Ah c'mon don't make a mountain out of a molehill! Yeah of course they had to help with work, but I wouldn't call that child labour. You know, more like innocent household chores Well whatever the case I respect those kind of children more than today's facebook addicts who are more dead weight to a family (and also to society) than anything else.
I personally wouldn't give the right to a citizen, to have children, if not able to provide substantial care. Children are not a caprice, if not able to support and provide enough care that your child becomes a qualitative and supportive member of society, you are not allowed to have any. In other words, no sufficient education, no job, no children.
Well I certainly didn't say gypsies should be our rolemodels. Keep in mind however we are discussing here the problem of low birth rate in Slavic countries. I agree having children today is connected with their support, but the problem is people today prefer having extra luxuries (what pohvec posted above, nice cars, big houses, exotic trips etc.) than having for example a third or a second child. This behaviour is against Slavic preservationism, which this forum advocates.
Also, society in the begginning of last century produced more qualitative children than today's society does. As I said, people had more children, but as there were famine and diseases this ensured that only the strongest and the smartest children could survive. This may sound harsh, but it is according to nature's law. Today we have advanced medical facilities which keep alive children otherwise doomed to death, but to what end? It doesn't improve their quality of life and they don't make any contributions to society.
I don't advocate such atavisms, I'm just pointing some facts out.