Children are the crystallization of love
This is a consensus reached in modern society since entering modern civilization.
However, with the rapid operation of modern society, raising children is becoming more and more a cost-effective biological behavior.
Seeing these two sentences above, you must think I am here to advise you not to have children. The above ideas of
are very wrong.
Through the calculation of probability, I first throw out my point of view:
In Chinese society, the best choice is to have more children ( or more optimal ), followed by not having children, and having only one child is the worst choice.
Because there is a lot of content today, I won’t be smart enough to make up the word count and go straight to the topic.
Look at the first data:
As of 2018, the total population of China was 1.39 billion, the death toll was 9.93 million, and the death toll of population was 7.13‰, of which the average number of abnormal deaths exceeded 3.2 million per year, accounting for 2.3‰.
Remember this data: an abnormal population mortality rate of 2.3 per thousand.
Let’s have another cold thinking:
If you take giving birth to a child as an investment, how many years will it take to pay for purely cost?
What is the time period for ?
calculates the path of the middle class in Chinese society:
an an ordinary child usually graduates from college at around 22 years old. In the first three years of work, he is basically unlikely to make too much money and basically has no ability to give back to his parents.
In other words, a Chinese child is a period of cost-paying for his parents in the first 25 years of his life. (This sentence is not to advise you not to have children, don’t think too much.)
If everything goes well, a Chinese child should be able to complete the major life events of marrying and having children at the age of 25-35 (we assume that he has completed the three major tasks of buying a house, getting married and having children by himself), and he will not be able to effectively give back to his parents during this period.
If everything goes well, the time period for a Chinese child to truly start giving back to his parents financially is between the ages of 35 and 45, because this stage is the peak period of his ability to make money (retirement at the age of 35 in the Internet market is not an ordinary phenomenon in the entire industry); the ages of 45-55 mainly give back to his parents emotionally and physically (at this stage, parents are basically over 70 years old, and their biggest need is actually the life care of their children).
Then, we need to calculate a number next:
If 0-35 years old is regarded as the cost-paying period of a Chinese child, then during these 35 years, his cumulative abnormal mortality rate is: 8.05% (see clearly, it is 8.05%).
If the age of 0-45 is regarded as the investment maturity period of a Chinese child, then during these 45 years, his cumulative abnormal mortality rate is: 10.3% (see clearly, it is 10.3 percent).
Let's think coldly again:
You couple spent the best 45 years in your life, spending a lot of time, energy and wealth to invest in a product (maybe some of your parents' time and energy), but this product has a chance that 100 in these 45 years, which will make all your efforts go to pieces.
Seeing this data, do you still think that only one child will have?
* * * * * * * * * * *
The process of data analysis is finished. Let’s start my favorite part of toxic chicken soup:
If you only have one child, in 45 years, your family has a 10.3% chance of becoming a single family.
If you have two children, your family has only a 5.1% chance of becoming a single-lost family in 45 years.
If you have three children, your family has only a 3.4% chance of becoming a single-lost family in 45 years.
and so on.
From the perspective of cost-effectiveness, having more than three children can greatly reduce the probability of black swan coming.
I know that when I see this, someone must be ready to refute me:
farts, the cost of having three children will also triple!
My answer is:
If you must follow the regular path to raise three children, the cost of raising three children will inevitably triple.
If you can choose the social Darwinism parenting method, the cost of raising three children will be much lower than you expect.
Chinese middle-class families who really have children will admit this reality:
In raising children, the educational level of efforts account for more than 90% of the total support cost. What’s even more strange is that public education in China is basically free before college. Where can I spend
00?
money is spent on unwilling to accept it.
Most Chinese parents expect to change the fate of their children through education, or at least maintain the entire family class.
This is the fundamental reason why Chinese parents invest unlimitedly in the cost of their children’s education.
But the cruel fact is:
Children with good reading do not need parents to spend money to become beneficiaries of the entire education system.
(Parents who have academic masters at home can proudly raise their hands).
This part of children who are ordinary or poor in reading bears 90% of the cost of the entire education system.
so can we think rationally about a simple cost-effectiveness question:
is to have a few more children, and the probability of betting that one of the children is born to be a top student is higher?
Or is it more likely that he will become a top student through the extreme education investment of his family?
The former only needs to perform some kind of exercise for a few dozen minutes at most, and it will take more than ten years of continuous overinvestment.
Take the TV series "Everything is OK" as a case. The Su family has three children. The first two boys are all intensive, one is a top student and the other is a poor student. The latter girl is basically not raised much, but she becomes the child who crosses the class.
Let's only talk about probability:
If only one of the two elders of the Su family gave birth to one, and unfortunately the second one, wouldn't it be unlucky?
If two are born, there is a 50% chance of getting one academic master or one social elite.
If you have three students, you will have a 66% chance of choosing the best at least one student or social elite.
From a probability perspective, the quality of fertility can never replace the number of fertility.
is not because there are more people and more power, but the more people, the greater the probability of you getting the king.
As a experienced person, my personal suggestion:
Let’s have a few more children.
When I have more than one child, my biggest feeling as a parent is that I am no longer anxious.
I can relatively objectively evaluate the strengths of each child and allocate family resources relatively objectively.
The most important thing is that everyone in the family seems to have gained a relatively normal mind.
Someone asked me:
Why is choosing DINK not the best choice?
If you choose DINK, you will be happy in the front and miserable in the back.
Because in the future Chinese society, the increase in labor cost will exceed your imagination.
The United Nations regards the proportion of the elderly population aged 65 and above or the proportion of the population aged 60 and above as the standard for entering an aging society. According to this standard, China has entered an aging society since 2000. In 2018, the size of the elderly population aged 60 and above in my country was 249 million, accounting for 17.9% of the total population. In 2019, my country's population aged 60 and above was 253.88 million, accounting for 18.1% of the total population, and 176.03 million people aged 65 and above, accounting for 12.6% of the total population.
According to the current population growth rate, by 2030, the population over 65 years old in China will exceed Japan; by 2050, the population over 65 years old in China will reach 30%.
Don’t expect the future birth rate to suddenly soar. No country that has entered modern society can reverse this trend so far (the younger population structure in the United States depends on the high fertility rate of immigration or ethnic minorities).
Don’t pin your hopes on Artificial intelligence and advanced home care robots. The breakthrough in technology is also a low-probability event within 30 years.
Choosing as DINK means that you will slowly entrust your life after 70 to strangers.
Unless you are particularly rich, you can exchange money for advanced life care. If you are just an ordinary person, believe me, the money you earned in the first half of your life will most likely be handed over to families with many children in a strange way.
As time goes by, the health, IQ and rationality you are proud of when you were young will slowly leave you. One day, your body and intelligence will decline to a trough at the same time (the trough that you cannot take care of yourself in basic life).
In an aging society, raising children to prevent old age is not a joke.
In order to avoid personal attacks, I won’t talk about some cruel topics in depth.
If you are not married yet, the purpose of this article today is certainly not to make you a DINK, but to start thinking about a question:
What is the best choice for your personal destiny?
More children are undoubtedly the least bad choice.
