GCIOSGF Merry Reading Time (悦讀匯）
Host: VWP
Edit: OF
Article: zhichao
Financial Times: The ultimate status symbol for the wealthy: having many children
英國金融時報：有錢人的終極身分象徵：生許多孩子
The ultimate status symbol? A big family
2025年，超級富豪炫耀財富的方式之一是擁有多個孩子——同時保持為人父母前的生活方式、興趣愛好和體型。
因芭蕾舞農場而聞名的漢娜·尼爾曼，攝於其位於鹽湖城附近的農場 © Corey Arnold/《星期日泰晤士報》雜誌/新聞授權
終極奢侈身分象徵是什麼？在過去，它可能是炫耀一款稀有手提包、跑車或名貴手錶。
但隨著生活成本飆升、家庭規模縮小、全球未來充滿不確定性以及喧囂的鼓勵生育言論，到2025年，發達經濟體中最嚴重的財富炫耀或許將變成曾經被認為是人類生活自然組成部分的事情：生孩子——尤其是生很多很多孩子。
「對於大多數職業父母，尤其是生活在城市的父母來說，即使只是想舒適地養育一個孩子，也是一筆不小的經濟開支，需要相當的經濟實力，」《繼承製：是時候談談父母的銀行了》一書的作者伊麗莎·菲爾比說道。雖然歷史上確實如此——當時生育眾多子女是出於勞動力需求、宗教信仰以及在嬰兒死亡率高的情況下維繫家族血統的需要——但如今的孩子並非家庭現金流的來源，反而會消耗家庭資金。
菲爾比說：“現實情況是，中產階級父母不會只供養孩子到18歲。對於有經濟能力的家庭來說，通常會供養到30歲左右。”
菲爾比說，由於托兒費用高昂、缺乏家庭支持系統以及全球女性晚育的趨勢，人們普遍認為「對於雙薪家庭來說，一個孩子越來越成為常態」。 “生兩個孩子有點勉強，生三個或更多孩子就不僅僅是例外了——你需要非常富有。”
根據《富比士》對700多位美國億萬富翁的調查，至少有22位億萬富翁育有七個或更多子女。
許多國家的官方出生率數據已降至歷史最低點：英國國家統計局的數據顯示，英國的生育率為每名婦女生育1.44個孩子，而美國的數字為1.6 。在日本和韓國等一些亞洲國家，這一數字分別為1.2和0.75。
雖然「一胎兩生」的模式在現代中產階級育兒文化中蓬勃發展，但同時，人們對另一種極端模式的迷戀也日益盛行。換句話說，人們開始關注那些公眾人物中極其富有的名人，他們完美無瑕的家庭似乎永遠不會停止壯大。
看看那些疲憊不堪的千禧世代職業女性（以及其他女性）是如何沉迷於「傳統妻子」運動的吧！這場社群媒體盛行的運動崇尚家庭農耕、擠奶女工、照顧丈夫和子女。其中最耀眼的明星，芭蕾舞農場的漢娜·尼爾曼，在Instagram上吸引了1000萬粉絲，這很大程度上要歸功於她和丈夫丹尼爾·尼爾曼（捷藍航空創始人、航空業巨頭大衛·尼爾曼之子）的八個金發碧眼、打扮精緻的孩子。
在名人圈中——以及在不斷壯大的卡戴珊家族的種種考驗和磨難之外——亞歷克和希拉里亞·鮑德溫今年早些時候憑藉TLC電視台的真人秀節目《鮑德溫一家》讓互聯網沸騰了。該節目記錄了他們與七個孩子（和八隻寵物）在曼哈頓公寓和東漢普頓豪宅之間的生活。
亞歷克鮑德溫和希拉里鮑德溫夫婦與他們的七個孩子
在1%的富裕階層中，尤其是像紐約市這樣世界上最富有、競爭最激烈的地區，大家庭的身影越來越常見。溫斯黛馬丁在她廣為流傳（但也頗具爭議）的著作《公園大道上的靈長類動物》中，曾令人印象深刻地指出，在上東區——這個擁有全美最昂貴房產、學校、保姆和各種愛好的街區——「大家庭隨處可見」。
她寫道：“四成了新的三——以前會讓人覺得不可思議，但現在沒什麼稀奇的了。五不再代表瘋狂或宗教信仰——它只是意味著你有錢。而六顯然成了新的聯排別墅——或者灣流飛機。”
根據《富比士》對700多位美國億萬富翁的調查顯示，至少有22位億萬富翁擁有七個或更多子女（通常來自多次婚姻和收養），其中最著名的當屬伊隆馬斯克。馬斯克經常被評為世界首富，他已成為億萬富翁生育的典範（據我們所知，他有14個孩子），並且是鼓勵生育主義的積極倡導者，他認為在出生率下降的背景下，生育對於人類的生存至關重要。
擁有一個大家庭傳遞出對未來充滿信心的訊號。而哪個族群比多數人更有安全感呢？當然是那些經濟條件較好的人。
人們對超級菁英的生活方式和家庭管理方式的迷戀由來已久。眾多高端時尚和消費生活風格品牌紛紛將目光投向擁有近乎無限資源的育兒理念，並將其融入產品和行銷策略中。 Artipoppe推出的售價高達800美元的天鵝絨和羊絨嬰兒背帶，被譽為“媽媽裝備中的鉑金包”，將背著嬰兒重新定義為一種極致奢華的配件。
迷你版設計師系列和售價 600 美元的高筒鞋讓一大群孩子能夠穿得像父母一樣，彼此之間也一樣。雖然百達翡麗和杜嘉班納等品牌長期以來都將光鮮亮麗的家庭形像作為廣告宣傳的核心，但葆蝶家和博柏利的新舉措則暗示了現代育兒是一種風格化的文化表演，正如品牌戰略家尤金·希利所說，這標誌著品味和偏好的成熟。
希利認為，這些行銷活動推出之際，正值奢侈品產業努力維持其文化影響力之時，這體現在人們對產品作為社會象徵的興趣逐漸減弱以及全球銷售額下滑。聚焦家庭則反映出一種嘗試，從關注物質層面轉向關注行為和價值層面。
「組建家庭是無法弄虛作假的，」希利說。 “這是一項非常長期的承諾，更不用說它是你一生中最重要、最具變革性的決定之一。”
但品牌推崇的不僅是生孩子本身，更重視的是如何養育孩子，以及在多大程度上還能維持為人父母前的生活方式。對許多名人來說，這意味著需要龐大的育兒團隊：據說金卡戴珊為她的四個孩子配備了10名保姆， 24小時輪班照顧，而鮑德溫一家則僱用了兩名保姆。在美國，這類育兒工作的年薪很容易超過20萬美元，而更常見的薪資水準則在8.5萬美元左右。然而，對於大多數家庭來說，任何形式的付費育兒服務仍然是一種遙不可及的奢侈品。
「這種為人父母的方式與大多數人的經歷並不相同，」希利說。 「在這種模式下，你仍然可以不斷地與朋友聚會，恢復到產前的身材，出現在俱樂部或深夜活動中，而且不會總是感到疲憊，還可以搬到郊區居住，或者穿著沾滿奶漬的衣服。”
時尚一直以來都致力於讓我們展現出比實際上更好的一面。但擁有一個大家庭也傳遞出對未來充滿信心的訊號，尤其是在未來充滿不確定性的當下。而哪些族群可能比多數人更有安全感呢？答案是：那些經濟條件較好的人。
2月，埃隆馬斯克和他的一個兒子在橢圓形辦公室與唐納德·特朗普會面 © Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
馬斯克以鮮明的措辭描繪了他的鼓勵生育的願景（並且有一些非常非正統的個人家庭價值觀），但在傳統的保守右翼群體中，他們的社交媒體影響力正在不斷增長，並且他們提倡美國人擁有大家庭，那麼誰應該生更多的孩子這個問題就令人感到不舒服。
菲爾比說：「相當一部分極其富有的鼓勵生育者聲稱，他們希望透過生育來塑造更優秀的人類。但目前對多子女母親身份的過度崇拜，可能會將女性貶低為履行社會義務的生育機器，並將那些辛勤工作、為社會經濟做出巨大貢獻，卻因各種原因（無論是出於自願還是迫不得已）而少生或不生的女性妖魔化。」
話雖如此，在社群媒體上關注傳統妻子或擁有眾多子女的億萬富翁配偶，並不一定意味著回歸家庭和傳統。就像許多令人嚮往的事物一樣，這些潮流有時根植於一種準社會角色扮演，探索著與我們截然不同或永遠無法企及的生活方式和生計。我們也不真正希望它們成為我們自己的生活。
「網路上的很多內容都被當作一種科幻小說來消費，」希利說。 「例如，芭蕾舞農場的家庭就代表了一種經濟保障、性別角色分明以及一定程度目標感的願景。人們可能會把它當作一種娛樂或逃避現實的方式。但很多人也會看著它，然後想，在現實世界中——到了2025年——我絕對不想要那樣的生活。”
In 2025, one way the super-rich will flaunt their wealth will be by having multiple children—while maintaining their pre-parenting lifestyle, interests, and physique.
Hannah Neelman, known for her ballet farm, photographed at her farm near Salt Lake City © Corey Arnold/Sunday Times Magazine/News Authorization
What is the ultimate symbol of luxury? In the past, it might have been flaunting a rare handbag, a sports car, or an expensive watch.
But with soaring living costs, shrinking family sizes, global uncertainty, and a cacophony of pro-natalist rhetoric, by 2025, the most prevalent display of wealth in developed economies may become something once considered a natural part of human life: having children—especially many, many children.
"For most working parents, especially those living in cities, even just to comfortably raise one child is a significant financial expense and requires considerable economic strength," says Eliza Philby, author of *Inheritance: It's Time to Talk About Parenting Banks*. While this was indeed the case historically—when large families were born out of labor needs, religious beliefs, and the need to maintain family lineage in the face of high infant mortality rates—children today are not a source of family cash flow; rather, they drain family funds.
“The reality is that middle-class parents don’t just support their children until they’re 18,” Philby says. “For families with the financial means, they typically support them until around 30.”
Philby says that due to high childcare costs, a lack of family support systems, and the global trend of women delaying childbearing, it’s widely believed that “one child is becoming the norm for dual-income families.” “Having two children is a bit of a stretch, and having three or more is more than just an exception—you need to be very wealthy.”
According to a Forbes survey of more than 700 American billionaires, at least 22 billionaires have seven or more children.
Official birth rate figures in many countries have fallen to historic lows: data from the UK Office for National Statistics shows that the fertility rate in the UK is 1.44 children per woman, while the figure in the US is 1.6. In some Asian countries, such as Japan and South Korea, the figures are 1.2 and 0.75, respectively.
While the "twin-child" model is thriving in modern middle-class parenting culture, a fascination with another extreme is also growing. In other words, people are increasingly drawn to the extremely wealthy celebrities whose seemingly perfect families never seem to stop expanding.
Look at how exhausted millennial career women (and other women) are becoming obsessed with the "traditional wife" movement! This social media-driven movement champions family farming, milkmaidhood, and caring for husbands and children. One of the brightest stars, Hannah Neelman of a ballet farm, boasts 10 million followers on Instagram, largely thanks to her and her husband Daniel Neelman (son of JetBlue founder and aviation magnate David Neelman) and their eight blonde, impeccably dressed children.
Beyond celebrity circles—and beyond the trials and tribulations of the ever-growing Kardashian family—Alec and Hilary Baldwin made headlines earlier this year with their TLC reality show, *The Baldwins*, which chronicled their lives with their seven children (and eight pets) between their Manhattan apartment and East Hampton mansion.
Alec Baldwin and Hilary Baldwin with their seven children © Rou Shoots
Large families are becoming increasingly common among the top 1%, especially in some of the world's wealthiest and most competitive areas, like New York City. Winston Martin, in her widely acclaimed (but controversial) book *Primates on Park Avenue*, impressively noted that on the Upper East Side—a neighborhood boasting some of the most expensive homes, schools, nannies, and hobbies in the nation—"large families are everywhere."
She wrote, “Four has become the new three—it used to seem incredible, but now it’s nothing special. Five no longer represents madness or religious faith—it just means you’re rich. And six has clearly become the new townhouse—or Gulfstream jet.”
According to a Forbes survey of over 700 American billionaires, at least 22 billionaires have seven or more children (usually from multiple marriages and adoptions), the most famous being Elon Musk. Musk, frequently ranked as the world’s richest man, has become a role model for billionaire procreation (he has 14 children, to our knowledge) and is a strong advocate for procreation, believing that reproduction is essential for human survival against the backdrop of declining birth rates.
Owning a large family sends a signal of confidence in the future. And which group feels more secure than most? Those with better economic conditions, of course.
The fascination with the lifestyles and family management styles of the super-elite is long-standing. Numerous high-end fashion and lifestyle brands are turning their attention to the seemingly limitless resources of parenting concepts, integrating them into their product and marketing strategies. Artipoppe's $800 velvet and cashmere baby carriers, hailed as the "platinum bag of mom gear," redefine carrying a baby as an ultimate luxury accessory.
Mini designer collections and $600 high-tops allow large groups of children to dress like their parents and each other. While brands like Patek Philippe and Dolce & Gabbana have long centered their advertising on glamorous family images, the new initiatives from Bottega Veneta and Burberry suggest that modern parenting is a stylized cultural performance, marking a maturing of taste and preference, as brand strategist Eugene Healy puts it.
Healy believes these marketing campaigns come at a time when the luxury industry is struggling to maintain its cultural influence, amid waning interest in products as social symbols and declining global sales. The focus on the family reflects an attempt to shift the focus from material aspects to behavioral and value-based ones.
“You can’t fake starting a family,” Healy says. “It’s a very long-term commitment, not to mention it’s one of the most important and transformative decisions you make in your life.”
But the brand promotes more than just having children; it emphasizes how to raise them and to what extent you can maintain your pre-parenting lifestyle. For many celebrities, this means a large childcare team: Kim Kardashian reportedly employs 10 nannies around the clock for her four children, while the Baldwin family employs two. In the US, this type of childcare work can easily earn over $200,000 a year, with a more common salary level around $85,000. However, for most families, any form of paid childcare remains an unattainable luxury.
“This way of being a parent is not what most people experience,” Healy says. “In this model, you can still constantly party with friends, get back to your pre-pregnancy figure, show up at clubs or late-night events, and not always feel exhausted, and you can move to the suburbs or wear clothes stained with milk.”
Fashion has always been dedicated to making us appear better than we actually are. But having a large family also sends a signal of confidence in the future, especially in today's uncertain world. And which groups are likely to feel more secure than most? The answer is: those with better economic conditions.
In February, Elon Musk and one of his sons met with Donald Trump in the Oval Office © Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Musk has painted a vivid picture of his pro-natalist vision (and contains some very unorthodox personal family values), but with the growing social media influence of traditionally conservative right-wing groups and their advocacy for large families, the question of who should have more children becomes uncomfortable.
Philby says, “A significant portion of extremely wealthy pro-natalists claim they want to shape better humanity through childbirth. But the current excessive veneration of motherhood for women with multiple children risks degrading them to mere reproductive machines fulfilling social obligations, and demonizing women who work hard, contribute significantly to the socio-economic system, but choose to have fewer or no children for various reasons, whether voluntary or involuntary.”
That said, following traditional wives or billionaire spouses with many children on social media doesn’t necessarily mean a return to family and tradition. Like many desirable things, these trends are sometimes rooted in a quasi-social role-playing, exploring lifestyles and livelihoods that are drastically different from our own or forever unattainable. We don’t really want them to become our own lives.
“A lot of content online is consumed like science fiction,” Healy says. "For example, a family on a ballet farm represents a vision of economic security, gender roles, and a certain degree of purpose. People might see it as a form of entertainment or an escape from reality. But many people also look at it and think, in the real world—by 2025—I definitely don't want that kind of life."
沒有留言:
張貼留言