Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (94634)	9/15/2012 3:34:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217712

Haim, the cost of living has been falling for hundreds of years. < Only 100 short years ago it was a very common occurrence that a family had 4 to 7 children if not more in Europe or N. America. Today the cost of living and the cost of the "nanny" restrains the birth rate. > It is now absurdly cheap to raise children. The problem is people want to spend money on Starbucks coffee and frippery of a thousand types. They are not willing to live from a sack of potatoes [I mean an actual sack, not cute printed bags from a supermarket], sack of onions, sack of rice, cabbages and lemon trees and a vegetable garden with hens eating worms and scraps. That would be too much like work and too boring for them. Cutting wood for fires for copper and kitchen stove was actual work taking real time. Flicking a switch for gas, electricity and induction hob is very simple and very cheap. In 5 minutes people can earn enough electricity to power dinner cooking. Tree cutting was not so simple or cheap. Buy a sack of potatoes and a packet of potato chips/crisps. Compare the cost per kilogram and also compare the nutrient content. See whether a cabbage is cheaper than a Big Mac. People think a Big Mac is cheap food for poor people. No it's not. You have a misguided idea of human nature < The solution - multiple husbands to wait in line for spending an intimate night with the coveted wife and share the economic burden of raising the many children> While women might like the cash flow from multiple husbands, I doubt the men would enjoy the queue for a worn out, uninterested shared wife who would develop "headaches" which would lead to arguments over the roster and whose turn it was next, followed by depopulation. Moslems have got the ratio about right with 4 women for each man, rather than the reverse. But for the most part, humans go for pair-bonding, like ducks. It's a successful process. The main limit for having children is not economic, it's sociological. Women do not want to have so many children. Men don't either. Women like one these days and make hard work of that since they have not had experience or training by example. In the good old days, babies were all over the place and any spare pair of arms was given a baby to hold. "I was left holding the baby" is an expression you might know. Mqurice

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (94634)	9/15/2012 4:34:09 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217712

(1) <<Where you thinking of the possibility that the main limit for bearing children is economic? >> actually i do not. devotion is the other limit, as expressed mathematically as 'share of time' the many wives one husband solution would probably work better than the many husbands one wife formulae, given the math of (i) how long it takes a wife to incubate a baby (9 months), relative to longevity of any one wife, (ii) how much each wife weakens as more babies come into being, resulting in possibly weaker babies, and (iii) how much time and devotion it takes to bring up any one baby to adulthood by, primarily, the baby's mama just chemistry, math, physics, psychology, and the humanities (2) <<If so why not a woman that wants more children should have several husbands to support her, the children and pay for the needed "nanny" ? >> simply put, the guys who must share the cost of one wife bearing however many kids probably are not qualified to be dads (3) <<The solution - multiple husbands to wait in line for spending an intimate night with the coveted wife and share the economic burden of raising the many children>> would not work well, because on average, given the odds, many kids would be abandoned by their biological dads, since dads tend to do such much more than moms