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.
Heck yeah. I deserve extra votes for the votes those kids I don't have would be casting if I did have them.
The Uptight, Sexually-Repressed, Holier-Than-Thou FR Prude Squad isn't allowed to have a sense of humor.
They probably think a ping list is purient.
"The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation."
Well then I guess I shouldn't have to pay property taxes so your yard monkeys can go to school either.
(* No, not really)
If you aren't using the service, your "fair contribution" is 0.
Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting.
But they do provide amusing fodder for our senses of humor, don't they?
(They must have been standing in the "eight kids and a superior attitude for me line" while the sesnes of humor were being handed out.)
Only if you're dead.
Hmmmm….
To that I’d say “no, I’m not”.
My finest point is that having and raising children is a benefit to society in general, and the childless (for whatever reason they may be childless) benefit as much as anyone.
My personal circumstance is that it required thousands of dollars and the intervention of science to have my one daughter.
If anyone wants to not pay taxes for schools and things of that nature, they should get involved in the political process and make it so.
"You are indeed fortunate to have enough money to not want children."
Did I say I didn't WANT children? Did you read that somewhere in my posts?
I'd go for Dallas fans not being allowed to vote!!!
Quite right, but if you think that is all an adoption entails you haven't done your homework. Even regarding the items you cite, do you suppose the non-profit doesn't pay their employees? When you imply that those checks are "cheap" did you factor in the employee costs of all of the people, yourself included perhaps, that performed those checks and compiled that data? Have you factored in the likelyhood that adoption agencies are usually small outfits, and the cost to process each client goes up as compared to a (presumably) larger organization that cranks many people through their screening process? Have you considered that agencies usually must do a fair amount of "custom" work? With foreign adoptions each country has different requirements and those requirements change frequently.
I'm guessing here, but I'm gonna guess "no".
Our adoption was 20-30k including a trip to the other side of the world for me, my wife and our daughter. That included 2 weeks there for all four of us.
Even with the tax credit for adoption, the upfront fee's for private adoption make doing so prohibitive for many people.
Yes, I suppose they do. But if a couple cannot save enough to adopt by setting aside the funds that the child would cost over the course of a few years I wonder if they can afford any child. Work some second jobs, cut some other costs. If one wants something one must do what is necessary. Is adoption cost prohibitive for some? Yes. Do I like how expensive it was; do I think it was "fair"? I didn't like the high cost at all, but I have no reason to suspect there is gouging going on. Was it worth it? Hands down not even a contest; worth every dollar plus more than can be counted.
Stay safe FRiend. Try not to look at the calendar too much.
That biological clock is ticking. And there will come a day when drinking buddies won't be even a poor substitute for your own family.
"do you know my brother-in-law?
He's got a summer lake house, a time share in Myrtle Beach, 3 cars, a motorcycle, a snowmobile, an ATV, a boat, a large firearms collection, and a pair of jet skis.
And now they're struggling because their first kid just went off to college and they didn't plan for it..."
Amazing. When a kid is born, you know you have 18 years to plan for college! I don't tend to feel sorry for people with a lot of toys and no real future. Good luck keeping your in-law from hitting YOU up for a loan!
You're fine as long as you have the kid no less than 30 days before the election.
Also, you will have to bring aforesaid product of copulation with you to the voting booth along with a report of DNA analysis (form #46-60406/A rev. B) as proof that said product is the result of your efforts.
When I log on in the morning, I expect to see it all hammered out as to who can vote and who cannot. After all, the primaries are upon us.
I'm a Houston Texans fan. Please don't let that impact my right to vote, OK? ;-)
There you go being yourself again. Your last post almost made sense (actually, I agreed with it) but then you bring out the attitude again.
A few years ago, the hew and cry was fear over the "poplation bomb," we were going to have too many people in the world for the Earth's resources, so the "responsible" thing was to have NO kids.
So which way is it?
They can't have it both ways.
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.