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.
That was never my point. My point is that children are a benefit to society and to local communities. Childless people complaining about paying for education for other people’s children are clueless, and wrong. And, it’s been demonstrated on this thread, stupid.
That said, having children is a matter of personal choice. There is no higher freedom than personal freedom, that’s what makes the US great. I’d no sooner force people to have children than I would force them to have abortions.
wouldn't that bring into play an abusive situation, they adopt this kid, but they don't care about it, all they want is the personal power in having a kid.
This conjecture is so ‘out there’ that it’s hardly worth considering. Most people who adopt go to great expense and trouble. If they want ‘personal power’ they should get a dog and abuse it, its cheaper, quicker, and not nearly as regulated as child protection is.
It’s a basic part of the human make up to have children. It’s as basic and as important as breathing, its just part of existing. Sure, there’s the libertines and the lazy, as demonstrated on this thread, but they are denying themselves a basic and vital part of being human. People who adopt usually want to have a child to fulfill this human need, to truly maximize their existence, to help raise and guide the next generation.
worse case you would have people adopting kids, then neglecting and abusing and killing them for their own personal power. does this self worth of having kids end at some point, could say you have a kid till its 5, and then adopt it out, or it dies, or is murdered by the parents, do they still have more worth than a childless/childfree person. you will get people adopting just to get SS or to vote, and wont actually care about the kids. so abuse and neglect, and more screwed up humans, ad infinitum
This leads me to wonder: have you been abused? Is this grim outlook a result of your own experience?
That’s the downside to freedom, I suppose: many people abuse their freedom in ways that hurt others.
That’s a very limited view. Is your entire role in society to be a consumer? Sounds like a welfare queen to me. Producers, on the other hand, need inputs. They need trained and talented people. They need resources. They need capital.
News flash: all of those inputs are people-based. Unless the car manufacturer is going to go out and dig, transport, refine, and forge the steel he needs to make cars himself, he’s got to pay people who can do those things to do them for him. He’s going to need capital, he gets that from lenders, and banks. He’s going to need labor. People. Trained people. Educated people. And where do those people come from? Schools. Parents. No schools, no parents: no economy. No economy, no country. It’s not hard to understand.
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.
There is no country in the world that’s fully capitalist. And I challenge your assumption that “people don't see that education as the required foundation to be able to earn their way in life”. That’s hardly provable. And even if true, then what do kids go to college for?
The economic model presented by this author and by many on this thread are actually detrimental to society.
You haven’t said ‘how’. I could say “flying cows were the first mammals to walk on the moon” with all the authority you muster here.
Capitalism is being destroyed by the "children are good for society" folks.
Yet another ridiculous, unsupported claim. Really, that’s all you have here. Unsupported claims.
Yes, children should be celebrated and supported, but that should be by the individual families/churches/etc. not by all of society.
Allow me to offer you one final bit of education. Free of charge; I’m a people-person. Consider the case of the rich taxpayer versus the middle-class taxpayer. The rich taxpayer pays far more in property taxes and income taxes than does the middle-class taxpayer. Yet they both consume about the same amount of taxpayer funded infrastructure and government services.
By your standards, the middle class taxpayer is destroying capitalism. The middle class taxpayer is sucking away resources from the rich taxpayer. And heck, consider the poor non-taxpayer. That class totally rides on the higher income earners.
Do you get it? Everyone contributes in varying amounts, in different ways. But the bedrock of it all is educated and trained people. Society has a vested interest in a large pool of educated and trained people.
"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."
CSM:
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.
_._
Not so. Consider the computer. A bunch of educated nerds have continually made computers and software better over the years, with more functions added all the time.
As a result, businesses are far more efficient and capable now than in the past. So, for those business owners, investment in computer education has paid direct, measurable benefits. Governments, private organizations, individuals; they all have benefited tremendously from investments into technology education. Consumers benefit in lower prices, better distribution, and more information to make choices.
Consider medical education. Say you someday come down with cancer. You will receive treatments that will extend your useful life for many years. In the past, those treatments did not exist. Those extra years in your life were brought to you by educated people, and by the investment in medical education.
The list goes on. Investment in education yields better products, better services, cheaper prices.
And the thesis of this article is proved: the childless are ‘free-riders’ on the efforts and costs of those who raise children.
"And I would much rather come under His judgment than under yours. Yours matters not a whit to me."
Yet you are self righteous enough to judge others thinking that it matters to them.
Oooops, my bad. I thought someone else posted your comment. I wish FR had a retract feature. That is what I get for being distracted with conference calls.....
"If you subsidize the kids to the tune of $100,000 during your productive years but receive $200,000 in social security and medicare benefits during your non-productive years without having had taxpaying children to support ss and medicare during those non-productive years then you are a free rider on the system."
Using the failure of a socialist system in no way bolsters your position.
Wrong again. You don't "receive" any of these things, you buy and pay for them (unless you're on some form of welfare, which is a separate problem).
We are on the same page WRT the public school system, but my point remains. The money spent on today's children are not an "investment" by the working population of today. To make that point valid we would have to be expected to not compensate for the services/products that those children will provide when they are of age.
Anyone getting an education is making an investment in themselves and hoping to increase their future value. I will compensate a doctor more for their services than I will compensate a bartender. That is true regardless of my age. If the family does not teach their child that education is important, then their potential value is cheapened.
The "society invests in children" side of this argument is only denying that they are responsible for ensuring that their children know how to maximize their future value. This argument actually is worse for our future than the individualists expecting to fairly compensate a service provider in the future.
Actually, that's simply not true. For example, police protection of property is worth ten times as much to a millionaire than it is to someone who has $100k, because the former has ten times as much to lose if theft is not suppressed.
That said, the current tax system is far too socialistically "progressive" (which is a problem unrelated to the issue that spawned this thread).
On the contrary, they are perceptive, and right.
The current socialistic education system encourages ineptitude and bloat, for the same reason those results occur in any other system that decouples the responsibility of paying for something from the decision of how much to use. Do you think that parents who actually had to directly foot the bills themselves would buy courses in "Why Western Civilization Sucks" or "101 Sexual Positions To Try Before Your Sixteenth Birthday"?
Hell, it would probably go further if you invested it in the First Bank of Serta Posturpedic....
Failure to actually refute a point undermines your position.
I should like to aid young people in learning, even if I am not their paid teacher and even if they are not "my" young people. Likewise they should expect to learn from elders, and feel themselves bound in some way to honor elders, just on the basis of a general, intergenerational respect.
The ties that bind us to each other, person to person, gender to gender and generation to generation, are mostly customary rather than legal. We owe so much to others just by being begotten and born, that we could never think to put most of our relations on a pay-for-service or "enforceable" basis.
"That’s a very limited view. Is your entire role in society to be a consumer? Sounds like a welfare queen to me. Producers, on the other hand, need inputs. They need trained and talented people."
Yes, producers are consumers and consumers are producers. It is up to the individuals to ensure they acquire the talents that are in demand, it is not the responsibility of "society at large." If you believe that to be the case, then the next step of assigning folks to certain fields through the use of government force is just as worthy of support.
The rest of your post misses a very distinct difference. I am not anti school, I am not anti children and I am not anti family. I am against the Federal government's role in these things today. The involvement of the government is nothing but legalized theft to fund an inefficient system to meet the needs of our economy.
The only reason the original article has any merit is becuase of the failure of socialist programs. The failure socialism will most likely lead to fascism, as witnessed by any reader of this thread.
You asked how this authors premise is more harmful, well think for a moment. We have instituted legalized theft to fund a failing public system, we are taking money from everyone to ensure we protect the educational system from the market. We then expect the students to perform at equal levels, we do this by holding back the entire class to the slowest performer.
We also have a retirement plan that started out as a plan to help those that have fallen on hard times, now people expect to live off the government when they turn 65. This system is about to implode and all the good sheeple would rather just tell everyone to have children to make sure the scheme is funded long enough to support them.
I have heard your arguments, and I have heard Medveds. I have yet to see how government support of children is either constitutional, right or successful. The concept of individual responsibility and market responses would have our country in a much better place today than either public education or SS.
That’s a good attempt at a point. But a cop driving by the rich guys house for ten minutes generates the exact same costs as a cop driving by a poor persons house for ten minutes.
And you failed entirely to answer the infrastructure argument.
That said, the current tax system is far too socialistically "progressive" (which is a problem unrelated to the issue that spawned this thread).
I’ll agree with you here.
I find little argument with you here. Competition in schooling (private, church, home schooling, so on) would no doubt result in a better state of education in this country. But there is little doubt that education is a direct benefit to our country, and should be a high priority of government.
Good freakin' grief - it's STILL going!
"The ties that bind us to each other, person to person, gender to gender and generation to generation, are mostly customary rather than legal. We owe so much to others just by being begotten and born, that we could never think to put most of our relations on a pay-for-service or "enforceable" basis."
I can agree with this as well, but what you describe is a voluntary situation, not a mandated situation enforced with the threat of jail. My beef is that the attributes you describe are good for society, but that the government's only role should be to allow people to freely make the decisions.
Using government force only absolves people of their true responsibilities in maintaining a good and decent society. Why should I give to charity when I already give thousands to the government to give to the "less fortunate?"
Government forced morality, cheapens morality.
I've given up on this thread...
Get a womb.
;-)
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.