Baby Bust: The Demographics of Global Depression

Taki Magazine ^ | December 08, 2008 | Spengler

[WorldviewDad]

I don't know how it is where you live but most of the people that I know have two incomes and at most a child or two. This is the way the parents choose to have it because they want the new cars, big house with the extra rooms that you need to buy the extra furniture for, eat out three or four times a week, pay $100 or more a month for cell phones and cable, etc...

You talked about children being an asset versus not being an asset from a production viewpoint, but the real issue is from a family values viewpoint. Today's adults tend not to value the child because the child will use resources that the adult wants to use on themselves...this used to be called selfishness.

I would agree that the older children on the farm years ago would be an asset but you are discounting way to much the extra work that the younger children would have been before they became an asset...remember that there were no microwaves, dish washers, clothes washers, disposable diapers, modern furnaces (chop some more wood to keep the baby warm), etc...and a much lower percentage lived long enough to become an asset. And yet people years ago kept having children even with all the extra work...maybe they valued the family over stuff more then we are willing to give them credit for...or maybe they understood that children were a blessing and were willing to except the work that went with the blessing...

[WorldviewDad]

After reading the rest of the posts in this discussion it looks like there are a few here that do not value children from either the productive or family values viewpoint...and tend to fit “this used to be called...”

I would agree with you that we are no where near being “over populated”. Unfortunately most people do not see children as the blessing that God says they are.

God bless

[Mad Dawgg]

"I would agree that the older children on the farm years ago would be an asset but you are discounting way to much the extra work that the younger children would have been before they became an asset...remember that there were no microwaves, dish washers, clothes washers, disposable diapers, modern furnaces (chop some more wood to keep the baby warm), etc...and a much lower percentage lived long enough to become an asset. And yet people years ago kept having children even with all the extra work...maybe they valued the family over stuff more then we are willing to give them credit for...or maybe they understood that children were a blessing and were willing to except the work that went with the blessing..."

Tiny children yes, they were more work however so are babies of all types on a farm. My father milked the cows on his grandfather's farm starting at age 7. From then on he worked. Most wouldn't allow one so young to do such labors today but as my Dad said he didn't do stuff like milk cows or hunt squirrels at that age because his mother was trying to teach him values she had him doing such so him and his younger brothers had enough food to eat.

But I agree with you on the family values of today.

Most would rather have the newest cars and the latest i-Gadgets than spend money on raising more children.

[WorldviewDad]

Thanks for the reply...As a father of seven that also runs a “hobby” farm I can understand your dad milking cows at seven. We just bought a family milk cow for our 18 year old daughter (top thing on her birthday wish list), and she will be working with her nine year old sister to show her how to milk the cow (the nine year old wants to learn). The younger children keep asking to do more with the animals and they will gradually get more involved as they mature...kids that want to learn and work...there might be hope for the future yet...