Dual Income, No Kids: What We Know About 'DINKs' in the U.S.(www.pewresearch.org)

6 pointsby karakoram6 hours ago3 comments

c225 hours ago
> DINKs are also more likely than dual-income couples with kids to be college graduates...
This is the premise of Idiocracy.
- archagonan hour ago
  I can't believe I have to say this, but Idiocracy is a fictional movie.
Hiko05 hours ago
They get themselves cats or dogs, call themselves cat/dog mom/dad because they want the illusion of another living being loving them without the struggles, parenthood brings. I think it‘s pathetic.
- estearum5 hours ago
  You sound like someone who regrets having kids tbh
  (coming from a happy parent and dog caretaker)
- CoastalCoder5 hours ago
  Your post covers a lot of ground, but I'd like to respond to one part of it:
  IMHO: except in pathological situations, dogs truly love their owners.
- DeltaCoast5 hours ago
  No mention of pets in the article, beyond the photo, so your comment is unnecessarily spiteful. I'm not a pet owner, nor a DINK for the record.
- cursuve4 hours ago
  Wait... So because I chose a life of not struggling to raise a child and I love my dog; I'm pathetic? What a warped-ass world-view. Maybe I just have no desire to have kids and am enjoying the life not having children warrants me - including pathetically loving my dog. Eff off with your judgements of what I chose the path of my life to be. And, hey, godspeed on your struggle-bus. Apparently it warrants you some entitlements and status, or something...
  - wormpilled4 hours ago
    >Wait... So because I chose a life of not struggling to raise a child and I love my dog; I'm pathetic?
    It's brutal to say such things and certainly to hear them, but objectively, yes.
    estearum4 hours ago
    This is one of those cases where the people who are most assertive about Doing X (in this case X = having kids) are specifically the types of people you do not want Doing X.
    Just unbelievable levels of self-aggrandizement and scorn for your fellow humans in this comment. It is honestly a shame that you could propagate this forward another generation.
    Having kids is good. Calling people "pathetic" for not wanting to or not feeling like they would succeed at it is bad and counterproductive.
    wormpilled4 hours ago
    I am simply providing a cold, social darwinist answer to the query. It doesn't bring me pleasure to say it, but I view it as the truth. Life is struggle. Nothing you do will be perfect. None of us were grown in a vat and we are here right now because of that struggle. Finding comfort in an animal that gives you unconditional love is a coping mechanism.
    cursuve2 hours ago
    This is so logically full of holes I don't even know where to start...
    Having children is hard. Life is hard. Avoiding having children is shirking your duty to have a hard life. Dogs shouldn't make you happy because that is coping with life's hardships. Having children, which is hard, is the path one should take to wantonly endure hardship. If you choose not to, you are pathetic...
    What if I didn't have a dog or cat, and still chose not to have children? Still pathetic? What if I had children, and hated every minute of it, but fulfilled my duty to endure the hardship... AND still had a dog I love? What if I really really enjoy lemonade - should I avoid that because it brings me joy, but life is inherently supposed to be hard, therefore I am coping and pathetic?
    This is such a mind-boggling judgmental stance on what life is and should be and what others should do with their agency over their own lives.
    As I said to the wantonly miserable OP who started this bizarre comment thread - godspeed to you! I'd wish you a nice life, but I don't want to go against your philosophy that one should invite hardship into one's life, so... Have a miserable life?
    wormpilledan hour ago
    >on what life is
    Life is procreation, to which you are encouraging failure in it's goal. I don't care what you do, I'm just sharing hard to swallow pills.
    archagonan hour ago
    The things we say, do, and create have far more of a chance of affecting future generations than our progeny.
- estimator72925 hours ago
  I think it's pathetic that you can't find meaning in your own individual life without creating a new human to live vicariously through.
  Doubly pathetic that you can't envision any other way of thinking and experiencing life. Have you actually thought out and considered your position or is this simply a lazy knee-jerk opinion that you've had fed to you?
  Awfully small minded and pathetic to think that your chosen way of life is the One True and Acceptable Way. It's a very immature mind that can't accept differing opinions and perspectives.
andsoitis6 hours ago
SINK is more interesting than DINK. In a SINK household, the individual who doesn’t earn money can make an impact in the world of art, community service, research, the possibilities are endless. Without the tethers of employment.
- 5 hours ago
  undefined
- Schiendelman5 hours ago
  Employed people can do that too. I suspect that people who are employed have higher impact on their non-work goals because they've learned to structure their time and prioritize more ruthlessly than people who don't have that pressure.
  - andsoitis5 hours ago
    Sure, but You have way more hours in the day when you don’t have a job. If your partner has one, you have more degrees of freedom.