What happened to large familes?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,655
6,222
126
In another thread you were condemning someone for having kids they couldn't Afford. Guess what, hardly anyone can Afford a lot of kids these days.

We don't really need a lot more kids. At least for awhile anyway.
 
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
I see plenty of overweight families around.

Oh, you mean child count...

Well, people do not need large numbers of boys to help around the farm these days, less likely their offspring will die of disease, birth control, etc.

But, plenty of large families around if you know where to look. The janitor at the workplace of one of my relatives has 12 kids, unmarried and I think that most of them are from different fathers.
 
Bartman39

Bartman39

Elite Member | For Sale/Trade
Jul 4, 2000
8,867
51
91
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2102979

This is just to reference one of the reasons why their are still sensible people that are choosing to not have large families... Our economy has alot to do with it besides personal choice...

But as always there is exception to everything like the Welfare incentive that our Gov. offers... :rolleyes: Oops...! Did I say that...?
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,781
4,318
126
1) Reliable birth control.

2) Changing social norms (100 years ago you were wierd if you didn't have many kids, now we put you on reality TV if you have many kids).

3) Wealth. When you split nothing 10 ways, you still have nothing. Meaning you gave up nothing. If you had $10000/year income just yourself you were dirt poor but if you split that 10 ways, you were still dirt poor. No real change to your lifestyle. Now that we are wealthy, we give up a whole lot to have a child. A $100k salary is quite nice for a single person but splitting it up 10 ways now means you go from a lifestyle of near luxury ($100k each/year) to a lifestyle of near poverty ($10k each/year).

4) Feminist revolution. Not too long ago the only way for a woman to survive was to latch on a man and sire him a son. Now women can do quite well without ever having a child.

5) Travel & entertainment. What else did you do for fun in the 1700s but create children? Now we have tons of forms of entertainment. Now we can explore the world and do great things, that is, until we have kids that pretty much leash us to a narrow boring 30 mile radius from home.

6) World trade, insurance, and social security. Not too long ago the way you survived a bad period of weather was to have a ton of kids toiling hard to force something to grow out of the ground and feed you. Now, we have insurance to cover the crop loss, use that money to buy food from places around the world with good weather, and count on the government keeping you alive through our 70s, 80s, and 90s.

I could go on and on.
 
Last edited:
S

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
Opportunity cost is a huge part, but it has more to do with the elimination of the glass ceiling. It's not so much that I split my 100k theoretical internet dollar income 10 ways. It's that my wife stops working, and we give up her 100k theoretical dollar income to take care of a child or two. We're not splitting 200k 3-4 ways at that point. We're giving away 100k of it, and splitting the remainder 3-4 ways. The opportunity cost of the first child is precipitous.

If she decides to keep working, it's strictly for her own sanity because in talking to our friends who do have kids, child care is not cheap at all. Especially if you have a very young child, or two or three of them of varying ages. Unless she makes a ton of money, it's basically a wash vs purchased child care.

That said, we'll have a couple of children anyway. Despite being Italian, I come from a long line where each family "only" had 2 kids. We'll probably do the same. It's actually not a huge factor for me, but I do sometimes think... my only sibling is a sister and she is not planning on children. My sorry ass is the only shot at our lineage continuing on. Take that, dad! :)
 
sdifox

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
98,979
17,393
126
Families used to have lots of kid since health care was non-existent and kids simply died. Multiples guarded against that.

Kids don't die as much these days, so 1 or 2 is the norm. Plus working females lead to lower birth rates too, either by choice or by stress.
 
J

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
sjwaste said:
Opportunity cost is a huge part, but it has more to do with the elimination of the glass ceiling. It's not so much that I split my 100k theoretical internet dollar income 10 ways. It's that my wife stops working, and we give up her 100k theoretical dollar income to take care of a child or two. We're not splitting 200k 3-4 ways at that point. We're giving away 100k of it, and splitting the remainder 3-4 ways. The opportunity cost of the first child is precipitous.

If she decides to keep working, it's strictly for her own sanity because in talking to our friends who do have kids, child care is not cheap at all. Especially if you have a very young child, or two or three of them of varying ages. Unless she makes a ton of money, it's basically a wash vs purchased child care.

That said, we'll have a couple of children anyway. Despite being Italian, I come from a long line where each family "only" had 2 kids. We'll probably do the same. It's actually not a huge factor for me, but I do sometimes think... my only sibling is a sister and she is not planning on children. My sorry ass is the only shot at our lineage continuing on. Take that, dad! :)
Click to expand...

Assuming your wife is educated, you come out ahead with her working. We pay $200/wk for two infants. My wife brings in $642/wk. We would be giving up that remaining $442 if she stayed home.
 
child of wonder

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
We're not all farmers anymore.

Back when most families lived on farms it was customary to breed your own workforce to help you out on the farm. Both my mom and dad came from farm families of 7 kids.
 
Ika

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,264
3
81
Jumpem said:
Assuming your wife is educated, you come out ahead with her working. We pay $200/wk for two infants. My wife brings in $642/wk. We would be giving up that remaining $442 if she stayed home.
Click to expand...

you forgot to take into account the cost of her time and mental well-being (depending on the type of job, of course).
 
Svnla

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I came from large family (over 5) and right now I am in my 30s. If I ever have kid, I will have 1 or 2 at most because I saw how hard my mom had to work to provide for us (financially and emotionally).
 
dardarla

dardarla

Senior member
May 27, 2010
392
0
0
I see a lot of small families these days. I grew up with 3 siblings, and can't imagine having an only child. Of course, I don't think I want 4 kids, I want to be able to have some sanity. I want 3 kids, just to defy the social norm of having 2. :)

The career path I have chosen is flexible and dynamic enough that I figure I can go in and out of the work force as needed, or work part time. :)

I think a big reason the birth rate has dropped is women want careers etc, and they are no longer bound to be a stay at home mom. Without the means to raise the kids/spend time with them, you have less kids so as to focus your efforts. (You can get away with having a career with one or two kids, Six kids.. you need a nanny or daddy needs a good job so mom can cook and clean all day)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom