3 ms·
This is really about economics. 100 years ago, having a kid produced more resources. 40 years ago, it was relatively close to neutral ("X no matter if you had
by codefreeordie 4y ago
This is really about economics. 100 years ago, having a kid produced more resources. 40 years ago, it was relatively close to neutral ("X no matter if you had kids"). Now, it's super strongly negative.
- ajuc 4y agoIf that was the case - big social spending would increase natural growth significantly. But it doesn't. For example in Poland in 2015 a new social program was introduced. Parents get paid 500 PLN for each kid each month till it's 18 years old. At the time the median wage was under 2500 PLN for comparison. So 2 kids increased your earnings by 20%-40% (depending if both parents work). Natural growth increased by 3.5% for 1 year and quickly returned to the trend. You can't even guess on the graph when it was introduced [1] It's not about money. [1] https://portalstatystyczny.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ruch-naturalny-ludnosc.jpg https://portalstatystyczny.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ruc... The graph shows natural growth vs deaths in thousands.