To have kids or not to? Your opinion from economy perspective

[uneng]

Previously it was a good idea to have lots of children, because they were useful as labor force for the family at countryside. Moreover, culturally speaking, it was a signal of fertility and masculinity for men to have many children. However, nowadays people are much more focused on themselves, caring little with everyone else, what includes potential children.

It's a phenomenon of our days where people are extremely egoistical and selfish. As consequence, there is little room for children...

You say people are egotistical and selfish to not have kids meanwhile at the start of your comment, you mention, having children was good idea so they could be used as working force — you realize how absurd that sounds?

Why absurd?

That was one of the main purposes people had lots of children in ancient times. People lived in countryside and needed abundant workforce to plant, gather and to feed the animals. There weren't automatic procedures to make it for them. Then within time, the number of children per family have been decreasing, until the point nowadays there are many people who don't even want to have a single child.

If it wasn't for this concept of family, probably those people would starve, unable to keep all the daily tasks completed. Then there wouldn't be anyone here today to claim how absurd that was...

[libert19]

...

You say people are egotistical and selfish to not have kids meanwhile at the start of your comment, you mention, having children was good idea so they could be used as working force — you realize how absurd that sounds?

Why absurd?

Why not? Not giving birth harms none, i.e, even if people decide to have no children for egotistical/selfish reasons, no harm is caused. Meanwhile, to breed kids just so they help you with field work is well you are literally creating a laborers. I don't know about you, but it certainly does not sound good to me.

That was one of the main purposes people had lots of children in ancient times.

Or may be, it's just that sex is highest pleasure available to men (not counting drugs), so they fuck and since there were no contraceptives available, pregnancy was the result. 

If it wasn't for this concept of family, probably those people would starve, unable to keep all the daily tasks completed. Then there wouldn't be anyone here today to claim how absurd that was...

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

[Issa56]

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

I don’t think it’s proper to have kids when you know you can’t really take proper care of them at that particular period, if you are planning to have a kind, then it’s better you are financially stable, at least you should be able to take care of the necessary things which they will be needing. Just imagine that you are not financially good, and you decide to give birth, how are you going to take care of them, you just going to make them suffer, which some children might end up involving themselves into criminal activities just because they want to survive.

Some people don’t really think before having Kids, they might be struggling for survival, and they will still give birth, which is total wrong to me, am not saying you are suppose to be fucking rich before having kids, but at least have a means that you will be able to take care of them, and just give birth to the number of kids you can take care of.

[riyan96]

Economically? You’re right. Kids cost €150–200k to raise to 18 in most of Western Europe. If you’re not financially stable, you’re signing up for debt and stress. Wait until you can handle it without hurting yourself or them.

[Dunamisx]

Decision to having kids or not should not be taken from the perspective of the economy situation, because we basically have to depend on what we can afford to take and prefer to have when it comes to child birth, because I've seen people who can't even afford to manage a living despite that they only have a single child, while some were having many children and affording to live a desired standard of living, everyone goes for what they want at last.

[Agbamoni]

Every enlightened couple that understands the economic situation in local and global economies will surely make solid plans before having kids, children are huge responsibility that parents must prepare themselves before having them. I have seen illiterate couples who are poor and keep having many children, I dare to challange some that I know personally why they don't go for family planning and not producing more kids. They tell me that it is God that gives children and I always ask them why God didn't give them enough money to take care of their children as they are supposed to. Overpopulation is one of the major reasons of increased crime rate and prostitution among young people because their parents could not afford to provide for their basic needs.

I understand your points very well because having a kids and not able to give them the right attention they want in life is very wrong. I wouldn't have my child, to ask for anything good and I cant provide it. They have to get the right education, security, and everything good in life. Its not good to give birth to children to suffer. Its better you dont give birth at all., if you cant take good care of them.

There is also no need for anyone to hesitate in giving birth, if they are up to the age and care give them the right treatment. The economy isn't getting worst, so if you have a plan to have kids in the future, then lay the foundation now.

[luckyspirit]

The problem of today's world is that stupid and poor people are having kids, and educated wealthy people are not. It is a consequence of the welfare state, no welfare or foreign aid should be given to these uneducated parasites.

Decision to having kids or not should not be taken from the perspective of the economy situation, because we basically have to depend on what we can afford to take and prefer to have when it comes to child birth, because I've seen people who can't even afford to manage a living despite that they only have a single child, while some were having many children and affording to live a desired standard of living, everyone goes for what they want at last.

Of course it should. The only reason why many children are suffering is because their parents didn't consider their own situation or the wider economical perspective before having them. Most people in undeveloped places should have never had any children.

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

Of course, this is the only correct approach to this topic. Everything else is pure selfishness of bad people who pretend that they are good.   Don't be stupid like this guy below, he is a case example of the uneducated people in third world countries.

I believe in God, and God said, “go forth and multiply,” so for me it’s just right to have kids.

Having children brings a different kind of happiness. It’s not just about yourself anymore, you become more selfless, you work harder, and you learn to be more responsible because you want to provide and prepare a future for them.

Complete delusional selfishness.

[passwordnow]

There is the common abbreviation that you'd see in social media now like in TikTok about couples decided to be a DINKWAD.
"Double income no kid with a dog/s".
They like to have no kids at all and as a couple, they're pouring their love to the dogs that they have. And there is nothing wrong if you don't want to have kids. But a country that has a lot of citizens that have this mindset could impact their future economy. I think Japan and South Korea are having this less birth rate on them and the people from their economy could be lesser but a good thing is they can always export people from foreign countries to have their jobs filled by them through a working visa.

[Theupdude]

There is the common abbreviation that you'd see in social media now like in TikTok about couples decided to be a DINKWAD.
"Double income no kid with a dog/s".
They like to have no kids at all and as a couple, they're pouring their love to the dogs that they have. And there is nothing wrong if you don't want to have kids. But a country that has a lot of citizens that have this mindset could impact their future economy. I think Japan and South Korea are having this less birth rate on them and the people from their economy could be lesser but a good thing is they can always export people from foreign countries to have their jobs filled by them through a working visa.

Being DINKWAD is a life choice and is no one to judge someone who does not want a child and would rather spend their time raising pets or do something less restrictive in their life. Nevertheless, when large numbers of people in a country follow this lifestyle, then there is likely to be impact on the population growth and may slow down economic growth over the long term. Countries such as Japan and South Korea already experience aging populations and decreasing birth rates, which can cause problems to both labor supply and the social system. Immigration and foreign workers can contribute at the same time, but it is not the ideal solution. It is the compromise between the choice of individuals, as well as national demographics.

[Powerjumboo]

What title says,

unless one is well off himself one should not be having kids, this is my opinion.

What about you?

I do not agree with your opinion because your words imply that if a person is not well-off, he should not have children, but I want to say that even if he is not well-off, he should still have children. Many people can become well-off by having children. If you observe, you will see that many poor people are having children and they are raising their children as proper human beings. Especially if you go to the rural areas and observe there, you will see that there are many people who, despite being poor, are raising their children as proper human beings and sending them to various universities and colleges. So, if you do not have children, you can never claim to be a man to people because a child is something for which everything can be sacrificed.

[Vod]

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

Sorry I am late to the conversation OP.  What is this "I" you write of if you do not exist?

I had about a week in the hospital recovering from surgery to think about these things, esp since I do not remember anything that happened once I was put on the operating table until I woke up in ICU.   Did I exist during those couple hours?  I had no power to do anything or even think, so if I still existed, what does "I" mean?

Parents of children in poorer countries rely on them as domestic slaves.  The more girls they have, the more boys they can support.    But there is no reason to have children to help you the same way there is no reason to plant trees for CO2 capture - both will be destroyed before they become net positive.

[peter0425]

Decision to having kids or not should not be taken from the perspective of the economy situation, because we basically have to depend on what we can afford to take and prefer to have when it comes to child birth, because I've seen people who can't even afford to manage a living despite that they only have a single child, while some were having many children and affording to live a desired standard of living, everyone goes for what they want at last.

What we want is not enough to decide what we should do. We should definitely decide whether to have kids from an economic perspective because we will only be making our own lives and our kids’ lives a lot harder than it’s supposed to be. Personally I would be happy to provide for my kids the best that I can.

[uneng]

Why not? Not giving birth harms none, i.e, even if people decide to have no children for egotistical/selfish reasons, no harm is caused. Meanwhile, to breed kids just so they help you with field work is well you are literally creating a laborers. I don't know about you, but it certainly does not sound good to me.

Yes, and the laborers they raised, brought another generation of laborers to the world. That was the life's cycle back then. However, who are you to claim it was done for egoistical and selfish purposes? What authority do you have to claim that? It's a matter of human beings struggling to survive and evolve along several generations, while passing their legacy ahead.

Life was harder before technology became available, but it's definitely not a reason to feel ashamed about.

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

Well, then try getting some help. It's not a good sign to think such things.

[STT]

This is catch 22 because children literally are the future economy and represent the growth of the nation, they are vital in multiple ways.
  A country which cannot support its children has in effect failed and seriously needs to readjust its priorities back towards growth.    In times of world war perhaps we can say otherwise but it should be a temporary condition or you will suffer massive harm to your culture, to the economy and demographically the economy will not support itself without enough workers to support pensioners and so on.  
   Technology can only replace so much and we gained a massive amount of progress in the past few decades but technology cannot entirely replace people only refine their labor towards greater efficiency.
  
Its such a modern failure that we accept so many people are not there who should be and populations and countries are shrinking in many parts of the world, this is a kind of self defeat others think it best somehow.

[luckyspirit]

Parents of children in poorer countries rely on them as domestic slaves.  The more girls they have, the more boys they can support.    But there is no reason to have children to help you the same way there is no reason to plant trees for CO2 capture - both will be destroyed before they become net positive.

You get it. God and other reasons are just excuses for their selfishness and greed. There is no love involved except narcissistic delusions. If one is very poor, then one should not have children.

Its such a modern failure that we accept so many people are not there who should be and populations and countries are shrinking in many parts of the world, this is a kind of self defeat others think it best somehow.

At this point a stable population would be much better than growing and of course than a shrinking one. Population does not need to indefinitely grow, and there is nothing wrong with short periods of shrinking either. The powers that be may tell you otherwise, but they are lying.

[M47AK16]

My question is, what happens when we grow too old to take care of ourselves? In my opinion, instead of not having children at all, it’s wiser to have at least one. We should do our very best to give that child the best life we can afford. Then, once they come of age and are financially stable, we can consider adoption depending on our financial capacity at that time.

The main reason for this approach is to secure our future in old age. It would be worse if, after all the years of toiling while we were younger, we ended up with no one to look up to or rely on when we can no longer help ourselves.

That would drop us from the surviving number. I do not want to sound like Elon Musk, but the reality is simple, if we all have just zero or one kid, then the number of humans will drop lower. Which isn't horrible for the whole world, but it is a very tough situation for cultures.

Because humanity has became more global, everyone lives in each others nations now, you go to UK and you find a lot of Pakistani, you go to Norway and you find a lot of afghani people, you go to USA and there are a lot of Mexicans, you go to Mexico and you find a lot of Latin American, you go to Africa and there are a lot of white people from Europe.

We are more together now, so if one side has no kids, while other has 5, then culture will change a lot. That is the argument in EU right now, they got a lot of immigrants with tons of kids, if this pace continues, in 50 years, Europe will be an Islam heavy continent. I don't care because I am not in Europe, nor in USA, but they do not like that idea.

[imamusma]

I think the decision of whether or not to have children is a deeply personal one. Some people choose to have children for a reasonable reason, while others choose not to for equally for a reasonable reason. It is entirely an individual right, and there is no requirement to choose one or the other.
I think this holds true regardless of a person financial situation or other factors. To my knowledge, no country has a law that prohibits people from having children, some only limit the number of children one can have.
Ultimately, this is a purely personal choice. If today you feel you're not ready to have children due to unstable finances, it's possible that in the future, if your circumstances change, you might decide to change your mind.

[knowngunman]

I believe in God, and God said, “go forth and multiply,” so for me it’s just right to have kids.

Having children brings a different kind of happiness. It’s not just about yourself anymore, you become more selfless, you work harder, and you learn to be more responsible because you want to provide and prepare a future for them.

And honestly, we all owe it to our parents too. They chose to have kids, and that’s why we’re even here in this world. Same with you, you’re only here because your parents believed in having children.

Multipliers, God will not control your child bearing man, everyone acknowledge God but the basic rational around the world and society have gone beyond that, let me not deceive ourselves, at least you should have moderation and your economic level should determine how many kids you be making as well as your time to properly grow those kids into better adults, aside from the money, your time is very important in your kid's life so you don't go around making several kid's just because your religion book told you to multiplier

It seems there is a little misunderstanding here. Russlenat is not preaching giving birth to numerous kids you can not cater for but simply against Op decision of not having kids at all if one is not doing well. He backed his claim with a word of God from the Holy book. I support Russlenat on this and encourage you as well to have at least a kid because I believe if a man can fend for himself, he's capable of taking care of a child. Moreover, we've witnessed numerous children growing up without parents and later become successful. This means your child survival is completely not in your hand but in the hands of the creator. With or without you, they'll be what they are destined to be in the future. You're only responsible for giving birth to them and you shouldn't deny them that right. However, I'm also against giving birth to multiple kids without having plan for them.

By the way, religion did not specifically mentioned having several kids but asked the followers to multiply. The number of kids you have is completely your decision to make. However, maintaining that you won't have kids at all seems to be against the word of God.

[libert19]

I do not agree with your opinion because your words imply that if a person is not well-off, he should not have children, but I want to say that even if he is not well-off, he should still have children. Many people can become well-off by having children.

I don't think so, sure, there may be exceptions but as I have observed, if parents are not doing well enough by themselves before having kid, having kid won't make any difference, if not put them in worse position than before.

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

Sorry I am late to the conversation OP.  What is this "I" you write of if you do not exist?

Not sure what you mean — I exist right now, so I mention 'I'.

Why not? Not giving birth harms none, i.e, even if people decide to have no children for egotistical/selfish reasons, no harm is caused. Meanwhile, to breed kids just so they help you with field work is well you are literally creating a laborers. I don't know about you, but it certainly does not sound good to me.

Yes, and the laborers they raised, brought another generation of laborers to the world. That was the life's cycle back then. However, who are you to claim it was done for egoistical and selfish purposes? What authority do you have to claim that? It's a matter of human beings struggling to survive and evolve along several generations, while passing their legacy ahead.

Laborers create laborers, mediocrity breeds mediocrity. I don't think these children of laborers ever realize what quality of life is, and what they could have achieved in life had they been born to a "well-off" family.

...and I am not claiming anything, it was you who stated at first that people are selfish/egotistical these days, hence they don't decide to breed meanwhile here is me confused because those "selfish/egostical" people do no harm to anybody while you are grateful to laborers for creating laborers.

Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.

Well, then try getting some help. It's not a good sign to think such things.

May be me reading Schopenhauer has got me pessimistic.

Moreover, we've witnessed numerous children growing up without parents and later become successful. This means your child survival is completely not in your hand but in the hands of the creator. With or without you, they'll be what they are destined to be in the future. You're only responsible for giving birth to them and you shouldn't deny them that right.

Why do you think fucking is your responsibility and then destiny is in hands of creator?

By the way, religion did not specifically mentioned having several kids but asked the followers to multiply. The number of kids you have is completely your decision to make. However, maintaining that you won't have kids at all seems to be against the word of God.

Man, I would love to hear that word of God from God's mouth, and not from religious books.

[bakasabo]

If poor people stop breeding, there will be less competition in jobs and this will lead to better wages

I dont understand why there will be less competition in jobs? You think youth wish to take any job offered? Absolutely not. Poor people dont take high positions and earn little. Nobody wants to earn little. If poor vacate jobs, nobody would wish to work on their jobs, but their jobs wont be left vacated, people will be forced (by government) to take them. Wish to be a lawyer? Good, take broom and clean floors. If cleaners earned low and poor people do this job, then if poor people vacate these jobs, think that would increase wages for this job? Absolutely not. Then those who earn good, will ask for a raise, if potential cleaners get increase in wages, and we get back to poor-rich again.