3 ms·
As a parent who studied economics, I files these (and there are a lot of them) "analyses" under "technically correct, but missed the point". There's a bit in t
by kjs3 12y ago
As a parent who studied economics, I files these (and there are a lot of them) "analyses" under "technically correct, but missed the point". There's a bit in there that may describe why we have less children beyond the old "less of them die" chestnut, but it utterly fails to address why we do have children in the modern first world. That answer isn't based in economics.
- Rapzid 12y agoI've read that more than half of pregnancies in the US are unintended. That indicates that the reason more than half the kids are born are because of sexual urges("Duh!"). I'm guessing the less than half group have various reasons. But this article is about why we now have less, so I'm not sure it failed to address why some do. It just didn't address it.
- wodenokoto 12y ago> That answer isn't based in economics. of course it is. Economics is not about money, it is about wealth. And wealth is ill defined, because it can be all sorts of things (gold, food, a tropical island, lots of children) As long as humans have a desire for something, it can be analyzed with economics. Because as soon as we have a desire to get something, we must make a choice in order to get that. Opportunity cost measures everything we choose to get in terms of things we could have gotten otherwise and labels that as its price.