2007-03-16 14:00:47 · 13 answers · asked by september 2 in Social Science ➔ Economics
To provide for a stable economy an average of 2.1, which is replacement level. In the long run, more and we will become overpopulated, less and the economy will have trouble because there will be a shortage of new workers as the older ones retire. Since the US has had birth rates below replacement level since the 1970's we are making up the difference with immigrants.
2007-03-16 15:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Normally I would say 2 kids would be right and have no more than a year or two between them. Now I doubt I would have any with the way things are in the world. The economy and war all over the Mid East and we have no manufacturing left in this country any longer. It has all been sold out to foreign Nations. I'm not trying to be a doom and gloomer but it's something to think about any more. Kids coming out of collage now with a degree are having to work what was a menial job for the un-educated 30 or 40 years ago. So many think our economy here in America is doing alright but it's not at all. Our basic financial structure is gone. They used to call the Clinton economy which was really going strong as a false economy but nothing compares to what we have now. Lots are working but it's all in the service area of America. We have to have something to sell the rest of the world in order to have a valid money system now days and we don't.
2007-03-16 21:23:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had a child, and my husband had two when we got married. Then we had two together. We have 5 together.And I can tell you, it's rough sometimes! Trying to spread yourself out between all of them and give them the same amount of attention is hard! When I give one a piggyback ride, the other four are jumping up and down saying "me next! me next!"So by the time I get to all five, I'm ready to collapse. (you can't show favoritism, of course) And it always seems like when you make one happy, another is upset, and so on and so on. I wouldn't give any of them up, of course, the more you have, the more you get used to it. And they are all special. Sometimes I feel, though, that I cannot give to them the individual attention I want to at times. I would say, to have the closeness you want with your children, don't have more than three. Beyond that, it gets very difficult to tend to every emotional need, and "boo-boo" , and basicly just giving them the attention they desire as children. Kids desire alot, and between the five of them, plus husband time, and the very little me time, there's hardly any of you left. Plus daycare is expensive, which is the reason I can't work, because the amount we would spend on daycare would be more than what I'd be bringing home. And the thought of them as teenagers, they already eat us out of house and home! I choose not to think about that just yet. Then there is the cost of holidays and birthdays. I love my kids, and would never give them up. But sometimes I do wander if the attention I am giving to them is enough for them to feel loved. I can really only hope and do the best I can.
2007-03-16 21:33:33 · answer #3 · answered by Lindsey H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The traditional number has been 2 children - specifically, a boy and then a girl. However, from being around my married friends who have kids, three children seems to be the ideal number.
2007-03-16 21:12:52 · answer #4 · answered by Cindy B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In todays day and age I think 1 or 2. Back in the day it would have been 5-9 because of all the farms. There was a need for farm help. Not the case anymore.
2007-03-16 21:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by Adam B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i come from a family of five and to me it's hell becuase of all the noise and it stresses me out SOOOO much
my friend is an only child and he's resorted to taking his cats and doing stuff with them like play cards or something because he's lonely
now for psological health, i would say that 2-4 would be a good way to go, i myself would say 3 because it's a tie-breaking number
2007-03-16 21:16:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The number you end up with!
2007-03-16 21:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by cher I 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is between the 2 people in the couple.
Some should have none, and some should have a few, and some should have many.
Good luck
2007-03-16 21:06:33 · answer #8 · answered by Croa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the national average is like 1.5
I never could understand that.. I mean you would think they would round up its a human being after all!!
2007-03-16 21:09:35 · answer #9 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the national average is 2.2 kids. I have not figured out yet how that is possible.
2007-03-16 21:21:26 · answer #10 · answered by ragincajun1957 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋