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.
Fine. If you aren't here arguing one side or the other of the issue raised in the article by the poster of this article, then you are the distracting red herring issue. :~D
And I think the fun that can be had with you has been had already.... good day.
I vote that the "pacifier" be somewhere in the 40-50 megaton range....
Blood is a good start; but we vastly prefer your organs; just in case.
All kidding aside, Bucky, look at it this way: we’re all, to some extent, leaches. The top income earners in this country pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. Thus, those rich people are paying more than you (real and percentage) for the roads you use, the police and firemen who protect you, the library books you read, the military that keeps you free, and so on.
Yes, that’s right, you are a freaking parasite!
"Why don't we change gears and form a movement to prohibit Pittsburgh Steelers fans and Duke basketball fans for voting? At least we can all agree on that, right?"
I can agree to the second half but not the first.
Ugly babies grow up to be beautiful people.
I was one damn good lookin' baby!
Of course, but they reason (?) that they can maneuver Congress and/or SCOTUS to get those benefits into their grubby hands anyway, protestations notwithstanding.
LOL, I'll bet you are cute as a button now!
I also think that if you don't own property you shouldn't be allowed to vote, but that is a subject for another time.
Example: Richie Rich was assessed $50,000 in property taxes, and $90,000 in state income taxes, all of which (for sake of argument) went to pay for a bridge over the interstate and a Recreation Center.
You, the middle class person, only paid $2,000 in property taxes and $7,000 in state income tax. You and your friends consume the same amount of the bridge and the recreation center that Richie Rich does. But he paid far more than you for those improvements.
So, to be fair, you should pay a $2 toll to use the bridge, and Richie should only pay fifty cents. And your monthly membership to the rec center should be $21, while he should get it for $8. The extra money you pay should be stored up, and given to Richie at the end of the year.
It’s only fair.
Never made that argument. I simply made the argument that those with children tend to have longer time horizons when making decisions and that longer time horizons lead to better decision making.
That may be a logical conclusion of her argument.
There are currently limits to who is allowed to vote. Are you arguing that there should be no limits on who gets to vote?
"There are currently limits to who is allowed to vote. Are you arguing that there should be no limits on who gets to vote?"
Yes, there are such limits. You must be 18 years of age, a citizen, and not a convicted felon. Pretty broad limits, I'd say.
How about this. Let's limit voting to only those who own real property outright. They're the real stakeholders in our society. So, if you have a mortgage, you can't vote, because you only have a short-term view of housing. I mean, you could just abandon the house, declare bankruptcy and forget about it. Only real property owners who own their property outright should be able to vote. How's that sound. They're the ones with a real reason to think long-term.
No. I'm just saying that childless persons should be able to retain the suffrage. After all, we childless persons are paying to educate your children, provide some of them with health insurance through the CHIPs program, provide them with transportation to and from the public skrools, and even raise them (via AFDC). Why shouldn't we be able to vote?
You have some nerve.
Good idea. I was thinking of paying off my mortgage.
I did a calculation on my income and came up with the fact I pay 4 times the median income tax.
Since I have no kids, I put less than 1/2 the strain in the infrastructure. Which means it would take 8 family wage earners to make up for my tax base.
There are a lot of things in American society jiggered for kids. That is OK -- I support a society that supports kids and families.
What is NOT OK is to come along and tell those of us who are doing the heaviest lifting that we are somehow doing "less that our part."
Whatever it is that makes people say "I want n children," I just ain't got. It like describing color to someone blind from birth.
How about letting the childless retain their suffrage until such time as they take their first Social Security check?
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.