What's the effect of having plenty children to the national economy of a country

[MFahad]

It depends on the citizen, if they're not educated and don't want to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy decline since they're rubbish for the country.

If the citizen are educated and don't mind to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy increase since they don't mind about the money, they're want to become loyal for the country.

No one is rubbish for country because every individual has his own place and value in its own way. There is nothing useless in this universe and the human are the power of the nation, everyone should respect others.

Everyone is loyal for his country no matter he is education or not but everyone loves his country. If a person is not educated then surely he will be engaged in some other job which don't required degree but skills so presently everyone works for his family and no one set useless without doing anything so we cannot say that larger populations are rubbish for country but we can say that these can make the foundation of a country.

[1714985963]

1714985963

[1714985963]

1714985963

[1714985963]

1714985963

[uswa56]

I couldn't agree more. I always say this and I think it is very important to emphasize that giving birth to child with poor economy and environment does not just bad for the parents but also to the child. Long gone are the times when it is okay to have birth and see where everything goes. Today, family planning is vital to ensure the child and the family's future.

It is very logical indeed when a family is in economic difficulties actually having many children is something that will make the family worse off, this even applies to a country, a poor country will find it more difficult when the population addition does not match or is in line with the per capita income of the population .
There is no other solution apart from family planning which limits children in a family, as far as I know there are several countries that implement this.

[slapper]

It depends on the citizen, if they're not educated and don't want to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy decline since they're rubbish for the country.

If the citizen are educated and don't mind to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy increase since they don't mind about the money, they're want to become loyal for the country.

No one is rubbish for country because every individual has his own place and value in its own way. There is nothing useless in this universe and the human are the power of the nation, everyone should respect others.

Everyone is loyal for his country no matter he is education or not but everyone loves his country. If a person is not educated then surely he will be engaged in some other job which don't required degree but skills so presently everyone works for his family and no one set useless without doing anything so we cannot say that larger populations are rubbish for country but we can say that these can make the foundation of a country.

I believe that every person has intrinsic worth, yet there are occasions when that value isn't reflected in the way they contribute. Employment and the ability to do one's work well are crucial. Occasionally, people end up in roles that don't match their abilities or traits

People love their country, whether they can read or not read, or whether they do something else. It's all about the doing and the something else, but also not the something else. So, you can't say that larger populations are rubbish; they're like a foundation. It's not like a real foundation, but it's a something foundation. So, they're not useless, but they're useful, but not like useful, more like something else useful

[knowngunman]

No one is rubbish for country because every individual has his own place and value in its own way. There is nothing useless in this universe and the human are the power of the nation, everyone should respect others.

Everyone is loyal for his country no matter he is education or not but everyone loves his country. If a person is not educated then surely he will be engaged in some other job which don't required degree but skills so presently everyone works for his family and no one set useless without doing anything so we cannot say that larger populations are rubbish for country but we can say that these can make the foundation of a country.

In as far as I believe that they're not rubbish human, their activities might be term rubbish. Not everyone is loyal to their country and this is where the issue of terrorism and banditry comes in. Such individual become rubbish when his/her attitude is inimical to the country's economy. Larger population is good when everyone is engaged in meaningful skills directly or indirectly, educated or uneducated. But despite its advantages, it possess some red lights such as crowd and noise pollution, congestion and over population. It's important to put a check on to birth rate despite the conducive of the economy.

[Ayers]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

Agreed, the global situation need to be considered before giving birth to a child. It isn't a task that could end in a short time period. Growing a child requires additional earning, compared to the past there is good awareness around and people have been giving birth accordingly. In my country the number of child have reduced to two and over time this could move to one as the parents are thinking wise and doesn't want their child to suffer. In the past the children grew by their own and now those opportunities have shrunk due to the difference in the parenting. Everything is on a cyclic process, and things could take a change with time.

I completely agree with this thought and advice. If we cannot take care of them and give them a full life, then it is best not to give birth to them. Things have changed a lot and not having money these days is a very terrible thing. Don't compare our generation with our parents' generation, they didn't have many diseases in their time and could still live without much money by raising livestock and farming. But today, there are too many things to worry about when the weather is getting more and more severe, everything requires money...The birth of a child should be carefully considered to suit the family's economic situation.

I couldn't agree more. I always say this and I think it is very important to emphasize that giving birth to child with poor economy and environment does not just bad for the parents but also to the child. Long gone are the times when it is okay to have birth and see where everything goes. Today, family planning is vital to ensure the child and the family's future.

I am not denigrating or disparaging the poor, but do you agree with me? If we give birth to a child without being able to take care of them and let them grow up without adequate care. That affects not only their future but also society and those around them. A child without education and love will easily fall into the wrong path and cause social evils.

I not only do not advise but also want to criticize those who give birth without taking into account the family's economic situation. That causes a lot of problems for society.

[BRINIRHA]

No one is rubbish for country because every individual has his own place and value in its own way. There is nothing useless in this universe and the human are the power of the nation, everyone should respect others.

Everyone is loyal for his country no matter he is education or not but everyone loves his country. If a person is not educated then surely he will be engaged in some other job which don't required degree but skills so presently everyone works for his family and no one set useless without doing anything so we cannot say that larger populations are rubbish for country but we can say that these can make the foundation of a country.

In as far as I believe that they're not rubbish human, their activities might be term rubbish. Not everyone is loyal to their country and this is where the issue of terrorism and banditry comes in. Such individual become rubbish when his/her attitude is inimical to the country's economy. Larger population is good when everyone is engaged in meaningful skills directly or indirectly, educated or uneducated. But despite its advantages, it possess some red lights such as crowd and noise pollution, congestion and over population. It's important to put a check on to birth rate despite the conducive of the economy.

Well there are some problems in every country. Developed countries usually lack human resources for manual labor. Because usually in developed countries the birth rate of children is very minimal. So that human resources are decreasing.
Whereas in developing countries the population is getting denser because the birth rate is also quite a lot. But the advantage is that developing countries usually do not lack in terms of human resources. It's just that in this country there is usually a job market crisis due to the unequal number of jobs and the number of job applicants.

And actually this will not be a problem as long as developed countries and developing countries work together. Developed countries need human resources and developing countries need jobs for their citizens who have difficulty getting jobs in their own countries. this is why a lot of cooperation in sending labor occurs between countries. it keeps the balance going.

[slapper]

No one is rubbish for country because every individual has his own place and value in its own way. There is nothing useless in this universe and the human are the power of the nation, everyone should respect others.

Everyone is loyal for his country no matter he is education or not but everyone loves his country. If a person is not educated then surely he will be engaged in some other job which don't required degree but skills so presently everyone works for his family and no one set useless without doing anything so we cannot say that larger populations are rubbish for country but we can say that these can make the foundation of a country.

In as far as I believe that they're not rubbish human, their activities might be term rubbish. Not everyone is loyal to their country and this is where the issue of terrorism and banditry comes in. Such individual become rubbish when his/her attitude is inimical to the country's economy. Larger population is good when everyone is engaged in meaningful skills directly or indirectly, educated or uneducated. But despite its advantages, it possess some red lights such as crowd and noise pollution, congestion and over population. It's important to put a check on to birth rate despite the conducive of the economy.

Well there are some problems in every country. Developed countries usually lack human resources for manual labor. Because usually in developed countries the birth rate of children is very minimal. So that human resources are decreasing.
Whereas in developing countries the population is getting denser because the birth rate is also quite a lot. But the advantage is that developing countries usually do not lack in terms of human resources. It's just that in this country there is usually a job market crisis due to the unequal number of jobs and the number of job applicants.

And actually this will not be a problem as long as developed countries and developing countries work together. Developed countries need human resources and developing countries need jobs for their citizens who have difficulty getting jobs in their own countries. this is why a lot of cooperation in sending labor occurs between countries. it keeps the balance going.

True, low birth rates in wealthy nations leave them short on laborers for manual labor. This claim about the birth rate of children, however, lacks some coherence. In other cases, having fewer kids won't necessarily trnslate into less manual labor. Some areas with lower birth rates have found other ways, such technology or targeted immigration laws, to maintain adequate human resources

Although a dense population is a challenge for developing nations, it is not their primary asset. Yes, there may be a crisis in the employment market, but as you pointed out, cooperation in the dispatching of labor keeps the balance in place. However, it's not always maintaining equilibrium; even with such collaboration, certain wealthy nations can still experience a skilled worker shortage

[YUriy1991]

I couldn't agree more. I always say this and I think it is very important to emphasize that giving birth to child with poor economy and environment does not just bad for the parents but also to the child. Long gone are the times when it is okay to have birth and see where everything goes. Today, family planning is vital to ensure the child and the family's future.

It is very logical indeed when a family is in economic difficulties actually having many children is something that will make the family worse off, this even applies to a country, a poor country will find it more difficult when the population addition does not match or is in line with the per capita income of the population .
There is no other solution apart from family planning which limits children in a family, as far as I know there are several countries that implement this.

This uncertain economic condition has had a significant and very pronounced impact on the middle to lower class in carrying out their daily lives, especially for families with many family members. However, in some places this is not a problem, most still adhere to the motto "Many Children, Many Fortune".

Children are the value of parents' love and happiness. Indeed, at first glance if we read the motto it sounds a bit funny. however, there is great wisdom there in the quotes "if educated properly where children are judged to be able to help financially when parents are old, help psychological factors of parents when parents are elderly, help family business when families have their own business, can help other siblings, continue the family lineage". Yes. The government also reads this gap very well, where the government is also trying to reduce fertility rates by suggesting various programs for people who are seen as belonging to that category.

[libert19]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

In 15th century it might have made sense or may be children were born just because of lack of contraceptives availability but the world we live in right now is already over-populated.

[Gallar]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?
~Snip

There is definitely a positive or negative impact, because with the many children born, it means that the population will increase and there will be more and more. So it is certain that from the birth of these children it will definitely have an impact on the economy. But the impact that will be generated (positive/negative) from the birth of these children depends oneducational factors.
This factor is very important and very decisive for the future of these children, because by having a good education, these children will be more useful in the future for many things, and not just for the economy. The meaning of education here has a very broad domain. Namely education from parents, environment, and school. Because that's where every child will be developed as a whole. So with many children or residents in a country or region, it will definitely have a positive impact, if the education system in that place is of very good quality.

But if the education system in a country or region that has a large population is not good. Usually it will cause economic problems, such as welfare, poverty and the emergence of other problems.
So in essence, every country or every place that has a large population. This could be a problem or it could be a blessing.

[retreat]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

When a family has many children it is like a double edged sword for the country. The advantage is of course there will be more young people who can be used as workers and military, and then consumption and productivity will increase because of this young generation. But it can also cause losses for the country because with more young people it means that crime and unemployment rates can increase.
But in general, having many children is actually very beneficial for a country, but only if it is managed properly by the state, especially the family. Because if it is not managed properly, such as not providing education, health, etc., it will cause many problems which will become a burden for the country.

[dothebeats]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

Agreed, the global situation need to be considered before giving birth to a child. It isn't a task that could end in a short time period. Growing a child requires additional earning, compared to the past there is good awareness around and people have been giving birth accordingly. In my country the number of child have reduced to two and over time this could move to one as the parents are thinking wise and doesn't want their child to suffer. In the past the children grew by their own and now those opportunities have shrunk due to the difference in the parenting. Everything is on a cyclic process, and things could take a change with time.

I completely agree with this thought and advice. If we cannot take care of them and give them a full life, then it is best not to give birth to them. Things have changed a lot and not having money these days is a very terrible thing. Don't compare our generation with our parents' generation, they didn't have many diseases in their time and could still live without much money by raising livestock and farming. But today, there are too many things to worry about when the weather is getting more and more severe, everything requires money...The birth of a child should be carefully considered to suit the family's economic situation.

I couldn't agree more. I always say this and I think it is very important to emphasize that giving birth to child with poor economy and environment does not just bad for the parents but also to the child. Long gone are the times when it is okay to have birth and see where everything goes. Today, family planning is vital to ensure the child and the family's future.

I am not denigrating or disparaging the poor, but do you agree with me? If we give birth to a child without being able to take care of them and let them grow up without adequate care. That affects not only their future but also society and those around them. A child without education and love will easily fall into the wrong path and cause social evils.

I not only do not advise but also want to criticize those who give birth without taking into account the family's economic situation. That causes a lot of problems for society.

No, I completely agree with you and got your point. Especially to those who decided to have kids despite knowing how difficult life will be for them as they are experiencing it firsthand. Then they will ask for help, give the responsibly of raising their kids and providing their needs to the government and society. Even complaining about how hard life is when they know such a thing will happen when they decided to reproduce.

[AicecreaME]

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

It depends.

If the couples afford to have plenty of children, like they have financial freedom, then it will not affect the economy. However, on the other scenario, if the other family are poor, minimum wage earner, and the father or mother is the only one that has a source of income plus they have like 5-7 children, then it could affect the population.

Overpopulation leads to poverty if the families can't afford to raise their children but still continue to make babies out of boredom, resulting to many malnourished and uneducated children that's been mostly commiting crimes in the streets because of poverty.

[justdimin]

Well there are some problems in every country. Developed countries usually lack human resources for manual labor. Because usually in developed countries the birth rate of children is very minimal. So that human resources are decreasing.
Whereas in developing countries the population is getting denser because the birth rate is also quite a lot. But the advantage is that developing countries usually do not lack in terms of human resources. It's just that in this country there is usually a job market crisis due to the unequal number of jobs and the number of job applicants.

And actually this will not be a problem as long as developed countries and developing countries work together. Developed countries need human resources and developing countries need jobs for their citizens who have difficulty getting jobs in their own countries. this is why a lot of cooperation in sending labor occurs between countries. it keeps the balance going.

I think that's what most of them already doing, because if you put all the manufacturing into a single nation (china) you are making a mistake and giving them too much power, but because companies got better and realized that it's not doing that badly, I think it's going to be something to care about and we are going to see a situation that will be better in the end.

I think we are putting a lot more manufacturing and agriculture business into plenty of nations instead of a single one now, and that means that we are going to get a lot better results as well. This will end up with those developing nations to have influx of money constantly and they will grow and be better and constantly improve their life quality as well.

[KiaKia]

You won't easily find rich men having so many children today, unlike those that are struggling to feed their own tummy, to me children is like a big investment for some people in this world, rich people don't need to have many children while they can feed and care for 20 children at once, they just don't see any reason to do so, but the poor will have many children as possible.

Do not compare today's world with that of past years ago, in Africa, a farmer is like a king, they are entitled to many wives and children, and they believe once the children are old enough they will join the farmer on his farm and help to cultivate.

Later these children won't be able to pursue their own dreams, it's like they are born to help their father and that's all, even if a child wants to be something else, the father will not be in support.

Now the world is getting more difficult to even live in right now, things are more harder than they used to, the cost of food, education and homes are very high, also the world is now full of people, overpopulated already, if you give birth to children that you can't take responsibility on, it's your problem.

[usekevin]

Some people was born rich and they contribute our country economy by the taxes from their company.But some people are poor and have huge amount of children.By that way all the children grow up and help their country economy by joining job which leads to pay the tax.Many developing country with huge younger population purely depend on the people for their country development.The government also allow the population to get into good job by bringing the good schemes for the younger population.

[serjent05]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

Man power is the source of power of a country but with a family that is unable to support a huge number of children it will affect the government negatively since the government are forced to allocate funds for the aid of these families.  But if the family is able to support a huge number of children and be able to literate them, these will be an asset for the government.  Literate citizen brings productivity to the government.  through taxes from their labors, first class skills and services offered to the country, the government will flourish with capable citizen.

[SatoPrincess]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

It depends on the country, some countries have strict laws on the number of children a couple is allowed to have, some are more diplomatic about it and use every medium to encourage family planning and birth control. In other countries, the government are not so concerned about the increasing population. The risk of population explosion is common in developing countries and the problem starts when the resources of the nation cannot serve the population. It’s a hard culture to break because many believe they can have as many kids as they want as long as they can take care of their needs, but on a large scale this has a ripple effect on the economy of the country. It’s not surprising that the world’s most populated nation is one of the poorest nation in the world today.

[bestcoins1]

No, I completely agree with you and got your point. Especially to those who decided to have kids despite knowing how difficult life will be for them as they are experiencing it firsthand. Then they will ask for help, give the responsibly of raising their kids and providing their needs to the government and society. Even complaining about how hard life is when they know such a thing will happen when they decided to reproduce.

Even though it is difficult and not easy to raise and educate children, it still happens in my environment because those who already have children at this time are certainly very financially prepared beforehand. So that when they have children, they no longer feel excessive difficulties in life, even though they are not comfortable enough in living life because they have to continue working to earn money to support their children.

And I think it also has a very good impact on the country because when the child grows up and he can be very smart in certain fields, he will also be known by many people as the younger generation of a very good country and can help the country's economy when he was already really successful later. Because of the large population, they can be quite good and have potential in certain business fields which are really needed by every country.

[lienfaye]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

It has a positive and negative effect though it doesn't directly affect the economy but connected based on the family's status in this society. For people who belong in upper class, having plenty of children is not a problem since they can afford to give food on the table, a proper education and a decent life to live comfortably. Children from upper class can contribute for the betterment of the economy once they grow up and had a job.

But this is not the case if the family is from poor family (though not all). It's the opposite of what the upper class can give on their children. They will rely on the Government's assistance to help them sustain the needs in general. That's why nowadays it's wise to have a certain number of children based on your capability to give them a comfortable life.