are you an AI bot?

He just doesn't want to have kids and is

rationalizing it. That could be exactly

right. He doesn't want to have children

because they won't have jobs. What about

having children to have children for

them to be people? Let's go, David.

birth rate has traditionally been higher

in poor and less educated regions of the

world with worse prospects for jobs.

Let's go. Funny, he's a finance guy

because there's a well-known quote in

finance. We have two classes of

forecasters. Those who don't know and

those who know they don't know. Let's

go.

I concur with the comments below. He

doesn't want to have kids. Maybe because

he's genuinely worried and he's

rationalizing it because if Goldman

Sachs said it must be true. Let's go. I

think he's kind of right. dislike. I

already have a kid and I'm really

worried about the future would what the

future would look like. It's not about

the job. It's about not being able to

watch them suffer. Dude,

this this defeist opinion that you bring

a human into the world that they will

only suffer is so depressing and sad. Is

every day going to be happy? Of course

not. But you live life for the

challenge, the ups and downs. And to

you, for you to be the arbiter, to say I

will not even give somebody a chance is

kind of disgusting on you, this poster.

Well, poster's husband. Anyway, that one

pisses me off. I hate that one. Why not

advertise these things that you told us

here? I feel like nobody else knows

about this. We'll we'll try a little

advertising and see how it goes.

Congratulations, man. You have done so

much. People love you. People look up to

you. Kevin Pra there, financial analyst

and YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great

to get your take.