What do you think is the ideal family size? I dont mean how many children would be ideal for you but how many children, on average, a family should be having now to keep Western society healthy for the rest of this century?
Ideal family size
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
I think that the problem with that suggestion is society's view of what a family needs is changing all the time.
When I was growing up the majority of people where satisfied with a three bedroom, one bathroom house and this is when most people had four children. Most families only had only one car, one phone, one TV and of course no video (or DVD) players, no computer games , no computers, no microwaves etc. Most fathers grew at least some of the family's vegetables in the backyard. It was common for people to keep chicken's in the backyard as well.
Most of the younger children's clothes were hand-me-downs and mothers often made clothes.
I make a point of not worrying about society too much, and not worrying society too much in return. Have however many kids you want, but don't then burden the rest of us with paying to care for them.
If one did want to paint this in terms of "keeping Western society healthy", that's a incredibly ambiguously phrased question to interpret, with valid ideological answers from zero to infinity, and as such well beyond the scope of my patience to discuss.
If one did want to paint this in terms of "keeping Western society healthy", that's a incredibly ambiguously phrased question to interpret, with valid ideological answers from zero to infinity, and as such well beyond the scope of my patience to discuss.
I fathered three, just to be safe.
I make a point of not worrying about society too much, and not worrying society too much in return. Have however many kids you want, but don't then burden the rest of us with paying to care for them.
If one did want to paint this in terms of "keeping Western society healthy", that's a incredibly ambiguously phrased question to interpret, with valid ideological answers from zero to infinity, and as such well beyond the scope of my patience to discuss.
I think I meant how many children we need to avoid some obvious problems such as how are we going to manage if our our society has double the amount of people over 80 than we have now.
Is having children being a "burden" to society any different that having the elderly being a "burden" to society?
What effect will a shrinking birthrate have on employment?We already have serious shortages in certain occupations.
China will face major problems in years to come which will be directly linked to its One Child policy.
Will a decreasing population mean that our society will use less resources or will we just increase our individual quota of resources.
Are societies which already have a decreasing population experiencing problems directly link to it?
I support the idea of families having as many children as possible; but only as long as this can be done without degrading the universal quality of life for the family as a whole.
Let's make a very average scenario. Two people are married to each other; each earns $25,000/year. Their household income is $50,000 - the National Median. They can easily afford their 2 bedroom apartment for $800/month, and eat quite well with a food budget of $50/week per peson. They each spend, on average, $100/month for gasoline, and - being unusually responsible in this case - don't have to make car payments. Nevertheless, the Insurance bill each month is - covering both of their two cars - $200.
Adding this up, we have the following result:
$4,166 Monthly Income
-800.00 Monthly Rent
-400.00 Monthly Food
-200.00 Monthly Gas
-200.00 Monthly Car Insurance
= $2566 Surplus
This couple enjoys two nights out each month. They go to a nice restaurant ($100), and visit a nice musical/theatrical performance ($150). They each visit Starbucks at least 4 times a week ($40/month). In addition, they buy other things just for fun, such as the occasional DVD, book, apparel item, or gift ($50 each, every weekend). To do all of these things, they also use up a little more gas than they otherwise would (We'll give them an extra $40 each for this.) Let's add up their leisure budget.
-$500 Spent Monthly Dining out & Theatre
-$40 Spent Monthly at Starbucks
-$400 Spent on generic leisure items.
-$80 Spent gas used during leisure travel.
That means that they spend about $500/person on leisure every month, and they are able to save $1,566/month.
We assume that a child is going to wind up consuming just as much money as them, whether for educational supplies or toys, or food; and so, we assume that each child costs $700/month ($200/month for food, $500 for other expenses relating to him/her.)
Ability to Save with 1 child - $866/month
Ability to Save with 2 children - $166/month
In order to support child #3, the family must either earn more money or sacrifice quality of life. This is why large urban families usually live in dumpy 2 bedroom units and, at face value, appear underfed, underdressed, psychologically unhealthy, and - if the trend continues - possibly even violent. They started off telling each other that they could somehow make those sacrifices and still come out just as well; but it doesn't work that way.
It is better for America to produce healthy, educated, socially fit children at a rate of 2.5 per family than it would be for us to produce at a rate of 5-7 per family children of a third world quality.
Understandably, large families played a major role in developing America, as they do in other developing parts of the world. This is because the agricultural lifestyle is self-sufficient and not linked to wages as directly as the urban lifestyle. Additional children - in a farming algorithm - equal free labor, which means more money and more product.
The same principle of child-based labor and production can apply to privately owned business; however, as we all know, child-labor is frowned on in the West, which creates yet one more reason why - until the rest of the world becomes more developed - 2 children will be, for most people, the right number.
Of course, I am leaving out college graduates who each work a job that pays $100,000/year. They can, obviously, support a larger family than the individuals who make a quarter of that sum.
I am also leaving out, for practicality in this article, the fact that children must be cared for, that one parent optimally should stay at home to care for them, and the added fiscal and social implications of that fact.
My final answer to the question of ideal family size is 2.
If household income is over $75K annually, 3.
If household income is earned soley by one parent, and is over $100K annually, 4.
For urban families, no more than 4.
Let's make a very average scenario. Two people are married to each other; each earns $25,000/year. Their household income is $50,000 - the National Median. They can easily afford their 2 bedroom apartment for $800/month, and eat quite well with a food budget of $50/week per peson. They each spend, on average, $100/month for gasoline, and - being unusually responsible in this case - don't have to make car payments. Nevertheless, the Insurance bill each month is - covering both of their two cars - $200.
Adding this up, we have the following result:
$4,166 Monthly Income
-800.00 Monthly Rent
-400.00 Monthly Food
-200.00 Monthly Gas
-200.00 Monthly Car Insurance
= $2566 Surplus
This couple enjoys two nights out each month. They go to a nice restaurant ($100), and visit a nice musical/theatrical performance ($150). They each visit Starbucks at least 4 times a week ($40/month). In addition, they buy other things just for fun, such as the occasional DVD, book, apparel item, or gift ($50 each, every weekend). To do all of these things, they also use up a little more gas than they otherwise would (We'll give them an extra $40 each for this.) Let's add up their leisure budget.
-$500 Spent Monthly Dining out & Theatre
-$40 Spent Monthly at Starbucks
-$400 Spent on generic leisure items.
-$80 Spent gas used during leisure travel.
That means that they spend about $500/person on leisure every month, and they are able to save $1,566/month.
We assume that a child is going to wind up consuming just as much money as them, whether for educational supplies or toys, or food; and so, we assume that each child costs $700/month ($200/month for food, $500 for other expenses relating to him/her.)
Ability to Save with 1 child - $866/month
Ability to Save with 2 children - $166/month
In order to support child #3, the family must either earn more money or sacrifice quality of life. This is why large urban families usually live in dumpy 2 bedroom units and, at face value, appear underfed, underdressed, psychologically unhealthy, and - if the trend continues - possibly even violent. They started off telling each other that they could somehow make those sacrifices and still come out just as well; but it doesn't work that way.
It is better for America to produce healthy, educated, socially fit children at a rate of 2.5 per family than it would be for us to produce at a rate of 5-7 per family children of a third world quality.
Understandably, large families played a major role in developing America, as they do in other developing parts of the world. This is because the agricultural lifestyle is self-sufficient and not linked to wages as directly as the urban lifestyle. Additional children - in a farming algorithm - equal free labor, which means more money and more product.
The same principle of child-based labor and production can apply to privately owned business; however, as we all know, child-labor is frowned on in the West, which creates yet one more reason why - until the rest of the world becomes more developed - 2 children will be, for most people, the right number.
Of course, I am leaving out college graduates who each work a job that pays $100,000/year. They can, obviously, support a larger family than the individuals who make a quarter of that sum.
I am also leaving out, for practicality in this article, the fact that children must be cared for, that one parent optimally should stay at home to care for them, and the added fiscal and social implications of that fact.
My final answer to the question of ideal family size is 2.
If household income is over $75K annually, 3.
If household income is earned soley by one parent, and is over $100K annually, 4.
For urban families, no more than 4.
I make a point of not worrying about society too much, and not worrying society too much in return. Have however many kids you want, but don't then burden the rest of us with paying to care for them.
If one did want to paint this in terms of "keeping Western society healthy", that's a incredibly ambiguously phrased question to interpret, with valid ideological answers from zero to infinity, and as such well beyond the scope of my patience to discuss.
You see, at least we realise that children would only ever disappoint us for not being as wise as us...
I'd say between 3 and 5 kids would be the target zone.
Using that logic, your extra one makes up for the fact that I only have one. Therefore, it balances. Thanks!
We opted for dogs instead. So feel free to seduce the wife when you get home on our behalf.
I can't tell if you're planning to shoot them or turn them into a string quartet.
I don't know about society but I know what works for me - two kids and two parents. It means each kid always has one parent to turn to and makes the logistics of activities way easier to handle.
Plus, two of them is all my sanity can handle.
Plus, two of them is all my sanity can handle.
Supreme Admiral
Captain
I'm planning on to have nine children, but wanting to have 5 kids, but I decide that I really want to have really big family, so I know it'll be even more expensive to cover all that, so I'll be looking for a real job that pays $100,00/year.
I want to have five daughters, four sons. I'm following in the footsteps of late senator Ted Kennedy whose has big family also. I certainly hope that my future wife will agreed with it or not.
I want to have five daughters, four sons. I'm following in the footsteps of late senator Ted Kennedy whose has big family also. I certainly hope that my future wife will agreed with it or not.
re Joshua Howard's reply:
Let's toss a little reality into the mix. Try factoring in $600 for daycare for one month/one child. Rent for 2bedroom = $1250-$1600
Gas is more like $55/week or $220/month
Still need a pile of $ for the child-$500 isn't unrealistic as kids accumulate medical bills.
Also, Insurance(health). $105
Food-I'd like to know where you shop. With one gallon of milk at $3.99 to $4.50, one block of cheese(for single child) running $3.50 a week we're looking at about $7.50/wk or $30/month just for milk&cheese for the child-and I'm not eating or drinking any of that, nor is the wife. So $60 for milk and cheese alone each month. Realistic food bill(while maintaining a healthy diet) is more like $500-$600 a month.
Plus $100-$150/month in auto repairs-not because car breaks down all of the time but because one breakdown on a credit card can leave you with that much in payments each month for an extended period.
Now let's go a step further-personal insurance is 50/50 by the employer's plan so another $80 to cover me(I smoke-shame on me) and $65 to cover non-smoking wife.
And for a touch of realism, since 1 in 10 Americans are currently unemployed, let's slash that unemployed spouse's income to, say $600/2wk, which is how much you would get if your last job paid $25K/yr. Scratch dinner out, scratch Starbucks(haven't been in one since Jan!), scratch new DVDs. No excess driving.
Number of children supportable under this more realistic model without sacrificing quality of life=0.
Number I'm raising=1. And please don't say-well, that's just your situation. I live in a middle-class neighborhood, have middle-class friends and at least half of them are in the same economic boat. And, yeah, we're all pulling in $50K+ per year(or we were).
I just thought your numbers failed to reflect typical prices and "extras" like health insurance, "emergencies" like car repairs and ongoing credit card payments/medical payments etc.
Let's toss a little reality into the mix. Try factoring in $600 for daycare for one month/one child. Rent for 2bedroom = $1250-$1600
Gas is more like $55/week or $220/month
Still need a pile of $ for the child-$500 isn't unrealistic as kids accumulate medical bills.
Also, Insurance(health). $105
Food-I'd like to know where you shop. With one gallon of milk at $3.99 to $4.50, one block of cheese(for single child) running $3.50 a week we're looking at about $7.50/wk or $30/month just for milk&cheese for the child-and I'm not eating or drinking any of that, nor is the wife. So $60 for milk and cheese alone each month. Realistic food bill(while maintaining a healthy diet) is more like $500-$600 a month.
Plus $100-$150/month in auto repairs-not because car breaks down all of the time but because one breakdown on a credit card can leave you with that much in payments each month for an extended period.
Now let's go a step further-personal insurance is 50/50 by the employer's plan so another $80 to cover me(I smoke-shame on me) and $65 to cover non-smoking wife.
And for a touch of realism, since 1 in 10 Americans are currently unemployed, let's slash that unemployed spouse's income to, say $600/2wk, which is how much you would get if your last job paid $25K/yr. Scratch dinner out, scratch Starbucks(haven't been in one since Jan!), scratch new DVDs. No excess driving.
Number of children supportable under this more realistic model without sacrificing quality of life=0.
Number I'm raising=1. And please don't say-well, that's just your situation. I live in a middle-class neighborhood, have middle-class friends and at least half of them are in the same economic boat. And, yeah, we're all pulling in $50K+ per year(or we were).
I just thought your numbers failed to reflect typical prices and "extras" like health insurance, "emergencies" like car repairs and ongoing credit card payments/medical payments etc.
