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.
Beware the scourge of god!
That stuff'll scratch you up worse than fiberglass mat.
You pay taxes for other people's kids because it is in the long range interest of the country as a whole to have an educated populace.
Yes,I know that our current public school system is failing drastically in that regard so my statement to you is mostly theoretical.
Agreed; well said. Thanks.
I've done quite a bit of homework about adoption both from private agencies and through the state. Even with the costs of running an adoption agency factored in the cost is still prohibitive for many, otherwise perfectly suited adoptive parents.
We decided to adopt through the state and use the money we are saving to provide a private school education for the children we adopt along with other financial considerations. Basically it came down to using the money for the child after it is in the home rather than before.
ANY cost to adopt a child is worth it but in the real world we found saving tens of thousands of dollars to use for the child was more practical than using it to get a child.
Childless people don't get a free ride at all. Do they not pay real estate taxes that support schools they'll never send childen to?
Childless people are investing in the future of other people's children. My taxes don't go down because I didn't give birth to one of my own.
Ooooooh, that's going to leave a mark! Love it! Dig it! :-)
Good night!!!
I won't hold it against you for being a Texans fan - after all, that's much better than being a Dallas fan...
No, but Jefferson did have six legitimate children with his wife, Martha.
Busy guy.
You have kids, though, so you're allowed to vote.
Oh, wait! I have Dulcie and Finbar. I can vote twice!
"The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation."
Neither should those that live off the public teat.
Anyone on welfare etc.. is a ward of the state and like a ward should get no say so in the financial dealings of the country.
Sounds like a great choice - Gods blessings to you and your whole crew! (Don't tie the leashes to the stroller!)
You know what if Bikes hold 2 people for a reason. There is no kiddie seat on a Harley!
So I'm allowed to vote? ;-)
Yes, being a Houston Texans fan is MUCH better than being a Dallas fan. After all, the Texans beat the Cowboys 19-10 in the Texans very first ever NFL game. That had to be humiliating for the Dallas fans.
(I bring that up every opportunity I get.)
Hear, hear.
As a taxpayer, this childless adult has been subsidizing primary, secondary, and college education for a lot of ungrateful children.
I’ll go out on a limb and say you are probably in your twenties. By your thirties you’ll have a whole different attitude.
If you are childless in your forties you will regret such a decision.
In your fifties you’ll hate all your friends who talk about their grandkids.
In your sixties you’ll be in an old spinsters club, playing Bridge and taking senior’s tours with other old farts.
In your seventies you’ll die alone. But hey, those were some good times in your twenties!
I did think you were supporting those that did not want to have children. Those who wanted but couldn't have children need no defense. I did not recall your saying that you wanted children.
Solidarity. That's a good word in anybody's vocabulary.
Yes, but unlike some here, I don't see anything divine or entitling about them.
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.