I think the pressure of having a second child is much greater than that of having a first child. The obvious costs of diapers, milk powder, toys, future education and houses have brought great pressure to ordinary families, but the intangible costs and opportunity costs are even greater. I used to want a big family in the countryside, no matter what my living conditions were. The concept of farmers' ancestors is that people can prosper and live well.
Many rural parents strongly demand to have a second child. They think it is best to have more children, and it is best to have children collectively at home. In some areas, boys are preferred to girls, but girls are not. Therefore, if the first child is a girl, they often have another child, expecting a boy. As for the quality of life and the cost of childbirth, these issues have not been considered too much. There are also some rural parents who pin their hopes on their children, hoping that their children will be more promising in the future and can change the poor conditions now. Therefore, having a second child and having one more child may have a greater chance of change in the future.
At present, the traditional concept in rural areas is relatively heavy, and the traditional family pension model is still the main pension model, which is the case from generation to generation. Children are responsible for the food, clothing, housing and transportation of the elderly, and this kind of "back-feeding" pension is also deeply rooted. Therefore, in rural areas, farmers often think that having one more child means that they have no worries about their old age in the future, and it also means that their families are prosperous and they can enjoy family happiness. In their minds, children have many advantages, such as helping each other when they grow up, and the burden of supporting their children in the future can be lighter, but the cost of raising a child is also very huge.