New York is a Giant Birth Control Pill

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by forfi

There is no forgiveness for DailyWail readers,just stoning after Friday prayers ,sorry Wobs.As for the Granuaid and the other unmentionable.......burning at the stake.Thus it is written,don't come whinging to me lad

You'll find that the two cancel each other out. Reality is in perfect balance on planet Wobs.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Hmmm, depends on what you define for standard of living. I'm certainly enjoying a high standard of living as I have numerous bars and resteraunts within a 2min walk of my house, but many don't see much green open space.

I clarified this in my response to Myrtti in economic terms – i.e. what the papers mean when they talk about standard of living, which is not equivalent to quality of lifestyle. There is evidence around that families with higher income tend to have fewer children.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Certainly, but that could be an effect rather than a course. Fewer people have kids, so market forces dictate that there will be more opportunities for adults to spend money on themselves.

I would suggest to you that parental greed is not widely involved in choices about family size. The relationship between economic circumstances and family size occurs world wide and has to do with an understanding that a smaller number of children can be provided with a better education and more support and are hence more likely to be successful than with a larger number of children.

Large families are preferred in areas of higher child mortality and lower wealth to ensure that at least one child makes it to look after the parents in old age. The opportunities I was talking about included access to higher education and to non-manual employment. It is clear that those with a tertiary education tend to marry later and leave childbearing to later than those who left before finishing high school. Likewise, marriage tends to be later among office workers than it is among manual labourers.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Choose? Sure you don't mean forced to because the man's salary is no longer big enough to afford a house?
Or could that be connected with 3?

No I mean choose. These are always choices. You could choose to have a large family and not buy a house for example. What I was specifically referring to is a large group of young women in Western societies who are choosing to have a career as well as, or instead of, a family.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

I It is clear that those with a tertiary education tend to marry later and leave childbearing to later than those who left before finishing high school. Likewise, marriage tends to be later among office workers than it is among manual labourers.

I hope you're not saying that that is a good thing. Many Western women are putting off having kids in favour of career, then the biological clock starts ticking, and they look for husband material. Unfortunately, nature doesn't wait for these women. And the men that could possibely be suitable often don't want to know.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

I would suggest to you that parental greed is not widely involved in choices about family size. The relationship between economic circumstances and family size occurs world wide and has to do with an understanding that a smaller number of children can be provided with a better education and more support and are hence more likely to be successful than with a larger number of children.

Families have shrunk to less than two per household in areas where opportunities for adults to enjoy themselves are abound. The decision to only have one kid is often so that childcare can continue, so the wife can continue to have the career.

Throughout the 80/90s, women were often made to feel guilt for giving up their career in favour of their family, as a house wife was looked down upon. This has resulted in a far greater proportion of two salary households, resulting in a greater increase in house prices, forcing future couples to continue earning two salaries. Women would then moan that they were over stressed at juggling all these tasks.

I would like to think society has grown up a bit since those infantile times, but I doubt it. Indeed, financial prosperity too often brings out the infantile in a society.

Most couples cannot afford private education, and must opt for state eductaion whether they have one or three kids. In the 70s/80s, we had 2.5ish kids per family. Its dropped not just because of prosperity but because women are putting off kids until their 30s. I doubted this rumour (even though I often heard), until I heard a crowd of women agreeing as one that having kids was best in their 30s, as they could enjoy themselves beforehand.

Like I said before, nature doesn't wait for these women, and they risk much for such enjoyment. Falling child rate? Wonder why?

[imp]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Families have shrunk to less than two per household in areas where opportunities for adults to enjoy themselves are abound. The decision to only have one kid is often so that childcare can continue, so the wife can continue to have the career.

Throughout the 80/90s, women were often made to feel guilt for giving up their career in favour of their family, as a house wife was looked down upon. This has resulted in a far greater proportion of two salary households, resulting in a greater increase in house prices, forcing future couples to continue earning two salaries. Women would then moan that they were over stressed at juggling all these tasks.

I would like to think society has grown up a bit since those infantile times, but I doubt it. Indeed, financial prosperity too often brings out the infantile in a society.

Most couples cannot afford private education, and must opt for state eductaion whether they have one or three kids. In the 70s/80s, we had 2.5ish kids per family. Its dropped not just because of prosperity but because women are putting off kids until their 30s. I doubted this rumour (even though I often heard), until I heard a crowd of women agreeing as one that having kids was best in their 30s, as they could enjoy themselves beforehand.

Like I said before, nature doesn't wait for these women, and they risk much for such enjoyment. Falling child rate? Wonder why?

The two income household is actively encouraged by the social engineering inherent in progressive tax rates. Progressive tax rates reduce the benefit of males specializing in work and females specializing in child rearing. Two steps in the right direction would be a flat tax and the elimination of education funding by the government.