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.
Fixed!
In regards to the idiotic statement that let off this thread I have this to say. "No taxation without representation." No vote means no taxes paid.
Secondly in regards to the insane idea that everyone should have children I can only say that the fact that I can reproduce proves that there is no intelligent design.
Uh-huh....thought I'd gone to bed, didn't you? I saw that.
:-P
You're preachin' to the choir!
But, no. I do NOT think that people who are unwilling to breed should do so. Parenting is the hardest job I've ever done and should never be forced on the unwilling.
I get enough, be assured. And my biological clock has a lot of ticking left to do, thank you very much.
Ummm I was trying to be nice...geeeeze
Hmmmm, is that a proposition?
That's great. Look, I don’t have anything against children or people who have them. I just reject the notion that the childless are getting some sort of “free ride”.
Umm, no. Besides I'd doubt you could handle the frequency.
Please tell me you're joking...
This needs to be repeated.
Good thing there's welfare, eh? (You need to find more productive work.)
If you cannot afford children....don't make me pay for them!
Oh, but I'll never know unless I try.
"I did think you were supporting those that did not want to have children. Those who wanted but couldn't have children need no defense. I did not recall your saying that you wanted children."
The problem is that people like Scourge of God and FreedomSplurge ARE breeding! The odds aren't in favor of those kids turning out any less closed-minded and moronic than their parents.
"The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation."
That is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to come up with a cogent response. Here's my stab at it.
I know a lot of people who shouldn't have even been THINKING of having children (because of their lifestyles, partners, immaturity, mental problems, drug use, etc.) yet they all have two or three. Now, let's calculate the cost to society that these so-called "selfless" parents have wrought, shall we? The trauma, drama, instability and pain these children are enduring will, unless they are very unusual, result in future burdens to the welfare system, food stamps, Medicare, the court system, drug rehabs, court-appointed psychiatrists, halfway houses, jails and prisons and their followups, parole and probation departments. This is, of course, not to mention the pain and suffering they will cause their victims throughout their lives, including innocent bystanders like me who had nothing to do with the decision of their parents to have children. You get my point? The next time you think of people who don't have children as "selfish" - do us all a favor - think again.
This has got to be the dumbest thread EVER posted on FR. Yet, I keep coming back. It's like a car wreck - you can't turn away...
"The problem is that people like Scourge of God and FreedomSplurge ARE breeding! The odds aren't in favor of those kids turning out any less closed-minded and moronic than their parents."
Oddly enough, I have not seen either of them write that they DO have children. Considering the source of the original article...something about "collegeboyz," my guess is that the original poster is some guy in his 20s...with libertarian leanings...who probably still lives at home...and who is planning a career as a LINUX consultant somewhere in Idaho.
That's the sort who usually writes this sort of dimwitted observation.
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.