You also need to account for the time off you will be taking ( more than likely unpaid) after you have the baby. I have 3 children (5 , 3 and 23months) and I took only 8 weeks off with each. Each child you have is cheaper because you will have a lot of the equipment and clothes ( if all the kids are the same sex, luckily mine were all girls born around the same season).
That is an interesting point stylestar86. Welcome to the boards. In our family my wife's intention was never to work outside of the home. My job more than supports our lifestyle comfortably. So for us this was a non-issue. Our intent was to always expand our family tree with my wife as the primary care giver. I realize for many families dual income is important, expected, and/or essential to make ends meet...
I'm not sure how responsible it is for parents to just throw their kids into day care or employee the services of a full-time nanny. But that is a discussion for another thread I'm sure.
I don't see anything wrong with a couple have 1 or 2 children. Three is a stretch. Beyond that I do think they are stealing resources from the rest of us. But that's another discussion.
If people followed this philosophy eventually the human race would become extinct.
Not true. Replacement rate in the modern world is about 2.1 children per set of parents. Having more than that is contributing to the ultimate destruction of the planet through over population. If you have three and more than 10% of your friends have more than 2, you're part of the problem. That's math.
Actually the replacement rate for industrialized countries falls below the 2.0 replacement rate mark – especially in Europe according to Total Fertility Rate estimate of 2011 by the U.S. CIA. That can be dangerous to future economies unless they rely on immigration. Many in the “modern world” have this idea that 1 or 2 children is a responsible number to have. However, I think it would be better to have a growing population than a shrinking population – especially when you consider the Baby Boomer generation. Replacing Boomers in the work-force is going to be rough. Supporting retirement for Boomers is going to be rougher.Here’s a sample of Industrialised countries in Eruope:Austria
-- 1.41 children born/woman (2011 est.)Germany
-- 1.41 children born/woman (2011 est.)Greece
-- 1.39 children born/woman (2011 est.)Italy
-- 1.4 children born/woman (2011 est.) Netherlands
-- 1.78 children born/woman (2011 est.) Portugal
-- 1.51 children born/woman (2011 est.)Spain
-- 1.48 children born/woman (2011 est.) United Kingdom
-- 1.91 children born/woman (2011 est.)European Exceptions:France
-- 2.08 children born/woman (2011 est.) Ireland
-- 2.01 children born/woman (2011 est.)
Also some Asian industrialized countries for example:South Korea
-- 1.23 children born/woman (2011 est.) Japan
-- 1.39 children born/woman (2011 est.)
What is scary is we’re barely above 2.0 here in the U.S. And with the difficult economy the way it is there is a trend for the figure to be reduced as people seek to conserve resources.United States
-- 2.06 children born/woman (2011 est.)
-- 2.58 children born/woman (2011 est.)
See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2127.html
Okay so what you're saying is perhaps we should advocate some kind of birth control limiting children to 2 per household? Or perhaps to help things further we should just adopt the 1 child policy like China in the U.S.? Curious as to what you think the solution is.
Don’t even get me started on the birth rate of people in the U.S. with low income who (among other things) avoid marriage for government assistance and tax purposes.
edit: to add India and bold countries.