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.
True and they are worth every cent. Will you be taking care of your parents too?
So, now I'm a "Free Rider"?
Somehow I am being unfair for not wishing this screwed up world on another generation?
Then refund all the higher income tax's I have paid, all the property tax's that went to support other peoples kids, etc.!
No? That's what I expected.
"FWIW, I don't agree that the childless should be disenfranchised. That's a patently idiotic idea.
"
That being the topic of the thread, that is the topic I'm addressing. Your support of FreedomPurge's comments about childless people led me to believe that you also believed what he said regarding the franchise.
If you do not, then your feelings about childlessness are irrelevant to the topic.
"pusillanimous pismire "
Excellent use of alliteration. A+ work!
I have to disagree with that. People like that are more like black holes. They suck in and horde resources, vote down infrastructure improvements, create an instant gratification culture, and in general contribute very little to the coming generation.
They ARE some of the thinkers, the leaders, the innovators, because they have the time and the resources to be them.
Sure, then they can take time off from their obsession with sex and various kinds of inebriation, I’m sure they have a few good thoughts. Please, you’re describing junk bond dealers and real estate agents here.
So you think a crackwhore pumping out 5-6 crackbabies should have more rights than a nun or priest?
Quick - get yourself to a proctologist so he can remove your head from your ass.
Do you take everything literally?
As for the rest of it, I'm not a psychotherapist, so I'll leave that to those who understand what motivates delusions of grandeur.
:-)
"True and they are worth every cent. Will you be taking care of your parents too?"
In a physical sense, you bet. My wife and I sold our home in California and moved to Minnesota to care for my wife's parents. They have plenty of financial resources, but are 77 and 86. My father-in-law has had several small strokes and needs considerable care. My mother-in-law is not able to handle it all.
So, my wife and I are here, now, and are over there all the time, helping her father in and out of bed, changing the bag for his indwelling catheter, and helping with physical therapy and speech therapy.
Thanks to the fact that we're childless, it was easy for us to make that move. My own parents, who are both 81 years old, still live in California, but have two other offspring there in the same town to help them.
So, yup, we're helping take care of our parents. Thanks for asking.
LOL! You're the only one here who got spanked by the Moderator.
I'm really trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my hindquarters...
Pay your own way without subsidies (e.g. pay 100% of your kids' education costs).
Glad I did. You are doing good work assisting your needy parents. Hope you don't need the same assistance.
That's your problem: you're inflexible.
Have you been appointed as the judge to distinguish who is "childless for selfish reasons" from those who might be childless for perhaps a variety of other completely different reasons?
Just curious.
Well, just because an organization is not run for profit doesn't mean the adoption process is inexpensive. Many of the costs ae for background checks, etc. It does run 20 to 30K, but there is a tax credit of $10,600 that helps offset that cost. Drop me a note if I can offer any info.
I'll give you one thing-
That was a witty comeback. But that's all I'll give you.
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.