Posted on 03/06/2006 7:12:09 AM PST by FreedomSurge
Economically, every society needs children.
Children are the producers of the future This means that children are in a sense a necessary economic good. A society that does not produce enough children, or that cannot produce enough children who grow into economically productive adults, is doomed to poverty.
Every long-term investment we make, whether in the private or public sector, is predicated on the idea that there will be a future generation which will actually produce a return. It doesn't matter what economic or political system rules the present, it will need children to secure its future. Even the most self-centered individual would eventual realize that if the next generation cannot produce, his own welfare will suffer.
So, collectively we all need children and benefit when they grow into productive adults, but the cost of raising children is increasingly being borne by fewer and fewer in the general population.
Childless adults are rapidly becoming economic free riders on the backs of parents.
In the pre-industrial era, children almost always contributed to the economic success of the family directly. Agriculture depended heavily on the labor of children, and children brought further benefits by extending support networks via marriages. In the industrial era, however, children began to contribute less and less while consuming more and more. Nowadays, children usually return very little if any economic benefit to the parents.
Being a parent costs one economically. Although we socialize some cost, such as education, parents pay most of the cost of raising a child. Parents also lose out in non-monetary ways such as in a loss of flexibility in when and where they work. If an individual sets out to maximize his lifetime income, avoiding having children would be step one.
In our atomized society, children do not provide a boost in status, networking or security that offsets their very real cost. I think this economic loss may explain why many people shy away from having children. Many people simply do not want the loss of status that will come from having their disposable income consumed by rug rats.
Like all free-rider situations, this one will eventually cause a collapse that hurts everyone. As the percentage of parents in the population shrinks, the cost of being a parent will rise. More and more people will be tempted to conserve their own resources and let someone else shoulder the burden of creating the next generation. Eventually, the society will either produce too few children or, probably more likely, will not produce enough children with the skills and habits needed to carry on the economy
There is already grousing in some blue zones by the childless that they shouldn't have to subsidize the "breeders'" children. How long before child-hostile places like San Francisco become the norm?
I'm not sure how to address this problem from a public-policy perspective, but the next time you run into someone bragging because he chose not to have children, call him a parasite and see how it works out.
Oh, so nice of you not to propose I pay even more taxes. You just want to remove my right to vote becasue I don't breed.
My reading comprehension is just fine. I didn't accuse you of trying to increase my taxes. I did accuse you of raping the constitution. I am fairly certain the right to vote doesn't have a darn thing to do with having children. Your idea of removing that right for those who don't squeeze out a semon demon is very disturbing.
LOL
"You should pat yourself on the back. So what about the 95% of the population who hasn't saved. Ultra-silly girl, Can you see where they would be burdens (free riders) on society?"
My friend...more childless people are prepared for the expenses of their old age than those with children. You're just dreaming. Go visit a nursing home. Most of the people there have children...children who aren't paying for their time in the home, and children who don't even visit them.
My wife and I will be in one of those fancy assisted living places when we can no longer deal with living at home. We'll be paying for it ourselves, along with our long-term care insurance policy. You see...we don't have to leave our estate to our children, so we'll be using all that money to live in comfort, instead of in some crappy nursing home.
Go see who's in your local nursing homes. Ask them about their children and when they came to visit last. Then, drop in on one of the big fancy places and see who's in them. You'll be surprised, I'm sure.
"Someone should place a pacifier up the anal cavity of this author to prevent any further episodes of this verbal diarrhea."
Do you really endorse the above statement as proper discourse on Free Republic?
The people I was referencing pay little, if any into the 'kitty' in the first place, and get 'refunds' above and beyond what was paid in. In the case of 'working stiffs'; I agree with your statement.
I saw this earlier and there was so much wrong with the article I couldn't even begin to respond. Weird.
This cartoon just about says it all. Totally wacko!!!
"Someone should place a pacifier up the anal cavity of this author to prevent any further episodes of this verbal diarrhea."
Do you really endorse the above statement as proper discourse on Free Republic?
In response to such blatantly judgmental, bigoted remarks about people simply beause they either choose not to have children or cannot for some reason?
Yes.
Hmm our screwed up divorce courts and ridiculous paternity fraud might have something to do with some choosing not to have children. Throw in a world full of religious muslim fanatics bent on destroying non-believers and living lives full of terror. This is a world with limited space and resources and as history shows we will end up with wars for both to thin out the crowd. Mix in politicians who are selling our country down the river for their own gain and there might just be some valid reasons for reflection before procreation.
As far as not having enough replacement children, Presidente Bush has assured the next generation will be full of anchor babies with his talk of amnesty. Not only will the childless be paying for these babies education, but all taxpayers will help with the economic costs except for businesses who profit from the cheap labor. Anchor babies will be an anchor in more ways than one.
About as proper as advocating the dis-enfranchisment of several million tax-paying Americans. Whom shall we dis-enfranchise next? Blacks? Non-property owners? Women?
How quickly they forget that we've been floating the SS boat for a generation. Yes, it is going to be difficult to support us in our old age. No, I wouldn't be surprised if we get screwm.
A nation/culture that does not reproduce will destroy itself. Having children forces one to look not just to the immediate future but to contemplate how society will be 20, 40, 60 years in the future. This makes for better citizenry.
Fags and illegals are going to be the ones to screw us. I'd have kids in a heartbeat if I could find a good wife. But if I can't, I'm going to be PUNISHED? What a pantload.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Don't be such a coward. Come right out and endorse "BraveMan's" above statement as proper discourse on Free Republic.
This is just so ignorant, I can't even believe we are discussing it. But here goes my two cents:
The inference seems to be that people without kids pay less taxes. WHAT?!! How retarded! I have three kids, hubby has a good job, we get A LOT of money BACK by way of the tax credit, thanks to W. EVERYONE pays school tax even those WITHOUT kids. Have you looked at your tax bill lately? In my county in IL, the bulk of our tax $ go to the schools, that's true for those with or without kids.
My dad's one brother and also his sister, both are married, have hot careers, are very wealthy, but both chose not to have children because of their lifestyles. They are very wealthy and I'm sure pay MORE than their fair share in taxes.
I would rather have people consciously choose not to have children if they so choose, than behave recklessly and abort those unwanted babies.
Jersey, good for you. You know who you are, what you want, screw those stupid people who think they should tell you what you should or shouldn't do.
Dasher, excellent point about those who are unable to have children.
/end of rant
The reasons shouldn't even matter. Child-free people (I use that term to irritate the "kidz-freaks") have a variety of reasons as to why they don't have children and are entititled to them.
These "kidz-freak" bigots are unbelievable. I know the type - these are people who condemn anyone who isn't exactly like they are. "Everybody should be just like meeeeee!"
They're pompous, arrogant, annoying and judgmental and they don't even realize it.
I don't recall you answering my question:
Should priests and nuns not be allowed to vote then also? What about people (like me) who do want kids someday, but don't have them yet?
Methinks you are a proud member of the Free Republic Holier-than-thou Prude Squad.
Endorsement - right here.
Just keep the entire context in mind. Don't pull that cute little "take it out of context" trick the media utilizes so well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.