3 ms·

I think that poverty is only part of the answer. Why would countries that have higher poverty have more children when children take up resources? Parents from

I think that poverty is only part of the answer. Why would countries that have higher poverty have more children when children take up resources? Parents from wealthier countries should be having more kids, instead we see the opposite? In countries where agriculture is the main economy, more children equals more labor to run the farm. These countries tend to be poorer but we can look at the Amish and Mennonite communities in the US, they are not that poor but they often have large families. If we look at the factors in a post-industrial economy, are both parents working away from home? What education is expected for the children(parents pay for collage? Agriculture doesn't require that)? Think about the time and money sink for children activities that society put on the parents, need to have kids in sports, band, summer camp. We in the west have pushed for having both parents work, which make it very difficult for those who only want to have a single working parent household due to societal pressure and also economic pressure as well.

solidsnack9000 2y ago
In simple agricultural societies, primitive hunter-gatherer societies, feudal societies, &c, both parents generally work (or worked). It's just that they both worked in or near the home. Having a single-working-parent household has probably never been sustainable for any length of time, in any kind of society. Women generally contribute considerably to factors in the economy, whether it's stuff like nets and rush mats or ballpoint pens and machine-sewn shirts. What is different about industrial society is that parents can do basically no meaningful work around their children, and so they can't be available for their children, because not working is not an option.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  Correct and that is why I talked about both parents working away from home in an (post) industrialized society. Another point that should not be lost is that homemaking/homecare is a job abet not a GDP generating one. With some of our advancements; time savings(dishwashers, clothes dryers and washing machines), food logistics(grocery stores with fresh food vs growing & canning), fast fashion(cheap clothing) we have taken the job from being a full time position to part time. This triggers a shift in labor allocation, we now(ideally) split the part time job between the family members to allow the adults to focus on profit generating activities.

solidsnack9000 2y ago

In simple agricultural societies, primitive hunter-gatherer societies, feudal societies, &c, both parents generally work (or worked). It's just that they both worked in or near the home. Having a single-working-parent household has probably never been sustainable for any length of time, in any kind of society. Women generally contribute considerably to factors in the economy, whether it's stuff like nets and rush mats or ballpoint pens and machine-sewn shirts. What is different about industrial society is that parents can do basically no meaningful work around their children, and so they can't be available for their children, because not working is not an option.

themaninthedark 2y ago
Correct and that is why I talked about both parents working away from home in an (post) industrialized society. Another point that should not be lost is that homemaking/homecare is a job abet not a GDP generating one. With some of our advancements; time savings(dishwashers, clothes dryers and washing machines), food logistics(grocery stores with fresh food vs growing & canning), fast fashion(cheap clothing) we have taken the job from being a full time position to part time. This triggers a shift in labor allocation, we now(ideally) split the part time job between the family members to allow the adults to focus on profit generating activities.