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.
This ting is still ALIVE??? Good grief!
Uh-oh...the potificators are going to come crawling out of the woodwork now.
Why did I just bump this?
YIKES...gotta go. Just got WEIRD NEWS!
What FreedomSpurge has failed to explain is how (in his view) welfare queens should be allowed to vote, yet priests and nuns not...
self ping for later read.
Why don't you explain why bitter aging feminists and homosexuals should vote? What is their concern for the long term health of the nation?
I want you to show me the part in the Constitution that says one must be a childbearing person to vote.
Then I'll answer your question.
"To clarify, having that additional 6% would be that much more I can save. Right now, that part of my income is taken from me without my consent."
Up to this point, no one has corrected this statement and I can't resist. To clarify, yes 6.5% is visibly taken from your paycheck as a line item withholding. Your employer also matches that withholding, so your earnings are actually affected by 13%. If you are self employed, you are forced to pay 13% to the government to fund FICA.
I agree with you tho, that 13% would go a lot further if I could invest it myself.
You're totally right about the 13% (and I was aware of it), I just stuck with 6 since I didn't feel like explaining what you just did!
I really wish I had gotten to this thread as the discussion was actually happening. It looks like it would have been fun. The Righteous Right is clearly as dangerous as the Loony Left. It is amazing so many dictators reside on FR.
We had a blast while the Prude Squad pouted.
Bump!
Keep it alive!
"I hope you are being sarcastic -your property taxes for schools is an investment in people who will fix your car, take care of you at the hospital, start new businesses to provide stuff and services you want."
Unless they plan to perform these services for free, that "investment" only offers negative returns. If they plan to get paid to perform these services, then they should be making the investment to realize that return.
TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!
"Especially if you still find a way to make your fair contribution."
The "fair contribution" that any consumer of services or goods is simply the pay they offer for those things. The fact that I am willing to pay $$ for a specific item/service is the motivating factor for people to educate themselves to the point that they are able to meet my wants/needs.
Instead of relying on a true capitalist economic model, we now use government force to steal money from all people to fund a school system. This school system has now created an "education is a right" mentality. As a result, people don't see that education as the required foundation to be able to earn their way in life. That motivation has become disconnected in the economic model presented by the author of this article, as well as the "investment for the future" arguments made on this thread.
The economic model presented by this author and by many on this thread are actually detrimental to society. Capitalism is being destroyed by the "children are good for society" folks. Yes, children should be celebrated and supported, but that should be by the individual families/churches/etc. not by all of society.
I don't disagree with your sentiment about government employees rights to vote, but I do disagree with your classifying military folks in the same status.
How about allow for voting rights to be granted to any government employee that is performing duties specifically written into the constitution? In addition, I would support an ammendment only allowing those civilians that pay taxes be allowed to vote.
ROFL! This thing just won't DIE!!
"I can't imagine that there would ever be an enforceable obligation to contribute toward the education of the rising generation via private, schurch or home schools (the essence of "private, church, home" is that it IS private and voluntary.)
But as I said, the fact that parents are paying all the costs of a workable future society, and your generation would reap an ensemble of tangible and intangible benefits, ought to inspire some thoughts of inter-generational solidarity.
Solidarity. That's a good word in anybody's vocabulary.
OMG! This is getting very funny...or pathetic...I can't decide which.
Both, as the Prude Squad usually is-funny and pathetic!!
Like the movie "Eraserhead."
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.