Only Children

[Dirigible]

You missed his point. His point was that if there are not enough kids to replace the aging population, the population shrinks. When population shrinks, so does economy. Your 401K and IRA are investments in individual companies with valuations tied to the overall size of the economy.

Say you have CocaCola stock. 50 years from now the population declines by 10%, so CocaCola sales decline by 10% and so does the price of their stock, and so does the value of your 401K. This is what he is talking about.

You can look at Japan economy and their declining population problem. To be honest, I think it's hard to pin precisely what's wrong with Japan economy, but I'm sure the declining population is not doing them any favors.

Yup.

It isn't that my kids will send me a check when I'm old. It is that we need enough young people to keep the economy chugging along.

 

[OCGuy]

Rick while I don't believe you are being intentionally obtuse, you seem to state things as fact that are not.

People who are planning for society to go down the shitter don't have children, they move some of their assets to other currencies or commodities.

The government does not guarantee investments here. They also don't just disappear overnight, and it doesn't take a wizard to out-pace inflation.

 

[Kaido]

With the global economic turmoil currently happening, do you think many middle income parents should opt for a single children?

From what I heard, cities like Hong Kong are preferring a single child rather than multiple ones.

It makes sense though. Education is expensive, and having a single child would ensure that many middle income families can allocate more resources to that one child instead of multiples.

Usually this means tutoring lessons, sports lesson, and etc.

What do you think?

I think people should have as many children as they can responsibly handle. I know two families, both with 6 or so kids. The first family was very well-managed; all 6 kids went to college, half are married, and all are doing pretty well. The second family is a mess...moving from place to place, kids constantly getting kicked out of school, kids are very rough around the edges & fight a lot. The parental leadership is not so good in the second family family.

I don't think it has as much to do with finances as it does with what people can handle. My friend's neighbor pumps out a kid a year, lives on welfare, and pays zero attention to the children. They walk up & down the street asking for food and stuff. That's not a fair situation to put a kid in; that's not being a parent, that's just using kids for your own benefit. Pretty pathetic.

I personally don't think you should base your decision to have kids on finances; instead, you should base it on how many kids you want & think you can handle. Doors always open somehow, or to put it in Jurassic Park terms, "life finds a way". If you base your life decisions on finances as a driver, then that's the perspective you're going to see. If you base your life decisions on goals & dreams, then that's what you'll see & you'll find ways to manage.

I kind of like the middle, too - like public schools. I have a friend who was homeschooled & turned out kind of weird because he didn't have as much social interaction growing up. I also have a friend who went to prep school and turned out kind of weird because he has a very high opinion of himself and is somewhat stuck-up. Those are stereotypes, but they apply in the cases of those two people that I know. I mean, if your goal is soley to level-up your kid by doing massive tutoring & training for school, sports, etc., then hey, whatever floats your boat.

But to limit yourself on something as great as kids by saying the financial picture might not make much sense is kind of silly because there's always opportunities available if you're willing to move, or change jobs, or whatever. So while finances are valid, using that as a root decision driver seems like kind of a cop-out to me.

 

[OCGuy]

Yup.

It isn't that my kids will send me a check when I'm old. It is that we need enough young people to keep the economy chugging along.

Even with the slight drop in working-age bodies, the massive increase in population should keep our military and workforce sustained, without having more kids than you normally would.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

 

[_Rick_]

it doesn't take a wizard to out-pace inflation.

In a growing economy, it doesn't.
With the demographic evolution being as it is, there may well be a stagnation to the economy, where it will become harder to find the investments with a return above inflation.

Furthermore, while with sufficient affluence you can probably afford to move to other currencies or commodities, there may well be limits to what you can do with merely a million of dollars or so - a reasonable amount to have saved up, say ten to fifteen years before retirement. And that decision again requires the foresight, that your current investment will lose more value than what you're swapping to.


Also, I'm surprised the government doesn't back some savings at least. I think most of my current savings are 100% government backed, should my bank fail, which given the history of banking does make me feel slightly more secure. If the bank managing your wealth goes, then there goes your retirement?
That's pretty brutal.

 

[OCGuy]

Also, I'm surprised the government doesn't back some savings at least. I think most of my current savings are 100% government backed, should my bank fail, which given the history of banking does make me feel slightly more secure. If the bank managing your wealth goes, then there goes your retirement?
That's pretty brutal.

Haha.

Anyway the .gov backs savings which are not exposed to loss at FDIC insured institutions. But that isn't a bank managing your wealth, that is a bank holding onto your money and lending it out, and making a return on it. Basically they profit from bad financial advice.

 

[Kaido]

With the global economic turmoil currently happening, do you think many middle income parents should opt for a single children?

From what I heard, cities like Hong Kong are preferring a single child rather than multiple ones.

My other concern is the effects that limiting children will have:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/with-1-child-policy-china-missing-girls/?page=all

But Chinese boys now outnumber Chinese girls by the millions, and the impact of the lopsided sex imbalance is starting to spill beyond China’s borders.

This phenomenon of “missing girls” has turned China into “a giant magnet” for human traffickers, who lure or kidnap women and sell them — even multiple times — into forced marriages or the commercial sex trade, says Ambassador Mark Lagon, who oversaw human rights issues at the State Department during the administration of President George W. Bush.

So basically:

1. In a few years, there will be millions more marriage-age men than women available
2. Human trafficking is a big problem due to #1

While the whole "one-child" label is a bit of a misnomer, it does have even deeper implications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

1. Increase in forced abortions
2. Female infanticide
3. Demographers estimate that the policy averted 200 million births between 1979 and 2009

So in China, there are now an estimated 200 million less people in the economy. So if you grow old, you're missing a big possible chunk of your country's workforce to keep the economy going & growing, plus there's a zillion more dudes than girls, which is going to create some major marriage problems, which will affect the next generation.

 

[OCGuy]

What in the hell...why would you think that the Chinese practice of murdering their first-born if it is female due to the one-child policy has anything to do with what we are discussing?

Holy shat...

 

[Kaido]

why would you think that the Chinese practice of murdering their first-born if it is female due to the one-child policy has anything to do with what we are discussing?

Part of it is cultural (having a male heir, particularly to care for them physically & financially later in life), but part of it is about the one-child policy, which Wikipedia says is more enforced in urban areas, which in China I would assume would be where the middle-class equivalent families to be, per the OP's topic regarding global economic turmoil & Hong Kong. So yes, completely relevant. There's also an interesting note on the changing state of their economic culture here:

Impact on health care

It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health service for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes that contributed to the policy's success in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.

 

[_Rick_]

Haha.

Anyway the .gov backs savings which are not exposed to loss at FDIC insured institutions. But that isn't a bank managing your wealth, that is a bank holding onto your money and lending it out, and making a return on it. Basically they profit from bad financial advice.

Well, technically there isn't much of a difference, unless they act truly as only a broker, and you acquire shares in your name, as opposed to the banks name.
Most other products are the bank taking your money, and still hoping to out-bet the market.

As to China: completely different demographic, at least currently.
Their boom generation is in their 30-40s, and they had to put the brakes on, to get their population down to a level that the country can hope to sustain.
They're still a few generations out of a true shortage, which will probably hit behind most developed nations. Plus, I expect life expectancy to be decisively lower in China, than it is in the US or similarly stricken countries.
So while they may be producing a problematic situation, I think it will hit later and with a lesser impact than what's going to hit the EU and US in the next 10-15 years.

 

[nageov3t]

I read that the Chinese male/female trend has started flipping... poor families are finding it much more advantageous to have a female child that they can just marry off instead of a male that they'll be expected to live with/care for until -- if ever -- he's financially independent.

 

[Kaido]

As to China: completely different demographic, at least currently.
Their boom generation is in their 30-40s, and they had to put the brakes on, to get their population down to a level that the country can hope to sustain.
They're still a few generations out of a true shortage, which will probably hit behind most developed nations. Plus, I expect life expectancy to be decisively lower in China, than it is in the US or similarly stricken countries.
So while they may be producing a problematic situation, I think it will hit later and with a lesser impact than what's going to hit the EU and US in the next 10-15 years.

Getting into the cultural discussion a bit more, my 2 concerns in the US are:

1. We've outsourced everything
2. Our students are being crippled by horrendous student debt

I know we're starting to bring some manufacturing back to the states, but I think we've lost our edge because it's so expensive to product things here in America. That, and if all of the kids start graduating with $100 grand of student loans right out of school, that kind of hoses their chances for being financially successful in life if they're making a couple thousand a month out of college and paying back a grand a month to those student loans.

 

[Kaido]

I read that the Chinese male/female trend has started flipping... poor families are finding it much more advantageous to have a female child that they can just marry off instead of a male that they'll be expected to live with/care for until -- if ever -- he's financially independent.

I think it's interesting how different other cultures can be. Here in the states, no one's parents that I know expects their kids to take care of them when they get older & retire. Most of them expect you to move out to college or get a job at 18 and be independent from there on out.

 

[squarecut1]

Life is more than dollars and cents. Nobody takes a dime to their grave

 

[Insomniator]

I think both parents should have to pass some sort of intelligence test and have X combined income in order to be able to procreate. Maybe 1 child on the house... but please no more poor/immigrant families with 10 kids that will do nothing but add to the weak leeching part of the population.

Sounds crazy, but there is some sense to rules like this.

 

[Perknose]

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, imo.

More to the point, "Don't put all your sperm in one egg." ()

 

[KeithP]

As long as parents can manage the expense themselves without public assistance I think they should be able to have as many as they want.

And I would include tax deductions for children as public assistance.

-KeithP

 

[BurnItDwn]

They should opt for the maximum number of Children the wife is able to produce. That way, they can get maximum government benefits, and also, they can put the children to work for extra money. 20-30 children, and the matriarch or patriarch would have a very strong family business with a large labor pool of cheap labor.

 

[lxskllr]

People should make more kids. Kids are a good source of energy, and can be used to turn a turbine for electricity. No need to rely on unreliable resources like sun or wind. Kids keep working 24 hours a day.

 

[alkemyst]

No children > one child > two children > ...

If only your parent's though so.

 

[NoTine42]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dropping-birth-rates-threaten-global-economic-growth/

We tend to think economic growth comes from working harder and smarter. But economists attribute up to a third of it to more people joining the workforce each year than leaving it. The result is more producing, earning and spending.

Now this secret fuel of the economy, rarely missing and little noticed, is running out.

 

[TwiceOver]

One and done here. We love our son, but we aren't going through that again.

 

[OCGuy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dropping-birth-rates-threaten-global-economic-growth/

That isn't because of less working-age people. There is a record number of working-age Americans who are either unemployed or who are just not looking for work at all.

I wonder how much they are going to help out their parents with retirement. :biggrin:

 

[tortillasoup]

Life is more than dollars and cents. Nobody takes a dime to their grave

If you get reincarnated into the same family unit you left, then yes you can.