5 ms·

A quarter of adults don't want children, but they will still expect the children of the other 75% to produce sufficient surplus for them to consume in retiremen

A quarter of adults don't want children, but they will still expect the children of the other 75% to produce sufficient surplus for them to consume in retirement. They may very well find that doesn't happen. Social contracts work both ways. If you don't want children, make sure you are the best aunt/uncle in the world.

mjburgess 5y ago
That seems quite a peculiar view, that you pay for retirement by raising children. Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique, and very much out of keeping with the environmental impact (an environmental social contract) of increasing population sizes.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique" You don't have the obligation to reproduce, and the next generation has no obligation to work and produce a surplus to feed you. Instead they can stop work on Tuesday when they have made enough for themselves. Good luck eating your dollars. You can no more save for a retirement in real terms than you can put on a sweater in August to save heat for January. Pensions are always a current production issue - how much of the production is reserved for those not currently involved in its production. If you haven't added to the production capacity of the future, what right do you believe you have to draw from it?
  - thephyber 5y ago
    > Good luck eating your dollars I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are doing a terrible job at it and it assumes that people in this hypothetical future do not participate in a similar market to the one that exists today. People work for dollars because they use those dollars for the other things they need. Pension dollars are fungible with all other dollars, so the producer doesn’t know if they stop producing on Tuesday if the pensioners will go hungry or their family will.
    - neilwilson 5y ago
      Who produces those other things in aggregate and why should they do that for somebody who doesn’t produce when the only thing they can buy with it are things they have to make anyway. The capitalism and the dollars are laundering the production process and clouding the issue. A better way of looking at it is that I produce a surplus I’m not permitted to consume to feed my retired parents and grandparents and those people who couldn’t have children. Who is going to do that for me in the future if I don’t replace my effort? Why should they put up with that? Why won’t they change the system so they don’t have to?
      - thephyber 5y ago
        Nothing is clouding the issue. You are fabricating a contrived scenario which doesn’t exist today. The “surplus” is what producers use to pay back the loans they took out to be able to produce as much as they currently do. If they produce no “surplus”, they are trying to build a simple subsistence production which is not feasible in a modern society. No bank will loan them money and they can’t afford to insure against bad weather/crop/prices. They can’t produce large enough yields to benefit from Economies of Scale, so they work long hours using low tech and have small yields which have to compete against the high yields of their industrial-scale neighbors, so they make little return on their hard toil. You are trying to remove free market mechanics without any discernible reason. For the same reason that most farms/ranches today are big industrial operations (at least in the USA where regulations permit it), small subsistence producers can’t make a living and die off unless they can find a brand niche. The same would happen in this hypothetical future where whatever event you think happened would drive subsistence farmers into bankruptcy and lead to consolidation.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    This is the weakest argument for having children, yet for some reason one of the most common. > You should have kids or else you'll die lonely and helpless. So what do you make of the countless parents who are exploited and abused by their children, neglected, ignored, rejected, abandoned, etc? Your whole argument is based on the assumption that children will always love and support their parents. You also ignore the many children who will never be independent for medical reasons, and who do quite the opposite of working and producing to support you. If you want children that's fine, but your antagonistic attitude towards people who exercise their right not to have children isn't very constructive.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. You can’t eat “investment”. When you finally start using these retirement savings, it will be to buy goods and services that will ultimately be rendered to you by someone else’s children. You’d better hope that by the time your generation is retired, next generation is large and willing enough to support you to the level you expect. Savings are just claim on a share of future production, and if future production is to be reduced in aggregate (and with population falling quicker than economy is growing, it very well might be), your claim will be worth less than you expect. In the end, our generation will be cared for in retirement by our children and grandchildren either way, and everything else is just accounting.
rchaud 5y ago
I think it's a fair trade, considering the ungodly amount of property and personal income taxes going to schools and subsidized child care programs that I am never going to use. /s
- neilwilson 5y ago
  You have evidence that the taxes of the 75% doesn't cover what is spent on schools and childcare?
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Yes, because they're taxpayer-funded services, and you cannot opt out of paying.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      And chronically under funded as is. At least in the US, teachers are criminally under paid for the work they do.
    - neilwilson 5y ago
      But there will be 75% of them. So in effect you are getting a tax cut
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
> A quarter of adults don't want children, but they will still expect the children of the other 75% to produce sufficient surplus for them to consume in retirement. Well, that's an assumption you make. Me and my wife don't want children but we are also working to build sustainable future for ourselves so we are not much dependent on future generations. Pension funds, sustainable business for the future, low footprint. And yes, we are paying into the system which is ripping us off today anyway. So you, know, we finance your parents, your children can pay something back. This obviously depends on the country you live in. In Germany, there are talks to increase pension contributions for people who don't have children.
tryingtogetback 5y ago
This is a very backwards and dangerous view of the situation. You are making a speculation that your children will become a high-functioning adults that will be capable to produce more than they consume. Overpopulation (as a real danger to our planet) aside, people who are opting out from having children are statistically highly educated and more successful (produce order of magnitude more than they consume) meaning that goal and career oriented individuals are feeding your children at this very moment altruistically (without any guarantees of payback from your children when they reach adulthood).
- sparrish 5y ago
  Are you saying one highly-educated, successful life will produce more than me, my children, their children, their children's children...? That's crazy talk.
  - tryingtogetback 5y ago
    That is exactly what I'm saying. How many individuals are currently on welfare? Majority is living on and consuming the goods that were produced by highly-educated and successful people without children. The further we, as a society, distance ourselves from basic, primitive instincts (like reproduction) the more advanced we become (which is not simple or easy at all, it requires significant cognitive effort (goals, deliberate education, atheism) Most of the pleasures that you enjoy in modernity were delivered to you by high-functioning, educated adults without children, while your children have a very high chance of becoming consuming individuals who habitually take advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
falcolas 5y ago
I can't say I personally approve of the thought of having children solely so they can provide for your retirement. It strikes me as selfish, frankly.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  This is what I've always thought. It's basically just creating a person in a role where they will face lifelong, intense societal pressure to respect and support you, rather than just wanting to give them a good life. It's very similar to the people who want to "leave a legacy" and really just want to live vicariously through their children.

mjburgess 5y ago

That seems quite a peculiar view, that you pay for retirement by raising children. Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique, and very much out of keeping with the environmental impact (an environmental social contract) of increasing population sizes.

neilwilson 5y ago
"The idea that there is some obligation to reproduce is a little antique" You don't have the obligation to reproduce, and the next generation has no obligation to work and produce a surplus to feed you. Instead they can stop work on Tuesday when they have made enough for themselves. Good luck eating your dollars. You can no more save for a retirement in real terms than you can put on a sweater in August to save heat for January. Pensions are always a current production issue - how much of the production is reserved for those not currently involved in its production. If you haven't added to the production capacity of the future, what right do you believe you have to draw from it?
- thephyber 5y ago
  > Good luck eating your dollars I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are doing a terrible job at it and it assumes that people in this hypothetical future do not participate in a similar market to the one that exists today. People work for dollars because they use those dollars for the other things they need. Pension dollars are fungible with all other dollars, so the producer doesn’t know if they stop producing on Tuesday if the pensioners will go hungry or their family will.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    Who produces those other things in aggregate and why should they do that for somebody who doesn’t produce when the only thing they can buy with it are things they have to make anyway. The capitalism and the dollars are laundering the production process and clouding the issue. A better way of looking at it is that I produce a surplus I’m not permitted to consume to feed my retired parents and grandparents and those people who couldn’t have children. Who is going to do that for me in the future if I don’t replace my effort? Why should they put up with that? Why won’t they change the system so they don’t have to?
    - thephyber 5y ago
      Nothing is clouding the issue. You are fabricating a contrived scenario which doesn’t exist today. The “surplus” is what producers use to pay back the loans they took out to be able to produce as much as they currently do. If they produce no “surplus”, they are trying to build a simple subsistence production which is not feasible in a modern society. No bank will loan them money and they can’t afford to insure against bad weather/crop/prices. They can’t produce large enough yields to benefit from Economies of Scale, so they work long hours using low tech and have small yields which have to compete against the high yields of their industrial-scale neighbors, so they make little return on their hard toil. You are trying to remove free market mechanics without any discernible reason. For the same reason that most farms/ranches today are big industrial operations (at least in the USA where regulations permit it), small subsistence producers can’t make a living and die off unless they can find a brand niche. The same would happen in this hypothetical future where whatever event you think happened would drive subsistence farmers into bankruptcy and lead to consolidation.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  This is the weakest argument for having children, yet for some reason one of the most common. > You should have kids or else you'll die lonely and helpless. So what do you make of the countless parents who are exploited and abused by their children, neglected, ignored, rejected, abandoned, etc? Your whole argument is based on the assumption that children will always love and support their parents. You also ignore the many children who will never be independent for medical reasons, and who do quite the opposite of working and producing to support you. If you want children that's fine, but your antagonistic attitude towards people who exercise their right not to have children isn't very constructive.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> Many have retirement savings, and so on, that are merely investments on time they've worked. That work has also created the opportunities for the next generation to occupy. You can’t eat “investment”. When you finally start using these retirement savings, it will be to buy goods and services that will ultimately be rendered to you by someone else’s children. You’d better hope that by the time your generation is retired, next generation is large and willing enough to support you to the level you expect. Savings are just claim on a share of future production, and if future production is to be reduced in aggregate (and with population falling quicker than economy is growing, it very well might be), your claim will be worth less than you expect. In the end, our generation will be cared for in retirement by our children and grandchildren either way, and everything else is just accounting.

rchaud 5y ago

I think it's a fair trade, considering the ungodly amount of property and personal income taxes going to schools and subsidized child care programs that I am never going to use. /s

neilwilson 5y ago
You have evidence that the taxes of the 75% doesn't cover what is spent on schools and childcare?
- rchaud 5y ago
  Yes, because they're taxpayer-funded services, and you cannot opt out of paying.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    And chronically under funded as is. At least in the US, teachers are criminally under paid for the work they do.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    But there will be 75% of them. So in effect you are getting a tax cut

rad_gruchalski 5y ago

> A quarter of adults don't want children, but they will still expect the children of the other 75% to produce sufficient surplus for them to consume in retirement. Well, that's an assumption you make. Me and my wife don't want children but we are also working to build sustainable future for ourselves so we are not much dependent on future generations. Pension funds, sustainable business for the future, low footprint. And yes, we are paying into the system which is ripping us off today anyway. So you, know, we finance your parents, your children can pay something back. This obviously depends on the country you live in. In Germany, there are talks to increase pension contributions for people who don't have children.

tryingtogetback 5y ago

This is a very backwards and dangerous view of the situation. You are making a speculation that your children will become a high-functioning adults that will be capable to produce more than they consume. Overpopulation (as a real danger to our planet) aside, people who are opting out from having children are statistically highly educated and more successful (produce order of magnitude more than they consume) meaning that goal and career oriented individuals are feeding your children at this very moment altruistically (without any guarantees of payback from your children when they reach adulthood).

sparrish 5y ago
Are you saying one highly-educated, successful life will produce more than me, my children, their children, their children's children...? That's crazy talk.
- tryingtogetback 5y ago
  That is exactly what I'm saying. How many individuals are currently on welfare? Majority is living on and consuming the goods that were produced by highly-educated and successful people without children. The further we, as a society, distance ourselves from basic, primitive instincts (like reproduction) the more advanced we become (which is not simple or easy at all, it requires significant cognitive effort (goals, deliberate education, atheism) Most of the pleasures that you enjoy in modernity were delivered to you by high-functioning, educated adults without children, while your children have a very high chance of becoming consuming individuals who habitually take advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

falcolas 5y ago

I can't say I personally approve of the thought of having children solely so they can provide for your retirement. It strikes me as selfish, frankly.

silicon2401 5y ago
This is what I've always thought. It's basically just creating a person in a role where they will face lifelong, intense societal pressure to respect and support you, rather than just wanting to give them a good life. It's very similar to the people who want to "leave a legacy" and really just want to live vicariously through their children.