Allegheny County's population shrank in 2016, according to the U.S. Census... (Pittsburgh: home, organic)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

They had kids and then figured out how to provide for them. Planning a family didn't happen until the latter half of the 20th century.

People in the modern era have odd ideas about children, treating them more or less like products. The base assumption is the more you "put into them" (time, money, etc) the better the results. Ergo, you reduce the number of children (or delay significantly) and the adult outcomes of your children will be better.

That's not how children really work, because a lot of who we are is a result of genetics or outside the control of parents at all. If you really care about having a successful child, the best thing to do is to have lots of children, as it raises your odds of having one or more of them thrive rather than struggle.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by eschaton

People in the modern era have odd ideas about children, treating them more or less like products. The base assumption is the more you "put into them" (time, money, etc) the better the results. Ergo, you reduce the number of children (or delay significantly) and the adult outcomes of your children will be better.

That's not how children really work, because a lot of who we are is a result of genetics or outside the control of parents at all. If you really care about having a successful child, the best thing to do is to have lots of children, as it raises your odds of having one or more of them thrive rather than struggle.

Hopefully they're successful enough to support the parents too as they'll be broke in this situation

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Hopefully they're successful enough to support the parents too as they'll be broke in this situation

The old way it was done was to have lots of kids in the hope that one of them either had the money and was on speaking terms with you in old age.

Decreasing the number of kids down to two (or even one) doesn't really up the odds of that happening.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Hopefully they're successful enough to support the parents too as they'll be broke in this situation

Exactly.

In this day and age, I've never heard or ever thought I would hear such a suggestion in order to end up with a successful child.

[sealie]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Exactly.

In this day and age, I've never heard or ever thought I would hear such a suggestion in order to end up with a successful child.

Yeah, it ignores that since 1890-1900:
1. We've gone from 40% urban to 80+%
2. We've moved to a job market where analytical skills/education get you a lot further than a strong back.
3. We no longer accept jamming 10 people into a 3 br tenement and we don't accept child labor.

Plus, ask your wife how she feels about being pregnant for half her fertile adult life. Moving backwards in time is not the answer.

[prnlvsxy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I'm as gay as Big Gay Al from South Park, so I won't be pumping out babies anytime soon.

Also, my Millennial peers are still waiting on having kids because we can't afford them. It's unwise to pump out kids if you know taxpayers will have to clothe and feed them. Only selfish people being a child into this world if they can't afford to rear them. I'll never know how our grandparents' parents comfortably reared 10 children on one salary while today dually-employed couples can barely afford 1 or 2. Guess the economy isn't as great as the people on City-Data claim it is.

I think it has more to do with people having different priorities than they used to.

They didn't have $250 cable bills, or $120 cell phone bills, or $400 car payments, or multiple trips to restaurants every week, or spent extra money for organic and artisanal foods.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by eschaton

People in the modern era have odd ideas about children, treating them more or less like products. The base assumption is the more you "put into them" (time, money, etc) the better the results. Ergo, you reduce the number of children (or delay significantly) and the adult outcomes of your children will be better.

That's not how children really work, because a lot of who we are is a result of genetics or outside the control of parents at all. If you really care about having a successful child, the best thing to do is to have lots of children, as it raises your odds of having one or more of them thrive rather than struggle.

The fewer children strategy depends on effective antibiotics to treat early childhood problems, which were also developed in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Sealie is right though, mothers bore all the risks of the many children strategy.

[Copanut]

I thought the reason for large families was a leftover from when the US was mainly agrarian. You needed hands to work the farm and you assumed a couple of your kids would die to disease back then.

[eschaton]

I wasn't arguing that women should be perpetually pregnant, only that if people chose to have an additional child or two above and beyond what they did, it wouldn't hurt the adult outcomes of said children in any real way.

I do find it very troubling that higher levels of education (particularly among women) are correlated strongly with having less children. Obviously every individual can and should make their own life choices, but if these trends continue, in the longer run the "Idiocracy" scenario will unfold with Americans getting progressively dumber.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I thought the reason for large families was a leftover from when the US was mainly agrarian. You needed hands to work the farm and you assumed a couple of your kids would die to disease back then.

Bingo.