What to Expect When No One Is Expecting

[JimG]

Reading the linked article—which is essentially a review of the book, “What to Expect When No One Is Expecting,” it occurs to me that individual decisions on the matter of contraception have a combined social impact. And that impact can be detrimental to a nation or a society.

“Governments around the world, including our own, are realizing that they are now in a bind. They do not have enough people, who in turn can produce enough children to pay for the massively bloated entitlement programs designed to care for the elderly and the indigent. To solve this problem, nations have tried all manner of gimmicks to get their citizens to have more kids: cash payments or prizes, tax breaks, bachelor taxes, paid family leave, and offering universal and free daycare. None of them has worked in any meaningful manner.”

A Hard Look At Our Demographic Future

 

[bitterhope]

Thanks for the article. It’s good to know my large family is actually a very patriotic thing to have!

 

[Memaw]

Reading the linked article—which is essentially a review of the book, “What to Expect When No One Is Expecting,” it occurs to me that individual decisions on the matter of contraception have a combined social impact. And that impact can be detrimental to a nation or a society.

“Governments around the world, including our own, are realizing that they are now in a bind. They do not have enough people, who in turn can produce enough children to pay for the massively bloated entitlement programs designed to care for the elderly and the indigent. To solve this problem, nations have tried all manner of gimmicks to get their citizens to have more kids: cash payments or prizes, tax breaks, bachelor taxes, paid family leave, and offering universal and free daycare. None of them has worked in any meaningful manner.”

A Hard Look At Our Demographic Future

Fr. Paul Marx warned us about this many years ago and nobody listened. Now we are faced with the reality. Europe is being taken over by Islamic immigrants and I’m afraid we are next. It is happening here much quicker than we realize. I am afraid what may be in store for our children and grandchildren.God Bless, Memaw

 

[lax16]

Reading the linked article—which is essentially a review of the book, “What to Expect When No One Is Expecting,” it occurs to me that individual decisions on the matter of contraception have a combined social impact. And that impact can be detrimental to a nation or a society.

“Governments around the world, including our own, are realizing that they are now in a bind. They do not have enough people, who in turn can produce enough children to pay for the massively bloated entitlement programs designed to care for the elderly and the indigent. To solve this problem, nations have tried all manner of gimmicks to get their citizens to have more kids: cash payments or prizes, tax breaks, bachelor taxes, paid family leave, and offering universal and free daycare. None of them has worked in any meaningful manner.”

A Hard Look At Our Demographic Future

This book should be mandatory reading! I have recommended this book many times - it is extremely informative about world demographics and written in a humorous, easy to understand way.

The information in What to Expect When No One is Expecting has completely changed my opinion on the notion that we are suffering, or going to a suffer, because of over-population. It’s a myth!

 

[Murmurs]

This book should be mandatory reading! I have recommended this book many times - it is extremely informative about world demographics and written in a humorous, easy to understand way.

The information in What to Expect When No One is Expecting has completely changed my opinion on the notion that we are suffering, or going to a suffer, because of over-population. It’s a myth!

I agree.

The one caveat I think with the book, though - is that it’s all very well having large families but only if there were an infinitely-growable supply of jobs.

In a world of unlimited land resources one at least can just multiplying a subsistence-level economy. But we can’t. If everyone has 9 children, then we STILL can’t afford a welfare state because only 3 of those children (perhaps) will ever have meaningful employment. I think large families are a blessing but also a double-edged sword. We already live in a world at least in the West where there basically aren’t enough jobs to go round and to meet peoples’ skill sets (or which provide a sufficient income, for that matter).

I think it’s all very well to encourage larger families (without even getting into the matter of the sinfulness of artificial contraception), but it would only be replacing one tremendous social problem with another one.

 

[lax16]

I agree.

The one caveat I think with the book, though - is that it’s all very well having large families but only if there were an infinitely-growable supply of jobs.

In a world of unlimited land resources one at least can just multiplying a subsistence-level economy. But we can’t. If everyone has 9 children, then we STILL can’t afford a welfare state because only 3 of those children (perhaps) will ever have meaningful employment. I think large families are a blessing but also a double-edged sword. We already live in a world at least in the West where there basically aren’t enough jobs to go round and to meet peoples’ skill sets (or which provide a sufficient income, for that matter).

I think it’s all very well to encourage larger families (without even getting into the matter of the sinfulness of artificial contraception), but it would only be replacing one tremendous social problem with another one.

If I remember correctly, and it’s been a couple of years since I read the book, families would need to have three children in order to avoid disaster. If a couple is able to handle nine, more power to them, however it is not everyone’s calling to have such a large family.

I also think parents should properly educate their children and encourage them to seek employment in other states with a healthier job outlook. I’m always surprised at how many people insist on living somewhere that a) they can’t afford and b) has a poor job market.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree.

The one caveat I think with the book, though - is that it’s all very well having large families but only if there were an infinitely-growable supply of jobs.

In a world of unlimited land resources one at least can just multiplying a subsistence-level economy. But we can’t.** If everyone has 9 children, then we STILL can’t afford a welfare state because only 3 of those children (perhaps) will ever have meaningful employment.** I think large families are a blessing but also a double-edged sword. We already live in a world at least in the West where there basically aren’t enough jobs to go round and to meet peoples’ skill sets (or which provide a sufficient income, for that matter).

I think it’s all very well to encourage larger families (without even getting into the matter of the sinfulness of artificial contraception), but it would only be replacing one tremendous social problem with another one.

Right.

And looking around, is it true that the US does a super duper job educating the children of the poor? I would argue that the answer is “no.”

The current US education system depends massively on help from parents–sending in small items, donating money, doing fundraising, chaperoning field trips, doing other volunteering, helping with homework and providing accountability, helping children at home with research and projects using the parents’ own accumulated knowledge and expertise, etc. Even for middle class families with “only” two children, this is often a massive commitment of resources.

There is the potential that larger family size would upset the school apple cart–the high current level of commitment is largely possible because of small family size.

One of the reasons that schools in the US that serve poorer children are often terrible is that their “bench” of parents is not as deep–those schools cannot muster that kind of resources. And that’s a lot of families and a lot of schools–currently just over half of US public school children qualify for free or subsidized hot lunch.

nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/school-poverty-study-southern-education-foundation.html

I suspect that even just doubling the number of children per US family would be catastrophic in terms of families’ ability to keep up school responsibilities.

 

[Xantippe]

If I remember correctly, and it’s been a couple of years since I read the book, families would need to have three children in order to avoid disaster. If a couple is able to handle nine, more power to them, however it is not everyone’s calling to have such a large family.

I also think parents should properly educate their children and encourage them to seek employment in other states with a healthier job outlook. I’m always surprised at how many people insist on living somewhere that a) they can’t afford and b) has a poor job market.

We did that, and there are costs involved there, too, for all of the generations involved. Parents may not have good support in emergencies that they would have had if they stayed in their area (which may discourage them from having more children). Children grow up without close relationships with grandparents. And grandparents, in turn, find that the Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner is much smaller than it ought to be. My grandparents host our family occasions, and although on paper they have a very respectable number of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, there are many holidays when barely a single grandchild or great-grandchild can make it–you wind up with a table largely consisting of 60-somethings and a couple 90-somethings.

 

[lax16]

We did that, and there are costs involved there, too, for all of the generations involved. Parents may not have good support in emergencies that they would have had if they stayed in their area. Children grow up without close relationships with grandparents. And grandparents, in turn, find that the Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner is much smaller than it ought to be. My grandparents host our family occasions, and although on paper they have a very respectable number of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, there are many holidays when barely a single grandchild or great-grandchild can make it–you wind up with a table largely consisting of 60-somethings and a couple 90-somethings.

We have done it too. I have paid the price of which you speak.

There is a price to pay, but why would grandparents live where there is little to no opportunity for their children and grandchildren?

I can understand why, in the Indian and Chinese cultures, the parents live with their children and help care for the grandchildren. They can go where there is opportunity.

I have family members still living at home because they can’t afford to move out. If they were open to moving out of state, they would have wonderful job prospects. Perhaps when they have some work experience, they can move back.

I would much prefer to have my children move away if it meant job prospects, marriage and more children. I have said on many occasions that I will go where my children and grandchildren (God willing) are so that we can be together. But they do not need to stay where they can’t support a family. One of the main reasons why we stay where we are is because of the strong job market and affordable housing. If my kids don’t want to live here, we will move.

 

[Xantippe]

We have done it too. I have paid the price of which you speak.

There is a price to pay, but why would grandparents live where there is little to no opportunity for their children and grandchildren?

Because that’s where the farm and their businesses are? These days Boomer generation parents work and work and work and work–my parents are pushing 70, and they show no sign of retiring. Plus, it’s normal for farmers to keep on farming as long as possible–my grandfather only recently sold his cattle, and he was early 90-something.

I personally wouldn’t like for my family to sell out and move, because where would “home” be then? My family has farmed that area since the 1870s.

But that’s not a super depressed area–just a rural area with a small population.

Also, if there are multiple adult children, one child may have stayed (I have one very successful sibling who lives partly in our home town/partly in the big city) while others have gone or the adult children may be widely scattered. My parents have three children in three different states, my aunt and uncle have two children in two different states, and my other auntie has (I believe) four children in three different states and a foreign country.

 

[PhiloMed]

Because that’s where the farm and their businesses are? These days Boomer generation parents work and work and work and work–my parents are pushing 70, and they show no sign of retiring. Plus, it’s normal for farmers to keep on farming as long as possible–my grandfather only recently sold his cattle, and he was early 90-something.

I personally wouldn’t like for my family to sell out and move, because where would “home” be then? My family has farmed that area since the 1870s.

But that’s not a super depressed area–just a rural area with a small population.

Also, if there are multiple adult children, one child may have stayed (I have one very successful sibling who lives partly in our home town/partly in the big city) while others have gone or the adult children may be widely scattered. My parents have three children in three different states, my aunt and uncle have two children in two different states, and my other auntie has (I believe) four children in three different states and a foreign country.

Right. And what about when the young family then moves three times for job changes? It is uncommon for people to work at one job or one career for their entire working lifetime. Do we keep moving the aging grandparents around the state or around the country?

 

[Xantippe]

Right. And what about when the young family then moves three times for job changes? It is uncommon for people to work at one job or one career for their entire working lifetime. Do we keep moving the aging grandparents around the state or around the country?

Right.

 

[Sarcelle]

Right. And what about when the young family then moves three times for job changes? It is uncommon for people to work at one job or one career for their entire working lifetime. Do we keep moving the aging grandparents around the state or around the country?

Right.

There used to be a time when one could stay on with a single employer and then retire with a gold watch. Not anymore. This is the age of layoffs. Layoffs like taxes and death are now inevitable.

 

[bitterhope]

Right. And what about when the young family then moves three times for job changes? It is uncommon for people to work at one job or one career for their entire working lifetime. Do we keep moving the aging grandparents around the state or around the country?

In some cultures you will find that the grandparents move with the household because they are part of the household. The parents or widowed parent stays with one of the kids and becomes a part of the household. The rest of the siblings visit when possible and/or the parents visit them as possible. Family reunions happen on holidays or during the summer where everyone gathers together.

 

[Murmurs]

If I remember correctly, and it’s been a couple of years since I read the book, families would need to have three children in order to avoid disaster. If a couple is able to handle nine, more power to them, however it is not everyone’s calling to have such a large family.

I also think parents should properly educate their children and encourage them to seek employment in other states with a healthier job outlook. I’m always surprised at how many people insist on living somewhere that a) they can’t afford and b) has a poor job market.

I think overall the global replacement fertility rate is something like 2.3 children per woman (such things are always calculated per woman not per family, because it’s only women who actually bare children); in the West because of generally better or healthier living conditions (obesity crisis notwithstanding), it’s about 2.1.

My comment about employment wasn’t about localities: for all the problems this thread has been discussing already, parents should definitely encourage their offspring to see opportunities elsewhere as long as closer to home. I meant *globally *- there aren’t enough jobs for everyone, and I think we need to be careful about advocating population booms. While Malthus might be proved consistently wrong about food production specifically, in the modern world we need other resources as well and that includes employment. The social ills inherent in having large numbers of unemployed or underemployed young people are very clear to see both in the West and further afield (particularly in the Middle East).

 

[lax16]

Because that’s where the farm and their businesses are? These days Boomer generation parents work and work and work and work–my parents are pushing 70, and they show no sign of retiring. Plus, it’s normal for farmers to keep on farming as long as possible–my grandfather only recently sold his cattle, and he was early 90-something.

I can relate. My parents are in their mid-80’s and my dad still works 6 days a week at our family business.

I personally wouldn’t like for my family to sell out and move, because where would “home” be then? My family has farmed that area since the 1870s.

But that’s not a super depressed area–just a rural area with a small population.

Also, if there are multiple adult children, one child may have stayed (I have one very successful sibling who lives partly in our home town/partly in the big city) while others have gone or the adult children may be widely scattered. My parents have three children in three different states, my aunt and uncle have two children in two different states, and my other auntie has (I believe) four children in three different states and a foreign country.

If they don’t need to sell and have someone to farm the land once they are gone then it sounds like a great situation.

 

[lax16]

Right. And what about when the young family then moves three times for job changes? It is uncommon for people to work at one job or one career for their entire working lifetime. Do we keep moving the aging grandparents around the state or around the country?

If the grandparents are retired and have no one else to care for them as they age, then yes they should move with them.

If they are still young enough to continue to work then they should wait until retirement and decide what their priorities are.

Many careers are fairly stable and do not require constant moving. However, if the priority is helping with grandchildren and helping children establish their careers, I say grandparents should strongly consider it.

 

[lax16]

I think overall the global replacement fertility rate is something like 2.3 children per woman (such things are always calculated per woman not per family, because it’s only women who actually bare children); in the West because of generally better or healthier living conditions (obesity crisis notwithstanding), it’s about 2.1.

My comment about employment wasn’t about localities: for all the problems this thread has been discussing already, parents should definitely encourage their offspring to see opportunities elsewhere as long as closer to home. I meant *globally *- there aren’t enough jobs for everyone, and I think we need to be careful about advocating population booms. While Malthus might be proved consistently wrong about food production specifically, in the modern world we need other resources as well and that includes employment. The social ills inherent in having large numbers of unemployed or underemployed young people are very clear to see both in the West and further afield (particularly in the Middle East).

Have you read the book? There is no problem with even coming close to a population boom. It’s a myth.

Interesting about the Middle East and the lack of employment. Not sure if having large families is the main problem. They don’t educate their children (at least their daughters) and I am sure there are other contributing factors as well.

 

[Xantippe]

I can relate. My parents are in their mid-80’s and my dad still works 6 days a week at our family business.

If they don’t need to sell and have someone to farm the land once they are gone then it sounds like a great situation.

Yeah. My grandparents have all of their adult children close by–two adult children within 20 minutes drive and one 90 minutes away (but often in town). They have their adult children and the spouses at practically all family gatherings–it’s the grandchild and great-grandchild generation where there are suddenly very few attendees.

So if (totally theoretically), we grabbed my parents and moved them in with us, my grandparents would be losing their son and DIL and my uncle would be losing his brother and SIL and my auntie would be losing her brother and SIL. Oh, and my sister and her kids would be losing a set of parents and grandparents.

There’s no way to avoid some sort of loss or sacrifice.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The solution proposed (have more children) is a tough one for one reason. You are suggesting that couples abandon their personal desires/preferences that benefit them for a choice that benefits society.

I very much doubt most of us make major life altering choices based on society’s needs.