Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Would people really have more children if there was more financial support for it?

Poll - Total Votes: 9
Yes they would have more kids.
There's not enough money in the world to get me to do that.
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
Or would the idea of the dangers of pregnancy and delivery as well as the idea of no sleep for two years plus the stress that raising a child entails make people decide to stay childless?
In the United States the only way there would be fewer children would be if people stopped having sex, because in many places here if a woman becomes pregnant (whether by her choice to have sex or not) the state will force her to bear the child. It’s no longer a question of what she wants, plans or can afford. 😞
Sometimes. Not always. When you already have a sick and tired aging population in a dysfunctional community free country? There's not enough money. Politics would have to come up, planning for community would have to happen - no way in the West can you stop the decline!
In the late eighties I did a demonstration project on infant and toddler care showing the role for state funding and state sponsored pedagogy education in improving childcare results and mother's mental health. The population definitely made it clear they wasn't having no science based child care in werkkk -Merica.
Miram · 31-35, F
Two parts to this question; personal and general.

I love taking care of kids and mothering them. I am building a whole army of children 🙇‍♀ but none of them are mine biologically, and I am not likely to change that. My own bloodline ends with me for many many reasons.

Generally speaking, people who struggle financially are more likely to have more kids. The correlation globally is the opposite of what you're observing. In prosperity, humans will focus on other life pursuits and passions that are beyond procreation because they got the financial ability to.
hunkalove · 61-69, M
I think having children has less to do with plans and mostly to do with booze.
Nitedoc · 51-55, M
Some people have turned having kids into a govt. funded business.
meggie · F
I never wanted the responsibility of kids. It's not just money, but you are tied down for years and get so little time to do enjoy what you like doing. It wasn't for me.
meggie · F
@Tastyfrzz you really can be better off with a dog
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@meggie inj6stvwish that dogs would live longer. One gets so attached to them. With kids its more like, when can i have a spare room?!
chrisCA · M
@meggie It all comes down to choice.
Elessar · 26-30, M
No, I wouldn't want to leave kids into this sick world even if I somehow got millions.
@Elessar I think she means if the politics changed so that people DID all have financial support, not just you. Like in the fifties. Seven hundred a month as the minimum welfare payment, and public housing with practically no rent. Really. Like without the conservative politics.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
Traditionally the poor have the most children, particularly in the past when children were looked upon as a family-supporting work force.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
I'D STILL LIKE A CHILD FOR EACH CONTINENT. GO FORTH AND CONQUER MY SPERMLINGS!
They already get massive basic federal and state tax credits that get them roughly $10,000 a year, per child.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@NativePortlander1970 child care is up to about $300-$400 a week and you still have to supply the diapers. Then there's the fear of ending up as a single parent.
@Tastyfrzz There are programs that do help for lower income parents, like head start for child care.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@NativePortlander1970 need at least $25k per kid. At least for the first two years.

 
Post Comment