Perils of Straight-jacketed thought

I was with some friends last night and amidst all the usual "kya babies hai, bby roads r so bad, pata nahin bonus kitna aayega..etc etc..", there was this incident which was told to me by a friend of mine. What he essentially was saying taht for people who are educated and well-off, the typical"hum do humare do" might not really be a good idea and it was actually an interesting thought. In this context, if we read it with the Financial Times Article on November 15, 2006 "Engaging India: Demographic Dividend or Disaster", it indeed is food for profound IM. Before I further dwell into the topic, lets attempt to understand the background in which the idea was propagated. I think, though not sure that this hum do humare do came into being to educate masses about the virtues of a small family in the background of abject poverty in which indian junta at large stayed. However those were the days when the human capital thought was not really the in-thing and knowledge capital, much less the concept of knowledge economy, was simply not present. Circa, 21st century and suddenly people are being thought of as the source of capital, as the harbinger of wealth to nations and not an albatross slowing the speed of a nation trying to speed to posperity. In this context, this FT article is particularly interesting. What the article essentially does is blast India's propaganda of showcasing its prosperity as derived from its demographics without doing a deep-dive into it. The whole thought of demographics driven knowledge economy etc etc, is applicable not based on demographics alone but on the demographic profile. Having a population of 1Bn plus is not a virtue in itself, having a substantial portion of it which is educated, learned and shifts the economy from subsistence agriculture to industry/services is the driver behind it. Now comes this hum do humare do....The lower strata of the economy (using Prof Prhalad's words-The Destitutes) do still produce kids in hoardes, while the rest are producing much lesser...one two....maybe none...And it doesnt take much grey matter to make out that posterity of destitutes are much less likely to be educated and add to the knowledge capital than that of the aspirants, climbers or the rest. I am not saying its impossible, I am not talking of exceptional geniuses etc, I am talking in general. A kid from an educated family is much more likely to grow up well groomed, well educated and add much more value to himself and in this process to the economy and the society and that of a very poor person. And what happens if the growth rates in these two sections are very different. In the long run, the profile will change, for worse of course. Another factor, which I think is imporant in this aspect is the coming of women in the workforce. I have come across a couple of females who have decided to marry but not have kids at all, given that it is difficult to balance job with kids. If this trends continue and more and more ladies join the fray, it does not take much grey matter to analyze what will it do to the overall demographic profile... Think abt all these. Should we blindly follow "hum do humare do"? The nation requires a particular demographic profile and for that, we are the consituents of the soceity have different roles. Let me attempt to make what should be the expectations from each of the constitutents in the greater national interest: Government: Encourage people in the right demographic bracket to have more kids. Think about it, if an educated person has more kids, not only will he contribute more to the economy in the long run; in the short run, it will also mark some shift from consumption expenditure to investment expenditure (and the latter is always more desirable in the long run). Eg: he will spend less on holidaying and partying out and spend more on educating his children. The Government may also give tax benefits for qualified professionals having more than 2 kids, it can be something like a step wise incentive scheme...something like 100 bps reduction in the maxmimum marignal personal tax rate for every kid above 2. So if u have 3 kids, u pay 29% tax, if u have 4, something like 28%. Employers & Society: Facilitate the process of raising more kids. Offices should have nurseries, care-taking maids etc. They should offer some aphrosidiac snacks. Society can reward people in the right bracket having the maximum number of kids (subject to a upper cut-off) as the value creators in the society award or somethig like that..There are so many things that can be done. We, the people: Simple, for your nation, have more babies and now since u cant bank on your ability of having twins, triplets etc, and also since you want to keep the ratio of your productive/for pleasure sex constant, have more sex. Its the call of the nation.