Big Business and Small Families

By Prof. R Vaidyanathan on 11th August 2016

Big Business and Small Families

Throughout sixties/seventies advertisements in print and visual media in the west projected “happy” families consist of husband /wife one boy one girl may be a dog. Happy family will not have mother-in-laws or sisters in laws leave alone aged parents. Destruction of joint families was a major aim of businesses so that they can have more houses/more ACs/more microwaves and more consumer goods sold.

In eight member household they may use one fridge but two four member households will use two refrigerators. The amount of larger markets generated by the big companies in shrinking family size is unimaginable. The project could succeed since slowly family centric civilization was converted to sex centric civilization. All activities/serials/stories/films were becoming “sex” centric and it helped in a way in reducing the size of the family since relationships were projected more “uni centric” than “multi centric”

But every such developments has within its own womb its own seeds of destruction.

In 1971, there was a shift in attitudes, as Americans’ “ideal” family switched from four kids (19%) to two kids (38%), with a mean saying 2.9 kids was ideal.

Back in 1936, the mean ideal number of kids was 3.6, with 22% saying four children; 32% saying three children; and another 32% saying two children. Fast-forward from the 1930s to 2013, the most recent data available, and you get a different picture, with 2.6 as the mean ideal.

What’s behind the dramatic shift? Likely a number of factors, beginning with the wide availability of the birth control pill in the 1960s; the growth of women’s participation in the workforce, which surged in the 1970s; and, of course, the increasing cost of raising kids.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/08/ideal-size-of-the-american-family/

The number of people per household declined significantly in the U.S. from 1960 to 2015. The average American household in 2015 consisted of 2.54 people which was 3.33 in 1960

Basically one can call this as Post –contraceptive civilisation.

Table 1.1The collapse of family life: Most children in U.S. born out of wedlock [2013]

Births outside wedlock’s US in the year 2013

Country Percentage 10-19 years
U S 41% [53% for under 30 yrs.] 7%

Out of which

Blacks 73% 11%
Latino 53% 10.50%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf (Table: 15&Table 26)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-children-U-S-born-wedlock.html#ixzz3UFUgoKmn

Table-2 Most children will be born out of wedlock by 2016—in UK-because of the decline in marriage, according to official figures.

Births outside Europe in the year 2014

 

Country Percentage
U K* 48%
Denmark 52%
Norway 55%
 Sweden 54%

*-UK Data is 2012

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00018

Http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tesem140&plugin=1

 

We find from the above tables 1.1 and 1.2 that the number of what were earlier called “bastard” children on phenomenal rise—nearly half—and New York times calls this as” New Normal”. The ability of Americans to coin new terms to explain old issues is very interesting.

This has given rise to single parent—actually single mother—families. The situation among blacks is catastrophic with more than 70% of kids raised by single mother. Unfortunately many of these kids get into drugs etc. and also cause social tensions in their ghettos.

Also observe that 7% of the births are to children in the 10 to 19 years of age. In one corner of India in a village if a child marriage takes place so much hue and cry to make it appear as a regular /normal phenomenon in India. In USA 7% [among blacks 11%] of births are to Children obviously illegitimate.

The collapse of family has bewildered the big business since alternative form of social blocks have not come into existence. Business wants a functional society having basic building blocks like family/community etc. One individual directly dealing with the State through courts may be liberal paradise but business nightmare since families buy products.

Hence attempts are made to create alternate units of social blocks and herein comes the LGBTQ groups. They are small in number but reasonable big in influences since many big business executives have adopted that life styles.

A report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

Such a small proportion but they are influential in business and industry. It is more recognised nay even fashionable in some segments of American society to identify with these groups. It is presented as alternate and acceptable life style.

Obviously it is anti-thesis of earlier ideas of marriage and family. But from joint family to nuclear family [husband/wife and 2 kids] to neutron family of single mother to perhaps proton family of no parents only kids—it is a long journey.

There is clamour for LGBT “couple” to adopt children since two women or two men as of now cannot procreate. Also efforts made to use modern methods to store semen or use tissue culture to procreate. These are for future.

Hence major challenge faced by Western societies and Business is –how to replace traditional family” units with newer forms of organisations.

Will they succeed? Are we to use same path to finally converge or maintain our family structures?

These are fundamental questions –which alas we do not want to even discuss. Ignorance is blissJ)

___________________

 

Views personal

 

 

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. balayogi venkataraman · · Reply

    Another excellent analysis based on factual data .
    Ji You have interpreted it through well chosen diplomatic terminology to bring to light how certain short sighted policies, actions and attitudes can disturb social, psychological, inter personal relationships and also lead to destabilize various aspects of economy as well.

  2. balayogiv · · Reply
  3. balayogiv · · Reply

    Another excellent analysis based on factual data .
    Ji You have interpreted it through well chosen diplomatic terminology to bring to light how certain short sighted policies, actions and attitudes can disturb social, psychological, inter personal relationships and also lead to destabilize various aspects of economy as well.

  4. Thanks prof. for the analytic penetration into western business mindset.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: