06-18-2008, 10:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->thus it is only in a narrow age band that the investment may pay off and that too isn't assured<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Returns on investment are not assured for a majority of investments. Not just kids. Your investment in your education (software engineering, say) has gone down-the-drain if the product you have trained on is obsolete, or worse still, if you suffer brain damage in an accident or a stroke.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand if you have less kids and plan a family. then the chances are, those kids will grow up to be healthy productive individuals ( hopefully) and may support you in your old change. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your use of the phrase "hopefully" is apt. There is no guarantee here, either. Not having children is also an investment choice, and like all investment choices, there is risk here too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides if you are wise you'll have enough change left over in any case to support your retirement, as it were.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, no guarantees. But there is another issue: in the current economic situation, children tend to be more productive than their fathers. For eg. my beginner's salary was higher than my father's salary, on the day of his retirement. So, an investment in more children may be a wiser choice, in most middle-class families.
As I said, these are all investment choices, there are no guarantees here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the number two has been arrived after carrying out a particular demographic exercise taken into account fertility rates etc. However it is somewhat arbitrary vene though work has gone into determining this figure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can you cite any such work? I don't believe there has been any such demographic exercise. IMO, two kids are recommended only because of its alleged "social" or "civic" value - two would replace two. That has nothing to do with how many a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is <b>from the point of view of the family</b>.
I also have doubts about the civic utility of this choice, but that is a debate for another day.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand if you have less kids and plan a family. then the chances are, those kids will grow up to be healthy productive individuals ( hopefully) and may support you in your old change. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your use of the phrase "hopefully" is apt. There is no guarantee here, either. Not having children is also an investment choice, and like all investment choices, there is risk here too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides if you are wise you'll have enough change left over in any case to support your retirement, as it were.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, no guarantees. But there is another issue: in the current economic situation, children tend to be more productive than their fathers. For eg. my beginner's salary was higher than my father's salary, on the day of his retirement. So, an investment in more children may be a wiser choice, in most middle-class families.
As I said, these are all investment choices, there are no guarantees here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the number two has been arrived after carrying out a particular demographic exercise taken into account fertility rates etc. However it is somewhat arbitrary vene though work has gone into determining this figure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can you cite any such work? I don't believe there has been any such demographic exercise. IMO, two kids are recommended only because of its alleged "social" or "civic" value - two would replace two. That has nothing to do with how many a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is <b>from the point of view of the family</b>.
I also have doubts about the civic utility of this choice, but that is a debate for another day.