THE ECONOMY IS REDUCING FAMILY POPULATION..

[Questat]

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

This is the reality of some people. Those who are working and are still living paycheck to paycheck will realized that adding more child will only mean more financial struggles that would only affect the future of the children. However, those who are jobless parents and have no means of income would not mind adding kids year after year despite of their current financial situation. So I don't think the current economy affects their decision making. Most likely its their type of mindset that they rely on decision making.

[Rengga Jati]

Honestly, even though many people say money isn't important, that love is what matters. Trust me: being in love while worst financially is truly miserable. It is better to shift our mindset right now: more money, more love, more happiness. This applies not only to us and our families. But also to the people around us, allowing us to help them whenever possible.

This concept actually aligns with what the OP stated. Of course, finances have a profound impact on a person's life. It isn't just about putting food on the table. It also concerns education, healthcare, and various other necessities. That is precisely why, in some countries, the government supports and cares for the poor. Although there are also countries that completely ignore them.

[mirakal]

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.

What you said is true. The idea that birth control should rely more on intelligence and discipline concerning the present economy will only be true to few people, but majority still want children despite of financial crisis because for them, getting old without children to rely on is the worst feeling. Though having children are not a guarantee, but its still different living alone than living knowing you have children that will care for you in your old age.

I don't want to think that these kind of people are not thinking of their children's future, its just that each parent has different views and mindset when it comes having less or more children.

[fruktik]

There is no doubt about it. The economic aspect is paramount, and it undoubtedly influences family size.

In my country, the authorities have been saying for years that the demographic situation is dire and that people ought to have more children and raise large families. Yet, the exact opposite is happening. Families are desperately short of the funds needed to maintain a decent standard of living, and that is the reason behind their decisions.

Another aspect of the issue is that a vast number of men of reproductive age have been sent to war—a situation that continues to this day.

So, how can the demographic situation possibly improve when the government is doing everything to make matters worse?

[TheUltraElite]

That is precisely why, in some countries, the government supports and cares for the poor. Although there are also countries that completely ignore them.

Love should be associated with some logic, because rearing children is not just love, it is the act of procreation and the two can be kept separate by birth control.

But quite a few countries and communities are not going to listen to this advice and rear more than what they can sustain. So they will suffer the consequences of poor education, bad healthcare and less volume of assets to inherit.

In a way reduction of the population is necessary in many countries when their demographics are seen, like India and China.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

It's an undoubtedly truth many today are in phobia both the masculine gender and the feminine to engage in marriage most when they have limited source of income, it's cutting down the rate of marriage engagement and birth control even those that hot married hardly give birth above two unlike the past that some family have more than two children now it's a new development that they always talk about the economic hardship and put it into consideration before any action. Secondly it also reduce family by death rate has increased as result of hardship and some family inability to afford hospital bill or some medical treatment required for their illness may decide to treat locally that have taken their life I will agree with this very topic that every element concerning this is true about the economy.

[viljy]

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.

Actually, we’re discussing the current state of birth rates, not the year 1900. Nowadays, birth rates are declining in all developed countries. Even in South Korea and Japan, even though they never had a "one family, one child" policy. This policy may have contributed to the decline in birth rates, but it wasn’t decisive because the same thing happened in neighboring countries in the region with a high level of economic development. So, it’s not that simple.

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.

I understood. You’re comparing it to socialism. But Bitcoin isn’t intended for socialism, just as it isn’t intended for capitalism. The new economy in which Bitcoin will have its place doesn’t yet exist. Simplified, in the new economy, 1 BTC = 1 BTC, but not $83,000 or $150,000; that’s the essence of it.

There will be a free market there, but only for products created by people (not by robots). This is, in fact, what I’ve written in some other threads here on the forum. And this is essentially what Michael Saylor said recently, who said in an interview on the Binance channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerfDFUdFXk) something along the lines of: that AI will exacerbate the shortage of premium assets.

According to him, robots will make ordinary goods and services cheaper, but they won’t be able to create more of the rare items that wealthy people hunt for. Bitcoin also can’t be created in larger quantities; it’s also a premium asset. I just imagined this as a constant increase in the purchasing power of Bitcoin, since it will directly serve as money. That is, there is no socialism in the future of Bitcoin.

P.S. Actually, socialism is the same as capitalism, but in socialism there is only one capitalist - the state. Or, in other words, socialism is super paternalistic capitalism. For example, under socialism there is a free market, albeit one that has been pushed into the shadow economy (as was the case in socialist countries). In capitalism, in turn, there is social security (although, in theory, capitalism should not have this). And there are several other common features that can be listed. For example, in a planned economy, the difference lies only in the scale: corporate planning versus government planning, and so on.

P.P.S. Why does it seem that Bitcoin is designed for capitalism? Because capitalism can adapt absolutely anything! Capitalism can even adapt itself (and pretend to be socialism). But there is one clear indicator - the mismatch between the function it performs and its purpose. Bitcoin was created to be the money of the future (money without the involvement of the state; without trust in the state; without coercion, and therefore without paternalism). In capitalism, however, Bitcoin is a speculative asset, just a commodity, like many other goods. Capitalism can turn absolutely anything into a commodity: education, Mars, a bride, Bitcoin... but that doesn’t make Mars, the bride, or Bitcoin inherently capitalist.

[Stive009]

In contemporary society the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty are profoundly influencing people's social decisions. Limited income sources have instilled a fear of marriage and childbearing among the younger generation giving rise to new trends in family structures and demographics. Furthermore due to financial constraints many are deprived of quality healthcare and are resorting to risky unconventional treatments which is driving up mortality rates. Overall economic pressure is exerting a direct negative impact on people's basic livelihoods and security.

[asriloni]

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 annual % change of total population has said it all. It's always going lower and lower.  The growth of living cost is now forcing people to think for twice before they have childrend. The more childrend, the bigger living cost. At the same time, the growth of salary is not catching up to the inflation. So the money earned from working is not even enough to keep people's life.

This is why the mindset to child free is getting widen so fast. When you have so many burden in your shoulder, you will not be thinking to merried, then having a child. This trend gets so popular in my country.

[Umulala-alala]

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.

I have noticed that those who are jobless and poor have more children than most of those who are rich and have a job doing, the economy of most countries now is very bad people need to sew their coat now according to their size, i think people should give birth with the numbers of children they can be able to take care of, provide them with cloth and shelter, feed them and also train them in school, some many parents can't take care of their children due to the numbers of children they have, people should think well now before starting a family.

[Sticky Bomb]

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.

Most people who live in poverty are ignorant of family planning and they have lots of children before it dawns on them that they cannot properly raise all of them and the result of poor upbringing is the society that bears it as most of them even go into crime in a quest for survival.

In more developed countries or even enlightened communities, Family planning is one of the things a new couple is taught of which they are encouraged to plan their family according to their financial capacity.

I prefer spacing your children properly than waiting to get to a certain age before having children because you may not have the strength to properly raise them if you have them at much older age, but when properly spaced, the earlier ones tends to take responsibility of the later ones when you are not so strong.

[henmark]

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".

Simply put, if you can't afford to even live together, how could you even afford to have a kid? Think about it, people get married and then get divorced a lot more often than they have kids. Can you even imagine what that means?

The odds of 2 people staying married and having a kid are much lower than them getting divorced and separating in today's world. In the past 5 years, more couples got divorced than had a kid. So that alone is telling us what the world has come to and should be enough reason to just make sure we are making the right choice. I have been married to my wife for over fifteen years, and honestly I made the right choice, but I have a lot of people around me who got divorced; hell, one guy I know had his second divorce lol.

[Bitcoin_people]

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.

Of course, the number of children a person has has nothing to do with their wealth, it is not a matter of having more children. It is seen that many people with less wealth sometimes have more children, and there are many people who have more wealth but have fewer children. Of course, you are right, many wealthy people often lack care for their children, not only being financially prosperous but also having to take care of their children. On the other hand, many parents of middle-class and poor families take care of their children a lot and fulfill a sufficient amount of responsibilities even if they do not have wealth. It is not enough to have children and increase their number if you have wealth, but you should also nurture them and fulfill enough responsibilities, taking care of your children is the most important thing. However, having more children is not very good, because it becomes financially challenging for a father to fulfill the responsibilities of many children.

[drangos]

I believe the economy does affect family size, but it's more the cost of raising a child than just having one. Long term financial pressures are caused by housing, education. Healthcare and childcare. The second shift is that children are not only perceived primarily as workers for the future. To support the household, but also as a means of rejuvenation for their parents. Today's parents may think that they need to provide their children with more opportunities. This need to invest more time and resources in fewer children may also occur when income is stable. Which means that smaller families occur even when income rises.

[alastantiger]

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 economy is not only the reason but it is contributing very much to families now having reduced numbers of children but the activists and the speeches on how the world is getting over populated is also making families now having reduces numbers. There are some people that would have loved to have many children but because of what people will say on this, and how they will see them. It is making them not have the children they want. I think if you can afford to take care of the number of children you want to give birth to then go ahead but do not bring children into the world and then have them suffering because you could not plan your family very well. Having a small family is going to help you out financially and it is not a bad idea.

[vs2014]

Of course economy plays significant role behind family planning and i believe economy can strongly affect how many children people wanna have. Parents usually think about children's education, food and other livelihood costs. That's why many people wanna have fewer children.Sometimes people who comes with good earning may wanna have less children cause they want more freedom or have other goals in life. But some people with lower income may want more children because of their personal belief. However it's important to rise a children with proper manner and care instead of just calculating about expenses

[yixichloro2xx]

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 economy is not only the reason but it is contributing very much to families now having reduced numbers of children but the activists and the speeches on how the world is getting over populated is also making families now having reduces numbers. There are some people that would have loved to have many children but because of what people will say on this, and how they will see them. It is making them not have the children they want. I think if you can afford to take care of the number of children you want to give birth to then go ahead but do not bring children into the world and then have them suffering because you could not plan your family very well. Having a small family is going to help you out financially and it is not a bad idea.

Why would someone even follow words coming out from the mouth Activist. I don't care how someone will perceive me, I will give birth to any amount of children of my choice as long as I am the one paying for their needs. It's better for someone to focus on themselves rather than looking at what the society will say about them or making decisions that will satisfy the society. Having children requires lots of finances, which are education (getting expensive), Healthcare and general welfare . I can't advise anyone whose financial level isn't great to have many children without considering the consequences.  This is one of the reason why family planning before marriage is good, that way you and your wife can calculate your combined income, list your expenses, debt and decide on the amount of children both of you can raise without putting the family under financial pressure.

[sunsilk]

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".

Simply put, if you can't afford to even live together, how could you even afford to have a kid? Think about it, people get married and then get divorced a lot more often than they have kids. Can you even imagine what that means?

The odds of 2 people staying married and having a kid are much lower than them getting divorced and separating in today's world. In the past 5 years, more couples got divorced than had a kid. So that alone is telling us what the world has come to and should be enough reason to just make sure we are making the right choice. I have been married to my wife for over fifteen years, and honestly I made the right choice, but I have a lot of people around me who got divorced; hell, one guy I know had his second divorce lol.

With the process of divorce being easier, people who get into relationship have that option if they want to opt out and when things are no longer doing well for them.

And the new generation of young adults now have gone through having tough economy in the past through their parents. They've seen the hardship as they grow older and they don't want to experience the same thing by having a kid.

Or they don't want to let their kids experience that suffering and that led them in decision of not having one if they know they can't afford to support until they get older. Growing one doesn't stop from there even if you're able to provide things for them because it's a life time responsibility and commitment.

[Cheema02]

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.

In population growth, the economy is not the only parameter that indicates the overall condition of any nation. There are so many other things that contribute to population growth, like education, culture, and mainly awareness. Why do some of us have a lot of children, but some are very careful about family planning? It's a very easy point to defend that it depends on the education and awareness that are available in this area. If a good guard briefly explains the benefits of family planning, then the couples will automatically adopt it. But if someone does not have good knowledge, then how does he explain it to others?

Obviously, it's true, and if we become aware of how, day by day, inflation increases, savings remain the same and sometimes go into loss. The point to understand is that we should learn how to manage money and money alone is not the complete parameter for economic growth.

[Biirakedee]

One thing we should consider is that the economy does not only influence how many children people have, it can also determine when they feel ready to start a family in the first place. Someone may want three children but keep postponing his/her marriage or childbirth because they have not secure a stable job or nice accommodation that can contain the whole of them. By the time they feel financially ready, age and other circumstances may have changed their plans.
Therefore a smaller family does not always mean that people have lost their interest in having children. Sometimes they are just trying to avoid bringing this children into a situation they are not prepared to handle.