4 ms·

> We already heavily subsidise child-rearing through taxes and other benefits. The US and most other Western countries run huge budget deficits at essentially

> We already heavily subsidise child-rearing through taxes and other benefits. The US and most other Western countries run huge budget deficits at essentially zero interest costs. This is only possible because creditors have full faith in the ability of future tax payers to meet debt obligations. In light of that, I’d say the overall balance is that those with children are massively subsidizing the childless.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
How do? The childless pay taxes and don’t have subsequent gene pool for society to take care of.. Taxes are perpetual and mandatory. It goes towards subsidizing other people’s genes and then the childless have to be thankful for that. Let’s not forget the children who grow up to be thugs and criminals. Not every fruit of the loin is a productive member of the society. I find it appalling that after 12 years of subsidied education, they still want free education, housing is a human right and most haven’t even paid off the cost of society paying for them ..never mind paying it forward for the next generation.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  I believe you've missed the point almost completely. The parent comment's point is that the USA is as rich as it is because they've effectively taken out an enormous loan from the markets. The markets trust the USA to pay back this loan because they trust the USA to keep producing children, some subset of whom will collectively generate enough wealth to cover the loan. If everyone in the USA agreed not to have children any more, the country would immediately collapse (not collapse in the future when the workforce ran out, but immediately) as the market rushed to salvage what it could from the country's walking corpse.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    There is no contract. Are we putting a contract on reproductive promise for markets? Is this a contract out on women’s uteri? This isn’t about macro economics at all. This is all about religion forcing women to breed and the tyranny of scrotums to see who can pee farther most into the gene pool. However a contract does exist between the parents of the child. With the male..due to the lack of anatomical bits to carry a fetus to term within his body or capable of feeding said offspring through mammary excretions is responsible for the well being of the offspring. Financially or otherwise. Because. Biology. In the jungle, when the alpha male is unable to provide for the litter, he gets displaced. Insect brains seem to be far superior with reasoning. Clearly mammalian instincts are not up to scratch when it comes to collecting on contracts. The female praying mantis being more sensible simply devours the male after mating. The male drone bee breaks off its penile appendage and free falls from above while in the throes of a kamikaze orgasm. Homo sapiens get to go to a job and support a child. Do it. If you can’t, don’t do it. There is no societal contract to nourish the fruit of strangers’ loins. Dear men, please curb your ejaculation. And if you can’t, make enough to support your mutated chromosome financially and when a pandemic comes around the corner, man up.
    - croon 6y ago
      > Are we putting a contract on reproductive promise for markets? There are no contracts stating the the companies in the S&P 500 must perform enough in the future to support the current market cap of the index, but still the index is where it is. The market is forward looking, and children are implicit in that valuation. The rest of your post, again, seem to sidestep that argument.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        If children are commodities, why should all of society subsidize the breeding population? Why not practice eugenics while we are at it? Because that would be the logical conclusion. This is uncomfortably close to Nazi ideology.
        croon 6y ago
        Assumptions about future children make them no more commodities than expecting rain next year to water your crops for your farm business making weather a commodity. Assumptions and math make market valuations, including bonds. But I'm not even sure you are attempting to argue in good faith, so I will check out now.
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        I am not arguing at all. I am just pointing out that your statement makes zero sense. The only way it makes sense is if you are suggesting that we adopt nazi ideology of eugenics. The accusation reg lack of ‘good faith’ also makes no sense. Good faith is only relevant if both of us are in agreement according to contract law. I am pretty sure that I disagree with you. No need to beckon ‘good faith’.
        kelnos 6y ago
        I think the parent's argument makes perfect sense, and reducing it to adopting eugenics does sound pretty close to a bad-faith response. Markets don't care about any particular specific implementation of children; the market just cares that there will be children, of some average productivity level to maintain economic growth. Sure, if we went full eugenics, markets would likely shift to expect a much higher productivity level in future generations, but... that seems like a pretty obvious outcome. > Good faith is only relevant if both of us are in agreement according to contract law. I think maybe you're talking about the legal definition of "good faith", wherein the rest of us are talking about the "don't be a dick" definition. Not saying you're being a dick, but it does feel like you're willfully misunderstanding the parent's argument.
anonymoushn 6y ago
You mean the children are subsidizing the parents?
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  The children are subsidizing all of society through their national debt obligations. Their parents are paying the expenses of the children right now, with subsidies from the government and employers.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

How do? The childless pay taxes and don’t have subsequent gene pool for society to take care of.. Taxes are perpetual and mandatory. It goes towards subsidizing other people’s genes and then the childless have to be thankful for that. Let’s not forget the children who grow up to be thugs and criminals. Not every fruit of the loin is a productive member of the society. I find it appalling that after 12 years of subsidied education, they still want free education, housing is a human right and most haven’t even paid off the cost of society paying for them ..never mind paying it forward for the next generation.

Smaug123 6y ago
I believe you've missed the point almost completely. The parent comment's point is that the USA is as rich as it is because they've effectively taken out an enormous loan from the markets. The markets trust the USA to pay back this loan because they trust the USA to keep producing children, some subset of whom will collectively generate enough wealth to cover the loan. If everyone in the USA agreed not to have children any more, the country would immediately collapse (not collapse in the future when the workforce ran out, but immediately) as the market rushed to salvage what it could from the country's walking corpse.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  There is no contract. Are we putting a contract on reproductive promise for markets? Is this a contract out on women’s uteri? This isn’t about macro economics at all. This is all about religion forcing women to breed and the tyranny of scrotums to see who can pee farther most into the gene pool. However a contract does exist between the parents of the child. With the male..due to the lack of anatomical bits to carry a fetus to term within his body or capable of feeding said offspring through mammary excretions is responsible for the well being of the offspring. Financially or otherwise. Because. Biology. In the jungle, when the alpha male is unable to provide for the litter, he gets displaced. Insect brains seem to be far superior with reasoning. Clearly mammalian instincts are not up to scratch when it comes to collecting on contracts. The female praying mantis being more sensible simply devours the male after mating. The male drone bee breaks off its penile appendage and free falls from above while in the throes of a kamikaze orgasm. Homo sapiens get to go to a job and support a child. Do it. If you can’t, don’t do it. There is no societal contract to nourish the fruit of strangers’ loins. Dear men, please curb your ejaculation. And if you can’t, make enough to support your mutated chromosome financially and when a pandemic comes around the corner, man up.
  - croon 6y ago
    > Are we putting a contract on reproductive promise for markets? There are no contracts stating the the companies in the S&P 500 must perform enough in the future to support the current market cap of the index, but still the index is where it is. The market is forward looking, and children are implicit in that valuation. The rest of your post, again, seem to sidestep that argument.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      If children are commodities, why should all of society subsidize the breeding population? Why not practice eugenics while we are at it? Because that would be the logical conclusion. This is uncomfortably close to Nazi ideology.
      - croon 6y ago
        Assumptions about future children make them no more commodities than expecting rain next year to water your crops for your farm business making weather a commodity. Assumptions and math make market valuations, including bonds. But I'm not even sure you are attempting to argue in good faith, so I will check out now.
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        I am not arguing at all. I am just pointing out that your statement makes zero sense. The only way it makes sense is if you are suggesting that we adopt nazi ideology of eugenics. The accusation reg lack of ‘good faith’ also makes no sense. Good faith is only relevant if both of us are in agreement according to contract law. I am pretty sure that I disagree with you. No need to beckon ‘good faith’.
        kelnos 6y ago
        I think the parent's argument makes perfect sense, and reducing it to adopting eugenics does sound pretty close to a bad-faith response. Markets don't care about any particular specific implementation of children; the market just cares that there will be children, of some average productivity level to maintain economic growth. Sure, if we went full eugenics, markets would likely shift to expect a much higher productivity level in future generations, but... that seems like a pretty obvious outcome. > Good faith is only relevant if both of us are in agreement according to contract law. I think maybe you're talking about the legal definition of "good faith", wherein the rest of us are talking about the "don't be a dick" definition. Not saying you're being a dick, but it does feel like you're willfully misunderstanding the parent's argument.

anonymoushn 6y ago

You mean the children are subsidizing the parents?

jeremyjh 6y ago
The children are subsidizing all of society through their national debt obligations. Their parents are paying the expenses of the children right now, with subsidies from the government and employers.