As usual with all places, the fertility rate decreases among those with means (I reside there). The upper middle class usually have less children, often 2 or 3 at most, while the poor are the ones with the most kids.

As an anecdote, I personally know a low-earning home security guard who has 2 wives and about 10 kids. His kids are signed up for school but don't go most of the time, rather playing around and the parents just don't care. Sometimes, I wish there's something I could do about that, but I can't. We have no equivalent of CPS here to help such kids.

I dread to think of how those kids will turn out to be, because with minimal or no education at the foundational stage, they're bound to just continue the poverty cycle. Sad.

Poorer countries tend to have high birth rates. As they get richer, the birth rate decreases.

This comment seems to state that poverty is a result of high birth rates, rather than the other way around. There are very good reasons for families in a society without a strong social safety net to have many children.

It's a Catch 22. Are they poor because they have too many children or are they having too many children beacsue they are poor?

Are you implying that having many children might lead to better outcome financially?

Sometimes that is exactly the case For example, farmers. Farming families have traditionally had more children, and children were able to help with farm duties. We don't see as much of this in a lot of areas anymore because farming doesn't take as many people as it used to - at least in areas with machinery.

In some traditional areas, it probably depends on the gender of your children too.

Additionally, there are 'soft' benefits, like older children providing child care or adult children taking care of their parents or in-laws.

Does buying multiple lottery tickets increase your odds of winning?

Comparing apples to oranges certainly don't.

You think children don’t represent a lottery ticket?

Your son could be strong and able to pole your field?

Your daughter could be beautiful and marry into wealth or royalty?

Your child could invent something wonderful that makes life easier or more enriching?

Or your kid could be a dud unable to grasp concepts of knowledge on hacker news…

Or maybe your kid could grow up a decent human being who sees human life as something more than petty investment and a chance to redeem your poor life choices.

That's not the way it goes, though. For generations, royals (and other wealthy folks) have married their children away as pawns. These aren't/weren't seen as a chance to redeem poor choices, but as a way to keep wealth to a small circle.

People have been seen as monetary items for centuries.

If we want folks to not be used in such ways, we actually have to legislate it. Make sure children have rights and freedoms and that they know about it. Have inheritance laws that make sure each child gets some money from a well-to-do parent, even if they marry someone poor. Make sure farmers worldwide are well-equipped. Educate folks, treat them as equals (which doesn't happen now).

Perhaps that can be true but I also want my kid to cut the lawn because I’m lazy

If you assume that you cannot afford education and that manual labor is all you and your kids will be useful for then yes, it's better than nothing.