3 ms·

God forbid we have a societal safety net that covers everyone! Seriously, this whole "freeloading" nonsense is why this country still hasn't gotten universal h

God forbid we have a societal safety net that covers everyone! Seriously, this whole "freeloading" nonsense is why this country still hasn't gotten universal healthcare. Because everytime someone brings it up, people shout "why should I work to provide a benefit to people who don't work to provide a benefit for me"? Because it lowers costs for EVERYONE, regardless of the fraction who don't work. And because we should live in a society that values taking care of each other instead of "screw you what's in it for me?"

Saline9515 11mo ago
The problem is that, as people chose rationally to have no children, the social safety net becomes harder and harder to sustain. It's not the same issue as healthcare. It's "inverse solidarity", where the poor (the parents who had to pay in time and money to produce new members of the society) end up worse off and their offspring will have to pay for the rich, who didn't spend to have children. The fact that we need to argue such simple matter says a lot about how most people don't understand what a society is.
- encrypted_bird 11mo ago
  So, what? Are you suggesting that only people who have kids should be given assistance when they grow old and frail? That's hardly a solution, just unnecessarily cruel. Whether to have children or not should be a personal decision, to be had between all parties of a relationship; it should _not_ determine if you will have some semblance of security when you can no longer work or if you'll just be left to die in some back alley. Funny thing is if people suggested forcing people (directly or, in this case, indirectly) into not having children, people would be up in arms about it. How is it alright, meanwhile, to be forced, directly or, again, indirectly in this case, to have children?
  - Saline9515 11mo ago
    > Are you suggesting that only people who have kids should be given assistance when they grow old and frail? It was the case a century ago. Society wasn't much worse off. But even with pure private retirement planning, it doesn't fix the issue that there are less and less productive members of the society as the population ages, while the needs increase. > Whether to have children or not should be a personal decision Which ends up affecting the whole society in aggregate. If my car pollutes too much, it's ok, but if too many people has the same car, then it becomes a problem. So society decided to add incentives to reduce the car pollution (in this case, fines). > Funny thing is if people suggested forcing people (directly or, in this case, indirectly) into not having children, people would be up in arms about it. The Chinese experiment shows otherwise. > How is it alright, meanwhile, to be forced, directly or, again, indirectly in this case, to have children? You can add fiscal incentives, many countries have them, condition old age benefits to how many children you had, or public care homes' access, etc. This also allows to free ressources to help today's childless people and parents to have more children. Ressources are not infinite and at some point we need to choose if we prioritize old people or young people. My point of view is that this prioritization should depend on how many children you had. If you invested time, money and energy (I had to wake up 4 times to feed my daughter last night, for instance) to perpetuate society, why would it treat you the same as the people who didn't want to do the same effort? Not having children is a personal choice, but it doesn't mean that it should be free of personal consequences.

Saline9515 11mo ago

The problem is that, as people chose rationally to have no children, the social safety net becomes harder and harder to sustain. It's not the same issue as healthcare. It's "inverse solidarity", where the poor (the parents who had to pay in time and money to produce new members of the society) end up worse off and their offspring will have to pay for the rich, who didn't spend to have children. The fact that we need to argue such simple matter says a lot about how most people don't understand what a society is.

encrypted_bird 11mo ago
So, what? Are you suggesting that only people who have kids should be given assistance when they grow old and frail? That's hardly a solution, just unnecessarily cruel. Whether to have children or not should be a personal decision, to be had between all parties of a relationship; it should _not_ determine if you will have some semblance of security when you can no longer work or if you'll just be left to die in some back alley. Funny thing is if people suggested forcing people (directly or, in this case, indirectly) into not having children, people would be up in arms about it. How is it alright, meanwhile, to be forced, directly or, again, indirectly in this case, to have children?
- Saline9515 11mo ago
  > Are you suggesting that only people who have kids should be given assistance when they grow old and frail? It was the case a century ago. Society wasn't much worse off. But even with pure private retirement planning, it doesn't fix the issue that there are less and less productive members of the society as the population ages, while the needs increase. > Whether to have children or not should be a personal decision Which ends up affecting the whole society in aggregate. If my car pollutes too much, it's ok, but if too many people has the same car, then it becomes a problem. So society decided to add incentives to reduce the car pollution (in this case, fines). > Funny thing is if people suggested forcing people (directly or, in this case, indirectly) into not having children, people would be up in arms about it. The Chinese experiment shows otherwise. > How is it alright, meanwhile, to be forced, directly or, again, indirectly in this case, to have children? You can add fiscal incentives, many countries have them, condition old age benefits to how many children you had, or public care homes' access, etc. This also allows to free ressources to help today's childless people and parents to have more children. Ressources are not infinite and at some point we need to choose if we prioritize old people or young people. My point of view is that this prioritization should depend on how many children you had. If you invested time, money and energy (I had to wake up 4 times to feed my daughter last night, for instance) to perpetuate society, why would it treat you the same as the people who didn't want to do the same effort? Not having children is a personal choice, but it doesn't mean that it should be free of personal consequences.