Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Family Free-Riders (Childless adults are economic free riders)
Chicago Boyz ^ | March 03, 2006 | Shannon Love

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: breeders; census; childfree; children; homepricesincrease; ohnoleftbabyonbus; sionnsar; trailertrash; welfare; zpg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 781 next last
To: Antoninus
Tell me, does the US Constitution have collectivist, totalitarian aspects to it when, in the preamble, it says that one of the purposes of government is "to provide for the common good"?

I can't find a single reference to "the common good" in my copy. You must have the version with all the emanations from the penumbrae inked into the margins.

601 posted on 03/07/2006 12:50:34 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I can't find a single reference to "the common good" in my copy. You must have the version with all the emanations from the penumbrae inked into the margins.

Agggh. It's because I conflated two of the terms in error. Mea culpa. Here's what it actually says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The challenge still stands, however. Is "promote the general welfare" collectivist? Yea or nay?

Actually, "provide for the common defense" is pretty collectivist as well by your standards.
602 posted on 03/07/2006 1:25:41 PM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Straw men and now personal attacks? Where have I been anything but perfectly respectful of you?

That’s how it was yesterday. Lots of personal attacks, no reasonable responses. Not a lot of candlepower on that side of the debate.

603 posted on 03/07/2006 1:30:09 PM PST by Scourge of God (What goes here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I can't find a single reference to "the common good" in my copy. You must have the version with all the emanations from the penumbrae inked into the margins.

Perhaps he meant “General Welfare.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

604 posted on 03/07/2006 1:36:45 PM PST by Scourge of God (What goes here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
http://www.hi.com.au/eec/childless_case.htm

Childlessness as a Choice

Baum has conducted several studies and identified four major reasons why women choose to be childfree. These include:

Hedonists

women who want to maintain their standard of living lifestyle and who do not wish to sacrifice their time, energy or money in raising children

Emotional

women who have no emotional feelings for or affinity with babies or children (no ‘maternal instincts’)

Idealistic

women who do not want to bring children into a world they feel is unsuitable or unsafe, or who do not want to contribute to overpopulation or environmental problems

Practical

women who have a practical reason for remaining childfree, such as a wish to pursue their career, a preference to spend their time exclusively with a partner, or a fear of passing on a genetic disorder to children.


605 posted on 03/07/2006 2:00:28 PM PST by Scourge of God (What goes here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Practitioners of natural method birth control are commonly called parents.
This planet does have limits: I do not see the Lord multiplying loaves and fishes anytime soon (especially the fishes: they are going to crash).
Children as a resource? Perhaps. But to depend on them for my wellbeing? Ha.
Ones own children cannot always be depended on to support the elderly parents.
I repeat, to dogmatically proclaim 'everyone must procreate' is just as reprehensible to say 'everyone must not procreate.'
I still pay school taxes to educate (or not) other peoples children. I pay other taxes to support ever burgeoning welfare queens. I pay social security (which I will never see). An economy that relies on an ever-expanding population is asking for trouble. I suggest you look up Malthus. He was not wrong, merely delayed by the industrial revolution and America.
Finally, maybe we can mass produce food from synthesized food stuff from maggots. (after all, the little buggers will grow in just about anything. Why should we have to put up with mediocrity in everything so we can crowbar ourselves into shrinking space? Cover everything with apartment houses, cover every square inch. Children are our resources.. for what..


606 posted on 03/07/2006 2:18:17 PM PST by tclawnguyland (two cents ΒΆΒΆ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: tclawnguyland
I suggest you look up Malthus.

Who was discredited about 100 years ago.

Your ideology conforms well to the "hell is other people" philosophy of life. Good for you. I consider that misanthropic.

You are correct that this world is finite. The universe, however, is infinite (for all practical purposes). When life gets too crowded here, we'll have a powerful incentive to make other places habitable. I have faith in human genius, as inspired by Divine Providence, to find the way.

It's a far better solution than embracing sterility and death.
607 posted on 03/07/2006 2:27:29 PM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: tclawnguyland
Finally, maybe we can mass produce food from synthesized food stuff from maggots. (after all, the little buggers will grow in just about anything. Why should we have to put up with mediocrity in everything so we can crowbar ourselves into shrinking space? Cover everything with apartment houses, cover every square inch.

On the Television Program 20/20, John Stossel said that the entire human population of earth could fit into Texas at the density of Tokyo.

There’s lots of room, lots of resources. Don’t Panic!

608 posted on 03/07/2006 2:42:04 PM PST by Scourge of God (What goes here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God

By those definitions, put me down at about half and half emotional/practical.


609 posted on 03/07/2006 5:05:45 PM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
By those definitions, put me down at about half and half emotional/practical.

Got it. This goes on your PERMANENT RECORD, you know.

:->

610 posted on 03/07/2006 6:27:59 PM PST by Scourge of God (What goes here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

This is a total crock of shit. Check your taxes lately on how many exemptions each kid is worth? Singles don't get ANY. It's called transfer payments from the singles to the people who keep getting knocked up. And don't forget to take your average sick days of 11 per year for each child while us single people work extra time to cover for you. What else do you want? You milk the single people for EVERYTHING and still want more.


611 posted on 03/07/2006 7:33:04 PM PST by Little Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Bush

I think you may have an anger management problem.


612 posted on 03/07/2006 7:39:04 PM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge
the cost of raising children is increasingly being borne by fewer and fewer in the general population.

grousing in some blue zones by the childless that they shouldn't have to subsidize the "breeders'" children

It has been a long day already and something doesn't make sense here.

First there is the claim that fewer are bearing the costs of childrearing.

Then there is reference to the fact that the childless do, after all, in some sense, subsidize the kiddies. Do not parts of my tax monies fund local and state school programs, for example?

Well, which is it... The way I see it, kids and their guardians have more cash, privilege, opportunity, etc. these days than the rest of us when it comes to financial aspects.

613 posted on 03/07/2006 7:41:56 PM PST by maxwell (Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

You're a psycho. No, even worse, you're a mooching psycho.


614 posted on 03/07/2006 7:42:43 PM PST by Little Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: Little Bush

Quote a passage of mine that backs your thesis. I believe your own words damn you.


615 posted on 03/07/2006 7:48:11 PM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: maxwell

And you'd think people who are planning to have children would prepare themselves financially before taking the plunge... instead of expecting everyone else to help them... then screaming like big whining democrat babies when someone - who wasn't part of their baby decision - doesn't want to contribute. USE YOUR BRAIN IF YOU WANT CHILDREN AND PAY FOR YOUR OWN CHILDREN/ISSUES YOURSELF. I am so sick of people acting like nothing is their own responsibility and as if everyone else should pay for their problems. GROW UP. Don't have children when you can't be responsible yourself, you turd monkey!


616 posted on 03/07/2006 7:50:10 PM PST by Little Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge
Women should be taxed higher because they are more irritating.

Bwahaha! Guess the gals missed this one...

617 posted on 03/07/2006 7:54:08 PM PST by maxwell (Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
"First there is the claim that fewer are bearing the costs of childrearing."

The author's thesis is that children are important to the well being of society. A necessary good. If you accept the thesis that over time new children are necessary for the health of the society you live in then you must accept that those who choose not to bear the full costs of child raising are engaging in "free rider" behaviour.

618 posted on 03/07/2006 7:54:38 PM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Little Bush
Don't have children when you can't be responsible yourself, you turd monkey!

Okay, dude, okay. We're on the same side here. Sheesh. Don't rip the choir's head off, bruh.

619 posted on 03/07/2006 7:58:44 PM PST by maxwell (Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on FR.


620 posted on 03/07/2006 8:02:01 PM PST by CheneyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 781 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson