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.
Thanks for clearing that up for me!
How long is the grace period between getting married and popping out a kid? Do I need to concieve on my wedding night? or can I have a month or two?
Just need to know. If I ever get married, I may need to plan it around the election cycle to ensure I can vote!
Look at it this way, childless whiners: you are, right now, benefiting from the labor and efforts of ‘breeders’. All those folks of yesteryear who were so stupid as to sacrifice and raise children gave you the future and the world you now have. The builders, the soldiers, the thinkers, the laborers, the leaders, they all came from ‘breeders’.
You’d have crap right now without them. You’d be living in a hole in a village that resembles Africa, if not for those ‘breeders’.
Now, why are you so pissy about building the future for those to come? We are carrying you!
"How long is the grace period between getting married and popping out a kid? Do I need to concieve on my wedding night? or can I have a month or two?
"
I'm not sure of the details of all this. You'll have to check with FreedomPurge.
What does he want? Some type of photographic evidence that procreation, or attempts at such, are going on?
"Look at it this way, childless whiners: you are, right now, benefiting from the labor and efforts of ‘breeders’. All those folks of yesteryear who were so stupid as to sacrifice and raise children gave you the future and the world you now have. The builders, the soldiers, the thinkers, the laborers, the leaders, they all came from ‘breeders’.
You’d have crap right now without them. You’d be living in a hole in a village that resembles Africa, if not for those ‘breeders’.
Now, why are you so pissy about building the future for those to come? We are carrying you! "
Did you forget the sarcasm tag?
I don't want the "tumors" to subsidize my children, I want them to stay far-away, in every way, from them.
This thread really brough them out of the woodwork. Well, at least today I learned that Africa is a hell hole because of a lack of "breeders".
"Some type of photographic evidence that procreation, or attempts at such, are going on?
"
I think you've got it. Before you can vote, you have to show him some photos of you and your wife having unprotected sex. It's called amateur porn. He'll have a whole filing cabinet full of it.
He'll then investigate to make certain your wife is not taking any contraceptive medication. If it all checks out, you'll be able to vote. But, these tests will have to be done before each election, until you and your wife produce a child.
Yeah, that's the ticket...
Easy to mock, hard to refute.
Good to know you prefer the east route!
"Someone should place a pacifier up the anal cavity of this author to prevent any further episodes of this verbal diarrhea"
You and your supporters believe this to be a proper way of expressing disagreement on Free Republic.
I believe a man who wishes to place a pacifier up the anal cavity of another man is sick.
You and your friends believe this to be enlightened debate. I disagree.
BTTT.
People who make the argument that Americans have a duty to have more children so that there will be enough taxpayers to pay for entitlements have bought into socialism.
My wife and I intend to have children. However, even if we do not, I guarantee that we will be paying much, much more into the public treasury than we will ever get back.
"Look at it this way, childless whiners: you are, right now, benefiting from the labor and efforts of ‘breeders’. All those folks of yesteryear who were so stupid as to sacrifice and raise children gave you the future and the world you now have. The builders, the soldiers, the thinkers, the laborers, the leaders, they all came from ‘breeders’.
"
I doubt that would suffice. Procreative sex looks so much like recreational sex that it would be hard to distinguish. Perhaps if the participants had grim, purposeful looks on their faces during the act, it would help?
I just want you all to know that, as a parent, I am endebted to you and your sacrifices in helping me pay for my children's education. It would have been a much more difficult burden to bear were it not for your (government demanded) assistance.
The only way I can repay you is to do my best to ensure my daughter becomes a contributing member of society (and to make her see the truth behind socialist rants such as these).
I couldn't disagree more with this Jamoke author . . .
LOL back ~ nothing trickier than getting a row of ducks to march through a window of opportunity!
"Since the arguments put forth in Humanae Vitae are based entirely (to the best of my recollection) on the natural law, the arguments therein apply to all marriages, Catholic or otherwise.
But again, internal Church law (Canon law) only applies to Catholics."
So I'm not sure that mentioning church law is really relevant in a discussion of civic duty or economic policy.
Trust me, I'm not anti-child, far from it, but I do not believe it is the role of the government to interfere in people's personal choices with regard to size of family. Don't mistake that to mean I am "pro-choice", I believe that my rights end where another human being's begin, but the government should have no say in whether I choose to conceive no children or 20. In my mind saying we should restrict the rights of those who choose to have no children is no different than saying we should restrict the rights of those who choose to have many.
The whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who LOVES children, and buys into the "childlessness is killing Europe" argument. But nothing happens in a vacuum. It's childlessness, combined with massive social programs, combined with a huge Islamic immigration problem that's killing Europe.
But I can't see why this is an issue in the US. Why on earth would we want people who don't want children to have them anyway?
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.