The Empty Playground and the Welfare State
In centuries past, the traditional method for workers to prepare for retirement and ensure that their needs would be met was to have children. Ideally, parents would invest time and resources into raising their children, who would then care for their elderly parents in their retirement, says Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for the National Review.This process has changed, but less than one might think. The relationship between the younger and older generation remains the same (the prior financially provides for the latter) -- the primary difference is that the system is socialized. All younger citizens pay in, and all older citizens receive.
Interestingly, the hidden effect of the socialization of this relationship is that it has created a widespread free rider problem, pitting those with children against those without them.
- Parents must invest in their children in order to turn them into productive workers, capable of caring for themselves and contributing to government programs for the elderly.
- Parents will then receive outlays from these programs later in life, which are presumably the fruits of their children's labor.
- However, non-parents will have the same retirement security provided by Social Security without having to raise their own children.
- In short, non-parents are given a free ride off of the efforts and sacrifices of parents.
- In a 2005 paper by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, they found that fertility rates dropped rapidly just after World War II, just when socialized retirement security programs were expanded.
- Additionally, fertility rates fell further in Europe, where entitlements were expanded more than they were in the United States.
- In their model, entitlements account for roughly half of the decline in fertility.
- They found that when a pension system expands by 10 percent of gross domestic product, the average number of children per woman drops by 0.7 to 1.6.
8 comments:
Increasing welfare (including retirement benefits) increases taxes. People then have fewer children because they can’t afford to raise them. Those having more children tend to be those on welfare in which case others (those that can’t afford many of their own) pay.
Another limiting factor is regulations. Most families today have less than 3 children because that’s all you can fit in a standard car.
Mark Steyn called the end of Western civilization the other day and I think he is right.
When it comes down to it raising the next generation is the fundamental economic activity - everything else should be in support of that activity.
Cultures that know this prosper, those that forget it DIE
Yes Mark Steyn has written extensively on Western demographic decline, the reasons for it, and the apocalyptic outcomes we face.
All done cheerfully and with humor in his books, America Alone, and After America.
These should be on your reading list.
I find that analysis to narrow and subject to the old correlation versus coincidence.
There's a range of factors.. the first being "affluence" that allows you to introduce social security.. you don't need so many kids to look after you in old age and sickness.
Second, food security.. the new dwarf varieties of wheat introduced into India have produced surpluses and has been the best birth control initiative ever.
Third, even backward countries have been forced to grant a measure of education and freedom to females.. once you educate and free (to some extent) a woman she will take control of her own fertility.
Fourth, in Italy and similar places, young women can now have a career and they refuse to take over the responsibility of looking after the spoilt man children still living with their parents in their 30s, so Italy has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.
In the US the same thing is happening with Black women.. they have a good career that they don't intend to waste on indolent males.. they f**k 'em and boot them out come morning.
So, to my mind' we are looking at a much broader phenomenon affecting much of the world since at least WW2.
JC
One of the benefits of not having children is you lose the anxiety that comes with believing climate change garbage from the left, and end of western civilisation bullshit from the conservative right. Assuming either does happen, I'll be well dead before then.
But of course, the main benefit of childlessness, is being able to maintain unmarked white living room carpet.
Childless people are "freeriders"? I say "bullshit" to that.... :)
In fact, I would say it is the **exact opposite**. People without children pay taxes for things that they will never have progeny to use.
Schools, for example.
What's more, I am saving steadily for my retirement. "Freereider" indeed.
Pish-posh.
These NCPA fools should do some research instead of besmirching those who (probably) **pay taxes that support them.**
Hmmmm. Hong Kong has an extremely low 0.9 fertility rate but a very miserly social security program for the elderly. That doesn't fit the thesis.
Kiwi Dave
NCPA was summarizing a longer essay of mine, which answers (or at least attempts to answer!) some of the concerns commenters here have raised. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301108/empty-playground-and-welfare-state-ramesh-ponnuru
Post a Comment