Thread: People having many kids vs people choosing to have few or none

I noticed that a lot of families (in America at least) who have a lot of kids are typically lower middle class to lower class families. They will have 3 to 5 children, sometimes more. Then I look to middle class and upper class families who typically have 1 or 2, if any at all. This isn't just a race/color thing, it seems to be a financial thing. I don't understand why people who have more wouldn't want more or any vs those who have less and have more kids. It would just make life harder, no? And the other would be far easier.

Why do you think this is happening?

There's welfare, or benefits in the UK. A lot of working class people here are eligible for benefits if they have children. Immigrants or refugees sometimes spawn lots of sprogs so they can live off that welfare. I think it's often lower class single mothers who have more children as it allows them to apply for a higher-rate carer allowance. If she has a partner, his/her income combined with that allowance helps them out financially.

On the other hand, middle/upper-class people of course don't have a reason to claim welfare. They have the money to not struggle with any serious financial crises and with their often-shorter workweeks (at least in western society) they have more time to devote to good parenting. Since they'll have a stronger desire to have children follow in their successful footsteps and also become successful, having one child (or perhaps two) allows them to manage this better as it's obviously easier to educate a single child properly.

However, I just pulled most of that out of my arse. Just my best guess at how this works.

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

I noticed that a lot of families (in America at least) who have a lot of kids are typically lower middle class to lower class families. They will have 3 to 5 children, sometimes more. Then I look to middle class and upper class families who typically have 1 or 2, if any at all. This isn't just a race/color thing, it seems to be a financial thing. I don't understand why people who have more wouldn't want more or any vs those who have less and have more kids. It would just make life harder, no? And the other would be far easier.

Why do you think this is happening?

They say kids are expensive. So maybe that's why they are wealthy in the first place because they have fewer mouths to feed and send to schools. Regarding couples who have more kids but have less in life financially, I can't say.

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

I noticed that a lot of families (in America at least) who have a lot of kids are typically lower middle class to lower class families. They will have 3 to 5 children, sometimes more. Then I look to middle class and upper class families who typically have 1 or 2, if any at all. This isn't just a race/color thing, it seems to be a financial thing. I don't understand why people who have more wouldn't want more or any vs those who have less and have more kids. It would just make life harder, no? And the other would be far easier.

Why do you think this is happening?

In the Philippines it's the same, lower income bracket families and those living in the slums and far provinces have more kids, some even have more than 10 kids. Unlike the middle class and upper class families which tends to have just 1 to 3 kids. I can understand that in provinces, in which there's a lot of farms, having a lot of kids means a lot of free labor. But in slums poor families are just as active in making babies. It's said that the reason for this is since most couples living in slums doesn't have permanent jobs they tend to stay at home a lot and that means more unprotected sex hence more babies. When it comes to more affluent families one or two kids are enough because both parents are either busy with their careers or businesses, they work long hours and goes home exhausted. This means less sex, fewer pregnancies and more money.

Originally Posted by Kakashi2020

In the Philippines it's the same, lower income bracket families and those living in the slums and far provinces have more kids, some even have more than 10 kids. Unlike the middle class and upper class families which tends to have just 1 to 3 kids. I can understand that in provinces, in which there's a lot of farms, having a lot of kids means a lot of free labor. But in slums poor families are just as active in making babies. It's said that the reason for this is since most couples living in slums doesn't have permanent jobs they tend to stay at home a lot and that means more unprotected sex hence more babies. When it comes to more affluent families one or two kids are enough because both parents are either busy with their careers or businesses, they work long hours and goes home exhausted. This means less sex, fewer pregnancies and more money.

One would think to take safe sex seriously because if you are struggling to just support yourself, how would you support a bunch of kids?

Like pointing out about, I know a lot of people do this knowing the governments in certain countries will support them so they feel less obligated I guess. Back in the day it seemed like middle and upper class families had a lot more kids and maybe that is down to how the family unit worked. Women would primarily stay home and the men would work so someone was there to supply resources and the other was there to watch after the kids. However, I see couples today where only the man works (or in rarer cases, only the woman) and they don't need the second income yet don't want children at all or only 1 or 2.

Part of me thinks we are getting lazier as time goes on LOL

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

One would think to take safe sex seriously because if you are struggling to just support yourself, how would you support a bunch of kids?

Like pointing out about, I know a lot of people do this knowing the governments in certain countries will support them so they feel less obligated I guess. Back in the day it seemed like middle and upper class families had a lot more kids and maybe that is down to how the family unit worked. Women would primarily stay home and the men would work so someone was there to supply resources and the other was there to watch after the kids. However, I see couples today where only the man works (or in rarer cases, only the woman) and they don't need the second income yet don't want children at all or only 1 or 2.

Part of me thinks we are getting lazier as time goes on LOL

I don't think you're too far off the mark. I come from a very low income family myself, and I think it boils down to ignorance on some level. There's a lot of people, good people who simply just don't know how to utilize money as effectively as they can. It's a tool, not a means to get by. Use it wrong, and you'll find that all you'll actually be using it for is to get by.

Me and my gf have been together (living together) now for a couple of years +, and we understand the need to splurge on ourselves to break the monotony, but for the most part we're very focused on our career/businesses that we have. We have talked about kids, but not soon.

Originally Posted by Kakashi2020

I can understand that in provinces, in which there's a lot of farms, having a lot of kids means a lot of free labor. But in slums poor families are just as active in making babies. It's said that the reason for this is since most couples living in slums doesn't have permanent jobs they tend to stay at home a lot and that means more unprotected sex hence more babies.

Exactly. I can't think of any reason too. I'm not judging people from the slums, but most of the time I believe unprotected sex is all they do. Especially those places where there's no source of electricity and all they have at night are romantic candle lights.

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

One would think to take safe sex seriously because if you are struggling to just support yourself, how would you support a bunch of kids?

Like pointing out about, I know a lot of people do this knowing the governments in certain countries will support them so they feel less obligated I guess. Back in the day it seemed like middle and upper class families had a lot more kids and maybe that is down to how the family unit worked. Women would primarily stay home and the men would work so someone was there to supply resources and the other was there to watch after the kids. However, I see couples today where only the man works (or in rarer cases, only the woman) and they don't need the second income yet don't want children at all or only 1 or 2.

Part of me thinks we are getting lazier as time goes on LOL

I know what you mean, times are a changing and gone where the days where affluent families would have plenty of children. I guess rich couples just wants to have more fun, travelling and enjoying life and pregnancy and childbirth tends to interrupt that kind of lifestyle. But some still have a lot of kids but with different women like our politicians, movie stars and business personalities.

Poor families are having a lot of kids because of free education and the government subsidies kids parents are getting. Here the mentality of poor families is the more kids they have, the more chances one of them would strike it rich and help the family out of poverty. Sadly most end up on the streets, in gangs or addicted to drugs.