Family Free-Riders (Childless adults are economic free riders)

Chicago Boyz ^ | March 03, 2006 | Shannon Love

[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.

[latina4dubya]

Please don't tell me "just adopt" when adoption can run 20-30k from a so called "non-profit" agency.

or it can be free through the county... but adoption is NOT for everyone...

[TEXOKIE]

Exactly. Plus some people are childless NOT by choice...or circumstances were such that the window of opportunity to reproduce closed before getting the proverbial ducks in a row (to mix some metaphors!lol!)

[linda_22003]

"Too many good, productive people were tricked into pursuing their careers in the 70s and 80s rather than starting families."

Ohhhh nooooo! We were economically PRODUCTIVE! What were we THINKING? ;-D

[Dashing Dasher]

The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation.

What a stupid thing to say.

I shouldn't be allowed to vote because I am childless? Does that mean that 18 year olds aren't allowed to vote because they have yet to bear fruit? Do we "earn" the right to vote the day the baby is born? Or at conception?

Is my only value on this planet my ability to procreate? If I am childless - does that diminish my value to society?

Should nuns and preists not be allowed to vote - are they not valid humans?

Do welfare moms and men who spread their seeds throughout the world have more reason to vote than a law abiding, hard working, childless adult?

Have you thought this through?

I see you haven't.

RWOS PING --- Hey gals, you may find this interesting.

[RockinRight]

But I'm pretty certain that not everyone who’s had a child do so for the glory of God or the betterment of the world…

Of course. How would you otherwise explain Dennis Kucinich?

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Thank you! I thought it was a free country too. But here on FR in the past I was told that I was going to Hell for defying Gods law to go forth and be fruitful, and worse things were said.

Today someone wants to take away my right to vote because of my choice.

So you see why I am defensive about the subject!

[who knows what evil?]

True, I don't get a child tax credit like they do.

My wife has a 'relative' who is on "permanent" disability (claims he can't even lift his own kids, although he suddenly acquires those skills "out of state" on vacation). He just received a $3000 tax 'refund' (although HE doesn't pay in; the wife does, but not much)...thanks to those little 'tax deductions'.

[Minutemen]

There is already grousing in some blue zones by the childless that they shouldn't have to subsidize the "breeders'" children

And the "blue zones" are also against tax credit vouchers for the parents that wish to provide their children a private education.

[Brytani]

Yeop, it's all the fault of those horrible childless pro-life couples forcing others to have an abortion that keep the price of adoption ridiculously high.

Wonderful logic there.....

[BraveMan]

Those who choose not to have children end up paying way more than their fair share to support society. From school taxes to the myriad of government sponsored social programs of our "Great Society" to the lack of deductions on their 1040 form, childless couples are forced at the end of a gun to contribute towards "benefits" they will never receive, more than any other demographic.

Someone should place a pacifier up the anal cavity of this author to prevent any further episodes of this verbal diarrhea.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Must be nice!

[humblegunner]

The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You're a nutcase.

[MineralMan]

"The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation."

Cute. I guess I'll stop paying all those property taxes that support the schools, then. I'll withhold payment on that portion of my other taxes that go to things that support children, too.

What a stupid thing to say!

[Jason_b]

Simply having kids isn't enough. They must be educated and be reared preferably by two responsible parents, a mother and a father or else they add to ignorant disaffected masses who do not work or produce as it is.

[RockinRight]

Wait...priests are childless by reason of the requirements of the Roman Catholic Church.

So by your logic, they shouldn't vote either, right?

[TC Rider]

The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation.

That's a pretty broad generalization.

I'm still waiting for the thank you note from the parents of the kids I'm putting through public school.

[Allegra]

The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation.

Uh, yeah, that's a pretty boneheaded comment there.

Do you really think that people who are childless have nothing else to contribute to society? We have little interest in the future of the nation??? Are you really that narrow-minded?

How dare you suggest marginalizing or invalidating the worth of certain people with a broad brush like that based on your own silly, self-centered opinions? You want to take away somebody's well-earned right to vote just because they're not exactly like you?

Just because you have children doesn't make you better than anybody else. Get over yourself and get a grip on reality.

[Aquinasfan]

This is an important natural law argument against deliberately chosen childlessness. In fact, a "marriage" that deliberately excludes children is not a true marriage, since one of the fundamental purposes of marriage is the begetting and raising of children. A concomittant purpose of marriage is the mutual care of the spouses for each other, for their own good and the good of society.

A stronger argument against deliberately chosen childlessness is the intrinsically evil nature of artificial birth control. ABC is fundamentally unnatural, since its object is the nullification of the natural end of the reproductive system.

The timeless natural law argument against ABC was made very well in Humanae Vitae.

For this reason, the deliberate choice to exclude children from marriage is one of the grounds for declaring a marriage null in the Catholic Church.

[Rebelbase]

I'm never going to have a hysterectomy, why should my taxes pay for medical studies that benefit gynocological medicine?

[antiRepublicrat]

Childless adults pay taxes, but directly reap none of the tax advantages and services that come with having children. I think they're paying their own way.

George Washington Carver had no children. Was he a freeloader?