Fallacy?

I find it strange when people say they can't afford kids. Your ancestors were able to afford kids for the past 300,000 years. Are we really less wealthy now? You might think your parents were better off, but how about further back? They still went on. 

The argument presented contains several logical issues:

1. **False Equivalence Fallacy**: The argument falsely equates the conditions and context of ancient humans with those of modern society. Raising children today involves different challenges and costs, such as education, healthcare, and childcare, which may not have been present or as pronounced in the past.

2. **Appeal to Tradition**: The idea that because ancestors could afford to have children, people today can as well, relies on the appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something was done in the past does not mean it is feasible or preferable under current circumstances.

3. **Oversimplification**: The argument oversimplifies a complex issue. There are multiple factors affecting the ability to afford children, including changes in economy, societal expectations, and individual financial circumstances.

4. **Historical Context Fallacy**: Failing to consider the historical context—such as different societal structures, economies, and resource availability—ignores how dramatically living conditions and expectations have changed over time.

5. **Cultural Bias**: Assuming that everyone today lives under conditions comparable to their ancestors ignores cultural and geographic differences in both past and present contexts.

Overall, the argument lacks consideration for the complexity and variability of contemporary economic situations versus those of the past.