Catherine Brozena, a 42-year-old communications professional in Oakland, Calif., says she and her husband are opting against having children because “raising kids in this day and age is such a huge commitment financially [and] socially.” Her husband recently started a metal fabrication and design business, and she wants to save time for pursuits like making music, biking and running. “It’s hard enough to keep myself afloat.”
Low Birth Rate Poses Economic Challenge-Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/baby-lull-promises-growing-pains-for-economy-1462894211
“raising kids in this day and age is such a huge commitment financially (and) socially.”
In this day and age? “Socially?” What a clueless moron!
Raising children has always been a huge commitment (and responsibility).
How old do you have to be to have any understanding of what tough times and commitment and responsibility really are?
Do we really have a generation without an appreciation for putting something or someone else ahead of self?
Hey, if your choice is not to have children, so be it that’s your right. Make your music, treat yourself right; thank God you are smart enough not to have children. I’m happy to pay for your free birth control. However, don’t blame your decision “this day and age.”
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
I took her comments as that they realize that between her husband’s new business and her self pursuits that they would not have the proper time to raise a child.
However it also reminds me of the movie Idiocracy, where only stupid people breed because the smart ones never feel the time was right.
LikeLike
Except she is already 42 so I assume they made their choice quit awhile ago.
LikeLike
You may be reading her comments wrong, RD. I am glad she is smart enough to know that raising children today costs way more than it did when I raised my four. 1978 to 2008. I would have hated to have 4 teenagers at home in 2008. She is not like the real clueless women that have children with no thought as to who is going to foot the bill. Then just run down to the welfare office and get on every government assistance program that is available. The “Socially” part of her comment might just be that she does not want to burden society with the added cost of educating more people (over $10,000 per child per year) or she does not want to put up with the nanny state telling her how to raise her kids. Too much of that going on today!
LikeLike
And it costs more than when I was raised in the 40s and 50s and when I raised four children in the 70s and 80s. That’s not it. If she doesn’t want children, that’s her right, but don’t give a lame excuse like this day and age and then make yourself look like a fool by saying making music and hiking are more important even if they are to you.
Being born in 1943, I’m sure glad my parents didn’t use the this day and age logic, could there have been a worse time to have children?
LikeLike