THE ECONOMY IS REDUCING FAMILY POPULATION..

[Prince patrick]

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?

[gracreavix]

Yes, money and cost of living are just one factors to many why people want to have fewer kids. But you can't say same to some people who barely have enough to feed themselves but yet bring in more kids to the world. So cost of living and money are not the only reason why people give birth to lesser number of children.

What about career. Some peoples career path has made them not to even give birth at all. And if they do is usually one or two.

Age is another one. One gets too old that fewer kids becomes an only option.

So cost of living and money is just one factor to a lot of factors.

[Gravitypull$]

You need to think carefully before having kids so that, you don't end up having more kids than your resources to take care of them because that will put you into abject poverty. It doesn't mean that your income have increased, you should also increase the number of your kids because if after giving birth to the new child and your income reduces or losses his purchasing power due to inflation, that child cannot be eliminated out from the family. If your income increases, it's a blessing for you to live more comfortably and invest some part of it for the future.

[Donk1]

​Well I like to calculate everything in percentage. So if I was to answer your question, I would say no, but still the economy only has about 30% of control over citizens when it comes to how they want to manage their family, though it's different in each country so I can't say for certain. The fact is this folks don't plan their lives at a full scale. They often just give birth with no idea of the expense that comes with having a second or even third child. I believe before bringing a child to this world, you must evaluate yourself and be very aware that you have the right amount of resources to take care of the children, even if the economy crumbles. It's more like having a backup plan because you can't give birth and expect everything to just go as planned.That said I want to ask one question why is it that mostly rich people often don't give birth to more than 1 to 3, at most 4, but it's often between 1 to 2, so tell me why? Is it that they can't take care of the children? No, that's not it. They can but still, they choose not to. But when it comes to average folks or even poor people, they don't really care, and it's wrong because I believe bringing a child to this world and making them suffer is a sin. That's all.....

[Ever-young]

Economy can be a factor no doubt, I agree with you but I want us to understand this;
You carry out a proper statistical analysis, the people has higher numbers of children than the rich why?

This is to tell you that it is one thing to provide for a child and it’s another, to raise a responsible child. Personally I’ll settle for the number children i can raise, both financially and otherwise.

Because if you’re talking about economic making decisions for us then you are directing it to the poor, putting the rich aside. The responsibility that comes with been a parent is underestimated, and undergoing the stage where a child has to be nurtured from birth till three ain’t funny.

Timing is also a factor, being present in an infants life will get you breaking your schedules, a new born is another starting over, that shit ain’t funny.

The world is changing and we’re just coming to certain realizations, back then is different from now, but we live better than them.
So the economy plays a part but that ain’t the main deal.

[uneng]

Economy can be a factor no doubt, I agree with you but I want us to understand this;
You carry out a proper statistical analysis, the people has higher numbers of children than the rich why?

This is to tell you that it is one thing to provide for a child and it’s another, to raise a responsible child. Personally I’ll settle for the number children i can raise, both financially and otherwise.

Because if you’re talking about economic making decisions for us then you are directing it to the poor, putting the rich aside. The responsibility that comes with been a parent is underestimated, and undergoing the stage where a child has to be nurtured from birth till three ain’t funny.

Timing is also a factor, being present in an infants life will get you breaking your schedules, a new born is another starting over, that shit ain’t funny.

The world is changing and we’re just coming to certain realizations, back then is different from now, but we live better than them.
So the economy plays a part but that ain’t the main deal.

Actually, there is a tendency that the more developed a country becomes, less children its citizens have. Take European countries as an example. Meanwhile, people who live in poverty are the ones who most have children, so I don't think economical factor is a general one taken by most people when deciding to have children or not. Meanwhile, people who already find themselves in solid and stable financial standards prefer prioritizing another sectors of life, while others think about having children only after their 30's or 40's.

[Roseline492]

Actually, there is a tendency that the more developed a country becomes, less children its citizens have. Take European countries as an example. Meanwhile, people who live in poverty are the ones who most have children,

Having more children does not determine on how the country has developed because it entirely rest on the desire and mindset of everyone, even in those underdeveloped countries their are people who also do not acknowledge the idea of having too many children so actually this is also applicable to to all the European countries you are talking about because I have seen a lot of Europeans who has a lot of children, and besides some of their government even encourage it because of their small population. Although is very good for someone to consider their source of income before thinking about having too many kids so that they would be able to fend for them.

[Fortify]

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?

The cost of living and how much it costs to raise a child is definitely a consideration that many parents have to make. On average it costs hundreds of thousands to raise a child in most developed countries, whether we are talking dollars or euros. That has to calculate into the choices of responsible parents because they are actively planning their children's future. If people can barely pay for their own lives it would seem irresponsible to bring another life into the world. Many people in poorer countries simply don't use contraceptives and also rely on big families to support their retirement. This leads to a state where richer countries are losing people, or at least replacing them with immigrants, versus poorer countries who expand their population but cannot support them.

[Obulis]

Economy/money is a very important factor that affects the number of children parents have. But then there are many other factors or reason to the number of children parents have. Body health is one of the factors, even as science have helped some people that has money to have children when ordinarily they can't because of bad procreation health. Religion is another factor some have the number children they have because of religious beliefs like "children comes from God". With this beliefs, some who can't even feed themselves will go on to have as much children as possible.

To give a general view, you will see that whether there's money or not one major drive or factor to the number of children is the mindset. Centuries ago when it's was basically agriculture and low technology, parents give birth to more children for division of labor. Right now or today, even when you earn basically from agriculture, that doesn't mean you should go on to have battalion and that's mindset. It's the mindset or personal awareness or orientation to life that will tell you to carry on with many children or not.

It is your mindset that will tell you to ignore some religious beliefs and manage your child birth. Right now in some places, it's even parents who doesn't have the economy/money that usually have more children and that's because of mindset or level of mental or personal awareness or orientation to life.

[Gozie51]

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?

I think there is a place of education and knowledge in what you are talking about. Those who are educated are those that majorly practice this because they fear that if they continue, they might not be able to give those children the kind of attention and support they would need to be better placed in the future. The less educated ones don't think beyond having fun with their wives unprotected with the claim that it is their conjugal right irrespective of the time of their wives circle. I don't totally blame the economy but the egoistic nature of many men especially the illiterate type. The economy contributes to the challenge no doubt because of low standard of living and lack of job opportunities but that is not up to 50% of the bad decisions taken about how many children to introduce to the world. If the blame is to the economy alone, what about when couples give birth after a very long time they decided to stop and they boldly say this is a mistaken child? So some couples are culprits and architect of why they got the numbers of children that they can't take care of.

[Sammysmart001]

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,

This your pizza analogy it really 100% valid. But let look at it from another perspective of the shift from quantity to quality, if you check it out back then during our grandfathers time for them having up to 8 to 10 kids was seen as wealth this because for their farm labor they need cheap hands.
But now things have changed the economy now is nothing compare to then, it so expensive to raise children now. Calculate down from school fees, feed in im today inflation and healthcare, you then realize have like 2 to 3 kids and giving them best education and also a better life it far better than having up to 7 kids that will then be suffering.

So yes this harsh economy it really reducing family size. And also forcing most people to apply a common sense.

[Jewan420]

But the reality is different, your statements contradict reality. In reality, poor people have more children than rich people, have you ever noticed that? Considering the real situation, I cannot agree with you.

Having children or not is completely dependent on the decision of the parents. If it depends on the economy, how many children should Elon Musk have? How many children should the rich people of your country have? But I don't think they have many children, rather a farmer in your area has more children than him.

Who will have how many children depends entirely on their decision. But if you look at reality, you will understand that housewives have more children, while mothers who work or are modernly educated have fewer children. Housewives have enough time to raise children and since they do not have much knowledge in family planning, they have more than one child. But working mothers do not have many children to keep themselves busy and in good shape, rather they decide to have one or two children. From my perspective, economics does not profoundly influence the decision to have children.

[Ever-young]

Economy can be a factor no doubt, I agree with you but I want us to understand this;
You carry out a proper statistical analysis, the people has higher numbers of children than the rich why?

This is to tell you that it is one thing to provide for a child and it’s another, to raise a responsible child. Personally I’ll settle for the number children i can raise, both financially and otherwise.

Because if you’re talking about economic making decisions for us then you are directing it to the poor, putting the rich aside. The responsibility that comes with been a parent is underestimated, and undergoing the stage where a child has to be nurtured from birth till three ain’t funny.

Timing is also a factor, being present in an infants life will get you breaking your schedules, a new born is another starting over, that shit ain’t funny.

The world is changing and we’re just coming to certain realizations, back then is different from now, but we live better than them.
So the economy plays a part but that ain’t the main deal.

Actually, there is a tendency that the more developed a country becomes, less children its citizens have. Take European countries as an example. Meanwhile, people who live in poverty are the ones who most have children, so I don't think economical factor is a general one taken by most people when deciding to have children or not. Meanwhile, people who already find themselves in solid and stable financial standards prefer prioritizing another sectors of life, while others think about having children only after their 30's or 40's.

Exactly!
Because if it was really about the economy, the rich will have more children while the poor will have less but it’s typically the other way round.
Some have everything but don’t even plan up have kids, some look forward to adopting bigger kids that the stress of carrying a child and nurturing them.

Personally I will even consider timing as a factor more than the economy, because while the economy is going bad people are still adapting, but time is never enough. And subjective kids to external care regularly poses risk. So if you really ask the people with fewer kids why, economy may not even stand a chance.

[Versatile_choice]

You need to think carefully before having kids so that, you don't end up having more kids than your resources to take care of them because that will put you into abject poverty. It doesn't mean that your income have increased, you should also increase the number of your kids because if after giving birth to the new child and your income reduces or losses his purchasing power due to inflation, that child cannot be eliminated out from the family. If your income increases, it's a blessing for you to live more comfortably and invest some part of it for the future.

You're making this look as though the number of kids is determined by the resources a person has, but you later Said that having enough resources does not mean that a person should also have more kids. You know there are people who has enough resources but couldn't take good care of their kids, I don't know if you have seen a situation like that before? Personally I have seen, so in as much as I would say that a person need to have enough resources, I would also say that they should be very mindful while giving birth so that the responsibility will not be much even to a point where we will prioritize the one and forget others.

[knuckey]

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

I agree with you, economics plays a significant role in reducing family size. Our parents were probably proud of having children, because in their time, needs weren't as great as they are now. Back then, the internet wasn't popular, even vehicles were rare, there were no water bills, and entertainment facilities weren't plentiful. This is different from today's lifestyle, where many people consider limiting childbearing because of the economy.

[uchegod-21]

It is not the economy, people are now more informed than they were in the past where they believed that children are gifts from God, therefore God who gave them those children will provide means for their upkeep. That kind of mentality has been erased completely through education and awareness.

The kinds of parents and singles we have now understand the consequences of birthing children they cannot afford to take care of.  They understand also the economy of the country they in; how to live within their means and adapt without neccessarily lowering their standards of living as they run a family.

The greater credit for the reduced birth rate and family size in general goes to improved education and awareness, not the economy itself.

[Zoomic]

The current state of the economy is one of the reasons no doubt but that's definitely not the only reasons people are reporting to having fewer babies.

When you check the cost of raising a child today, you'll understand that it's increased more than it used to be so families are just cautious of having a number they can provide for.

Also, there's been some sort of social awareness. Parents now want to born and fully take responsibility of their children warfare and education. Gone are those days when parents born without the plan of fully funding their education and because these things are expensive now, they're going for the numbers they can cater for.

[Bd officer]

Yes, I believe that due to the increase in the cost of living, people have reduced their family population or the rate of birth of children. But I think about one thing that my grandfather's financial condition was not very good but he had 7 children. If my grandfather had thought about the financial aspect, then probably my father would not have been born and probably I would not have been born because my father was the 6th child in his family.

Anyway our country has seen a massive population increase. So the government has announced that it is better to have one child, be it a boy or a girl, but not more than two. Personally, I also want my child to grow up well, so I also planned to have 2 children.

[SPIDERMAN008]

It is common fact that if the income cannot be increased when the family members increase, then it is not possible to fulfill all the responsibilities at once. And after becoming the guardian of many children, if they cannot be educated properly, if they cannot be raised carefully in a good environment then there is also a doubt about whether the child will get proper moral education in the future.

A parent has to be responsible by considering all aspects. Many people may think of having a child considering their current financial situation. The responsibility that will increase in the future should be planned from the beginning. So that there is no deficiency in the overall development of that child. He has to be raised with good food, shelter, education and proper treatment. If the parents cannot fulfill their responsibilities towards them completely, then that child grows up with a negative mentality in the future. Which becomes bad for the society and the family.

[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 consequences will this have in this century: the emergence of a large number of escheat estates due to the lack of heirs, which will inevitably cause a drop in prices. A reduction in the number of consumers will lead to a decline in demand, which in turn will cause prices to fall. The replacement of human labor with robotic production will increase productivity while simultaneously reducing the share of human labor in the cost structure, which will lead to falling prices.

Falling prices will cause a reduction in production. Production technologies that are profitable only due to scale will be eliminated. However, all of this will happen only in a few decades, when the population shrinks significantly due to extinction. Falling prices will give rise to a new distribution economy (with a small segment of the market for unique items). Well, the value of a person in such a society will be very low. Since a person will stop being a consumer (the economy of distribution) and will stop being a producer (robots produce).