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.
George Washington was childless.
That being said, we do need children at replacement rate or higher, or we'll go the way of Europe.
I figure that my wife and I put our reproductive endocrinologist's kid through college over the last few years - all with exactly ZERO success. I have no desire to repeat the process with any adoption agency.
Crotchfruit??
ROFL!
I don't care who ya are, that's funny raight thar!!"
/Larry the Cable Guy
I could make a whole heck of a lot more money on that 6% of my paycheck by putting it into an investment of my choosing than I'll ever get from Social (In)Security.
Then you should do so. We pay into Social Security, and add a lot of our own money to our own savings and investments. On top of SocSec, 10% of each of our paychecks goes into our 401(K)s, and we add money over and above that to other accounts as well. It CAN be done.
You can vote. The priests and nuns should not.
I do, I'm just saying I'd rather have that 6% of my own money that the government TAKES from me!!
"Don't be such a coward. Come right out and endorse "BraveMan's" above statement as proper discourse on Free Republic."
Tell ya what, there Freedom's Dirge. I'll do that just as soon as you quit trying to disenfranchise my wife and I, OK?
I'm a citizen of this fine country. I'm a veteran of its military, as well. When you start suggesting that I no longer have the right to vote, simply because I have not had children, then you and I are going to contend a bit.
I have no idea who you are, what your background is, or what intent you have in calling for the disenfranchisement of non-childbearing citizens of this country, but it isn't going to happen.
So, think a little. Consider what you say before you say it. But don't keep me away from the voting booth. You'll be way sorry you did that.
Given the figures in the recent Federal Reserve report on how Americans provide for their own savings and retirement (or, more accurately, DO NOT), I'd say SocSec is the only hope way too many of them have. If they had that 6% a lot of them would just get a big ol' plasma TV or some other immediate gratification.
To clarify, having that additional 6% would be that much more I can save. Right now, that part of my income is taken from me without my consent.
" The priests and nuns should not.
"
Hilarious. You are beyond reason. I fart in your general direction.
Quick! Fall down on your knees weeping with gratitude!
You've been GIVEN PERMISSION TO VOTE!
Let me see that purple finger, brotha!
"You can vote. The priests and nuns should not."
So, now religion keeps you from voting? Or is it chosen occupation? I'd like to hear your reasoning about that statement.
I guess all is well since Freedom Splurge has given me permission to vote!
I have two children (well, had. I'm down to one). My daughter is a young adult.
"Society" has not and will not 'support' me in my waning years, I assure you. I can and will support myself. I've put six figures into FICA over the years. It would not surprise me to never collect a dime; I'm certainly not banking on collecting anything from 'society'.
Your comment labeling me a fascist belies your age and your lack of understanding. Keep this 'fake, but accurate' free riders claim out of here.
"So, now religion keeps you from voting? Or is it chosen occupation?"
No, no...you've missed it. Freedom's Dirge thinks that only folks who have children should be able to vote. Priests and nuns don't, so they can't vote. But, if you're thinking about having children, it's OK if you vote. But...if you get married, be sure and have children right away, or Freedom's Dirge will be along to keep you from the voting booth.
Very good!
Of course all that shows now is the tripod logo...
If you espouse to that nonsense, then child molesters, abusers, pedophiles, smokers, drinkers, fat people, the poor, the stupid, the religious, the non-religious, Jewish people, Catholics, Protestants and on and on shouldn't vote...total bunk.
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.