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.
That's a pretty ignorant post. Do you have any idea what they were talking about?
Thanks. Time moves very quickly here. ;-)
Good night!
LOL!!
Parents of politicians?
That, I hope you know, is a very nice compliment.
And here I thought it was fruit and vegtables...
The following Presidents of the United States were childless:
James Madison
James Polk
James Buchanan
I guess they couldn't vote, either.
Warren Harding had an illegitimate child, so he doesn't count.
Probably have. However, if people are going to be so bizarre as to suggest that a failure to procreate is a societal negative -- and to imply that I am to be taxed for my 'sin' -- then I am more than willing to point out that I get no DIRECT and IMMEDIATE benefit from paying school taxes.
It is an argument intended on dulling the rhetoric from the "Have Kids or Die" crowd that this line of thought is likely to create.
numberonepal wasn't talking about biological clocks.
It's not all about you and your kids.
You don't know MY drinkin' buddies......They are MY family, I'd rather spend time with them than my relatives.
George Washington was also childless (although he did have stepchildren...I wonder if that gives him the right to vote...)
Dang, one pithy comment wasted.
Ahh, yes - Dallas; the New York Yankees of football... except for the winning part, that is. (Go Green Bay!)
Amen on that!
What about Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? Did Sally get the vote? :)
Yeah, I've got relatives like that too.
Sounds pathetic to me. But whatever floats your boat.
I think stepchildren qualify you to vote. Goodness knows, they're plenty of work.
Don't we all. You can pick your friends, but you are stuck with you relatives!
I like my freedom and fun. I like to be able to pick up and go when I please. You can't do that with kids. I am not going to have any!
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.