The topic of this map is average family size. Bigger families are clustered in the Western and Southwestern United States. Also, family sizes tend to be high around major cities such as Minneapolis, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles. Almost all of Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii are shaded as having bigger families. As far as small families go, many parts of the Midwest have a light shading for small families. Additionally, much of the Northern U.S. has a small average family size and families in mountainous regions typically aren’t very big.
The reason for large family sizes in the South might be that immigrants from Mexico tend to have many children. City populations tend to be higher than rural so it would make sense that large families reside in the city. In the West, the cost of living is pretty low so people can afford to have more kids. Also, many families live on ranches/farms so it would be good to have more kids for help. It is a part of Puerto Rican, Hawaiian and Alaskan Native culture to have large families. In the Midwest, most people enjoy hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, ski/snowboarding, etc. and it would be inconvenient and expensive to have a large party to haul around. It might be that a lot of people who live in the mountains are ski bums and because they are so busy skiing there isn’t time for family - or maybe people want to preserve the peace of the landscape by not introducing children, who can often be rambunctious.
In areas with larger families when it has become a part of the culture, most people will have many children and the population will increase. More children means more money needed for day care, schools, school activities, and various youth programs. Drawbacks such as overflowing classes, multiple sports teams/cutting kids, and probably high taxes would be in effect. Also, with bigger families bigger homes are needed so more money will be spent on housing. Socially, kids will most likely have more friends because they will be exposed to more people their age. To gain votes, political candidates will have to target campaigns towards improving/expanding services for young people. In areas with small families, classrooms would be more open and kids would hopefully get more attention. Taxes would be relatively low because enormous sums of money wouldn’t be spent on youth. Plus, homes would be smaller and more people could live comfortably in a given neighborhood. Without many kids, schools will be underused, not as many friendships would exist, and there might not be enough people for sports teams.
No comments:
Post a Comment