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.

[Antoninus]

I just disagree with the notion that remaining childless (intentionally) is in and of itself some kind of sin, which several posters on this thread have been saying.

It all depends on the motive. What if one remains childless simply so they can continue to alley-cat around? Or if one remains childless so they can buy a nicer car or live in a nicer neighborhood? (Do you recall that NY Times article by a NY feminist who had two of her triplets aborted specifically so she wouldn't have to move to Hoboken and shop at Costco?)

If one remains childless because they become a nun, none would dare call that sinful.

[steve-b]

"Deciding not to have children is wrong." (judgment)
So now we're down to semantics, eh? The least you can do is not misrepresent my opinion, which would be more accurately described as follows:
"Deciding not to have children for purely selfish reasons is wrong."

In fact, the latter statement is the more objectionable, as it introduces the element of collectivism.

[steve-b]

Or if one remains childless so they can buy a nicer car or live in a nicer neighborhood?

Careful. Your resentment against success is showing.

[Antoninus]

In fact, the latter statement is the more objectionable, as it introduces the element of collectivism.

No, it does not. It rejects the notion of radical individualism. Believe it or not, there is a middle ground between collectivism and radical individualism. It's called res publica.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Yes, I get it. LOL, I really thought this thread would go away.

[Tijeras_Slim]

It's in severe need of a hijacking, that's for sure.

[Antoninus]

Careful. Your resentment against success is showing.

Being part of a large, loving family is the very essence of success to me. Having material goods is ephemeral success at best.

[linda_22003]

"Or if one remains childless so they can buy a nicer car or live in a nicer neighborhood?

(Do you recall that NY Times article by a NY feminist who had two of her triplets aborted specifically so she wouldn't have to move to Hoboken and shop at Costco?)"

And you really see those two scenarios as moral equivalents????

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Do we need a cheese/moose/sister/bunny-pancake/PING!!!

[Allegra]

I have always held you in the highest regard as an intelligent and informative poster and someone who is serving her country, but this exchange has made me rethink some of that.

I shall heave great wracking sobs into my pillow tonight.

[Allegra]

Heeheeee....love the tagline.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Do we need a cheese/moose/sister/bunny-pancake/PING!!!

Anything to chase away the Boggots.

[Tijeras_Slim]

;)

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

You know, I figured out that the moral patrol is never going to understand that I do not want kids, and I cannot be convinced to change my mind because of their holier-than-thou preachings.

So why argue, neither side is going to budge and it is only going to cause me stress I do not need.

So, do you like cheese, I like cheese.
The moose bit my sister.(of wait I am an only child, that is not right)
This is hugh and series.
My beeber is stuned
and who can forget......

[Allegra]

"Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great."

"Judge not; lest ye be judged."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[Allegra]

So, do you like cheese, I like cheese.
The moose bit my sister.(of wait I am an only child, that is not right)
This is hugh and series.
My beeber is stuned
and who can forget......

And all your base are belong to us.

[steve-b]

The notion that the exercise of personal autonony is "selfish" can only seem "radical" to those who embrace collectivism.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Why should Mrs. Slim want a child when she has me? :)

[tclawnguyland]

Yep, although I think you are way off by several decades. I think we will see forced euthanasia by 2020. Clinton said more than he knew when he said 'it's the economy, stupid'. So, if money becomes the ultimate bottom line and measure of ones worth,(it will come down to ones impact on society), I can readily see some sort of eradication of th elderly when they can no longer pay their own way. When the social gimme of social security began (which was only supposed to be one thing, it was only for elderly but has been expanded to include almost everything now) there were about 14-15 workers for every retired/elderly. It is now down to about 7 or 8. By 2020 or so, it will be down to 1 or 2 workers supporting one elderly. That is not taking into account the welfare handouts(another topic altogether). You really think people who can hardly afford raising their own child or children, and see 3/4 of their income go to 'non-productives' are going to 'take it'?.. I think not. (An out of control population invites control from outside.)

[tclawnguyland]

well well well, talk about disenfranchisement.