4 ms·

The truth is that throughout history most people have been born as either wealth generating workers or undesired pregnancies. Children are no longer profitable

The truth is that throughout history most people have been born as either wealth generating workers or undesired pregnancies. Children are no longer profitable in modern economies, and not a reliable retirement plan, so there is no longer an economic incentive to having them. Unwanted pregnancies can now be prevented or resolved quite easily so there are many fewer of those. All that remains today are those people who wish to have children for the url love of children and childrearing. While there are more of those now than ever -both in proportion and in total number- it is nothing in the face of the other two factors. The problem is that any incentive to have children will. likely encourage those least capable of raising them effectively, and do nothing for those who can best be role models (because child educational achievement correlates strongly with that of their parents)... but something like free childcare but only for those couples where both have post-secondary education will go over like a lead balloon.

anaganisk 5y ago
What history? American? When were children ever a profitable venture? Atleast in my country having children was never a profit loss statement. Where I'm from its was considered an extension of the family tree. Though some communities considered girls chikd a burden because of dowry, this was tried to overcome by trying to have a boy. If your statement has any weight many underdeveloped nations would've never had children.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > What history? Pretty much all of it. Children were the people who would continue to do the work required to gather food once you were too old to do it yourself. > an extension of the family tree Yes, but why does this matter? > If your statement has any weight many underdeveloped nations would've never had children. No, this argument is exactly why many underdeveloped nations continue to have high birth rates (this and higher child mortality requiring you to have even more kids per adult)

anaganisk 5y ago

What history? American? When were children ever a profitable venture? Atleast in my country having children was never a profit loss statement. Where I'm from its was considered an extension of the family tree. Though some communities considered girls chikd a burden because of dowry, this was tried to overcome by trying to have a boy. If your statement has any weight many underdeveloped nations would've never had children.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> What history? Pretty much all of it. Children were the people who would continue to do the work required to gather food once you were too old to do it yourself. > an extension of the family tree Yes, but why does this matter? > If your statement has any weight many underdeveloped nations would've never had children. No, this argument is exactly why many underdeveloped nations continue to have high birth rates (this and higher child mortality requiring you to have even more kids per adult)