THE ECONOMY IS REDUCING FAMILY POPULATION..

[Rockstarguy]

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

Setting a standard of living due to the economic crisis, the kind of job one has, and the financial strength of one requires high intelligence. For those who are not intelligent, they wouldn’t care about all these factors when setting a standard of how to live.

If the economy determines the size of how families should be, then people just need to go about it that way. If they were to follow their own desires without considering the economy, it can backfire. Normally in life, people are expected to live according to what they can afford, because this is how one who understands life is expected to approach it.

[stompix]

The high cost of living is an inevitable consequence of "growth". Capitalism lives while it grows - this is its mortal vulnerability. And now this incessant desire to grow is devouring the main resource of capitalism - consumers (who cannot afford to create families and continue the family). Because the markets are over and there is nowhere to grow further. Then capitalism began to eat itself.

What a load of crap!
People stopped having so many kids because you wouldn't end up with half of them dead at 8 like a century ago.



The ten poorest countries where a pizza is a delicacy they can't afford, all have twice or three times the fertility rate of the European Union.
It's a known fact that the poorer people are in a country the more kids they have, it's not even debatable.
Also, the whole having kids thing was widespread in commie countries, you for one should know better



But it's really funny cause besides being such a dumb argument, you're on a Bitcoin forum, the pinnacle of capitalism the perfect expression of capital and free markets, and you chant about the death of capitalism.

[Dareo]

Well it’s true that a man with little or no income will always struggle to fend or take care of a large family size especially during a period of economic downturns thereby causing many not to continue raising more kids because of the economic situation of the country. But In most areas you’ll find out that it’s the majority of the poor people that are always fond of having many children and some even goes as far as marrying many wives, I don’t know if the economic situation of the country is really affecting them. So, I don’t really think that the economy is reducing family populations. Most of the Rich people don’t even have large families, some of them have a maximum two kids even though they have enough wealth to cover for their children and even for the next generation no matter how the economy of the country changes.

Basically, one of the reasons why low income families have more children is lack of education and 'future security'. They often subconsciously think that more members in the family means more earning power. Moreover, since they are completely dependent on their children in old age, they consider having more children as a kind of investment.

On the other hand, rich people emphasize more on their quality of life or quality han the number of children. Even if they have sufficient resources, they want to have fewer children, but they want them to be given the best education and facilities. So the country's economy is not directly reducing the size of the family, but it is the financial education or economic outlook of people that is basically creating this strange difference in society.

[Asiska02]

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

With good economy, I don’t think having plenty of children will really affect how you feed them and cater for them. More children will automatically be converted to more manpower for the country when used well. A country that cares for its citizens will have a more efficient economy that will help to cater for its people, not the family of a person as a case study only.

With a good economy, the number of citizens in the country will not make the country to find it hard to feed them. If your country economy is good, you can feed more children and it will only be a thing of choice, on how many kids you want to have. It is bad economy that’s resulting to people wanting to limit the number of children they want to have, no one wants to have a big family that they can’t cater for and economy reality is making it hard for them to do so.

[samadam007]

Let's image you have a box of pizza with eight slices. If you eat it alone, you have to eat all eight slices yourself and you will be very satisfied and even have some leftover for tomorrow. But if you share it with your eight kids, each of you end up getting one each and that wouldn't even be enough for one person. Money works like a pizza, when grown up decide to have kids they often look at how big their pizza is. Will it be enough to satisfy their children? Here is how the economy, which is just a big word for money, jobs and the cost of things helps families decide how big their family should be.

Having a child is like raising a dragon, it's super fun, but dragons eat alot, they needs a big space, comfortable and convenient for them. They also need a special care and attention. When the economy is strong, parents have good job, they are comfortable and financially stable, they will start thinking about having another baby, but when the jobs are hard to find, the economy is crumbling and things are expensive, parents start getting worried, and they might say, let's wait until we have enough savings and gotten our jobs back before having more kids. That's it, it's the economy that is making that decision and not them. But the economy doesn't force anyone to have or not have children, but the hardship that comes with the economy leaves parents with no choice. No laws stops you from having children, but it act like a scale. On one side is the love and joy of having a big warm family. On the other hand is the cost of food, housing and care.

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

Economic hardship aside, why would a couple choose to have eight children? Are they planning to send them to fight war or what lol. Even if the resources to take care of them is available, it is still a lot of responsibility to nurture them from young age. Bonding with each of the them and putting them on the right path is another topic entirely. It is better to give birth to the number you will be responsible for. So yes, economy can influence the number of children people have, but is not the only reason. Ability to raise the children properly should be considered too.

[WatChe]

The economy and population are totally different things, yes the population of a country can be influenced by economy or financial conditions but not totally. The birth control is mostly someones own choice they don't think about economy before planning a child. Majority of cases are where rich people have 1 or 2 children but poor people have 8 or 9 children (in developing countries mostly). So this is totally someones own choice and financial understanding.  Rich people and educated people know that it takes a lot of effort in a child's brought up, education and so on but unfortunately many people don't think about these factors or they don't think about future at all.

[TheUltraElite]

Economy and rearing the family go hand in hand. The number of mouths to feed and the income to adjust that need to be kept in mind. Many poor people think that more hands on deck means more money incoming, but they factor out the mouths to feed. Instead rearing a single child even if the family is poor is a better decision.

Because the kids need time and effort along with money to be able to get educated, skilled and be able to earn their own living, the family needs to decide on the number of kids before starting the marriage and about the breadwinner's job stability.

Not planning these things before hand would be a bad step, even though it might still work out because of sheer luck for many families.

[Bigjoe33]

Ignore the money factor at your own risk.

I would love to have a big family, like 4-5 kids at least. When I see families with 6-7-8 children all grown up, I feel the joy. And when there is unity and love amongst them, you see the house full of people. When they bring in there own children, it's just joy overflow. But the big question is,, can you carter for them? Can you feed them while they are still toddlers? Feeding, schooling and all that life needs.

That is where the money factor comes in, and your topic a very important one. The economy has forced many families to adjust in there initial plans of number of children. Even me, I think I have reduced to just 3 kids. There are still those who just need only one, some two and just like that. Everyone must look at there lives financially, now, tomorrow and in the future before deciding how many kids they want to have.

[viljy]

The high cost of living is an inevitable consequence of "growth". Capitalism lives while it grows - this is its mortal vulnerability. And now this incessant desire to grow is devouring the main resource of capitalism - consumers (who cannot afford to create families and continue the family). Because the markets are over and there is nowhere to grow further. Then capitalism began to eat itself.

What a load of crap!
People stopped having so many kids because you wouldn't end up with half of them dead at 8 like a century ago.



The ten poorest countries where a pizza is a delicacy they can't afford, all have twice or three times the fertility rate of the European Union.
It's a known fact that the poorer people are in a country the more kids they have, it's not even debatable.
Also, the whole having kids thing was widespread in commie countries, you for one should know better

The economic systems in these countries differ somewhat from modern, developed capitalism. These are rather archaic societies in which children are seen as helpers in the household and in the family, which is why the birth rate is higher than in developed capitalist societies. Here is a counter‑example: China. After the restoration of capitalism, several decades later, the birth rate there fell. Now China’s population is declining, and the level of capitalist development in the country is very high. The same can be said about the situation in Russia after the restoration of capitalism.

You might object: what about the countries of Central Asia that were part of the USSR, since they now have a high birth rate. There is a simple answer to this: in fact, capitalism has never existed there. Both under the USSR and now, the same feudal order that took shape under the khans, emirs, and so on, still prevails. These are archaic societies with strong local traditions. So, there is no contradiction here with the fact that developed capitalism contributes to population decline.

But it's really funny cause besides being such a dumb argument, you're on a Bitcoin forum, the pinnacle of capitalism the perfect expression of capital and free markets, and you chant about the death of capitalism.

This is a very interesting point. Bitcoin is not at all a perfect expression of capital. Bitcoin is an element of a new economic system that will replace capitalism. Under capitalism, Bitcoin can at most occupy the place of a speculative asset, a commodity, and nothing more. In reality, the purpose of creating Bitcoin was something else.

A completely different form of money, not tied to the state and not requiring trust in a central authority for monetary emission (moreover, Bitcoin has no such central authority). Bitcoin is alien to capitalism. Capitalism limits the potential of Bitcoin. It tries to fit Bitcoin into its standard formats. (For example, Michael Saylor essentially wants to turn Bitcoin into an asset for fractional banking reserve, i.e., to fit Bitcoin into the traditional monetary system - like using a microscope to drive nails, if such a crude comparison is appropriate).

Currently, there is no economy for which Bitcoin was created. But by 2050, the features of this new economy may begin to emerge (at least Wallerstein indicated this timeframe). Moreover, Wallerstein’s predictions are in no way related to Bitcoin; the transition from capitalism to a new economic system would occur even if there were no Bitcoin. But in any case, something else would emerge to perform the monetary function in the new economy.

[sunsilk]

Is the economy really reducing the family population?

Yes, it is one big factor why couples or even singles who are planning for their future have decided not to have kids.

That's why there are DINKWADs (double income, no kid, with dog/s).

And we often hear people say when they're asked about their future plans and purchases and there's that common answer "not on this economy".

[Conqueror777]

Let's image you have a box of pizza with eight slices. If you eat it alone, you have to eat all eight slices yourself and you will be very satisfied and even have some leftover for tomorrow. But if you share it with your eight kids, each of you end up getting one each and that wouldn't even be enough for one person. Money works like a pizza, when grown up decide to have kids they often look at how big their pizza is. Will it be enough to satisfy their children? Here is how the economy, which is just a big word for money, jobs and the cost of things helps families decide how big their family should be.

Having a child is like raising a dragon, it's super fun, but dragons eat alot, they needs a big space, comfortable and convenient for them. They also need a special care and attention. When the economy is strong, parents have good job, they are comfortable and financially stable, they will start thinking about having another baby, but when the jobs are hard to find, the economy is crumbling and things are expensive, parents start getting worried, and they might say, let's wait until we have enough savings and gotten our jobs back before having more kids. That's it, it's the economy that is making that decision and not them. But the economy doesn't force anyone to have or not have children, but the hardship that comes with the economy leaves parents with no choice. No laws stops you from having children, but it act like a scale. On one side is the love and joy of having a big warm family. On the other hand is the cost of food, housing and care.

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

Yes I totally agree with you, children are expensive to raise, that's why I am building my wealth, portfolio and assets before having them.

[Qhunman]

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

You can't say the same to poor and educated people because they are ones who give birth to children without control.  You will rarely see a rich and educated folk who has more than four children at homes excepts he is a chief. Some africa chiefs usually don't marry just one wife because of their culture, that is why many of them have many wives and mistresses but these specific chiefs are different because they are rich enough to take care of the expensive of managing their homes. If a man can cater for the cost of running his home, the economy can't influence how many babies he should have since he is rich enough to handle the costs of running his home.

[ZAINmalik75]

It's actually a really common thing but only understood by those who are wise enough to understand and observe things before making decisions, but we all  know that this world is actually full of people who do the deed first and then think about it or they create a problem first and then think about a solution instead of thinking about what could happen before doing that action in the first place. This is why, there are so many people in this world who are mostly struggling with the same thing; how they can manage everything and keep their family safe, happy, and have their tummies full at all times.

Even though it's correct that laws in most countries don't stop you from having children, and you are free to have as many as you want or can, but I think there should be laws about family planning as well, and the laws should be based on the economic condition of a person before allowing them to have a specific number of children. For example, if I'm doing very well financially, and the state knows I can easily manage a family of 5, then I will be allowed to have 3 children, but if someone is struggling financially, they shouldn't be allowed to have more than 1. This will actually help both people and the country itself.

[Stepstowealth]

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

You can't say the same to poor and educated people because they are ones who give birth to children without control. 

This is also one observation that I made about people who are not financially stable because I noticed that they usually give birth to a lot of children and I feel like one of the reasons why they do this is because they are trying to increase the chances of them having a child who is successful at the end of the day because if you have four children for instance it is very difficult for the four of them to be poor even though it is possible but the chances are higher that one of these children will be able to struggle their way through poverty and make wealth both for themselves and help their family along the way. I believe this is a mindset that some poor people have hence the reason why they keep giving birth and bringing children into this world.

[stompix]

The economic systems in these countries differ somewhat from modern, developed capitalism. These are rather archaic societies in which children are seen as helpers in the household and in the family, which is why the birth rate is higher than in developed capitalist societies. Here is a counter‑example: China. After the restoration of capitalism, several decades later, the birth rate there fell. Now China’s population is declining, and the level of capitalist development in the country is very high. The same can be said about the situation in Russia after the restoration of capitalism.

Apples and oranges, sorry, but bringing China here is just wrong.

First, truly capitalist societies in 1900 had all over 4 children per woman, United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, only France was the exception but for different reasons.
China's fertility rate didn't go down because of capitalism, it was because of the effects of the one-child policy in 1979.

You might object: what about the countries of Central Asia that were part of the USSR, since they now have a high birth rate. There is a simple answer to this: in fact, capitalism has never existed there.

Religion.
https://shs.cairn.info/journal-population-2017-3-page-473?lang=en
Also, there was no economic system before the USSR?
Yes, there was: a feudal capitalist system.
Private property? Yes!
Free markets? Yes!
Profit-seeking trade? Yes!
Collective ownership of assets? Lol, hell no!

This is a very interesting point. Bitcoin is not at all a perfect expression of capital.

Yes it it, I don't know how many times have I said it
- you have money, you can buy Bitcoin, you don't have...there is no social welfare program
- you need capital to mine, nobody gives you that
- you move 1000 BTC or 2000 satoshi, you pay the same, not on wealth
- there is no tax, no nothing
- there is nobody that is in charge of the value of Bitcoin , is all determined by the markets

The Bitcoin ecosystem on its own has nothing of a planned economy, nothing of socialism, nothing of social welfare, nothing, pure capitalism.

[Berry2d]

The economy and population are totally different things, yes the population of a country can be influenced by economy or financial conditions but not totally. The birth control is mostly someones own choice they don't think about economy before planning a child. Majority of cases are where rich people have 1 or 2 children but poor people have 8 or 9 children (in developing countries mostly). So this is totally someones own choice and financial understanding.  Rich people and educated people know that it takes a lot of effort in a child's brought up, education and so on but unfortunately many people don't think about these factors or they don't think about future at all.

Pinpointing individual choices as the perfect reason of birth control is indeed a good reason and not basically because of the economic situation, if it where to be i don't think those buoyant financially would end up having just one or two children as they normally do.
Although many identified it as a reason before making such decision and looking at it in other way round it will be considered a true fact but should not be identified as the main factor responsible for birth control.
As for that of the population, its justifiable and can not be disputed because the higher the population the more difficult it becomes for the government to control, that is for nations blessed with good government and not those eaten up by corruption.

[iv4n]

When the cost of things gets really expensive and the economy crumbles to the floor, many parents choose to have just one or two kids, so they can be able to provide and give them everything they need without much complaints, rather than having four or five children and struggling to pay for a pizza.

The floor is open, what do you think? Is the economy really reducing the family population?

Or is it common sense? If you have money for only one pizza, why would you have 8 kids? Maybe one or two would be enough, and you will have two slices for the kids and two slices for your wife & you.

It's easy to make kids, like it's easy to buy something... Do you see some similarities with this thread: Being Able to Afford Something Is Not The Same As Being Able To Maintain It - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5595422.0.

Aside from the financial situation, there's another angle to look at this... Did you ask your wife about having 8 kids? 

[Muba20]

Generally, a family is planned depending on the financial capacity of the family. If a family has a several source of income or a high income opportunity, then there is no obligation in that family to have children. They can easily take the decision to have children, but in a family where the income is low, the members of that family often think about whether they will be able to properly raise the child or not. I must say that the issue of population growth is also related to the economy, although it cannot be said that the population growth will decrease due to only one reason. However, it is certain that the economy can have a big impact in this case.

At present, due to inflation, even though people's income is not increasing, the amount of expenses is increasing, which is greatly hindering their normal life. In this situation, no one will try to bring new members to their family. When people can create a situation where they can save some money from their income and manage the family, only then they try to bring new members to the family.

[r_victory]

What, in my opinion, is affecting this is that some people don't want to have children or get married and prefer to be "pet parents," you know? The world is changing, and so are many people's priorities. In the past, one of the rules strictly followed by most was to get married and have children; today it's not.

People say they want more "freedom". I don't know what freedom they're talking about, because they're usually slaves to other things, like certain ideologies (which, for me, is what's destroying families). The economy has become secondary when choosing whether or not to have a family or whether or not to expand it.

[Moreno233]

In some places, poverty makes people reduce the number of children they give birth to so tuat they will not be distressed in fending for them. Some countries embark on serious publicity to discourage people from giving birth to more than they can take care of. But in some countries like Japan and Hungary, it is not actually the economy that is impacting their population growth, people do not just have desire to many children due to reason best known to them. In some of those countries, government do give incentives to people to give birth to more children.