06-18-2008, 11:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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investment in your education (software engineering, say) has gone down-the-drain if the product you have trained on is obsolete, or worse still, if you suffer brain damage in an accident or a stroke.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While investments are never devoid of risk, there is always the possibility of managing risk better.. when dealing with family size uncertainty isn't that programmable and certainly not by poor folks in ghettos. Having said that the Ghetto gives the wrong signals about family size. it is believed that the commune will allow more kids to be reared than otherwise possible and parents calibrate their expectations accordingly. But as i have said in the earlier post not all these kids end up being turned into foot soldiers or anything for that matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright , here I would just like to point out a few things. Children may not be really be earning more than their parents in real terms i.e when you take into account inflation. of course it could be argued that at least the number of consumption possibilities is greater today , on account of access to consumption loans etc , but not really. Credit isn't free ( UPA loan waiver notwithstanding) and ultimately your consumption basket is determined by your real income, spread over time and discounted of course.
Secondly , from the point of view of society , higher incomes may not necessarily mean higher productivity. wages are typically different from marginal products, as it were, on account of market imperfections.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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 may a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is from the point of view of the family.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there was some work done at ISI under the auspices of the Planning commission . I'll look into it. what you are saying is basically that its all some arbitrary Hum do , Hamaare do philosophy. Of course, like you said its not really sacrosanct , but I feel that it is unlikely that the optimum will be 3 or 4.
While investments are never devoid of risk, there is always the possibility of managing risk better.. when dealing with family size uncertainty isn't that programmable and certainly not by poor folks in ghettos. Having said that the Ghetto gives the wrong signals about family size. it is believed that the commune will allow more kids to be reared than otherwise possible and parents calibrate their expectations accordingly. But as i have said in the earlier post not all these kids end up being turned into foot soldiers or anything for that matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright , here I would just like to point out a few things. Children may not be really be earning more than their parents in real terms i.e when you take into account inflation. of course it could be argued that at least the number of consumption possibilities is greater today , on account of access to consumption loans etc , but not really. Credit isn't free ( UPA loan waiver notwithstanding) and ultimately your consumption basket is determined by your real income, spread over time and discounted of course.
Secondly , from the point of view of society , higher incomes may not necessarily mean higher productivity. wages are typically different from marginal products, as it were, on account of market imperfections.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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 may a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is from the point of view of the family.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there was some work done at ISI under the auspices of the Planning commission . I'll look into it. what you are saying is basically that its all some arbitrary Hum do , Hamaare do philosophy. Of course, like you said its not really sacrosanct , but I feel that it is unlikely that the optimum will be 3 or 4.