That affluent people tend to have less children than poorer people. It is kind of what third world development is all about.

But it is odd and disturbing to see it traced to greed instead of female empowerment and access to contraceptives.

Raising children is never inexpensive, but what was apparent before this article was written is that many parents spend lavishly on their offspring. Looking at the parking lotS of the highschool today as compared to one generation ago, and it is amazing that most of the cars are only a couple years old if not brand new. 16 year old's aren't buying $25K cars by flipping burgers part time.

Of course people are free to spend their money however they wish. Nevertheless, I can't help but thinking that many children might actually benefit more from having one or two parents who don't have to work 60 hour weeks in order to pay for so many extravagances. Not only that, but childen who grow up with absolutely everything are in for a real shock when they leave home and go through lean times in their 20's. We have several of these college students in my extended family, who are already plotting a return to the parents home after school where everything is oh-so-comfy and paid for. Perhaps that's the just reward for parents that overspend on luxuries for children: making home so nice that the adult children never leave.

Oh, and except for the many (or most) people whose children aren't planned to begin with, having children is a lifestyle choice. It has to be one of the most life-altering lifestyle choices there is, in fact. As far as being a consumer choice, I'm still trying to figure when the Hell we all stopped being people and started being "consumers". It makes it sound like we're parasites feeding off of something, and it seemed like we got more consideration and respect from the companies we spend our hard-earned money with when we were viewed as valued customers instead.

But still, I'd love to see an article about people like me and my spouse, who have decided not to have children for the forseeable future and possibly ever -- not because we can't afford a fucking Bugaboo stroller, but because we can't swing adequate health coverage without pissing our lives away in careers we detest, because even though we have decent jobs and do all the "right things" our retirement prospects are not good and our savings could well vanish in a heartbeat in the event of a pediatric emergency, and because the society we live in is fixing to go to the dogs any second, what with the assorted armageddonist lunatics driving the bus.

There are a lot of us. $500 high chairs? I ask you.

Contrary to what is implied in the article, I should hope that, in the age of birth control, prospective parents always run the numbers before having children. It may be really un-sentimental, but it's a lot more grown-up and responsible. Grown ups don't do things they can't afford, and, sentimentality be damned, that applies to having children!

Don't get me wrong: my liberal instincts tell me that people should have a right to as many children as they want, and those children should have a right to health and a decent education. On the other hand, my firm grasp on reality tells me that children do cost money! And if the parents don't pay for those children, society will: either up front, or later on. Then, of course, my liberal side chimes in again to remind me that it's better to have society pay for children rather than live in a world where rich people's ability to afford children confers upon them more of a right to have children. (Then again, a rich person's wealth confers upon him the right to own more cars than I do, and I'm not complaining about that...)

Finally, given that there's only 1 planet and 6.5 billion of us, I can easliy see a future where the inerrant right to reproduce will run up against the very real cost of reproducing! It would be interesting if Business Week did a follow-up article on the cost to the planet (as opposed to the prospective parents) of having 1 western child. That would be a really interesting cost/benefit analysis that would raise the hackles of left-wingers and right-wingers alike!

I started taking notice of it over the past five years. Cars are getting bigger. Ditto for houses. Listen to the thing that passes for "rock" nowadays. Compare today's peace movement to that of the 60s. Try watching Real Housewives of OC. There's just something weird going on. It's like the country is losing its soul. We're turning into a country of pod people in search more stuff, bigger stuff, shinier stuff, faster stuff.

Children as a consumer choice? Fits right into the pattern.

Yes, some people buy those $500 strollers, but a whole lot more do not. I know that children aren't exactly a financial asset as they were in the farm days, but Keerist, they're not exactly what the article makes them out to be. There are quite a lot of us who are happy with our parenting choices, and do all sorts of subversive things like visit the library, shop at Goodwill, send kids to public schools, and participate heavily in activities through the local parks department. But then, I would have done those things anyway, even if I didn't have kids.

The big thing we've given up is not consumer goods but international travel. Dragging crabby toddlers/grade schoolers across the world on adventure treks just isn't going to happen, for both financial and practical reasons.

The argument of "there are 6 billion people on the planet" isn't going to pay for our social security when it comes time to retire and there aren't enough young workers. Those young, working, producing people in the future either come from today's kids (and their kids) or they come from immigration. The "me first" crowd seems to want neither one. So, when you're 90, who is going to be your doctor? Your housecleaner? Your caregiver? It sure as hell won't be someone else who is 90.