‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’

[3Boys]

concern2:

3Boys:

My grandparents on both sides had a total of 15 children between them, with a much lower level of resources than we have now. And don't tell me that raising kids is more stressful these days than before, to me that is the biggest C*** of all.

Yes, 3Boys. But did your grandparents have 15 kids because they listened to the govt? My point was not to say raising kids is more stressful these days. Ksi is quite right to point out that it not about incentive or disincentives (remember I did also mention we need no perks or goodies for budget?)

Too much garmen intervention is not good for people. Not too precise in communicating my thoughts, but I guess that would be closer to my point.

Ok, I get it. Thanks.

[Way2GO]

3Boys:

We talk a lot about the previous 2 child policy as a big excuse or disincentive to procreation. How many of us in this forum have children conceived under those conditions?


Its ancient history, we use as a stick to beat the g'ment to vent our frustrations, nothing more.

Having children is a personal choice, I don't hold it against anyone for choosing not to have children, whatever the reason. But to blame the g'ment or lack of incentives, to me, is pure BS.

Pardon the language, but this irritates me no end. I just can't see any of my kids as being the result of an 'incentive'.

Of coz d previous Stop at 2 policy has an impact on current pop.
Take a look at how d Fabonacci sequence tracks d pop growth of rabbits.
If d pop growth wasn't curtailed then, it can be argued dat d total local pop wld be greater now.
So there is some validity to ppl raising dat as a counterpoint.

However, I wld agree dat its unfair to pin it on d gahmen now
since there were good valid reasons to implement dat policy at dat point in history.
Circumstances change so policy must change with it.

[Way2GO]

d number of emigrants seemed to be missing in d equation.

how many leave SGP shores for d last 10 years or more?
Why is NPTD (national Population & Talent Div) silent on dis?
In tracking pop change, I think dis has to accounted for.

[buds]

janet_lee88:

buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

Procreation ? That is not the difficult thing..it's the bringing up that is TOUGH.
Romancing own spouse...I get the pic...I think many here also :rotflmao: With you-know-who expelled and those 2 men romancing SAME woman...better be specific now.

Specific oredi leh. Spouse means... A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
The 2 men oredi have spouses so the same woman they shared... emmm..
NOT! :rant:

[buds]

3Boys:

buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

O yeah, need to be specific eh? :evil:

In the light of things of late... guess one can never be too specific?
Aniwaes, i wanted to have only one. But i have three! The other two
were... ermm.. .. accidents .. so it means that i got accidental incentives.



That said, we still love them all the same.. yes.. incentives or not.. accidents
or not. :please:

Btw, when you mentioned in another post about \"if we're good at pro-creating..\" :romance:

...with three children now, i consider good already le ba.. :please: My hubs not FT
btw.. so i added three Singaporean children to the pool liao. :grphug:

[Daddy D]

Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

[limlim]

3Boys:

I think if we were all better at procreation, we will have much lower dependence on FTs.

New slogan..

do NOT \"STOP AT TWO\"...... :evil: :evil:

and

\"TWO is NOT Enuff\"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Stop-at-Two.jpg

[buds]

Jack Neo will be busy making neu movie then this year…


"Two NO enough."

[buds]

Daddy

Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

That'd mean another accident you know? :yikes:

Shows what a horrible driver buds_hubs is won't it? :faint:

:rotflmao:

[limlim]

ksi:

3Boys:

We talk a lot about the previous 2 child policy as a big excuse or disincentive to procreation. How many of us in this forum have children conceived under those conditions?

Pardon the language, but this irritates me no end. I just can't see any of my kids as being the result of an 'incentive'.

To your question, we had our child because we wanted to, nothing to do with incentives, in fact, we ignored the incentive and never even claimed baby bonus, that was how bo chap we were.

And as a matter of fact, many does \"stop at two\" because of the dis-incentives.. isn't it?

it is mentioned that none of the parents here have conceived under those conditions..

But, does it not a fact that many of the LIMITED pool of parents here WERE conceived under those conditions?

some only talked about the parents not producing more..

but the other fact is that we have LESS parents (to-be) to began with..