3 ms·

Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today. The difference is that the couples that do have children, have much fewer

Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today. The difference is that the couples that do have children, have much fewer children. 2, instead of 4. We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars. The USA seems to be doing alright with this, where housing is relatively affordable, and child tax credits and the ability to combine you income with your spouse. (The situation is much more dire in Central/Eastern Europe) One way to improve this is to increase land value taxes, but offer a credit for each child of the owners under 18 living there. This would give families a formal tax advantage against baby boomers and investors.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars. Per modern standards. A whole bedroom per child is still today only an amenity that relatively richer people have, especially in desirable areas. I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. It might have just been an unfortunate byproduct of sex, but now it’s completely controllable. And after seeing what my wife went through in 2 completely normal pregnancies with no complications, you would have to offer me some serious cash if I was a woman to go through that.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  > I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. I guess it depends how far back you go. Prior to child labor laws, having more children resulted in more family income. They could work on the farm or in factories, etc. In those times, childhood mortality was also high. So you may have had 8 kids but not that many would make it to adulthood.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Those women had significantly less ability to not have one more kid. First , there was no child control, only way to not have sex at all. Second, husband was head of familly with huge power and there was no way to escale if he decided the celibacy is not a way to go.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today" What is "historically"? Is that in a society of cavemen where most men died before reaching maturity? Is that a polygamous tribal society? Is it ancient Rome where peasants had families and had loads of kids to help with farm work? Are we talking post-renaissance, where vast majority of people had families and contraception was non existent, so basically everyone had kids? What is a%, 100%? 90%?
vel0city 5y ago
> Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today. This is half-right, as both 10% and 90% are technically both percentages. The rest is very much [Citation Needed].
withinboredom 5y ago
When we lived in the US, we only had a single child and said No More. That single child nearly bankrupted us in medical bills. You’d have to be irrational to have a child in the US, be very rich, very poor, or have great health insurance. Since moving to the EU, when we explain to people how much our child costs, their jaw drops. If the US wants more children, they really need to solve the medical costs problem.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars. Per modern standards. A whole bedroom per child is still today only an amenity that relatively richer people have, especially in desirable areas. I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. It might have just been an unfortunate byproduct of sex, but now it’s completely controllable. And after seeing what my wife went through in 2 completely normal pregnancies with no complications, you would have to offer me some serious cash if I was a woman to go through that.

withinboredom 5y ago
> I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. I guess it depends how far back you go. Prior to child labor laws, having more children resulted in more family income. They could work on the farm or in factories, etc. In those times, childhood mortality was also high. So you may have had 8 kids but not that many would make it to adulthood.
- watwut 5y ago
  Those women had significantly less ability to not have one more kid. First , there was no child control, only way to not have sex at all. Second, husband was head of familly with huge power and there was no way to escale if he decided the celibacy is not a way to go.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today" What is "historically"? Is that in a society of cavemen where most men died before reaching maturity? Is that a polygamous tribal society? Is it ancient Rome where peasants had families and had loads of kids to help with farm work? Are we talking post-renaissance, where vast majority of people had families and contraception was non existent, so basically everyone had kids? What is a%, 100%? 90%?

vel0city 5y ago

> Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today. This is half-right, as both 10% and 90% are technically both percentages. The rest is very much [Citation Needed].

withinboredom 5y ago

When we lived in the US, we only had a single child and said No More. That single child nearly bankrupted us in medical bills. You’d have to be irrational to have a child in the US, be very rich, very poor, or have great health insurance. Since moving to the EU, when we explain to people how much our child costs, their jaw drops. If the US wants more children, they really need to solve the medical costs problem.