Topic: What's the effect of having plenty children to the national economy of a country - page 8. (Read 994 times)

You need to understand that back then the mortality of children was very high, so if you wanted to have two children that survived until they reached adulthood then you needed to conceive four or five kids, since then medical science has improved tremendously and we need way less children to be born as the majority of them now reach adulthood, however it is also undeniable that many countries around the world are worried due to the low amount of children couples are having, as this could mean a reduction of their population on the future and the pension systems all over the world will be at risk of going bankrupt at that point.

The normal is like this if we pay attention, population growth is geometrical while the growth of foodstuffs is an arithmetic progression and must be controlled properly, meaning that if a family has a large number of family members, in my opinion it will not be a problem. obstacles and burdens for the state because economic growth is positively correlated with happy families, meaning that economic growth can increase the number of prosperous families. I also come from a large family with many family members. We are all fine.

That is their business and responsibility and they are not afraid to have many children because they still think that having many children means a lot of fortune. Actually it depends on their circumstances especially their parents, but so far everything is going well because we don't know what will happen to them when they grow up.
and what we need to know is that most of the grassroots do not understand family planning and also do not have access to family planning facilities. You have to pay the midwife's money, money for family planning injections, transportation money. And this is a consideration for them and a cause for having many children.

this really depends on the country because if you are in low populated area meaning this is good sign and good future  as they are the next man power as long as supported by parents and government but if this is in 3rd world country which i am in is still not good because it is over populated and more demands needed that the government cant cope up as well as their parents.  It is still counted in the population, but this is better than having more old people in the country.

Yes, of course. This has considerable effects to the country's economy. However, it could either be a boon or a bane.

It matters a lot whether the country has abundant resources or not. If a country sufficiently provides free basic education and healthcare; if parents could find work easily because good-paying jobs are abundant, and so on, then couples having plenty of children is a good thing.

However, to a poor country like mine where decent jobs are scarce, where poverty rules, where families usually find it a seemingly insurmountable challenge to send their children to college, then it must be a bad thing.

In this 21st century,  we are teach in school that having plenty children will affect the country economy negatively but at some point I somehow disagree with the statement because it seems to be lame excuse because most people from the east have plenty of children and the economy is not affected negatively.  Besides,  they are living a good life and this is one of the reason some people consider school to be scam.

Thats true, there needs to be perfect plan on number of children. People doesn't have proper control and the sufferers will be the children with improper nutrition and lack of proper education. The burden will be upon the family and the government.

Population will help with betterment of the country, but things need to be productive and the government need to have better plans and provide opportunities. When this gets lacked automatically the increased population will find alternate for survival. This lands most into crimes and illegal activities which is a curse.

The problem of uncontrolled population increase is caused by couples without planning the number of children. The consideration is quite complicated but actually very important.

This occurs in almost all underdeveloped regions of the country where the population does not have access to adequate health and education programs. As a clear consequence, it only contributes to the low quality of human resources which does not bring many opportunities to become a well-paid workforce.

In the past, like in the 15th century you talked about, I think the population was less than what it is now, and the economic system then was really dependent on agriculture, according to some histories of my country. So, human power was greatly needed then because there were no farming machines. Then, even if a man gives birth to more than 10 children, there will be no complaints because those children can be of help in the farm work, and as such, they also contribute positively to the economic system. But having plenty of children now means even more responsibility for the parents, without considering their positive or negative impact on the economy. Things have changed now; the world is not growing in evolutionary and revolutionary technology and ideaology. It's not about having plenty of children now because, in our daily life activities, human power is not as much required as in the olden days. There are a lot of machines now that are doing X100 of the activities that 100 people are required to do, and as such, only one or two people are required to operate the machine, and the rest of the 98 people don't have any jobs to do.


Just imagine how inflation has caught up with everything; things are very expensive in the market, and some countries are even in big debt; some students are in debt just to acquire formal education. Then imagine if each family is still giving birth to 10 or 20 children at once; it will never make the economic system better.


Let's take the example of the emergence of robotics, which are already helping to carry out some work in some organisations. Is that not a sign that even in the future, more robots will continue to arise and humans might really be out of employment because robots are now there to do even more activity than humans can do?


With all that I have said, I believe I have summarised the disadvantages of having plenty of children now and why it was important in the past.

Here's the thing, the family is the smallest unit of a community, and most of the time, a family reflects upon the community's overall values, status, and capabilities. If a family is struggling cause they happen to have 9 kids and a husband that works on a dead-end low-paying job, you bet your sweet bippy that the environment they are in is also similar to that. What's more, since having more kids means more mouths to feed, more bodies to clothe, and more minds to enrich with education, this is all inevitably going to cost money, which they already have a lacking of especially in third-world countries. This leads to a cycle of poverty where the kids couldn't get the required education since they had to help with finances, inevitably leading to child labor in some cases, which then leads to these families staying in abject poverty for generations on end.

So when you say "what's the effect of having plenty children to the national economy of a country" you need not to look in the statistical data and the overall percentage although looking at those would've streamlined the process altogether. You just need to visit countries with high population densities and see for yourself if they are doing okay.

It wasn't like that at all.
France population was around 20 million in 1500 it was still 20 million in 1700 and barely reached 40 million in 1900.

The reason for having a ton of children was this gruesome and sad reality kind of thing:


The same thing nearly happened to one side of my family with one of my grandfathers being one of the two kids in the family who managed to start a family on his own out of 8 children, he had 6 children of his own for only my grandfather and his sister to survive. It wasn't that much a thing of providing a workforce for the country as making sure of having at least 2-3 children reaching maturity and starting a family to have some support at old age.

The effects is basically known by the person who is bearing them, I have not seen what effects of population does in economy, only disadvantages I seen in this scenario is that it can caused introductions of corruption in the society and secondly, I believe that sometimes the advantages maybe higher than disadvantages of it, it depends on the level of education their offsprings are been introduced to, because population size can equally liberate some people from problem

There are two sides to every story, and the population boom is no exception. Population growth as a means of increasing work force is supported by historical examples like the one you referenced from the French industrial revolution

While historically prosperous regions relied heavily on manual labor, current economies are built on knowledge- and skill-intensive sectors. For this reason, a growing population is not always a sign of burgeoning affluence. It is possible that the per capita income will decrease if the necessary infrastructures, such as schools, hospitals, and social services, are not expanded proportionally

In addition, overpopulation can have an effect on sustainability because it can cause environmental deterioration and resource depletion. This delicate balancing act necessitates well-considered measures to keep population expansion in check with progress in the economy

Even in today's world, I don't see a problem with having a large family if you can provide for them all. We understand that the government's assistance is required in certain areas, but you must demonstrate some commitment before assistance can be provided. This applies not only to parents, but also to children when they are old enough to fend for themselves and help build the country.
 

The issue that many individuals face today is that the government cannot care for all of their children or place them on a minimum salary. This is the ignorant of an uneducated individual. Not everyone is eligible for government civil service; some must work in other private sectors in order for the country to have a viable economy. I understand that we live in a technology age, yet job will always exist for both educated and uneducated folks.


No citizen is a waste or cannot be useful to the country. There is always a hole that can be filled by someone, no matter how ineffective people believe they are. It is a nasty word to call a human being rubbish for their country since they can do and undo just as the educated can do and undo in their own part and experience.

Actually it doesn't matter whether you have many children or not, the important thing is to be aware of your economic and mental abilities before planning to have a certain number of children. In simple terms, if every child gets a good education, of course they can easily create jobs for other people. On the contrary, it will be a burden on the State if they cannot have access to education, and the State must subsidize various needs.

I think the educational factor will play a big role in determining the attitude of many children or not. If you can guarantee that you can provide the best in education, then it will have an impact on economic growth in the end.

The effect of having plenty of kids on country's economy are numerous. Effects means bad impact if i am not wrong and if you are asking overall impact like the good impact then i think the good side effects of having plenty of kids are more than the bad ones. Well, some bad impacts are here:

• More food is required for more people and if a country has lesser food production then it become a economical problem.
• If a country is having more people then most of the people might not find jobs and thus a higher competition will results in less job opportunities.
• People will start to become more poor which will change there behaviors too which in result will create criminals.
• People will not be able to get benefit from all the facilities provided by the government as the numbers will be a lot

These are few bad effect but in my sight, the good impact of the kids is more than bad ones, as one of those will be the next PM, or Financial Minister etc. So, we should not judge them by the background facilities they are getting instead how morale and committed they are to system.

There are both good and bad sides to this theory of having fewer children or more children and their effect on society.
There were countries which encouraged only one baby per family, but those nations are facing issues in lack of manpower, and they need to import manpower from aboard.
On the other hand, there are still many underdeveloped countries with very high populations. They have fewer resources, and they encourage their countrymen to have one or a maximum of two babies.

So, in general, it depends on country to country and their financial status and whether they are already developed or still in the phase of under developed nation.

You have started a quite good topic on which only a few couples or the youngest want to talk because, in my place on the globe, people are having more than 5 to 10 kids, even though the inflation rate and debt rate are so high that on each life the debt is in the thousands of dollars. But still, having a poor life, people are not stopping as they have no knowledge of such things.

Your topic is good for such people, IMHO. Having more kids is not a bad thing if your government allows it, because in some countries governments discourage couples from having many kids in a short time span. All I have to say on this is that if you as a parent are going to have another kid, even if you have 2 or 3 already, you must think about his or her responsibilities, which you must fulfil. If you think you could give them a good life, then there is nothing bad about it. But at the start, every parent thinks they will provide a good life to their child, but many could not fulfil that promise because half of them are just lazy and didn't want to fulfil that commitment because they have no one to answer to for violating the promise.

But half of that is working firmly and  hard for their child to provide them with a good life. Be responsible and be with them. That's all. And the effect will be accordingly: if you are not able to provide them with a good life, they are just a liability for the government, and if you have provided them with a good life, then they are not.

Now, there are different types of good life too; some think providing them with all the goods falls into the good life category, but no, providing them with the morale of living, the rights they have to follow, and the respect of society is what they have to think about. And etc. etc. are also necessary.

It would really depends on the country because I have seen some statistics that having no child is a negative impact for them as they are low population for example Japan. In my country's case which is the PH, having a lot of children especially to the people who doesn't have a stable job to support their child and they are only relying on the government supports is a negative impact. I think one of the factor from that is they don't have a proper family planning as almost 3-4 children are commonly the thing that a family have despite the fact that they don't have an income. Of course it would increase the poverty statistics in the country where the government would need to support them but still if many people have the same case, it would be a toxic to the country itself that's why giving a free seminars on family planning to every citizen is a must.

This boils down to the government to help the citizens to be skillful, educated and responsible. In a country where there is a large population and abundant mineral resources,it is a blessing to have plenty children, if the government cares about it's citizens. Why I said the government is this,as these children are growing and their parents have jobs that they can use to feed the family. If the government also provide free education and technical schools, open a scheme of empowerment to empower the youths. The citizens will be productive and the country's economy will flourish.

One the other hand if the government of that country doesn't have the citizens at hand so this will be a disaster because plenty children by a poor man might not be able to have an opportunity to contribute to the country's economy because they will be discouraged by the government corrupt system and will become irrelevant to contribute to the growth of the economy. China is a case study.I could remember in the 90s China has a large population and was among one of the poorest country but  the government saw poverty as a disease and worked on the betterment of the country by sending their children abroad to go and learn more on technology and the rest. Now China is among the most powerful country and their currency is also valuable.