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.
PING!!!
They shouldn't.
Add to that:
Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, and Condi Rice have no kids. Are they freeloaders too?
Well, by your reasoning, the welfare mom, living on the dole, who has 5 kids should get to vote several times.
Think, FreedomSurge....Think!
I know it's hard, but do try.
There are lots of ups and downs, no matter what choice you make. Parents have greater expenses and greater heartaches when their offspring are growing up, but they can expect some degree of support from those offspring in old age.
Childless people have more money as the result, but they don't have the social buffer zone that kids provide. But knowing that, they often put away enough money to ensure their prosperity in their old age.
And ya have to. I don't want to have to depend on this guy's kids when I'm old.
"I am not going to have children, so why do I have to pay taxes I will never use?"
Answer: Who paid to educate you?--AND, Do you really wish to live in a society where the great unwashed masses run the streets in ignorance?
I've already shot down the various fallacies in your argument. It is dishonest of you to pretend that it can simply rise again intact, like the phoenix.
It is too bad to see more and more articles like this that frame the subject of family decisions purely in terms of economics.
If people decide to have or not to have children purely based on finances and status - then that is a major problem right there.
I see posters have decided this is a social security vs. public education fight.
Everyone is going to be worse off if our nation does not continue to thrive in all areas - economically,educationally, socially, and spiritually.
It is impossible to have hope for any nation that does not produce children. That is - fewer entrepeneurs, fewer scientists, fewer inventions, fewer doctors/police/teachers.
People who complain about paying for education will have less and less to complain about as the number of kids in school drops.
This shrinking pool of younger Americans will carry the burden for the growing pool of elderly Americans.
This is not an adversarial situation - we are all in this together.
The cost of raising a chlld far exceeds any tax benefit that child generates.
That is an even more compelling reason why the public school system, and the taxes stolen to support it, shoudl be abolished.
Since I pay school taxes, but have no children -- and thusly haven't benefited from that tax -- I take the very opposite view.
"For this reason, the deliberate choice to exclude children from marriage is one of the grounds for declaring a marriage null in the Catholic Church."
Wow! I'm sure glad my wife and I aren't Catholics then. When is the RCC going to make anullment mandatory for childless couples? I hadn't heard that they were.
Further, all those priests, there. They are all childless. The nuns, too. I guess they're a waste of air, too.
Thomas Aquinas would be ashamed of your logical processes.
Fine, so my marriage is not a true one. Big deal we lived together for 6 years before we got married anyway. It is my choice not to become pregnant.
"For this reason, the deliberate choice to exclude children from marriage is one of the grounds for declaring a marriage null in the Catholic Church."
I agree, but newsflash...not everyboy is Catholic.
"Since I pay school taxes, but have no children -- and thusly haven't benefited from that tax -- I take the very opposite view."
Yeah. And how about that tax credit that goes to people with children, even if they didn't earn enough to pay taxes? I pay that sucker through my taxes. Phooey!
The article also ASSUMES one child families.
What about the Aunt and Uncle?
What about the single and looking?
The only direct "burden" people are the homsexuals.
How about people who can't get pregnant - are they freeloaders with no purpose to marry?
What a hunk of junk.
"I agree, but newsflash...not everyboy is Catholic.
"
Not everygirl, either. [grin]
Don't check the grammar!
I have made a choice to not have children and I am tired of getting crap from certain over zealous factions here about it!
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.