06-18-2008, 02:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.
Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" . the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda. the moment women start getting educated and have a voice all grand conquer the world strategies start falling apart.
while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.
Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" . the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda. the moment women start getting educated and have a voice all grand conquer the world strategies start falling apart.
while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.