[a history buff]

In my opinion it's the Rooseveltian Social Security scheme that accounts for this, and not birth control per se. If parents had to rely on their kids for their upkeep in their old age, as they used to, their perspective on their children would be radically different. Right now you almost have to be a fool to have many kids, and also pay into social security, knowing full well that your kids will pay for others' who didn't have kids' retirement. There is no doubt in my mind that the number of kids with ADD and other illnesses born of emotional neglect would plummet if parents didn't feel insulated from the consequences of such foolishness. Measuring GDP accurately is an exercise in futility, but, I think, changing retirement schemes such that parents have every incentive to maximize their progeny's happiness and success would add at least 1% to GDP growth annually, or $100 billion a year.

[Salvation]

If parents had to rely on their kids for their upkeep in their old age, as they used to, their perspective on their children would be radically different.

You've got a good point here. Is that why I have five kids? LOL!

[attagirl]

If parents had to rely on their kids for their upkeep in their old age, as they used to, their perspective on their children would be radically different Brilliant observation! Bravo!

[attagirl]

If parents had to rely on their kids for their upkeep in their old age, as they used to, their perspective on their children would be radically different

Brilliant observation! Bravo