I know that cost is higher today.. but still, they made less money, 50, 60, 70 years ago.
2007-02-17 10:03:44 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes, crankj, I did mean to say that proportionally things cost less back then, but still, even if it was proportional, they had to support kids, which would be the same compared to today. I understand what you mean though
2007-02-17 10:17:58 · update #1
Yes, crankj, I did mean to say that proportionally things cost less back then, but still, even if it was proportional, they had to support kids, which would be the same compared to today. I understand what you mean though
2007-02-17 10:18:05 · update #2
Yes, crankj, I did mean to say that proportionally things cost less back then, but still, even if it was proportional, they had to support kids, which would be the same compared to today. I understand what you mean though
2007-02-17 10:18:09 · update #3
Sorry for all the details!
2007-02-17 10:18:40 · update #4
needed the kiddos' to work the farm back then
2007-02-17 10:14:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are still plenty of big families around. I know plenty of people with 3-4, but there has been a decline in 4+ families.
I think a big part of it is that even 50 years ago, if you had four kids, they'd be supporting themselves a lot sooner. If you graduated high school, you could get a decent job that would pay a decent enough wage to get a decent house. Now everyone expects you to put your kids through 30k-per-year college. Who can afford that for six kids?
You might also want to adjust for inflation in your numbers about people making less money, though. My dad got 35 cents a week when he was a kid in the 60s, but everything cost less proportionally. I.e, a dollar is a lot or little money depending on how much everything else costs. If you make 150k a year it's not that impressive if a studio apartment in a **** neighborhood costs 10k a month.
2007-02-17 18:12:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are countries where large families are a common occurrence. You don't see it in America as much because of the reason you already stated: cost. But I think that even though you can't see large families doesn't mean they aren't there; you just have to know where to look. Go to Utah, and you'll probably find more than you can stand...
2007-02-17 18:08:54 · answer #3 · answered by knight2001us 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Birth control is the first thing- people don't *have* to chose between having a big family and celibacy.
Also, the economics of our world today make it hard for a woman to have the downtime pregnancy tends to bring. She needs to be out making $, whether she wants to or not.
2007-02-17 18:08:27 · answer #4 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because now we have contraception! Before they had NO choice at all! Do you think they all really wanted all those kids? They just had that many kid because there was nothing they could do about it (except not having sex).
2007-02-17 18:09:14 · answer #5 · answered by Offkey 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Women are too busy working trying to keep both ends meeting to meet both ends.
2007-02-17 18:16:13 · answer #6 · answered by Midge 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government is working hard to destroy the family. they made children unprofitable with child labor laws,and they made them unnecessary with social security ( what a joke). *(for supporting you in your old age, that is). then in books, and tv it is presented as "normal" to have a small family, and retarded to have a large one.
2007-02-17 18:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by hasse_john 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most marriages today don't last long
enough to have that many children.
2007-02-17 18:07:47 · answer #8 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have better birthcontrolls these days.
2007-02-17 18:07:16 · answer #9 · answered by fresch2 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
persons cant afford it.
2007-02-17 18:51:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋