Topic: What's the effect of having plenty children to the national economy of a country - page 9. (Read 994 times)

I also suddenly thought of that country when I read the title. I also often find vlog videos from Indonesians as foreign workers in that country saying that currently there are many job opportunities with a sizable salary.
I don't doubt their assessment that the country's declining population will seriously threaten the economy. Low population level also means a small number of demands. I can't imagine someone in that country having the initiative to open a small scale business.

in the 15th century(first world countries) and even up to the 1960's in developing countries. many children were a cause of life expectancy of those children reaching maturity was low.. many childhood diseases caused many child deaths so families played the odds of multiple children in the hopes of some reaching maturity.

yes part of it was having many children to work the fields with their land owner parents. (free farm labour). which has been the other reason why things in modern times have led to a drop to ~2 kids per family. due to lack of need to have multiple births

..
per capita income is a nonsense number. because the rich single billionaire sways the average poor family number.

actual household income however is not changed much in large families.
the biggest expense is usually housing and bills like electric.
and if a single person sits in a living room or a family of 5 sits in the same living room. the bills are the same. the lightbulb lights the same room.
this is why you see some people have a house fit for only 4 people but have 7 people living in it and sleeping in the same room(bunk beds/double beds). they live within their means. where the only variable cost ends up being food/clothing.
EG 2 single people living independently in separate homes is worse economics than a couple living together in one home

this is way ancient laws(religion) and modern laws(government) of sins and taxes have always favoured giving grace and deductibles to couples and families, and punished/dis-incentivised the single person. to emphasise the importance of keeping families together in a single home

Having more children isn't the problem. The problem is having bad and unproductive humans multiplying and filling the Earth.
Producing more humans and spreading through out the world is actually good for the earth if the humans are good and productive. But if they are not they become a problem to the world.

We are told by our CREATOR to be fruitful(productive) and multiply.

A farmer will be happy to see his plants or animals multiply as long as they are fruitful/productive and healthy.
Earth is more than enough to contain all of us.

It's positive for the statistics of the governments, because they show progressive lines of development regards the national economy, including the sustainability of paying for retirement expenses of the country. One of the main concerns of european countries is the fact the population is decreasing, people are having less or no children, so governments don't know how to pay retired people in the future if there aren't young people to sustain the chain.

Anyway, in my opinion it's not a good idea to have plenty of children, because it's really expensive to take care of them, besides not being possible to give appropriate attention if you have many of them, while working at same time, what will affect the children psychologically in a negative way futurely, added to another difficulties faced in this world such as unemployment, rejection by our pairs, sanitary crisis and pandemics, wars.

First thing that I thought were the developed countries with high cost of living. Countries in that group seem to encourage having more children now since their workforce is aging but a lot of couples refuse.

Developing countries on the other hand has a different situation. It's obviously not favorable since the state or Government cannot help support poor families.

If the couple are contributing to the economy by paying taxes & maybe are hoke owners, i.e. paying a mortgage then the couple are doing just fine. The problems arise if the couple aren’t working & are taking welfare cheques or living in government issue housing. The rule of the story is, don’t have too many kids if you can’t afford to feed them. Hopefully the hypothetical couple send their kids to good schools so they can grow up, get good jobs & also contribute to the economy, keeping the cycle going.

Well the answer will have two sides to it.

Impact of having plenty new births - look at India and China.these are the two most populous countries. It has a long term effect on its job market. If the job market can't grow to support these new generation, unrest will start happening.

Impact of not having plenty of new births - look at Canada and especially Japan. The population is ageing and the job market can't find suitable people. These countries had to open up their borders to immigrants.

Having a balance is alway needed but the most difficult task is to find the balance.

In the stages of human development and growth, there was a time that high population of a country was an advantage to the country. That was actually the industrial age, where there were so many industries, but insufficient human power to man the machines and produce goods. But in this very stage we are, which is no longer the industrial age rather the technological age where the artificial intelligence is likely taking away jobs from people. It does not make sense to have so many children which increases the population of a country.

The only exception to this when plenty of children will be an advantage to the country is during war. Then they will have plenty of Manpower to be forced into military in order to be victorious in the war.

Presently the only effects I think that affect people mostly is about the hard economy coupled with the inflations. Let say any family who doesn't adjust their ways of living may either face problems in their home, whereby if the man of the house is not financially stable it will affect negatively in feeding, housing and academically since they are much in numbers and their parents can't actually offer a good livelihood for his family. There are many people who facing problem of lack birth control and such family if they are not properly trained you could find all manner of characters in their blood line since they are lack of parental control. But in other way round, if their parents are wealthy enough and be able to have them trained thoroughly both academically then it's positive to their nation as I believed that there is every possibility such people would create employment opportunity to their nation and that has contributed positive.

When couples have too many children than they can carter for, they end up causing problem to the everyone because that child can become a big problem to the community as they grow older and their needs increase. They can become thieves, armed robbers, kidnappers, touts etc. Practice family planning with your partner and agree on a number of children to bring into this world. Giving birth to children without making or having plans for them is not the best in the era where the economy is not doing well, you will suffer, the children will suffer, and the community also suffers slightly for your actions.

Having children is not only about the economy, in this case there is something that has a bigger meaning and cannot be measured than anything else. One of them is the happiness of having children, both in large and small numbers. But back to the economic problem where the more children, the higher the dependents, right? As long as you can afford it, I think it's fine.

Seeing the policies of other countries, in my place there is such a thing as "a family planning program with 2 more than enough children" or so. Talking further about human resources, for example in Japan, currently, the declining birth rate requires the government to issue a policy of increasing the birth rate again for the sake of the future and of course the next generation. So, all of this is felt in terms of economic income, the difficulty in finding workers, the lack of access to services, and the role of humans need to be rethought.

The point of consideration should be, what is the world population as at then and what is the resources available to them. Let's review some fact;
 Under population is a situation where the number of people are  less than available resources. Overpopulation is a situation where the number of resources is not enough to manage that number of people, that is , the people are more than the resources. Optimum population is when the population balances the resources.

Now if you observe well, the number of people are increasing on daily basis and researchers are on look out for economic crisis that may hit the world if the population is not control. If there is economic crisis now, it is unwise to have plenty children that you won't be able to cater for.

I remember I replied to a topic similar to this last month, only that this is with a twist as that was about population which I still view as the same.

Regardless, having plenty of children is not the problem, the problem is the positivity/negativity of the economy in relation to the working system the children meet, which determines the effect on the economy whether negative or positive. It will surely be positive if the system and the economy are progressive but will be negative if the system and the economy ain't working (regressive).

So long as the children are educated and well-trained, they can't ever be a liability to the economy, they will surely contribute to a positive economy one way or the other. Except that a bad economy and system into which some are born shapes them negatively and get to tie their hands thereby making many of them become nonentities and might never discover themselves.

However, some still manage to launch forth.

Your allusion to the plenteous children of the French in the 15th century wasn't a secluded case. It was also evident in Africa (Nigeria). My Dad used to tell me that a part of the reason people of that era had many children and wives was to have enough farm hands who would help out at the farm and not get paid at home. Another was to fight boredom and loneliness. Can we say these reasons still stand today? Of course, not.

In today's world parental responsibility and care are top necessity more than birthing children one can't even take appropriate care of. On the part of the government, using my country as an example, I think it's overwhelming to have a bloated population. The amenities and infrastructure aren't enough to go round the people and that seems to make a mess of government's planning and strategy as the country gets to have more people struggling over scarce resources and amenities.

The population can be a blessing or a curse. It is a blessing when these citizens are skillful, educated, and law-abiding. It will become a time bomb if the majority of them are unskilled and depends on the nation for survival. When the population is made up of illiterates and unskilled citizens, it will affect the economy of the country because they will not contribute meaningfully to economic development or growth. A country with unskilled population will not be a productive nation because there will be fewer business opportunities.

In families it is important to give birth to children that you can provide for their feeding, clothing, housing, health and education. If you are wealthy enough and have plenty of children, nobody will complain because you can take care of them. But if you don't have the means to fend for many, just get one or two. The bottom line is that everyone should give birth to the number he can comfortably take care of. The family or economy doesn't need many people, what they need is productive people.

Because they are not educated, that does not mean they are rubbish to the economy. There are many unskilled work that they can do.

You should know that going to school does not necessarily mean education. There are many old people in my country that do not go to school but later make it in life and they are educated in the work they are doing without going to school.

There are countries like Nigeria and Ethiopia with people there giving birth to many children but their is no job. Many of them are educated, they go to school, they become graduates and they are doing unskilled work and many of them are unemployed.

It depends on the citizen, if they're not educated and don't want to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy decline since they're rubbish for the country.

If the citizen are educated and don't mind to get paid with minimum or low salary, it will make the national economy increase since they don't mind about the money, they're want to become loyal for the country.

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.