In North American countries, the concept of polygamy often stirs up images of 14-year-old girls marrying 50-year-old man in a religious compound, and people naturally respond to the idea as "abusive" and "degrading to women".
The issue of forced marriages, or situations where free-will is not being respected, is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. Girls/women simply should not be pushed into marriage without their own consent, or before they have the mental capacity to provide consent. However, forced marriages and polygamous marriages are not one-and-the-same; in a polygamous marriage, a woman can choose who she marries and whether she also values a polygamous relationship.
Therefore, laws should be in place to prevent forced marriages or marriages for people without the ability or mental capacity to provide legal consent. Laws to prevent polygamous marriages, however, should be abolished, and the entire practice should be legalized.
Before I go any further, let's clear up a few things. In North America, polygamy is typically synonymous with muslim marriages, and given the current political climate, anything muslim stirs irrational fear. With that in mind, I will point out that polygamy was legal in China, Japan, Korea, and many other Asian countries. A man with multiple wives and concubines was the standard for those who could afford the lifestyle. Samurais often had multiple wives, their lords had multiple wives, and until Americans defeated the Japanese in WWII, business men also had multiple wives. It was a normal practice until the Christian practice of "one-man-one-woman" marriage was instilled in Asia.
With that in mind, what is the benefit of polygamy?
One practical benefit of polygamy is the increased overall national productivity due to increased birth rate. Now, a nation's long run productivity is a function of the size of its working population, and the productivity of its working population. It is agreed that productivity per worker must be increased over time in order to elevate the living standard in the long run. However, in most developed countries, with the growing aging population, as boomers retire and exit the labour market, new labour population is needed to replenish it. This is a relatively simple concept. In fact, Canada has approximately 10 births per 1000 people, and a population growth rate of just less than 1%. Japan has less than 8 births per 1000 people, and a negative population growth rate (reference: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-people-birth-rate). Therefore, without massive increase in productivity that is exclusive to Canada, Canada is unlikely to remain competitive as the productivity levels of emerging nations increase (I note "exclusive" because productivity increases are likely to spread to other nations as well, normalizing the advantage in the long run).
Thus, another way to boost national productivity is to increase the workforce size, by boosting fertility rates. To take an extreme example: a woman with 15 kids in her lifetime will have created 15x more productive members of society than a woman with one child. Assuming equal access to education, a larger family will be able to generate more economic output than a small family. This is a simple fact. Similar fact is the USA has somewhat higher productivity (GDP per capita) than Canada, but its economy is significantly larger, due to its much larger population (reference: http://www.csls.ca/data/iptoct82010.pdf).
So how can Canada boost its overall fertility rate? One solution: polygamy. By allowing men and women to make free choices about who they want to marry, family sizes can grow much higher. Polygamous marriages have always yielded higher children count, and combining that with government-provided access to education, Canada can have a much larger and highly productivie workforce within 20-30 years. It will more than replenish the outgoing boomers.
Some experts like to point out that countries with legalized polygamy practices are typically poor. Typically, without fail, these experts are from countries that practiced monogamy, and they fail to point out that China was gloriously rich a few hundred (or even thousand) years back, when polygamy was legal and actively practiced. Japan grew to western-nation-level strength and prosperity prior to its defeat in WWII. Polygamy did not automatically push these countries into poverty. While two examples do not prove the polygamy will guarantee national riches, they do poke holes in assumptions that polygamous nations are poor as a result of it.
An added benefit of increased fertility through polygamy is that the ratio of parent/children is significantly reduced, lowering the collective burden that the younger generation feels when shouldering the health and social cost of the aging population. The increased tax revenue will also improve overall national innovation with respect to key strategic industries and nation-building activities.
So what is Canada waiting for?
Cliffs:
* Polygamy increases overall fertility (and population growth rate), which increases population size.
* Increased population is linked with increased workforce size, and as a result, increased national output
* Faced with an aging population that is increasing in size, Canada needs to act now to increase fertility and population rate. Polygamy is one such answer.
Saturday 23 April 2011
Love, family, and business
Don't know if this type of comparison has been posted before, but these are my own thoughts, you may agree or disagree.
Love can be thought of as a strategy. "I love you" is the same as "Be the best husband/wife/lover/father/mother/whatever to you". It's important to have, but it means nothing unless executed properly.
Here's an example: a father that tells his kids he loves them, but does nothing to demonstrate his love (i.e. spending time with them doing specific parent/child activities, or spending money for said activities), is just blowing hot air. Love is a strategy that can often be badly executed.
A family, much like a business, requires an investment of capital. The capital can be that of "sweat capital", or actual capital. Parents can be considered as co-founders occupying management positions. For instance, a mother who stays home to manage the family and take care of kids can be considered as the operations manager, or COO of the family, and the father who works to bring home money can be considered as the CEO. Of course, if the father only brings in money but does not participate in the day-to-day operations of the family, then he is really a silent investor and not part of the management team. In this case, if the mother so chooses, as a co-founder, the mother can choose to split from the non-performing CEO, find new investors, and potentially install a new CEO.
However, it's important to realize that a stay-at-home mom does not contribute much more (other than psychologically, perhaps) than a live-in nanny/cook/house keeper, and therefore if the CEO realizes the COO is not doing a fine enough job and wants to switch it up, he can fire the COO and hire a contractor from Philippines. While the kids may need an adjustment period with the new interim COO (or even a new full-time COO if the father so chooses), as long as the COO was chosen prudently, it will work over time. Of course, having a contractor as COO, or consultants providing expertise on COO activities, should be considered as a temporary measure only. Prolonged use of contractors/consultants at C-level management will reduce the kids' confidence in the family.
In this case, love must consist of a series of SMART goals (and for those not familiar with the terminology, SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, timely), and goals must have results. To illustrate: helping kids with homework is an activity, it's not a goal. The goal is (a) to enhance the kids' understanding of academic materials and (b) to improve the kids' ability to learn to deal with future issues, and the result would be measured based on the kids' academic success, and future trends of frequency of the kids needing help with homework.
Back to the example above regarding the father who says he loves his children: in this case, he is an ex-CEO who spouts the strategy of love, but provided neither sweat capital nor actual capital. This is a demonstration of the failure in the implementation of love.
A family without love is the same as a business without a strategy: doomed for eventual failure. A family with love but has lousy implementation is also likely to fail. A family with love and implements a generic approach (i.e. not targeted to the specific environment, kids, management team preferences) are also likely to fail.
When is a family considered a success? To an entrepreneur for a business, it's when the business no longer requires added investments, and generates economic value for the entrepreneur. To parents in a family, it's when the family no longer requires added investments (i.e. parents have moved from active management positions to the advisory board of directors), and provides a return to the parents (via measurable activities, such as visits from kids, or financial support for parents). Therefore, if your kids don't visit you or call you, you have failed as parents. If you're old and broke, and your kids refuse to take you in or help you financially, you have failed. If your adult kids continue to live with you and depend on your financial support, with no end in sight, you have failed.
Cliffs:
* Love is a strategy that needs proper implementation.
* A family requires investment of sweat capital and invested capital.
* CEO and COO are both necessary, but replaceable.
* Outside investors can be brought in, including silent investors.
* Contractors or consultants have their purpose and place, for tactical reasons, but should not be part of the overall strategy.
* Success of family should be measurable and not be some abstract concept (i.e. every family is a success)
Love can be thought of as a strategy. "I love you" is the same as "Be the best husband/wife/lover/father/mother/whatever to you". It's important to have, but it means nothing unless executed properly.
Here's an example: a father that tells his kids he loves them, but does nothing to demonstrate his love (i.e. spending time with them doing specific parent/child activities, or spending money for said activities), is just blowing hot air. Love is a strategy that can often be badly executed.
A family, much like a business, requires an investment of capital. The capital can be that of "sweat capital", or actual capital. Parents can be considered as co-founders occupying management positions. For instance, a mother who stays home to manage the family and take care of kids can be considered as the operations manager, or COO of the family, and the father who works to bring home money can be considered as the CEO. Of course, if the father only brings in money but does not participate in the day-to-day operations of the family, then he is really a silent investor and not part of the management team. In this case, if the mother so chooses, as a co-founder, the mother can choose to split from the non-performing CEO, find new investors, and potentially install a new CEO.
However, it's important to realize that a stay-at-home mom does not contribute much more (other than psychologically, perhaps) than a live-in nanny/cook/house keeper, and therefore if the CEO realizes the COO is not doing a fine enough job and wants to switch it up, he can fire the COO and hire a contractor from Philippines. While the kids may need an adjustment period with the new interim COO (or even a new full-time COO if the father so chooses), as long as the COO was chosen prudently, it will work over time. Of course, having a contractor as COO, or consultants providing expertise on COO activities, should be considered as a temporary measure only. Prolonged use of contractors/consultants at C-level management will reduce the kids' confidence in the family.
In this case, love must consist of a series of SMART goals (and for those not familiar with the terminology, SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, timely), and goals must have results. To illustrate: helping kids with homework is an activity, it's not a goal. The goal is (a) to enhance the kids' understanding of academic materials and (b) to improve the kids' ability to learn to deal with future issues, and the result would be measured based on the kids' academic success, and future trends of frequency of the kids needing help with homework.
Back to the example above regarding the father who says he loves his children: in this case, he is an ex-CEO who spouts the strategy of love, but provided neither sweat capital nor actual capital. This is a demonstration of the failure in the implementation of love.
A family without love is the same as a business without a strategy: doomed for eventual failure. A family with love but has lousy implementation is also likely to fail. A family with love and implements a generic approach (i.e. not targeted to the specific environment, kids, management team preferences) are also likely to fail.
When is a family considered a success? To an entrepreneur for a business, it's when the business no longer requires added investments, and generates economic value for the entrepreneur. To parents in a family, it's when the family no longer requires added investments (i.e. parents have moved from active management positions to the advisory board of directors), and provides a return to the parents (via measurable activities, such as visits from kids, or financial support for parents). Therefore, if your kids don't visit you or call you, you have failed as parents. If you're old and broke, and your kids refuse to take you in or help you financially, you have failed. If your adult kids continue to live with you and depend on your financial support, with no end in sight, you have failed.
Cliffs:
* Love is a strategy that needs proper implementation.
* A family requires investment of sweat capital and invested capital.
* CEO and COO are both necessary, but replaceable.
* Outside investors can be brought in, including silent investors.
* Contractors or consultants have their purpose and place, for tactical reasons, but should not be part of the overall strategy.
* Success of family should be measurable and not be some abstract concept (i.e. every family is a success)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)