The answer is very obvious. Government intervention.
Who says the poor can’t afford more children than the rich? Have you take into account political costs and political subsidy?
The poor can afford infinite number of children due to welfare. A billionaire can hardly afford more than 5 due to child support rules that set man’s obligation to be proportional to man’s wealth/income.
In fact, imagine if government says that all chultu worshippers will get subsidy if they have children and all flying spagethy monster will have to pay $50k child support per month per child. I bet chultu worshippers will produce far more children than worshippers of flying spagethy monster.
That’s exactly what happen between rich men and poor men. The fact that the rich men are richer somewhat mitigate the effect, but not by much, and not fully.
It’s too costly for the rich to have children. Yet the poor can have many children due to subsidy.
Just look at this:
‘Feckless father’ of 17 facing life in jail for murder – Telegraph
A poor man can father 17 children. There. No body jailed him for being deadbeat. No women bother suing him for child support. No feminazi complain that all those women are being abused. No one raise the issue that he doesn’t, obviously, spend enough time with each of his child. Nothing.
An unemployed man can, in a sense, afford unlimited number of children because tax payers will pay for them all anyway.
Imagine if that father of 17 children is a rich programmer that earn a lot of money honestly.
It doesn’t matter that he is rich enough to afford those children. The child support is set up to be proportional to man’s wealth. Women that he knocked up will sue him for child support. Feminazi will say she is abusing those women. Many child development expert will say that this should be illegal and that children have “right” for their fathers’ time.
A millionaire that spend $5k per month per child will be called deadbeat parent.
An unemployed people that spend nothing per child will just be free.
Are there other factors?
Yes, but are not strong.
The rich simply cannot literally afford many children due to government laws regulating child support.
This is in addition to many other reproduction related costs.
Marriage (and divorce) tend to be very costly for the rich. The poor lost nothing by getting married. Perhaps the wife even make more money than him. The rich have to risk far more wealth to get married than the poor. Alimony is effectively designed to bankrupt rich smart males.
Anti prostitution laws also make it difficult for women to simply pick the rich. Due to anti prostitution laws, many women that would prefer being paid by a richer men often choose to marry a poorer man.
Many people often reiterate the same bullshit that the rich simply want less children than the poor. They act as the poor are so stupid that they haplessly have children due to lack of access to contraception or whatever.
The truth is. Even if you are rich and WANT to have 17 children like that unemployed guy, how could you? Think about it. How can a smart diligent rich people have 17 children without being bankrupted by child support?
Saying that the rich do not want to have children is like saying slaves do not want to be free anyway while killing those who try. It’s like saying women enjoy rape anyway while killing those who say no. It’s like saying no women would consent to be prostitute, while making prostitution illegal. It’s like saying that people love the tyrant anyway while making it impossible to elect different leader.
The truth is, the very reason why people uses force against our will is because if they don’t use force, too many will choose differently than what the tyrants want.