Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definitely have kids. Times get bad; times get better. It's all cyclical, and goes 'round and 'round.
BUT if you have kids, be sure to raise them with your values. You can't do this with both parents too busy to pay much attention to them (e.g. nose stuck in a smartphone), and leaving it to the school system (e.g. the "state") to indoctrinate them as they wish.
Definitely have kids. Times get bad; times get better. It's all cyclical, and goes 'round and 'round.
BUT if you have kids, be sure to raise them with your values. You can't do this with both parents too busy to pay much attention to them (e.g. nose stuck in a smartphone), and leaving it to the school system (e.g. the "state") to indoctrinate them as they wish.
In a future after the collapse of socialism, where there is no public charity, no retirement pensions, and one’s family will be the only means of support when one is old and infirm, a large brood of children will be a necessity, to minimize the burden.
HOMEMAKER RENAISSANCE
When women have 4 to 10 children, it’s more practical and logical for them to remain at home, as mothers, care givers, and teachers, than to seek careers outside of the home. Men will resume their role as sole providers, supporting their wives and children. The traditional family and gender division of labor will become the norm, not the exception. The days of career women and mothers, working outside the house will be over.
No one is arguing for backwards progress.
The collapse of socialism is a given.
It cannot be sustained. It eventually runs out of "other people's money" as well as "other people's children" (to tax).
Europe and other socialist nations are suffering depopulation. The 'greying of Europe' is well known - and the consequences of an aged infirm population and a small tax base has them scared witless.
. . .
If the women do not have more children, there will be insufficient numbers to support them in their old age. I foresee utter collapse -or worse.
If the post socialist world wishes to go extinct, then it shall.
But if that error is rectified, and women start having far more children, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to have a career outside of the home -and- have that many children.
It is illogical to assume otherwise.
Ergo, the only logical conclusion is the return to pre-socialist gender based vocations, where the majority of women are wives, mothers, homemakers, and teachers.
I know several women who have 3+ kids and work outside the home.
I agree one parent should be with the kids, but the gender is irrelevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.