I totally understand that the replacement rate is 2.1 today. But it is really misrepresenting the data to show a graph comparing changing fertility rates but a constant replacement rate. You are incorrect about the premise, if only subtly. The premise is not that fertility rates need to be above 2.1, it is that fertility rates need to be above the replacement rate (which just happens to be 2.1 currently).
Why in the world would a parent in an urban, industrialized country have a bunch of kids? They're tremendously expensive in terms of money, time, and energy, and while the satisfaction and love you experience raising your children to adulthood is no doubt wonderful, there's a diminishing marginal return - you don't become nine times as happy by having nine kids, but you do have nine times the cost and time demands No thanks. I'll have two kids and call it a day.
Not true. Having nine kids does not cost nine times as much as having one kid. You have hand-me-down clothes and toys, strollers and cribs, etc. Day-care centers frequently have sibling discounts. As far as time, when you have nine kids, the older kids are typically helping with child-care. Don't get me wrong, our second kid is due in about three weeks and we plan on stopping there so I agree with your thought. Diminishing returns does affect both cost and benefit, though.
Good luck with your second! I've got two, one about to graduate from college, thank god, and we have found nothing cheaper about having two of the wonderful buggers. As far as time goes, having 2 is more than twice as demanding. One was relatively easy. I think that's why people have two. Then they find out how much more is involved, and stop there. It's my theory, at any rate, and I'm sticking with it.
Have you really thought about this? If we are talking about the traditional American life. That means 9 birthdays a year, 9 presents for Christmas, 9 haloween costumes, 9 round plane tickets everytime you go on a vacation, 2 SUV's as oppose to one if you are all going to the same place, more individuals using water, gas and electricity. Once you have your second and your kids starts fighting, running and taking control of your whole life, please let us know if 9 is the same as 2.
That's not what he said. Those are all true but what you cited are linear growths in cost (minus the SUV where you get diminishing returns until you require the 2nd SUV) While those costs are generally linear there are some costs that diminish with each additional child (like hand me downs, child care, etc..). That makes the overall cost of an additional child to diminish (although in America the diminishing returns aren't that large compared to how they were in say the 1800s) Also no one is saying having 9 children is a good cost-saving move, only that there are some diminishing costs when adding kids. Overall 9 kids is insane and no one with any sense (in my opinion anyway) should be purposefully choosing to raise 9 kids.
Why don't we list all the things that have diminishing returns and compare it to the other list of linear events. With regards to childcare, you are getting X% discount on the next child as oppose to having 100% discount if you don't have to put another child in day care. This is the same marketing propaganda which states, "the more money you spend, the more money you will save" - I don't buy it. If you factor in college, then it is not even close.
