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.
I'm sure the childless people who have been paying taxes for years to send other peoples' kids to school might have some disagreement with this statement.
I don't disagree that we need to get out of our post-Feminist reproductive malaise. Too many good, productive people were tricked into pursuing their careers in the 70s and 80s rather than starting families. Many others didn't have kids out of fear for the future. The result is a declining population growth among our societies' most productive demographic groups.
But some of the statements here are kind of extreme, and I don't see any point in that.
That's the consequence of a Welfare State. Nobody would have to "pay for the aging population" if the fruits of our labor weren't stolen at gunpoint by the Tax Man.
Personally I believe we all ought to be responsible for supporting OURSELVES in old age, and if we can't do that we shouldn't be having kids in the first place. I'm not counting on my kids or anyone else's to pay my way when I get old.
I'll remember that "steaming pile" of a statement when I'm writing my check on April 17th.
Flat tax or FairTax would of course put an end to that, too.
You have to pay for someone else's kids education because THE GOVERNMENT says you must. If not, you go into tax default and someone else gets your house.
I don't want ANYONE paying for my kids' education. That's why I would like you to get your school tax money back, but only if I can get mine back too! BTW it'll never happen!
True, I don't get a child tax credit like they do. Thanks for reminding those who want to take away the voting rights of the childless!!!
Oh puhleez... I have no children and I've been paying out for other people all my life, both in taxes and taking care of parents, a spouse who was disabled for 12 years, etc. I'm pro-children. I'm not complaining. But step down off the soapbox and get a grip.
This coming from a father of 4 and grandfather of 2.
I do have to give you one jab though Jersey -- never having children will deprive you of one of the greatest joys in life -- namely GRAND Children. :-) hehehe
I would be against taxing one set of citizens to pay others to have children, however, I would have not problem with lowering the tax burden on people with children.
Business can deduct a lof of their expenses, parents should also be allowed to deduct more of the expenses involved with raising children.
(For those that do not see the difference between paragraph one and two, I do not want the governement to pay someone to have children, however, let productive individuals keep more of what they earn themselves.)
I think it's more selfish to have kids you can't provide for, or to have kids if you know you won't be good at raising them.
Exactly. I don't have children, but it is MY responsibility to prepare myself for my 'golden years'.
I have two words in response: Up yours.
Oh really? Who the hell are you all sanctimonious one?
I'm childless not because I chose that, but because it just never happened. People like you piss me off almost more than feminists.
"What about people who have tried for years to have children but face infertility problems? Please don't tell me "just adopt" when adoption can run 20-30k from a so called "non-profit" agency."
If children weren't aborted like candy then adoptive parents could have a plentiful source of children.
God does provide to those who want. But our society is playing god with the unborn or should I say playing satan?
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.