7 ms·

In those those days though I'm not sure the calculus of working for the sake of the children was quite the same. You might have kids, and then they work the fa

by ty6853 2y ago

In those those days though I'm not sure the calculus of working for the sake of the children was quite the same. You might have kids, and then they work the farm, then you manage the farm and slowly the children take over the manual labor and hard work of it. In old age the investment in the children pays off and a reciprocal relationship is formed where you take care of the grandchildren and your own children take care of you. Now that is flipped on its head. The parent makes the lions share of the investment in the child, but the benefits of the child is largely socialized. Want daycare, food, recreational, extra-cirricular activities -- basically anything other than public schooling you pay taxes for already? Go fuck yourself. But once the children is grown up, well well well we are a society here! Tax the shit out of the kid, spread the social security benefits around to everyone including people that didn't raise any children. And if you directly want a piece of the investment from the children, as people got in the old days, well then go fuck yourself you greedy selfish bastard -- it is only morally right when all of society does the exact same thing to the kid. There is every possible incentive in today's society to encourage others to have kids, ensuring your own retirement, but to reneg on doing it yourself because some other poor bastard can front most the costs and then you can tax the shit out of the kid for your retirement / social benefits. I think children were a rational decision in Darwin's day, now they are definitely not, because you are on the sucker end of a tragedy of the commons deal.

369548684892826 2y ago
None of this applies to Darwin though, he was wealthy and didn't need to think about "working the farm".
- lukan 2y ago
  But apparently he needed to think about having to work for income to sustain a family.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    I think he was saying working working like a neuter bee (as in just working without any kids of your own) won’t do. So the opposite interpretation. Everyone has to work after all, kids or no kids.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Another quote then: "If marry — means limited, Feel duty to work for money."
- financypants 2y ago
  Interesting, he doesn't portray his wealthiness in these readings, he seems to think kids might make him not have enough $ for books!
nartho 2y ago
A farm, in the middle of 19th century London ?
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  Charles Darwin actually only lived in London for a few years, and spent most of his life in what was at that time the county of Kent. Although in any case, as you say, his home did not involve a farm.
Always42 2y ago
You can see the consequences of this playing out in highly developed countries
lurk2 2y ago
Another interesting cultural development here is that the scope of parental responsibility has started to extend into what is conventionally considered adulthood, obligating parents to pay for their child’s post-secondary education. By contrast, children have effectively no legal obligations to their parents in old age. This privileges those who invest in financial instruments in lieu of having children, since the instruments will (at least in theory) provide the investor with the resources necessary to hire help in their old age.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Is that actually a contrast though? Parents are generally considered to have some moral obligation to help their kids pay for college, but no legal obligation. Children are (generally?) considered to have some moral obligation to help out their elderly parents (in my family at least), but no legal one.
  - sho_hn 2y ago
    > Children are (generally?) considered to have some moral obligation to help out their elderly parents (in my family at least), but no legal one. The level of this is very culture-specific, with a gamut spanning from "children have no responsibility for their parents once they're independent" to "of course the first destination to send cash once you've made it is your folks". The two cultures I've lived among (German and Korean) are very different in this regard. My personal take is that you should only have children if it's something you actually want to do and consider its own reward, with no expectations on "ROI". The policy question of whether this is also the correct society-wide social contract to adopt is very valid, though.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      If you look at real life reality though -- the argument for stuff like public schooling almost always a dominating piece is "we will educate the kids so society can get a good ROI." That not only the kids are better off, but the people around them will be too. Sure it's nice that the kid gets something out of it, but public schooling would not get as much support as it does were it not for what society gets out of it. Society never actually holds themselves to the moral standards they demand upon parents. But people are people, people respond to incentives, and individual parents are no different than society in this regard. The position now, and the mass rejection of parenthood, I think in part reflects the outcome of this hypocrisy and doublespeak.
Jon_Lowtek 2y ago
> And if you directly want a piece of the investment from the children, as people got in the old days, well then go fuck yourself you greedy selfish bastard consider the following: if your children don't care about you, the societal structure of capitalism may not be the primary reason. To put it in words close to finance: it is not an early cash investment in daycare and food, but lifelong kin work, that is rewarded with emotional bonds and long term dividends. Living together in multi-generational homes facilitates kin work, there i agree, but it is not a strictly necessary requirement. There are also other effects at work, especially psychological. Many adults don't grasp that their elders have increased demands, because they are used to see them in a providing role. They understand it on a abstract and logical level, it is so obvious and well known, but to truly understand it on a personal level is far more difficult. In the same way people growing older often try to stay in this providing role as long as possible, as they for many years defined themselves through it. There comes a time in life when easter invitations switch direction. If you live together on a farm, this changes gradually.
- ty6853 2y ago
  I think the more common scenario is the kid cares about the parent but is unable to financially assist them because they're being taxed 20-30% by "society" (who as a kid basically left them high and dry), in addition to paying a large amount for their own children due to society imposed costs like paying out regulatory / licensing / tax overhead for daycare which is now required because being a latchkey kid or going to unlicensed daycare is effectively illegal -- leaving nothing left over to assist the parents financially. If you killed off social benefits, desirable or not, there would be lot more left over for intra-familial support and the incentive would come back for people to invest in their own children. Or alternatively under a more society-driven system, make a proportional societal investment in children to what you ultimately take from them so that the incentives are not skewed. Ultimately the issue here is not individualistic or social systems for raising children but rather shoving almost all the costs on the individuals and then totally changing the system to being societal as soon as society can extract benefit.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
mulmen 2y ago
> Tax the shit out of the kid, spread the social security benefits around to everyone including people that didn't raise any children. You lost me here. I don’t have children but I pay into Social Security. Why shouldn’t I get something back in retirement?
- ty6853 2y ago
  I think you're looking at this with a misunderstanding of how SS works. You didn't pay hardly any SS to the youth that will support you from which you will make your demands. Rather you reciprocated to the investment made by elders that raised you. The money you paid the elderly in SS is gone. The question is what proportion of the investment in the youth did you make that will pay you. Probably some, but likely less on average than a parent/guardian.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    I understand exactly how social security works. You’re conflating “youth” with “offspring” and “elders” with “parents”.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      I haven't conflated them, it's just that it's required that you misunderstand in order to continue on with the fiction that the youth owe you the money you paid into our elders. That doesn't make any sense. Your premise that you're getting back what you paid in only makes sense if you look at it that you actually paid something into the people paying you, which in practice is the investment in the youth becoming productive. Which you definitely do, just on average non-parents do not do it as much as parents. It just does not make any sense whatsoever non-parents would get the same stake in SS that parents do. It makes 0 sense at all, as the system is currently set up, and I suspect is responsible for a large part of the moral hazard where people grab SS made possible by investment in children but reject children, basicaly renegging the investment but grabbing the dividends. This is part of the reason why I think SS is a broken system, and as we are finding out is likely destined for bankruptcy as the population pyramid inverts.

by ty6853 2y ago

369548684892826 2y ago

None of this applies to Darwin though, he was wealthy and didn't need to think about "working the farm".

lukan 2y ago
But apparently he needed to think about having to work for income to sustain a family.
- kelipso 2y ago
  I think he was saying working working like a neuter bee (as in just working without any kids of your own) won’t do. So the opposite interpretation. Everyone has to work after all, kids or no kids.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Another quote then: "If marry — means limited, Feel duty to work for money."
financypants 2y ago
Interesting, he doesn't portray his wealthiness in these readings, he seems to think kids might make him not have enough $ for books!

nartho 2y ago

A farm, in the middle of 19th century London ?

seabass-labrax 2y ago
Charles Darwin actually only lived in London for a few years, and spent most of his life in what was at that time the county of Kent. Although in any case, as you say, his home did not involve a farm.

Always42 2y ago

You can see the consequences of this playing out in highly developed countries

lurk2 2y ago

Another interesting cultural development here is that the scope of parental responsibility has started to extend into what is conventionally considered adulthood, obligating parents to pay for their child’s post-secondary education. By contrast, children have effectively no legal obligations to their parents in old age. This privileges those who invest in financial instruments in lieu of having children, since the instruments will (at least in theory) provide the investor with the resources necessary to hire help in their old age.

bee_rider 2y ago
Is that actually a contrast though? Parents are generally considered to have some moral obligation to help their kids pay for college, but no legal obligation. Children are (generally?) considered to have some moral obligation to help out their elderly parents (in my family at least), but no legal one.
- sho_hn 2y ago
  > Children are (generally?) considered to have some moral obligation to help out their elderly parents (in my family at least), but no legal one. The level of this is very culture-specific, with a gamut spanning from "children have no responsibility for their parents once they're independent" to "of course the first destination to send cash once you've made it is your folks". The two cultures I've lived among (German and Korean) are very different in this regard. My personal take is that you should only have children if it's something you actually want to do and consider its own reward, with no expectations on "ROI". The policy question of whether this is also the correct society-wide social contract to adopt is very valid, though.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    If you look at real life reality though -- the argument for stuff like public schooling almost always a dominating piece is "we will educate the kids so society can get a good ROI." That not only the kids are better off, but the people around them will be too. Sure it's nice that the kid gets something out of it, but public schooling would not get as much support as it does were it not for what society gets out of it. Society never actually holds themselves to the moral standards they demand upon parents. But people are people, people respond to incentives, and individual parents are no different than society in this regard. The position now, and the mass rejection of parenthood, I think in part reflects the outcome of this hypocrisy and doublespeak.

Jon_Lowtek 2y ago

> And if you directly want a piece of the investment from the children, as people got in the old days, well then go fuck yourself you greedy selfish bastard consider the following: if your children don't care about you, the societal structure of capitalism may not be the primary reason. To put it in words close to finance: it is not an early cash investment in daycare and food, but lifelong kin work, that is rewarded with emotional bonds and long term dividends. Living together in multi-generational homes facilitates kin work, there i agree, but it is not a strictly necessary requirement. There are also other effects at work, especially psychological. Many adults don't grasp that their elders have increased demands, because they are used to see them in a providing role. They understand it on a abstract and logical level, it is so obvious and well known, but to truly understand it on a personal level is far more difficult. In the same way people growing older often try to stay in this providing role as long as possible, as they for many years defined themselves through it. There comes a time in life when easter invitations switch direction. If you live together on a farm, this changes gradually.

ty6853 2y ago
I think the more common scenario is the kid cares about the parent but is unable to financially assist them because they're being taxed 20-30% by "society" (who as a kid basically left them high and dry), in addition to paying a large amount for their own children due to society imposed costs like paying out regulatory / licensing / tax overhead for daycare which is now required because being a latchkey kid or going to unlicensed daycare is effectively illegal -- leaving nothing left over to assist the parents financially. If you killed off social benefits, desirable or not, there would be lot more left over for intra-familial support and the incentive would come back for people to invest in their own children. Or alternatively under a more society-driven system, make a proportional societal investment in children to what you ultimately take from them so that the incentives are not skewed. Ultimately the issue here is not individualistic or social systems for raising children but rather shoving almost all the costs on the individuals and then totally changing the system to being societal as soon as society can extract benefit.
- ryandrake 2y ago

mulmen 2y ago

> Tax the shit out of the kid, spread the social security benefits around to everyone including people that didn't raise any children. You lost me here. I don’t have children but I pay into Social Security. Why shouldn’t I get something back in retirement?

ty6853 2y ago
I think you're looking at this with a misunderstanding of how SS works. You didn't pay hardly any SS to the youth that will support you from which you will make your demands. Rather you reciprocated to the investment made by elders that raised you. The money you paid the elderly in SS is gone. The question is what proportion of the investment in the youth did you make that will pay you. Probably some, but likely less on average than a parent/guardian.
- mulmen 2y ago
  I understand exactly how social security works. You’re conflating “youth” with “offspring” and “elders” with “parents”.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    I haven't conflated them, it's just that it's required that you misunderstand in order to continue on with the fiction that the youth owe you the money you paid into our elders. That doesn't make any sense. Your premise that you're getting back what you paid in only makes sense if you look at it that you actually paid something into the people paying you, which in practice is the investment in the youth becoming productive. Which you definitely do, just on average non-parents do not do it as much as parents. It just does not make any sense whatsoever non-parents would get the same stake in SS that parents do. It makes 0 sense at all, as the system is currently set up, and I suspect is responsible for a large part of the moral hazard where people grab SS made possible by investment in children but reject children, basicaly renegging the investment but grabbing the dividends. This is part of the reason why I think SS is a broken system, and as we are finding out is likely destined for bankruptcy as the population pyramid inverts.