3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

3 ms·

> 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

by Const-me 3y ago

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.