Having a Second Child May Be the Worst Thing You Can Do For Your First
Author: Nick
Category: Money
Topics: economy, family

Good news for all you fans of eating food so you can live: short-term food prices are expected to finally ease following a period of soaring food prices. The bad news: food prices are expected to continue climbing faster than in past years for the foreseeable future.
Fingers continue to be pointed at various “root causes” of the skyrocketing food prices. If you put four different economic analysts in a room, you’d get a list of causes a mile long, and that list would certainly include things like currency devaluation, oil prices, food being converted to fuel, and obese Americans who like to eat anything that isn’t nailed down. And each of those economic analysts could probably provide a dozen reasons why each of those causes isn’t as important as the others.
But whether you’re an economic analyst, oil tycoon, or obese American, there’s little arguing against one important fact of life: the demand for everything is growing. The world population continues to grow, and with more people comes more demand for food, oil, gold, silver, copper, silicone, and dozens of other commodities. The last time I checked, the Earth itself is not growing proportionately to the increase in population; in fact, it isn’t growing at all! So more people end up fighting over a fixed set of resources, and you don’t need an economic analyst to remind you about the concept of supply and demand.
On a large scale, the rapidly growing world population will pose problems across the map for big countries like the United States and Russia as well as the smaller countries nobody really cares about. On a smaller scale, large families will feel the hurt much more as consumable goods become more and more expensive. Consider this example: A family of three (mom, dad, son) currently survives and thrives on just 70% of mom and dad’s income. Mom and dad do the math and decide to have a second child. Their reasoning is that, if each family member comes with a proportionate amount of expenses, another child would only take 20-25% of their current income to support—something they can clearly afford… right now. But what if the cost of living goes up much faster than the family income (say, twice as fast)? It might only take a few years before the family can no longer keep up with the same quality of life they had before. Here’s a graphic that illustrates this situation:

In the table above, assume the family income grows by 3% per year but the cost of living jumps 6% annually. The family can raise one child to adulthood quite comfortably even with the inflation rate growing faster than the family income, but adding a second child to the mix could mean the family will hit money troubles before the second kid hits kindergarten.
Of course, this scenario makes a lot of assumptions. A hard-working family may be able to keep up with cost of living increases no matter how high prices go. And there are always cost-cutting measures families can take for those years when things get a little too pricey. But this situation is probably more common in today’s society than most people think. So what usually happens when that two-child family hits the point when their expenses exceed their income? Probably they cut costs, partially to the detriment of their firstborn. Sorry, Billy, you can’t have a book to read because your younger sister needs braces. The one-child family, in the meantime, just bought their eight-year-old a new Lexus.
I’m not going to tell you that you should only have one child. But I will tell you that you shouldn’t have two or more children. Otherwise you won’t be able to shower your firstborn with the total sum of your monetary love, so he or she will grow up to have eight children out of spite. Then food will cost $80 a pound, gas $30 a gallon, and gold $5,000 an ounce.
All just because you thought having two children wasn’t such a big deal.

19 Responses »
1.
s. jennifer rose
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I plan to use less silicone by only getting one breast implant.
By the way, that’s less of a “graph” and more of a table…
2.
Nick
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I didn’t feel like deleting, so I added an -ic. Now it’s a graphic.
3.
Rachel @ Master Your Card
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
I had both my children at once so hopefully they will not have to be suffering on behalf of each other but maybe just sharing more things. My husband wants to send them out to work instead of to school and rom looking at your figures I think that he might have a good point!
4.
rocketc
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
I apologize for causing the food shortage. I am both obese and have three children.
Do I have to go to jail or something?
5.
Kyle
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am
I’m sending this to my friend who wants to have like 19,572 children.
6.
Nick
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
rocketc, neither jail nor eating your children is the solution!
Wait, you didn’t suggest eating your children.
Carry on.
7.
Jim Ontos
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
This sounds just like the One Child China Policy. China’s leaders came to the same conclusion using a similar rational to limit the number and impact of having more than one child. Where did you say you were from?
8.
Angela Fuller
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Having lots of children can make financial sense, as long as you are willing to bend child labor laws
Kathy Lee
9.
Michelle Cox
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
What about my cat? I have a cat instead of a child. If I get a second cat, will my first cat suffer?
10.
Nick
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Michelle, if you have even one cat, obviously someone didn’t listen to Bob Barker and have their pets spayed or neutered.
11.
Lamar
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
How about no kids?
12.
Mrs. Micah
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
@ Angela…worked for my old boss. But then apparently after a certain age it’s legit for kids to work in their parents’ business.
13.
Chris
June 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
What if you have midgets? They probably cost less than full size people.
14.
Gemstones
June 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
That comic is awesome. He is probably the smartest time traveler I have ever seen.
15.
Nick
June 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
@Gemstones, you’ve seen others?
16.
Maria
June 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
My husband is one of nine. I have 10 brothers and sisters. We have three kids under 5 and are going strong.
All three families (his, mine, ours) produce the bulk of their food. So … my children are producers, yours would be consumers.
So whose kids are a drain on society and the food supply?
17.
Chris
June 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ma’am…that’s a vagina, not a clown car.
18.
Nursery Furniture
June 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Big families = more children = more manpower to create more food sources.
Sorted!
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] Money is always creative, and sometimes also provocative: Having a second child may be the worst thing you do to your first. Disputes, [...]
Pingback by » June Link Love - What Other Bloggers Have To Say # The Shark Investor — June 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm