Comments (47)

• banker

  In Japan, the situation is rather pathetic. Adults live with their parents and grand parents and have no real need to have children. Men work an insane amount of hours just to make bank, while women also work. The marriage rate is absolutely pathetic; it's sad really. The state has destroyed what had been a centuries old tradition of procreation and family life. People would not have to work so hard just to survive if the state would just stop spending so much money and making people's life hard.

  And from what I have seen from working in public schools in Tokyo, I really feel pity for all those minds that go straight down the drain. The schools should just be shut down and the money returned to tax payers. Japanese schools aren't too different from the socialist monstrocities in the US. Both rely on the students submitting to authority, instead of teaching critical thinking and independent thought. I try my best, but I am only one person on this planet.

  This whole situation is rather Roman-esque, wouldn't you say? I wonder if the Romans had to deal with these same issues back in the day. I wonder if we are just repeating history.

  Published: January 24, 2007 8:18 AM

• adi

  Mr Juurikkala's article is very good, but I think it may have few errors.

  Why people dont save for their own retirement accounts if they are planning or expecting to not work at certain point of time ? Having children is not the only way to provide for your security at old age. In free market there could be many companies which could offer their services to provide for old age benefits. You could save yourself and take invested amounts plus profits back in the form of annuitity at later dates.

  Mr Juurikkala has only shown that in wealthy countries people generally do not have so many children as people in the less developed countries do have. Less developed countries typically dont have so much resources for old age benefits or their financial sectors are not so well developed.

  When people decide how many children they might have, I think it has more to do with intertemporal consumption choices of these households and not necessarily with the collectivist social security.

  Otherwise I will agree with Mr Juurikkala's article.

  Published: January 24, 2007 8:54 AM

• Jason

  Excellent article. I live in Utah where people naturally have alot of children because of their religious beliefs. Here, assistance from the state is looked down on, but that is changing fast as people are feeling entitled to state benefits. Statists never thought that the pursuit of power would destory something as basic to the human condition as having children.

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:00 AM

• Gary Johnson

  I wonder, how many proponents of Social Security really care about declining fertility and reduced birth rates? A lot of them are probably Malthusians, who think there are too many people already, and wouldn't mind if a whole lot of us were to die off.

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:17 AM

• ebi

  Strange this.

  One can arrive at explanations of fertility decline by stating that the ‘cost of children’ has increased and that therefore the demand for them has dropped. I guess that is statistics for you.

  We can calculate the time to reach the economic break-even point where the person becomes a net contributor to society having been a receiver as a young child.

  I do agree that social security provides perverse incentives, but my basic belief is that children are less costly to society – be it the family or society at large – in developing than developed countries. Though I do agree that the move from the more resource efficient extended family to the less efficient nuclear model does exacerbate things: no need to pay for nannies, help etc., etc.

  Children, I maintain, are too costly relative to disposable income and hence the demand for them is down. Return money to those that make it and let them choose how to spend it. Some I guess would even have more kids.
  

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:36 AM

• Dan Coleman

  This is an excellent article. Tragedy of the social security commons: children style.

  Published: January 24, 2007 10:00 AM

• David

  Ebi, I agree totally. The effect of Social Security is to prevent people from saving for their retirement, not to stop them from having kids.

  The state is also to blame for the decline in the birth rate, though. Kids have changed from being profitable to being enormously expensive. Part of the reason for that is probably due to industrialisation but most of it is surely a consequence to legislation. Child labour laws, compulsory schooling and forced child support are the most obvious things which come to mind.

  I live in an area with a lot of Mennonites. It's fascinating to see a ten year old - or even a five year - working the cash. Unsurprisingly they have large families. The rest of us are forced to treat our children like spoiled brat, not productive human beings.

  Published: January 24, 2007 10:06 AM

• Matt

  Why people dont save for their own retirement accounts if they are planning or expecting to not work at certain point of time?

  I think this gets to the crux of my disagreement with the author (although I agree with most of it). The state may very well have destroyed an incentive to have children, but this among other factors (such as birth control and feminism) have led to cultural effects that will not be reversed by eliminating retirement programs. DINKs have no trouble amassing huge savings, whereas those who have children may have lower incomes but can expect more care in their old age. My guess is that unless you feel the need for your children to have a name brand degree or allow them to use your credit card, the monetary cost of children is actually quite negligable. The real cost is time. The world is a playground but parents have to be home to take care of their children. It is the cost of opportunities lost for travel, self-growth, education, etc. that makes people have fewer children.

  Published: January 24, 2007 10:12 AM

• Bill

  A interesting topic that Bush and Pelosi do NOT want you to know about. It is nice to see another round of pointing out the unseen consequences vs those that are seen.

  I think that in the wealthier world women can enjoy parts of life other than their children and postpone childbearing to later in life.

  It is at this point that government steps in to exacerbate the problem by screwing men and women in their later child bearing years. The government takes, steals is a better term, more than 40% of the average paycheck. Then it redistributes this pie to old people (social security and medicare), young folks (education), preferred groups and the military. So men and women whose biological clocks are ticking have to fight to get the money to have children.

  The solution is easy. Steal less of the paycheck and these men and women will have one less thing to worry about when they are ready to have children.

  Published: January 24, 2007 10:33 AM

• Andy

  Just for fun, take some time to discuss the subject of children with other people. In this dialogue aim to discern whether they believe children are:
  1) assets or liabilities
  2) net intertemporal source of family revenue or family expense
  3) a blessing or a burden.

  Published: January 24, 2007 10:40 AM

• RogerM

  While I oppose SS, I don't agree with the author's conclusions, either. When doing regression analysis on time series data, you have to be careful about spurious correlations, because any two trends will show a strong correlation. For example, you will find a correlation between the stock market and fertility, also, because the stock market has been trending upward and the fertility rate downward, which might lead some to conclude that the rising stock market reduces fertility.

  The other reason I disagree is that the author, as well as most libertarians, assume that the state determines the values and behavior of citizens. But it's only one, and a small one, among many determinants of human values and behavior. Religion/philosophy is the most dominant, but family, culture, experience and many other things contribute.

  I agree with the posts above that SS encourages people not to save, but it doesn't encourage people to not have children. The left has preached for decades that the world is overpopulated, and I think that has some influence. But mostly, I think people as just more selfish today.

  Published: January 24, 2007 11:11 AM

• Alan R

  I largely agree with this article, but I wonder if, in the libertarian enthusiasm for blaming the state for everything bad in the world, other more basic explanations are missed. I suspect that birth rates have been falling since before social security programs were instituted. Birth rates fall when child survivorship increases, which happens first historically because of reduced infant and child mortality factors resulting from better nutrition, better public health, introduction of vaccines, and a rising standard of living generally. Many of these factors have preceded the creation of social security programs, both in the West and under-developed countries. Another overlooked factor is that throughout human history and evolution, the greatest single factor in female mortality was complications associated with childbirth. When given a choice, I suspect that many women would prefer not to have children for that reason alone, but that choice isn’t possible until the health-related factors mentioned above are in place. But social security programs certainly do reinforce the effects of these factors.

  Published: January 24, 2007 11:15 AM

• N. Joseph Potts

  The premise of this article is stunningly simple: communalize the support of old people, and everyone (fertile couples and the old people themselves, alike) will flee the expenditure in keeping with Bastiat's famous dictum. Reduction of the workforce was IN FACT the GOAL of FDR's perverse social-security program. And it succeeded in ways the venal idiots in the "brain trust" didn't foresee, and it STILL succeeds, constituting one of the main forces drawing immigrants into the US today to do the work of American workers not born.

  But the cruel joke is STILL on those who elect to have no (or too few) children: as the recent care of my late parents has shown me, as the elder gets older, even COLLECTING Social Security and many other benefits requires the attention and care of a genuinely caring younger person, for which there is nothing as effective (and cheap) as a well-raised child or two. (Yes, children also fleece their parents, but [a] this is sometimes in keeping with the parents' eventual wishes; and [b] such an outcome provides further incentive to raise children at least carefully, if not well.)

  And then there's the matter of the sort of COMPANIONSHIP children can, and do, provide to their aged parents. People as old as my parents got lose much of their ability to enjoy human companionship, but neither of mine ever lost their ability to enjoy the companionship of their children, even over the phone or by mail.

  People who elect to have no children must be planning suicide sometime between 70 and 80. And in a sense, they may already have committed it.

  Published: January 24, 2007 11:31 AM

• billwald

  The world population is increasing and there all kinds of people who want to live in Europe and pay taxes. They must be the wrong kinds of people. Europe has always had a problem with the wrong kinds of people and always comes up with the same solution.

  Published: January 24, 2007 11:35 AM

• David Spellman

  The statistical correlations pointed out in the article are well known, but I disagree with the causes. I think it is like the classic analogy in statistics where crime and ice cream sales rise in the summer and therefore eating ice cream causes crime. The rise in socialist welfare programs occurs in tandem with declining fertility, but one does not cause the other--they are linked to an underlying cause.

  When a nation is seduced by the selfishness and laziness of Socialism, the people tend to pursue comfort and ease in the form of government programs, theft by taxation for their own benefit, etc. It is natural that a populace of meterialistic hedonists will be less likely to want the toil and expense of raising children, so the fertility rate drops.

  I have run into the same mentality that the article mentions about people who say they would like to have more kids but feel they cannot afford it. But why can't they afford it? Because they would rather spend their money on something else. Children are a unique "commodity" that has a pragmatically unlimited supply (at least most people could have more kids than they could stand). On the other hand, the cost of children is quite variable. In wealthy societies, there are strong cultural biases in favor of providing perhaps ridiculous standards of living to children. Consequently, peer pressure entices people to limit their families because they cannot provide "the best" for their children. Third world countries do not have wildly idealistic standards for parenting, so they feel comfortable having as many children as they want.

  While it is true that there is some value in having more children as an old-age retirement plan, the reality is that old age is not so expensive that many children are needed to bear it. At worst, you can live in a back bedroom of your only child's house and while away your golden years quietly and inexpensively as just one more mouth to feed. It is the idea that people need to have a luxurious retirement that also drives them to forego the expense of children so that they have more to spend on themselves.

  I say that declining fertility is a natural consequence of self-centered, materialistic societies. Whether it is a virtue or vice is irrelevant since it is a personal choice. But the article is completely correct about declining fertility bankrupts social programs.

  Published: January 24, 2007 12:07 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  I think Alan's got it right. Fertility rates are not down because of Social Security, but simply because of the greater productivity of Western nations. People can afford to not have children, rather than, people can not afford to have children.
  
  Of course, Social Security does create economic disincentives, and thus contributes to the problem in this and in other ways, but the social explanation does seem rather weak.

  Published: January 24, 2007 12:10 PM

• steve

  
  The correlation not causation argument against this article is flawed. If the state grows, the individual and the family's well being will be limited as a result. How will the state grow its resources without robbing the very same families and individuals who hold it?

  Will anyone on this board dare to argue the welfare state has not destroyed the role of father in the black community, which in turn has led to the rise of the gangster family which has taken his place?

  I guess this tragedy has its origins in the American black's cultural and religious beliefs! Pay no attention to the state behind the curtain.

  Published: January 24, 2007 1:16 PM

• Keith

  I think there are more causes to this effect than simply socialism. People in more "developed" countries tend to have fewer children because it takes more resourses to raise a child in a developed country than in an "un-developed" country. It takes very little resourses to raise a child in poverty, so the tendency is to have as many that will survive. It takes a lot of resourses to raise doctors, bankers, engineers, physicists, etc. Add to this the expectation that all of your children will most certainly live to become adults, then you tend to have fewer children. Add to this the fact that socialism generally benefits to poorest and penalizes the rich, adding more costs to the raising of "high end" children. All of these I think add to the effect.

  Published: January 24, 2007 1:26 PM

• Yancey Ward

  RogerM,

  While I agree that the statistical analysis really can tell us nothing, I do think these social programs has caused the drop in fertility. I forget where I saw it, but one of the most interesting pieces of data on this topic is that the dependency ratio has been relatively stable for quite some time in the US- while we have fewer dependent children, we have more dependent elderly- logically, there has to be a connection. The only other thing I remember about this is that the writer claimed that this was a reason not to worry about the future of Social Security- as there are ever more retirees, people will adjust by having fewer children, thus keeping the dependency burden unchanged. That he could not see the problem with his argument was pretty shocking.

  Published: January 24, 2007 1:42 PM

• JRip

  I think Alan R at January 24, 2007 11:15 AM has it right. Social Security is not the cause.

  Try some animated time series plots at http://tools.google.com/gapminder and you will see the fertility rate decline over the last 50 years in just about every country even African countries.

  When my many ancestors were farmers they needed a big family to run the farm and deal with aging and deaths. A lot of the kids died before becoming parents or as they gave birth (during childbirth).

  Good health care plus the improved yields and productivity of modern farming changed that need. But as we became more interested in owning "Stuff" and industry and education provided both more income and shorter hours than the farm we had an entire generation ditch the farms. The last farmer sold off in 2006 but had not farmed his land himself for 20 years.

  We have to get ready for a world with static or declining population. You can easily learn or do the math on what follows:

  The population density of the USA is about 31.3 per square meter. The world density is 43.6. That world number includes all landmasses (Antarctica is about 10% of the global land area).

  The density in India is 318, Japan 336, New York City 9,759.

  The global population is estimated to be about 6.5 billion and our favorite CIA estimates the world growth rate at 1.14% per year.

  At that growth rate (if sustained and I believe it will decline) the world density will match India's current density in 175 years. The world density will match New York City's current density in 478 years. How many people here think growth will continue until these densities are reached?
  Even if you stop all social security worldwide and breed like the Mormons of Utah will we really want to live in that density?

  Published: January 24, 2007 2:08 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Gentlemen

  This was a good article indeed, especially the final paragraphs "Beware Fake Solutions".

  Raising children properly is extremely expensive in time (that is, your time), effort, reources and money (don't kid yourself, it isn't cheap & it sure aint the easiest thing to be doing with your time). You have to take part in the raising of your child, their training and education and in guarding them against the offensive nature of collectivists all over the shop. Initially at least, you have to be extremely careful who you let them associate with (because their friends become more influential than their parents do over time). The responsibilities are serious, on-going and represent considerable opportunity cost. Of course, the rewards are well worth it. If you do things right, you'll have a new best friend. Someone you can enjoy life in the company of.

  My advice is all you decent Austrians & Libertarians have as many children as you can, as early as you can. The more of these wonderful sensible young people there are, the better things will be when the tragic tail of socialist practice collapses (as it is presently preparing to do).

  Talofa!

  Sione

  Published: January 24, 2007 2:14 PM

• Andrew

  Since the state seems to prefer penalties over encouragement, I could see additional taxes levied on the childless to prop up social security. Since childless adults are not bringing new workers into the system, they are net suckers of the social security system. If the childless do not take the action of bringing future human capital into the world, then they could have their present capital taken to fill in that gap.
  

  
  (I hate the idea, by the way.)

  Published: January 24, 2007 3:17 PM

• RogerM

  Right on, Sione! Have more kids. They're great! We had three and wish we had more. We stopped because my wife had medical problems.

  Some pundits have posited that the US has turned to the right because so many leftists had abortions over the years. Something to think about.

  Published: January 24, 2007 3:27 PM

• AnarchistScum

  What I really enjoyed from this article was that the author showed a correlation between economic butchery and social practices. Economics not only plays in the arena of finances but the whole stratum of life. In the book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Hans Hoppe shows how the State through the disruption of finances will have cultural and demographic effects. Although the State is not the only reason for low fertility rates, it does play a big hand in the matter. My premise, just like the suthor's, is that the State will disrupt every facet of its life through its meddling.

  Published: January 24, 2007 5:18 PM

• Jack Maturin

  I agree with much of the article. However, I find it very strange that nobody has yet mentioned the sociological effects of contraception, particularly 'the pill', which many women feel emancipated them from being simply being child-rearing machines, in the 1960s. Even in 'Socialism' (first published 1922), Mises talks about how women can become chained by their heavy physical connection to childbirth, and how this can frustrate their ambitions. Now did socialism, and the motivations discussed in this article, spur the research into 'the pill', or would it have arisen anyway? And given that it did arise, how did it react with the prevailing welfare state ethos which surrounded its introduction? I don't think many people in the real world think 'It makes more sense for me to sponge off other people's children than pay to have my own', although it may have a huge unconscious effect on people's thinking. I think we have to factor 'easy' contraception into this, somehow, perhaps in conjunction with its conjoined relationship with all the various world religions. In some cultures, children are always a gift from God, even in some countries (like Spain and Italy) where the birth rates are very low and the welfare states are very high, rather than a cost. And then we have the effects of HIV, chlamydia, and other STDs. I think this is all more complex than merely being a Misesian cost-benefit analysis of rational adults. I'm usually a full-blooded Misesian, but I think Hayek had a point here, where sometimes developments are less rational, and more evolutionary. Just my two cents.

  Published: January 24, 2007 5:24 PM

• Sione Vatu

  RogerM

  re who is having the abortions

  That's interesting. I hadn't thought about that point. Pity one can't abort adult socialists/ collectivists and save a whole heap of trouble for the rest of us.

  ***

  re children

  I like children too. I'd rather spend some time with my kids than hop off to the pub and get smashed every night (as some of my associates like to do). Another thing I've discovered is that you don't need to watch so much TV when you can spend time with the children instead. That means they don't end up watching so much TV either- a good thing. Lately I've noticed how much fitter I'm getting from playing games, lifting and catching and all the physical activity one gets when with the children. You sleep better too. All good stuff.

  I have a theory that we are ideally suited to raise children- that includes men (I can't prove that idea but it seems a reasonable bet). Hence it's good to do it. Certainly it is an enjoyable on-going experience (I can certainly prove that!).

  I'd say to anyone, do not wait to get "established" before having your children. Fertility gets worse over time. The chance of problems increases (Downes syndrome, difficult birth, complications etc.). Your physical prowess does not impove with age. Intellectually you get further away from the young ones and so it gets harder to connect (to enjoy the wild imagination and taste for adventure that children possess). The sooner you have the children, the sooner they grow up into people you can have as your close friends.

  
  Talofa!

  
  Sione
  

  Published: January 24, 2007 6:27 PM

• Gaurav Ahuja

  That article I think hit on a good point and I sort of agree with other people that it may not be the whole explanation for the decline in fertility in the civilized world. Some people pointed out that fertility drops because people have resources but look at Hong Kong. People are resources, so that explanation is gone. People also say that as incomes rise women want to have less children. Again, this is wrong because incomes have been rising for a long time in many places. And even if people point that what we mean are incomes comparable to a first world rate, one can look at countries like the U.A.E. and Qatar and see first world income levels but above replacement birth rates. Naturally, people may have less children if less of their children at birth die and feminism takes a hold. But remember, that a lot of the things such as abortions, feminism, etc. has taken hold with the help of government. I also think that people that are smarter across nations and within nations often have less kids because they like to pursue things that take a lot of time and see kids as a distraction or something like to put off since their energy is greatest while they are in their teenage years up until their 40s.

  Published: January 24, 2007 8:39 PM

• Dave C.

  Woe be unto those who chose not to have kids and who are in their declining years when the grand promises of a monthly government check finally crash and burn. The very notion that taxes can be raised to paper over the inevitable funding shortfall is absurd. In recent history, when tax rates were relaxed a bit, loot taken in by the IRS surged. So if tax rates are hiked, should we not expect economic activity (taxable, that is) to contract more than enough to cause tax revenue to fall?
  As this process plays out in country after country, expect the suicide rate among the aged to skyrocket.

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:05 PM

• Dave C.

  One last comment: Birth rates track the stock market quite nicely, if one lags the stocks by 9 months. This implies that the same process is involved in people making babies and bidding up stock prices. Cycles in optimism and pessimism...

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:07 PM

• BP

  Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundaemntal Right?'

  "Genetically those on the top of the intellectual food chain, the Anglo-Saxons, the Nords, the Japanese, the Gaul's and the descendents of the Franks, who's name even means 'free', are now all dying out. Because of Socialism they have virtually stopped breeding. Due to government control of the business of education students are now attending school at the age they would normally be having children. Prior to government education most schooling was completed by age 14 and was equivalent to today's education level at age 19-20. After leaving school at 14-15 many would marry around 17-19, the best age for child birth for the female and for the males the time of their highest sperm counts.

  Because Socialist societies are so costly youngsters today cannot afford to have lots of children even if they wanted to. As a select group the Anglo-Saxon fertility rate is probably much less than the stated 1.7 for those females between the breeding ages of 15 to 44. Just for continuation of the genetic line it should be at least 2.15. In Afghanistan where there is no Socialism the fertility rate is 6.75 births per breeding female. Natural selection always favors the prolific breeders.

  In 2006 Socialist America both parents have to work to have the same spending power of a husbands wage in 1970, so now they don't have the time or the money or the inclination to make more babies. At this rate most of the Euro-Americans should be almost gone within 150 years and in Europe Saxon Germany leads the depopulation with 1.4 births. It is estimated by 2120 many cities in Socialist Japan will be empty due to their 1.39 and falling fertility rate.

  Russia the original home of Communism is now losing about one million people each year so unless they give up Socialism all Russians will be gone within 143 years. Communist China with its fertility rate at 1.7 could also eventually disappear due to their one child policy and long education periods for their females. In the western world probably only the Israelis with their 2.5 births per female will apparently survive."

  Declining populations will always cause the end of Socialism.
  http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/pfrwhatis.html
  

  Published: January 24, 2007 9:26 PM

• Sam

  The issue of declining birthrate is a much-debated, very interesting issue, still I can't help but give two quips:

  1. I like babies, but I couldn't eat a full one.

  2. Sterility may be inherited.

  ----------

  Seriously though I got lotsa Qs that bug me about this issue:

  1. One caller to a radio phone-in segment said quite frankly 'look, if you want a surge in population growth all you need to do is get rid of birth-control and abortion (at least the legal version I guess)'. The birth-rate is way down but the screwing-rate is the same if not higher.

  2. How do you know if the world is overpopulated or underpopulated? Why on earth should more and more people being mean a better existence? Better existence has come from greater productive technology not mere population growth. Without increase in technology increased population will follow the law of diminished returns.

  3. Another grumpy old fart article about the 'good ol days' when men were providers and women were baby-makers? Seems strange that women don't actually like the thought of pumping out baby after baby after baby. Considering a man's biological contribution to baby-making is ejaculating sperm whereas a woman's equivalent is 9 months of physical/hormonal changes and ultimately leads to labour and childbirth, gee I wondering why a man would like having more babies than a woman?

  4. Interestingly everyone has seem to ignore that fact that people are not living longer as much as they are living substantially longer! Indeed someone who has lived a reasonably healthy life nowadays should live at least twice as long as ye olde folk. We might find it kinda natural that women can have her first child in her early thirties, yet people in times past would be lucky to see 40. The retirement of 65 years was set in the early 1900s when people's health were failing by that time and weren't expected to live much more than 10 years longer. Nowadays with better living standards (and avoidance of ingested poisons) a great many people should see a healthy 65 and can expect to live into their 90s, if not the 100s. It amazing to see video footage of 100-years-olds who are full-witted and active! A lot of people seem to forget that in times past very few people lived past 50 years hence the problems of living to a very old age was not required.

  5. The birth-rate is higher is poorer nations? Hasn't it been considered that the reality is women in poor countries don't have access to birth-control nor can they usually refuse a husband's demand for sex? It's interesting to note that a rape in Western society was considered crime under property rights, that a man who raped a married woman was stealing the husband's sexual rights to his wife and similarly raping a virgin was stealing the property rights of the father/future husband right to give to marriage/marry a virgin. Hence a husband could legally rape his wife, she was his property and I think I heard that England still had this law well into the modern era.

  5. But in the case of free-riders: the self-chosen childless who prefer a life of luxury over raising children. Why not make them forced riders? If they are not going to have tomorrow workers then of course they going to have to pay. Heck, if they save for retirement they could just as easily be paying for a private aged-care facility when they are too past it to care for themselves (in a free-market scenario)?

  6. But, the more fun point is one that has been briefly mentioned is changing racial/cultural demographics. A Fox-news commentator made the quip about the future having a Muslim Europe and a Christian Hispanic U.S. because predominantly Anglo-folk can't remember how to make babies anymore. Actually I thought is was Japan that was in serious terminal decline, one documentary claimed a school in an otherwise normal town had actually just one student! Apparently!? Or a tongue-in-cheek urban myth?? But what if the only nation with heaps of would-be migrants is, say, India? If young adults Indians pour in by the boatload, get the mainstream jobs, still knowing the secret of raising children, prefer to keep their language and culture in their homes, wouldn't that mean in a few generations Japan would be a de-facto Indian nation? Especially once the old codger Japanese were in retirement homes and everyone else was Indian then the Indians make it such that the national language is Indian and the Indian cultural standards are the norm? Kinda bit like imperialist takeover without a shot being fired or anyone being hurt? Perhaps? Maybe??

  7. Finally, the Big Bad State causing falling birthrates? Actually two points:

  a. The world population had been SLOWLY growing over time until 1850 despite ALL nations having a high birthrate. The counterweight against this was the deathrate. Few children made it to be adults and many women died in childbirth and few got past the age of 50. The main reason attributed to the 5500 million extra today has been mainly attributed to disappearance of the highly-infectious diseases of yesteryears, thanks to improved medicine and hygiene. To maintain the birthrates of yesteryears with today's survival rate would be maddening to comprehend. Piss in my ear all you like but I don't see where mega-harvests and water surpluses are going to come from unless every piece of arable land is farmed and the ocean are drained and everyone is half-starved like Indians and Africans.

  b. What of the Communist Romanian five-child policy? All it did was create a large population and without any accompanying expansion of infrastructure led to mass starvation and poverty. More babies equal wealth? Without any pre-planning I don't think so!

  Published: January 25, 2007 2:01 AM

• John

  My wife and I have the pleasure of bringing 8 wonderful children into the world together. Over the years, we've told people we were raising our own Social Security replacements. Guess we were right.

  As to cost, people spend their resources, both time and money, on the things they deem important. Instead of boats, cars, or vacation homes, we invested in the lives of our children. Our early married years were spent remodeling a small house to fit the growing family, making most of our own furniture, sewing clothes, etc. A 1950's family lifestyle in the modern world.

  Published: January 25, 2007 5:04 AM

• Scott Stinson

  I'll start by saying that I myself am opposed to a lot of the Senior Citizen entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

  However, removing those programs wouldn't necessarily make it economical to have children. Suppose you have children for the sake of having someone support you in retirement. But then what would happen if your children were stuck working at a Burger King during your retirement years?

  Published: January 25, 2007 5:57 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  Comments on your questions, Sam:

  1, 2, 3 & 5: The decrying of the falling birth rate in Western countries is largely due to a hybrid of Judeo-Christain and Darwinian value-sets. Human beings are distinguished from all other animals by our rational faculty, which has the effect of transforming instincts into values, which are subject to choice. Some of the falling birth rate can be attributed to this fact, combined with a relaxation of cultural, social and legal pressures to have more kids. In fact, relaxation of cultural and legal pressures do tend to result in choices towards the opposite course of action, as a means of self-assertion.

  4. The social security system was first put together back in the time when the life expectancy was below the statutory retirement age. Nowadays, the life expectancy is way above the statutory retirment age. This unanticipated, unplanned-for, demographic pressure is one of the causes of the social security systems becoming a huge lodestone on today's taxpayers. [You did mention planning in 7b...]

  6. That sounds like a good scenario for a novel, but it does leave out George Orwell's observation that a ruling class remains one if it keeps the power to nominate its successors (from 1984.)

  7a. With regard to your fears about where the food's going to come from: I don't know where either. Come to think of it, I don't know (except in a vague way) where my food is coming from now. In fact, I have to admit that I don't even know how to make a pencil.

  7b. I don't know how to "third party plan" either, come to think of it. But I am quite capable of fooling myself into thinking that I can.

  Published: January 25, 2007 9:25 AM

• Reactionary

  "Will anyone on this board dare to argue the welfare state has not destroyed the role of father in the black community, which in turn has led to the rise of the gangster family which has taken his place?"

  You won't hear any such argument from me, but given that welfare is universally available, it begs the question of why whites in the US aren't as proportionally affected.

  Published: January 25, 2007 10:12 AM

• Sione Vatu

  Sam

  1/. I recall the Australian Minister of Finance recommending that Australian couples should have three children- one for Dad, one for Mum and one for the country. He sure got an interesting response.

  2/. The adoption of socialism has altered people's behaviour in various ways. Social security and medicare ponzi schemes are in trouble now and the troubles will get far worse over time. Both schemes rely on sufficient young and healthy people in the work force to support the beneficiaries who rely on said schemes for survival. Since the beneficiaries are going to outnumber the contributors there's trouble brewing.

  What would people have done in the absence of such schemes? How would they have behaved? What would their attitude to families, saving and life have been? One is reminded of Bastiat's unseen.

  3/. Written like a man with no children of his own: no-one to share the experience of creating a family with!

  Ask your mother why she had you. Ask her about the experience and why she did it.

  I know plenty of couples who have had numerous children. For example, Janice had eight kids. She is a sports physiotherapist. She wanted a large family, possibly because she came from a large family, possibly because she likes children. Her choice.

  Most of the families I know around here have three children. Four is also common.

  I don't think you are really in a position to comment about this until you have your own children. The make a tremendous difference to your life and your outlook on life. And that's certainly what women who have children of their own told me when I asked.

  4/. So how many people in their 80s and 90s and 100s are fit for the physical rigours of gainful employment?

  Had you considered that in their final decade the majority of people consume far more medical services & need substantially more assistance with their daily needs than for any other decade of their lives. That includes the first decade (and note that it is usual for infants to have at least a mother in attendance- who will the tommorrow's elderly have...). I was horrified to learn this when I worked in insurance some time back, but the numbers were all there. Couldn't avoid them then. Can't now. So, given the increasing geriatric population and the declining young population, where are the resources for care going to come from? I have a suspicion about what's going to happen. It isn't nice.

  Sam, the trouble is most 80 and 90 year olds are nowhere near fully active and most are not fully witted either. In general, even the best of them are not physically capable enough to support themselves. That's the tragedy of old age.

  5.1/. These are factors in some cultures. They have effect. The state meddling in everyone's private affairs has greater effects. That too is a rape, a pack rape.

  5.2/. You have the choice of a socialist "solution" imposed on people and how they live their lives or a Libertarian/ Anarchist one.

  Presently there are so many rules, regulations and legislation generated by govt reaching into all aspects of an individual's life that it would be completely vacuous to assume he (or she) is not damaged by them. In order to allow the free market to work properly all these distortions should be removed. Then it becomes possible to plan and execute a rational plan for old age. Otherwise there be serious trouble ahead...

  6/. There have been large migrations in the past. Perhaps the death of socialism will trigger migrations again.

  I expect there will be a lots of triage as elderly with chronic ailments, but without the resources to pay for medical care, are allowed to die or are forcibly euthanised. Don't be surprised when it starts to occur.

  7/. a) There was an interesting experiment in food production technology where it was determined that a medium size factory "farm" could feed a city of two million people. The building would be about the size of an office high-rise and generate food by a variety of processes including some hydroponic technology. Do-able now. Lot's of special interests in opposition attempting to kill funding opportunities though.

  b) Don't know about the Romanians except the Hungarians consider them to be Gypsies. I understand that to be a not good.

  You are right about lack of planning. Still plenty of people have had unplanned kiddies. Things change and you must sometimes be prepared to adapt your plans.

  Sione

  Published: January 25, 2007 12:35 PM

• Sam

  Yes today's old people are frail, but they were children back in the days of family farms, hard labouring jobs and food at times could be scarce and limited in range. The question of what about a great many Baby Boomers who grew up with good nutrition, good environment, good medical treatment, jobs that don't require hard labouring will, by rights, live to a reasonably healthy old age?

  Published: January 25, 2007 9:26 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  A side comment, inspired by Sione's reply, Sam: In the First World, at least, more people are being fed by fewer people, thanks to improvements in agricultural technology and technique. The number of farming farmers has shrunk considerably in food-exporting First World nations over the last hundred years. (The programs of agricultural subsidization, prevalent throughout the First World, might very well be an attempt to arrest or dampen this decline in numbers. Fewer farmers mean a less numerous voting bloc.)

  As far as the fate of the Boomers is concerned, it really isn't a question of rights, it's a question of claims on the State for various services. The use of "rights" to describe these claims makes the use of the term "rights" amount to peasants' rights - claims on the lord's mill, the lord's granary in emergencies, and the lord's time and defense services. There is also, of course, a corresponding list of "peasant reponsibilities": tithe, forced labour, due deference, quittal of claims against the lord for property damage done by that same lud n' master when exercising his "right of the chase"; etc. In a world where rights are not claims on the State, there would be no question of such right existing.

  Seeing the issue involves claims, though, pragmatism intrudes. I am sure the typical Boomer has little to worry about, politco-morally speaking, seeing as how he or she can pull out a record of all the taxes he or she has paid, including Social Security taxes. It should be remembered that the only near-free rides in the Social Security system were for those who were near retirement when the system was first started in the 1930s. Those people are all passed away now. (The near-free ride with respect to Medicare was gotten by people who are now either very old or passed away too.) The Boomers have paid FICA taxes from day one of job one. So, they certainly have a strong case, in at least the conventional frames of reference, for their claims on the tax till.

  Unless it is found to be empty. [Given that possibility, it makes me wonder what the 21st century equivalent of a food riot would be...]

  Published: January 25, 2007 10:08 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Daniel

  There is no money in the till. It all got taken and then it all got spent. Old boomers can claim all they want, but there aint going to be anything left to take. Anyway, they have no right to claim that someone else be forced to contribute to pay them out of their own ponzi.

  Anyone who is foolish enough to think they can trust a thief to return stolen property or a frauster to pay out on "investments" needs their head read. Same deal for social security (it isn't social and it isn't secure).

  The "crisis" is going to occur when the young tire of the burden and either can't or won't pay to keep all them old beneficiaries around. Who needs them anyway? Triage is coming and so is forced euthanasia. Tragic.

  ***

  Sam

  Likely the old boomers will be an unhealthy lot. They've been the most pampered generation of self-indulgent, immoral, lazy, self-absorbed socialist mongrels yet seen! Those guys will likely experience a last decade of life complete with cardiac trouble, diabetes, results of drug abuses, results of poor diet and obesity, osteoathristis, Alzheimers, CJD, MS, ARMD (leading to blindness), strokes, deafness and so on.

  And there won't be the resources to keep them alive, let alone comfortable. For many the end will come from avoidable or treatable illnesses (and accidents) that they can't afford to have seen to. For others the needle awaits- ready or not.

  And that is where socialism ultimately leads- suffering, ruin, destruction, loss of value and worthless death. It's merely a matter of time.

  Sione

  Published: January 26, 2007 4:12 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  Sione wrote: "There is no money in the till. It all got taken and then it all got spent. Old boomers can claim all they want, but there aint going to be anything left to take. Anyway, they have no right to claim that someone else be forced to contribute to pay them out of their own ponzi."

  Hence my foot-riot analogy. What I hoped to get across, though, is that a large majority of the Boomers have been paying into the Social Security/Medicare till since they started out as taxpayers, without collecting from it, and that this fact will be the source of their anger. Had they been the "early free riders," a sense of shame might restrain them from a belt of outrage. Because they were not among that cohort, though, it won't.

  From the Boomer perspective, the young'uns will look a lot like a bunch of youngsters who want to duck out of their "just" hazing. (FYI: I was born in 1969, so I'm not a Boomer. Nor is my dad: he was born in 1937. My mom was born in 1940.) The only way I can think of staunching this flare-up would be to note that the kids of the Boomers are the ones most in need of rescue from a failing system - which won't work for the Boomers who have no kids, or who believe that their kids should sacrifice in the way that they themselves have.

  Published: January 26, 2007 1:12 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Sohbet

  I'm saying that most of these Boomers have not led lives of good healthy habits. They've been physically inactive (sedentary habits) hence unfit. The vast majority have experimented with various drugs (recreational as well as quackery and all sorts of over-prescription). They've eaten too much processed and junk food (hence exposing themselves to various cancer risks and ARMD - causes loss of sight). They've eaten too much for too long (hence many are obese or at the very least overweight, that is they are carrying fat around every major organ in their bodies). They've eaten the wrong things (hence poor nutrition leading to various age related chronic debilitations). Too much hopping form bed to bed and swapping spit (leading to exposure to a nasty collection of non-specific, low grade infections- which remain symptomless for years, eventually flaring up into chronic & debilitating illnesses). And so on...

  Boomers have been under the impression that somehow they are not ultimately responsible for themselves and their future. They expect govt. will help them out of trouble. This is exactly the message that's been promoted by the likes of Medicare and Social Security. These guys carelessly allowed themselves to live according to the slothful thinking such ponzis encourage. In the end when all those really nasty lifestyle and chronic diseases start showing up (and they will), the ones that take a lifetime of habits to establish and the ones that sneak up on the elderly, that's when the Boomers will turn to the govt. for assistance.

  Two things:

  1/. Many of their problems are self-made

  2/. The govt. won't be there to help them, as it won't be able to capture sufficient reource to so do. It will be in the business of ensuring it's own survival.

  
  Adopt the stupidity of socialist ideas and in the end you are going to end up with a disaster.

  ***

  
  Daniel

  The elderly won't riot much. Physically they will be too weak. Ideologically they have nothing anyway. All the govt need claim is that they did not pay their way. Not enough was "invested". They must act for the good of the Nation and so the hard decisions must be taken. "It's time for some leadership to be shown." That type of thing. It's happened before.

  The govt will be populated with (in the main) younger people who can afford to wait the elderely beneficiaries out. After all the Boomer special interest group is starting to die off anyway. It'll all be over in one or two Presidential election cycles.

  BTW they ought to be very ashamed they paid into social security for years and never had the wit to protest about it when they could. No, these guys adopted the socialist faith. That was the lazy way! Too easy! Now it's starting to get hard.

  Sione

  Published: January 27, 2007 12:12 PM

• George J. Georganas

  The article is at its weakest when it deals with modern financial techniques that allow one, in the absence of social security, to save for old age. If a person chose to save the money that would go towards childbearing and childrearing (plus worked the time required by childbearing and childrearing and saved all the proceeds), then, in a working market society, that person could expect to attract enough resources (entice others to have children) to be cared for in his or her old age. If enough other people in that nation chose to go that way, the nation would attract old-age-carers from abroad and would soon go extinct. But why is that bad ? Should public policy limit individual choices, so that the nation may live ? Von Mises would surely say no.
  If social security charged the right rate on such people, I cannot see why it could not pay its way. The trouble is social security has set its prices wrong. It should levy social security contributions on people who do not raise children by adding to their cash earnings the value of the time-not-foregone raising children.
  To sum up, social security is not to blame for infertility. Mispriced social security encourages infertility.
  On a side note, Israel's population replacement rate is due to its citizen of Arab descent, hardly encouraging from a Western point of view.

  Published: January 31, 2007 3:18 PM

• Sione Vatu

  George

  What do you have in mind? Are you positing social security as a compulsory scheme run by a government or something else entirely. If so, what are you in favour of?

  Sione

  Published: February 1, 2007 2:31 AM

• Sam

  But whats the big deal with birth rates anyway? Interesting that the replacement rate is considered 2.xx. Perhaps in the year 1500 A.D. the birth maintenance might have been 10.xx. With replacement high mortality rates of yesteryears it might that ten babies were needing to be born so that maybe two would grow up to have their own children. Strange that as child mortality rate went down (and personal wealth goes up?) so does the birth rate go down. Perhaps people can sense that there's a basic growth of infrastructure and that having way more babies than that growth will lead to greater social pressures. Whilst a sudden plummet in population can social upheaval so too a sudden onrush can cause infrastructure problems.

  And is there an irony that for people in times past (say the day of Ancient Rome with its capital having some 1 million residents) to see Australia, with a population of around 20 million, be considered small?

  Published: February 1, 2007 4:45 AM

• George J. Georganas

  My first point is that infertility in a certain population group may rise, even if social security has not been instituted in this population group. Money saved during one's active years cannot buy family love, but it can buy very high level old-age care in modern societies. In more traditional societies this option to buy is not available, hence the emphasis on childbearing and childrearing in those societies. In modern societies, we need not resort to euthanasia for old people, assuming old people have accumulated (by compulsion or free choice) enough to pay for their old age. Needless to say, compulsion makes accumulation much harder, if not impossible. So, even if social security is abolished, the problem of depopulation may continue.
  My second point is that social security, properly priced, could, even, increase fertility.
  Of course, this would exacerbate the countless other problems social security entails.
  

  Published: February 1, 2007 11:08 AM

• Sione Vatu

  George

  Thanks for clarifying that.

  With regards to saving enough for old age, a significant impediment to that is taxation. Another is the govt's increasing the amount of fiat money in circulation. Social security can't work in the long run in the presence of these two burdens.

  One would hope that one would not have to rely on one's own children in advanced age but the possibility is most likely. I note how my parents are looking after my grand-parents. Getting into advanced years means facing some unpleasant life challenges and decisions. A reduction in independance looms as a definate possibility. Hence some of these decisions may be made for you rather than by you. Some of them will be affected by what you did in the decades preceding the onset of geriatric decay. I guess all that can be done is to plan well ahead and arrange ones affairs so matters are dealt with as you'd prefer.

  Good Luck Everyone!

  Sione

  Published: February 2, 2007 1:17 PM

• AndrewP

  I have to wonder how this will play out over the longer term (centuries). Will (a) depopulating Western societies simply disappaear as Muslim hordes overrun the earth? or (b) Will social security schemes collapse of their own weight in economic terms and force some kind of new order to be formed? or (c) Will technological change change the paradigm?

  I tend to think the answer is (c) if and only if western societies can survive long enough for the required technological change to happen. I think the comment partly quoted below describes the real problem:

  
  ".... The state may very well have destroyed an incentive to have children, but this among other factors (such as birth control and feminism) have led to cultural effects that will not be reversed by eliminating retirement programs. DINKs have no trouble amassing huge savings, whereas those who have children may have lower incomes but can expect more care in their old age. My guess is that unless you feel the need for your children to have a name brand degree or allow them to use your credit card, the monetary cost of children is actually quite negligable. The real cost is time. The world is a playground but parents have to be home to take care of their children. It is the cost of opportunities lost for travel, self-growth, education, etc. that makes people have fewer children."

  He is right that the cost is time, but remember that in a capitalist economy, time is money. I'll repeat that - time IS money. Child rearing is labor intensive in that it cannot be automated with present technology. If technological advances, in say robotics, allows childrearing to be automated, that will change everything. If western society survives for another century, my bet is this is exactly what will happen.

  Published: February 4, 2007 11:03 AM