6 ms·

They get the perk of more flexibility because they're providing a service to society, raising children for the next generation. You don't get this perk because

They get the perk of more flexibility because they're providing a service to society, raising children for the next generation. You don't get this perk because you didn't have children. Your contribution is more work because you have more time to do it.

nicbou 6y ago
This argument is made again and again in this thread, and it never got addressed. 1. There are already functional mechanisms for contribution. A single, childless person is already contributing more through their taxes. The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. 2. Child-rearing is given an arbitrary pass that other equally charitable actions wouldn't get. A single, childless person couldn't let his commitment to Doctors Without Borders affect his work performance. 3. I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms.
- jdm2212 6y ago
  1. Government subsidies don't cover anything close to the cost of raising a child. 2. Child-rearing is a thing tens of millions of people actually do interleaved with full-time work, and has to be addressed by high-level decision makers. There are lots of hypothetical things a specific individual might want to do that maybe have high social utility, and that's an interesting question for them to sort out with their manager and isn't really relevant to how parents are treated. 3. A stable population -- not growing -- requires a little over 2 children per woman, and the US fertility rate is waaaay below that right now.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    there's no inherent need for a growing, or even stable, population. this is only a rough proxy for having a sufficiently productive working population to support those who can't work or have retired without undue hardship.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  1. If you don't want to pay taxes don't be part of society. The government subsidizes child rearing because it should. But it also doesn't fully cover the cost. 2. It's not an arbitrary pass. A childless person's commitment to Doctors Without Borders is much more flexible than a parent's commitment to a living a human. 3. The world population is only really growing in less developed countries. But it doesn't matter because if you have too many people they will either die because the system can't support them. Or the system will innovate to be able to support them.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > The government subsidizes child rearing because it should. why exactly? generally, it is rational to subsidize things that society does not have enough of and tax things that we have too much of. are we currently not producing enough children? this is not necessarily implied by birthrates being below the replacement rate.
- a-nikolaev 6y ago
  If you tried to take care of a baby or a toddler, you would see that it's like a second job in terms of how much time and effort it requires from you every day. Now imagine yourself doing all that x2 amount of work, would you ask for help or extra accommodations? It's not a model, a mental experiment, or a charitable action. It's the x2 amount of work you need to do, day and night, 365 days a year.
  - nicbou 6y ago
    I am well aware of that. This is precisely why I chose not have children.
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      Why should society bear the cost of you wanting to work less than everyone else?
      - nicbou 6y ago
        Bear what cost exactly?
        cloverich 6y ago
        Extinction is the implication. I agree but its a bit of a boring argument. How about: Society is no social contract, you cannot really choose to leave society. Instead I'd argue, you are required to contribute to society, whether you like it or not. Helping raise children -- whether you have them or not -- is a part of that requirement. I can promise you, whatever subsidies go to parents, $$, time, and effort are still very very far in the favor of the childless.
        shock 6y ago
        The human race is not an endangered species. We are not in danger of going extinct due to lack of people.
- smeeth 6y ago
  >The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income to receive the CDCTC (x < $100 all families with children)[0]. The cost of raising a child for an average family is $12,000 per year[1]. > Child-rearing is given an arbitrary pass that other equally charitable actions wouldn't get. Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years and a boatload of money to create another person in the workforce who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes. Considering GDP per capita in the USA is ~$62,000 and rising, I think it is pretty safe to assume that your average-ly skilled single childless person contributing anything less than 20 hrs/week to just about any charity isn't even in the ballpark of "equally charitable." >This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. Yeah, this is the "The Population Bomb"[2] argument that could possibly be the case but so far has no real evidence beyond hypothesis to support it... since 1968. [0] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/141776/understanding-child-care-subsidies-in-the-tax-system_1.pdf https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publicat... [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-chil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
  - nicbou 6y ago
    Great answer! I didn't know about The Population Bomb. I was more worried about climate change. As far as I know, the planet can feed a few billion extra people. > Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years [...] to create another person [...] who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes Let's not forget that this person will eventually retire and require increasingly expensive care. That makes me curious. If the current economy can only function with a growing population, then it takes > 1 person to subsidise your upbringing/retirement. Does that mean that 1 human life costs more than the output of a human's entire life?
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      Only if we are Luddites. The argument that we need more children to take care of the elderly is moot ..and false.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  >The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing That 'heavy subsidy' doesn't even begin to cover the economical costs, let alone the crazy amount of work. >I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. What's the alternative? Hoping that the children of other countries will just work for your retirement out of the goodness of their heart? Well, maybe you're rich and invested in foreign markets so this isn't a worry for you, but for the vast majority of people this isn't an option.
- phatfish 6y ago
  1. I have no figures on subsidies for child-rearing, but "heavily subsidises" seems very unlikely in most places, maybe Scandinavia can make that claim. I suspect any help provided by the government is more than wiped out by lost income from one parent staying at home or working part time for ~5 years (or more with multiple children). Or nursery costs should both parents want to work as soon as possible. 2. Donating to Doctors Without Borders is just enabling someone else to do a good deed, the donator has zero responsibility. Parents are legally required to look after a child for 16 (i think, in most countries) years. 3. The world population won't keep growing, fertility rates are only above 3 in Africa. Other "developing" countries are on course for the population to stabilise, western developed countries will see population dropping. Google tells me 2064 for current projected population peak.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Depopulation is guaranteed after it peaks.but we just control population because with exponentially growing population, we also have exponentially exploding consumption rates. It’s like Carroll’s Red Queen analogy. We can never outrun. We must control population to conserve non renewable resources. So we can comfortably perpetuate our species without burning the house down and killing everyone.
- fraudsyndrome 6y ago
  > 3. I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. I think you bring up some good points and also I can sympathise with the parents in my workplace that had this issue thrust upon them due to covid. I won't comment on them nor does it personally affect my work much, if at all - barely anyone on my team are parents and those that are are making it work so I'm not picking up any extra work because of their kids. But I have never heard of any parent ever say that they are having kids because children are the future so it's odd for me to see so many people say that in this thread. I don't need parents to justify to me why it's harder for them, I already agree with that but the future thing is a very interesting viewpoint I've never personally come across before.
randyrand 6y ago
people have children for selfish reasons, not because of some responsibility to society. That’s just hogwash.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  I never said they have children because of responsibility to society.
Rapzid 6y ago
> They get the perk of more flexibility because they're providing a service to society From companies? The market doesn't care about all that. It's supply and demand. If parents get "perks" from companies it's because the companies need to provide them to attract workers(on the whole).
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  The market is separate from legislation. Of course without society existing and in a purely rational economic scenario the "market" and "companies" would only provide these "perks" to attract workers. Society does in fact mediate the purely rational economic incentives and companies thus don't act purely rationally, nor are they society in and of themselves. America isn't the best about it relative to European countries but even here in the U.S. the FMLA bars employers from dropping employees just because they're pregnant or having a kid.

nicbou 6y ago

This argument is made again and again in this thread, and it never got addressed. 1. There are already functional mechanisms for contribution. A single, childless person is already contributing more through their taxes. The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. 2. Child-rearing is given an arbitrary pass that other equally charitable actions wouldn't get. A single, childless person couldn't let his commitment to Doctors Without Borders affect his work performance. 3. I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms.

jdm2212 6y ago
1. Government subsidies don't cover anything close to the cost of raising a child. 2. Child-rearing is a thing tens of millions of people actually do interleaved with full-time work, and has to be addressed by high-level decision makers. There are lots of hypothetical things a specific individual might want to do that maybe have high social utility, and that's an interesting question for them to sort out with their manager and isn't really relevant to how parents are treated. 3. A stable population -- not growing -- requires a little over 2 children per woman, and the US fertility rate is waaaay below that right now.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  there's no inherent need for a growing, or even stable, population. this is only a rough proxy for having a sufficiently productive working population to support those who can't work or have retired without undue hardship.
ethanwillis 6y ago
1. If you don't want to pay taxes don't be part of society. The government subsidizes child rearing because it should. But it also doesn't fully cover the cost. 2. It's not an arbitrary pass. A childless person's commitment to Doctors Without Borders is much more flexible than a parent's commitment to a living a human. 3. The world population is only really growing in less developed countries. But it doesn't matter because if you have too many people they will either die because the system can't support them. Or the system will innovate to be able to support them.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > The government subsidizes child rearing because it should. why exactly? generally, it is rational to subsidize things that society does not have enough of and tax things that we have too much of. are we currently not producing enough children? this is not necessarily implied by birthrates being below the replacement rate.
a-nikolaev 6y ago
If you tried to take care of a baby or a toddler, you would see that it's like a second job in terms of how much time and effort it requires from you every day. Now imagine yourself doing all that x2 amount of work, would you ask for help or extra accommodations? It's not a model, a mental experiment, or a charitable action. It's the x2 amount of work you need to do, day and night, 365 days a year.
- nicbou 6y ago
  I am well aware of that. This is precisely why I chose not have children.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Why should society bear the cost of you wanting to work less than everyone else?
    - nicbou 6y ago
      Bear what cost exactly?
      - cloverich 6y ago
        Extinction is the implication. I agree but its a bit of a boring argument. How about: Society is no social contract, you cannot really choose to leave society. Instead I'd argue, you are required to contribute to society, whether you like it or not. Helping raise children -- whether you have them or not -- is a part of that requirement. I can promise you, whatever subsidies go to parents, $$, time, and effort are still very very far in the favor of the childless.
        shock 6y ago
        The human race is not an endangered species. We are not in danger of going extinct due to lack of people.
smeeth 6y ago
>The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income to receive the CDCTC (x < $100 all families with children)[0]. The cost of raising a child for an average family is $12,000 per year[1]. > Child-rearing is given an arbitrary pass that other equally charitable actions wouldn't get. Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years and a boatload of money to create another person in the workforce who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes. Considering GDP per capita in the USA is ~$62,000 and rising, I think it is pretty safe to assume that your average-ly skilled single childless person contributing anything less than 20 hrs/week to just about any charity isn't even in the ballpark of "equally charitable." >This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. Yeah, this is the "The Population Bomb"[2] argument that could possibly be the case but so far has no real evidence beyond hypothesis to support it... since 1968. [0] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/141776/understanding-child-care-subsidies-in-the-tax-system_1.pdf https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publicat... [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-chil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
- nicbou 6y ago
  Great answer! I didn't know about The Population Bomb. I was more worried about climate change. As far as I know, the planet can feed a few billion extra people. > Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years [...] to create another person [...] who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes Let's not forget that this person will eventually retire and require increasingly expensive care. That makes me curious. If the current economy can only function with a growing population, then it takes > 1 person to subsidise your upbringing/retirement. Does that mean that 1 human life costs more than the output of a human's entire life?
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Only if we are Luddites. The argument that we need more children to take care of the elderly is moot ..and false.
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
>The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing That 'heavy subsidy' doesn't even begin to cover the economical costs, let alone the crazy amount of work. >I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. What's the alternative? Hoping that the children of other countries will just work for your retirement out of the goodness of their heart? Well, maybe you're rich and invested in foreign markets so this isn't a worry for you, but for the vast majority of people this isn't an option.
phatfish 6y ago
1. I have no figures on subsidies for child-rearing, but "heavily subsidises" seems very unlikely in most places, maybe Scandinavia can make that claim. I suspect any help provided by the government is more than wiped out by lost income from one parent staying at home or working part time for ~5 years (or more with multiple children). Or nursery costs should both parents want to work as soon as possible. 2. Donating to Doctors Without Borders is just enabling someone else to do a good deed, the donator has zero responsibility. Parents are legally required to look after a child for 16 (i think, in most countries) years. 3. The world population won't keep growing, fertility rates are only above 3 in Africa. Other "developing" countries are on course for the population to stabilise, western developed countries will see population dropping. Google tells me 2064 for current projected population peak.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Depopulation is guaranteed after it peaks.but we just control population because with exponentially growing population, we also have exponentially exploding consumption rates. It’s like Carroll’s Red Queen analogy. We can never outrun. We must control population to conserve non renewable resources. So we can comfortably perpetuate our species without burning the house down and killing everyone.
fraudsyndrome 6y ago
> 3. I'm not sure if "children are our future" is our future. This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. I think you bring up some good points and also I can sympathise with the parents in my workplace that had this issue thrust upon them due to covid. I won't comment on them nor does it personally affect my work much, if at all - barely anyone on my team are parents and those that are are making it work so I'm not picking up any extra work because of their kids. But I have never heard of any parent ever say that they are having kids because children are the future so it's odd for me to see so many people say that in this thread. I don't need parents to justify to me why it's harder for them, I already agree with that but the future thing is a very interesting viewpoint I've never personally come across before.

randyrand 6y ago

people have children for selfish reasons, not because of some responsibility to society. That’s just hogwash.

ethanwillis 6y ago
I never said they have children because of responsibility to society.

Rapzid 6y ago

> They get the perk of more flexibility because they're providing a service to society From companies? The market doesn't care about all that. It's supply and demand. If parents get "perks" from companies it's because the companies need to provide them to attract workers(on the whole).

ethanwillis 6y ago
The market is separate from legislation. Of course without society existing and in a purely rational economic scenario the "market" and "companies" would only provide these "perks" to attract workers. Society does in fact mediate the purely rational economic incentives and companies thus don't act purely rationally, nor are they society in and of themselves. America isn't the best about it relative to European countries but even here in the U.S. the FMLA bars employers from dropping employees just because they're pregnant or having a kid.