4 ms·

> why did people want to have lots of kids back then? One reason is child labor. Kids started to work as soon as they could, from ages 7-10. Modern kids are us

> why did people want to have lots of kids back then? One reason is child labor. Kids started to work as soon as they could, from ages 7-10. Modern kids are useless until adulthood. Another reason is lack of social security, childfree people would die of hunger once unable to work and people knew it. Finally, people who had kids back then didn’t necessarily want them. Reliable birth control is a modern invention. > The solutions would lie in those answers. I’m not sure how these answers gonna lead to solutions.

jalapenos 3y ago
Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? I wonder if any historians have studied this. As opposed to just their labor defraying part of the costs of their rearing. I've heard the argument made that no-one has kids just to exploit them, but sadly I've repeatedly witnessed otherwise, so unsure what the fraction is on this. I'd say the childfree argument is an exaggeration given the timeframe we're talking about. Japan had fertility rates of 4 as recent as the 1950s. It doesn't sound realistic at that time they expected to starve to death in old age once they couldn't work. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-japan-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-j... Cheap birth control is definitely a factor everywhere, but it poses an interesting question: does it mean all these surplus kids has always just been about a lack of restraint? This seems unlikely. The "original birth control" has been around (and still widely used) since where-babies-come-from was first understood.
- Const-me 3y ago
  > Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? Modern 10 year olds are only useless due to culture and laws. Technically they’re rather capable already, both physically and mentally. > fertility rates of 4 If you wonder why so many kids, it’s mostly due to their mortality. Infant mortality rate plummeted by more than 2 orders of magnitude since 1950: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-mortality-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-morta... I’m not sure they should solve depopulation by re-introducing high mortality.
  - jalapenos 3y ago
    Looks like 5% in the 50s. High by modern standards, but not enough to imply a "we need to have 4 so at least one survives" scenario. And I'd say they're "unused" not "useless". The question would be for instance on a subsidence farm, how much more crops can the work of a 10 year old create, vs how much resources they consume. My guess is that they're still a net cost.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      The rearing costs were probably lower due to multigenerational households, elder siblings, and the entire community being involved.
    - Const-me 3y ago
      > Looks like 5% in the 50s The data I have linked above shows infant mortality rate. I believe infant mortality is defined as “deaths during the first year of life”. I was unable to find data for child mortality in Japan. Still, I would expect it to be rather high in the 50-s Japan, and follow a similar trajectory. Here’s some chart which shows worldwide death rate for ages ≤ 5 years: https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-child-mortality-timeseries.png https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-chi... The figure was 36% in 1900, over 20% in 1950, and only 4% in modern world.
petre 3y ago
They also needed the grown up kids as helping hands for agriculture. Modern people live in the city, they buy the food that they eat. Some come home tired after unrewarding work and endless hours of meetings, so having kids is one of their last priorities.

jalapenos 3y ago

Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? I wonder if any historians have studied this. As opposed to just their labor defraying part of the costs of their rearing. I've heard the argument made that no-one has kids just to exploit them, but sadly I've repeatedly witnessed otherwise, so unsure what the fraction is on this. I'd say the childfree argument is an exaggeration given the timeframe we're talking about. Japan had fertility rates of 4 as recent as the 1950s. It doesn't sound realistic at that time they expected to starve to death in old age once they couldn't work. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-japan-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-j... Cheap birth control is definitely a factor everywhere, but it poses an interesting question: does it mean all these surplus kids has always just been about a lack of restraint? This seems unlikely. The "original birth control" has been around (and still widely used) since where-babies-come-from was first understood.

Const-me 3y ago
> Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? Modern 10 year olds are only useless due to culture and laws. Technically they’re rather capable already, both physically and mentally. > fertility rates of 4 If you wonder why so many kids, it’s mostly due to their mortality. Infant mortality rate plummeted by more than 2 orders of magnitude since 1950: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-mortality-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-morta... I’m not sure they should solve depopulation by re-introducing high mortality.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  Looks like 5% in the 50s. High by modern standards, but not enough to imply a "we need to have 4 so at least one survives" scenario. And I'd say they're "unused" not "useless". The question would be for instance on a subsidence farm, how much more crops can the work of a 10 year old create, vs how much resources they consume. My guess is that they're still a net cost.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    The rearing costs were probably lower due to multigenerational households, elder siblings, and the entire community being involved.
  - Const-me 3y ago
    > Looks like 5% in the 50s The data I have linked above shows infant mortality rate. I believe infant mortality is defined as “deaths during the first year of life”. I was unable to find data for child mortality in Japan. Still, I would expect it to be rather high in the 50-s Japan, and follow a similar trajectory. Here’s some chart which shows worldwide death rate for ages ≤ 5 years: https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-child-mortality-timeseries.png https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-chi... The figure was 36% in 1900, over 20% in 1950, and only 4% in modern world.

petre 3y ago

They also needed the grown up kids as helping hands for agriculture. Modern people live in the city, they buy the food that they eat. Some come home tired after unrewarding work and endless hours of meetings, so having kids is one of their last priorities.