5 ms·
>Nobody should be having more than 2-3 kids or they get penalized with an equal and opposite economic penalty.... That statement was a little humorous to me, b
by bilbo0s 7y ago
>Nobody should be having more than 2-3 kids or they get penalized with an equal and opposite economic penalty....
That statement was a little humorous to me, but if you're serious, you'll be happy to know that this is already the case. The couple unfortunate enough to have, say, 5 kids is already, um, "penalized with an equal and opposite economic penalty". Each child will always soak up much more than his or her standard deduction. There's no question about that. Operational costs are enormous, and grow over time. And all that doesn't even count opportunity costs.
Yeah, anyone who thinks kids are cheap is liable to be very disagreeably surprised if they ever have one. I'd wager a large part of what keeps the economy going is spending on, for, or by, kids? But I don't have any data to back that up, it's just my wild ass speculation.
- throw51319 7y agoUnless they are on government support, right? Then the government subsidizes their overproduction. They get more representation in the next generation for no reason, having others pay for it.
- bilbo0s 7y agoWell, now you've moved the goal posts. You've switched from the economic issue that I thought you were talking about, onto what sounds to me like a political issue that you have with people who have a lot of kids. I don't really want to touch all that political stuff because that's too controversial. I was just saying that couples who have to support 5 kids by themselves take enormous economic hits.
- throw51319 7y agoYeah you are definitely right that kids are very expensive. Also when taking into account future negative externalities, excessive kids are also very expensive to our society. The earth has a carrying capacity for humans, even though the futurists don't believe so.