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.
Yes, Scourge, how do you explain that?
Here’s my response: “Define ‘degrading people’.”
The argument in this article can be summed up easily:
Drug addict welfare case mother who has six crack babies by five different fathers? Good.
Pope Benedict? Bad.
I have to disagree with that. People like that are more like black holes. They suck in and horde resources, vote down infrastructure improvements, create an instant gratification culture, and in general contribute very little to the coming generation.
Black holes? Nope, not degrading at all.
Do I need the sarcasm tag?
eesh. memememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe.......
Well, really, that isn't all that bad.
Why do you keep bringing up memes? ;)
But a foolish statement, such as voting rights of childless people should be revoked, deserved a wild reply!
What about people with ugly or stupid children?
They would get the vote when they leave the military. But like any other government employee, they have a vested interest in increasing the amount of money their branch of the government receives. So, that conflict of interest should prevent them from voting.
Actually, the more important issue for me is our tax status here in DC. DC politicians keep asking that DC be made a state, but I tend to take the opposite view. DC should not receive representation, but DC residents should also not be required to pay Federal taxes. Sort of like Puerto Rico- no taxation, no representation.
They pay double!
"What about people with ugly or stupid children?"
They should have negative votes. They should have to give away one vote for every ugly, stupid child they have.
John Kerry's parents?
LOL we think alike! (see my 292)
Heck, for that you can live in a villa in Mexico with the full-time services of a couple of senoritas who will be glad to dress up as nurses if you like... ;)
Maybe you'll be dead before you're in your dotage, but who cares? You're gonna have all that money to spend on yourself and your wife, MM!
Life will be good. And you'll probably have more visitors than Freedom Surge, whose kids will no doubt expect him to euthanize himself when his prescriptions get too expensive...
How many ugly, stupid children do FreedomSurge and Scourge of God have??
The market always wins.
LOL! I don't know, but I get to be the judge or whether a child is ugly or stupid.
They may have beautiful children, but any one is ugly, I get the vote!
Every person in the US receives some financial benefit from the federal government, either in direct funds or benefits that come from federal tax dollars. Most voters have a vested interest in how much of a benefit they receive and vote in a way to increase that benefit.
Since all voters have a vested interest in how much benefit they receive from federal tax dollars and vote in a way to increase that benefit for themselves then by your definition nobody should have the right to vote.
Perfect, we'll just scrap the constitution as a living document that has finally passed away, start a dictatorship and have someone who has absolutely no vested interest in any financial benefit from the federal government run it. Perfect plan eh?
Well, I will say that genetics aren't in their kids' favor as far as the intelligence factor goes...
Can I be a judge too? I'd like an extra vote.
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.