Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Family Free-Riders (Childless adults are economic free riders)
Chicago Boyz ^ | March 03, 2006 | Shannon Love

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: breeders; census; childfree; children; homepricesincrease; ohnoleftbabyonbus; sionnsar; trailertrash; welfare; zpg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 781 next last
To: RogueIsland

I was just about to mention that thread...

According to FreedomSpurge, these welfare queens have more right to vote than a priest.


581 posted on 03/07/2006 10:28:01 AM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: tclawnguyland

The possibilities are troubling to say the least - Certainly on the medicare side we're likely to see rationing by queueing - that's seems to be the trend in most countries with "free" medical care. As far as SS goes, there will be higher age limits, more means testing, and expanded payroll taxes I fell reasonably sure. I think the primary trend towards euthanasia will be cultural - i.e. encouraging elderly to "do the right thing" and "take one for the team". I personally feel that the encouragement of illegal immigration that we are seeing is a calculated attempt (and an unwise one at that) to defuse the demographic time bomb. Science (or speculative) fiction writers should be able to come up with any number of future dystopias.

Mostly agree with what you have said.


582 posted on 03/07/2006 10:44:44 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (When Bush says "we mustn't act like clowns," the RATS don their multi-colored wigs and greasepaint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
I need a Viking Kitty Graphic.

Charging weapons

Polarity reaching maximum...

583 posted on 03/07/2006 10:50:07 AM PST by uglybiker (Don't blame me. I didn't make you stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
And you really see those two scenarios as moral equivalents????

No, not morally equivalent. However, they are sprung from exactly the same attitude--namely, that material goods are more important than having children.
584 posted on 03/07/2006 11:02:09 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
"Judge not; lest ye be judged."

You didn't address my question. Are you being judgmental when you say:

"Burning the American flag is wrong."
"Protesting at soldiers' funerals is wrong."
"Voting for John Kerry is wrong."

If so, there's not a single person on FR who is not guilty of it.

If not, then none of what I've said expressing my opinion on the matter qualifies as 'judgment' either.

A discerning person must be able to tell right from wrong. We should condemn no person--however, we are free to comdemn bad behavior and opinions that lead to bad behavior.

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

"Now go and sin no more." -- Why do they always leave off that part?

I've cast no stones. If my opinions are causing you to feel some injury, I'm sorry. But it will not stop me from presenting them when they are apt.
585 posted on 03/07/2006 11:15:47 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
I need a Viking Kitty Graphic.


586 posted on 03/07/2006 11:18:25 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

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

Unless you live on a desert island, you can not go through life without having some dependence on others for your survival. You can not live in a country like ours and be free from any obligations to your fellow man.

Similarly, a life lived as a mere cog in a collective society, subject to the whims of untouchable masters who have attained their rank not through personal virtue and merit but through political machinations is slavery and a living death.

As I said, there is a happy medium. It's called the federal constitutional republic as created in 1787 in Philadelphia. It was neither radically individualist nor collectivist in any sense but a balance of the two. Perfect? No, but certainly closer than all previous attempts and most since. Pity that it's being pulled apart today by misantrhopic individualists on one end, and collectivist tyrants on the other.
587 posted on 03/07/2006 11:31:46 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

LOL, that is good too!


588 posted on 03/07/2006 11:34:45 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
There were two notable experiments with creating republics in the late 18th century.

One of them embraced the notion that "selfish" personal autonomy should be rejected in favor of "Fraternité". The other rejected that concept.

The latter worked out rather more successfully.

589 posted on 03/07/2006 11:38:45 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

That one was from PJ-Comix (created to represent DUmmie consternation at the Alito nomination, IIRC).


590 posted on 03/07/2006 11:39:51 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

LOL, it is cute!


591 posted on 03/07/2006 11:41:05 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

I can't stand kids. I can put up and occasionally enjoy other peoples kids, but to put up with the whining, clinging incessant demands of a miserable, puling child? I'll throw it against a wall.
Would you prefer that?
Knowing that, I'm not STUPID enough to have children.
And with your frame of mind, there is this myopic 'go forth and have babies babies babies, even if you cannot support them.
One reason why they have 'throw aways' on the streets of some south american cities. The parents do just that within the dictates of the church. Reproduce reproduce, reproduce...and when they cannot afford or feed them? Throw them out on the street. Average life span: 18 years at most.
I do NOT think God is going to be impressed with fecundity without personal responsibility. You wanna build a tower? Make sure you have enough funds to do it. Wanna kid? Either a) make sure you have enough money to do so and have a 'nest' for it
b) be willing to do WITHOUT for yourself so the kid can be raised decently.
I do NOT see funding stupid little girls who dispense with all the traditional prerequisites and decide to play house with real live dollies at the taxpayers expense. Their progeny live in poverty, are more likely to be molested, abused, killed by the mothers successive shack up studs. The progeny may live to provide the fodder for gangs, prisons, and are nothing but cattle for industries that make their living off of self-same stupid little girls.
phooey.
My duty to sprogg? I THINK NOT


592 posted on 03/07/2006 11:42:52 AM PST by tclawnguyland (two cents ΒΆΒΆ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tclawnguyland
I do NOT see funding stupid little girls who dispense with all the traditional prerequisites and decide to play house with real live dollies at the taxpayers expense. Their progeny live in poverty, are more likely to be molested, abused, killed by the mothers successive shack up studs. The progeny may live to provide the fodder for gangs, prisons, and are nothing but cattle for industries that make their living off of self-same stupid little girls.

A-bloody men. Woo-eee!!! Let it all hang out. I'm beginning to detect that a lotta people (me included) are beginning to say "FTS" to the insane BS shoved down our throats for the last 40 years, now that the largesse is running out - and the calamity of idiot sentimentalist PC thinking is about to become manifest. Too bad it's too late to fix anything. We're screwed because of these idiots - but I, for one, am not going to allow these sacks of parasitical shyte to horn in on my survival - in the apocalyptic world they were instrumental in creating.

593 posted on 03/07/2006 11:54:01 AM PST by guitfiddlist (When the 'Rats break out switchblades, it's no time to invoke Robert's Rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
One of them embraced the notion that "selfish" personal autonomy should be rejected in favor of "Fraternité". The other rejected that concept.

You're kidding, right? The French Revolution was perhaps the closest thing we've ever had to a libertarian revolution. It was based on a false concept of freedom and a denunciation of government, religion, and traditional authority. As we know, it didn't work out so well.

The American Revolution was none of those things. It was a the creation of a new country and a federal republic. It believed, above all, that individual rights were descended from an All-Powerful God. At its core was the notion of Natural Law. The idea of radical individualism, as described by many of the people on this thread--that our own personal choices and bad behavior are of no consequence to society--would have been laughed at and considered anathema.
594 posted on 03/07/2006 12:31:23 PM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Really, if you're going to redefine terms in a manner that makes Bill Clinton look like Noah Webster, there's no point in pretending to communicate.


595 posted on 03/07/2006 12:34:03 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: tclawnguyland
I can't stand kids. I can put up and occasionally enjoy other peoples kids, but to put up with the whining, clinging incessant demands of a miserable, puling child? I'll throw it against a wall.

Many, if not most parents feel that way, until they have children of their own. Parents have a natural affinity for their children. As a parent, I can attest to this. I wouldn't have understood it as well if I hadn't experienced it.

And with your frame of mind, there is this myopic 'go forth and have babies babies babies, even if you cannot support them.

If a couple is enduring economic hardship, they can refrain from intercourse, or use natural family planning.

One reason why they have 'throw aways' on the streets of some south american cities. The parents do just that within the dictates of the church. Reproduce reproduce, reproduce...and when they cannot afford or feed them? Throw them out on the street. Average life span: 18 years at most.

So would it be better for them not to have life at all?

If yes, then you would logically have to recommend death for these children.

I do NOT think God is going to be impressed with fecundity without personal responsibility.

You're precluding natural methods of birth control. But this is where the rubber hits the road, because even natural methods of birth control can be immoral if they're undertaken with a "contraceptive mentality," that is, children are rejected for selfish reasons.

596 posted on 03/07/2006 12:35:25 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
And you really see those two scenarios as moral equivalents????

For someone who thinks that the birth of modern totalitarianism arose from "a denunciation of government", this barely counts as one of the six impossible things one is expected to believe before breakfast.

597 posted on 03/07/2006 12:36:46 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Really, if you're going to redefine terms in a manner that makes Bill Clinton look like Noah Webster, there's no point in pretending to communicate.

Yawn. Your transference is showing again.
598 posted on 03/07/2006 12:42:18 PM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
It believed, above all, that individual rights were descended from an All-Powerful God. At its core was the notion of Natural Law.

In fact, Locke's notion of rights, in logical order, life, liberty and property, was based on the natural law writings of Jesuit Francisco Suarez ("Tractatus de legibus").

599 posted on 03/07/2006 12:43:04 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
For someone who thinks that the birth of modern totalitarianism...

Tell me, does the US Constitution have collectivist, totalitarian aspects to it when, in the preamble, it says that one of the purposes of government is "to provide for the common good"?
600 posted on 03/07/2006 12:45:30 PM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 781 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson