Comments on: Are babies bad for the economy? http://www.frcblog.com/2008/08/are-babies-bad-for-the-economy/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2008/08/are-babies-bad-for-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-1183 Suricou Raven Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:50:53 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=560#comment-1183 Without raising the birth rate, there will be economic problems as a higher percentage of the population than ever before becomes retired or unable to work. Having more babies sounds like an easy fix - and it would be, for a time. But it's not sustainable! Have babies now, and there will be people to care for the currently middle-aged when they retire - but those babies will one day retire too. Maintining constant population growth forever isn't possible, the earth can only produce so much food even if every acre of usable farmland is used intensively. Sooner or later, growth *has* to stop. Increasing the birth rate would only buy time, putting off the problem for now so that in a couple of centuries it rears it's head once more even bigger than before. Without raising the birth rate, there will be economic problems as a higher percentage of the population than ever before becomes retired or unable to work.

Having more babies sounds like an easy fix – and it would be, for a time. But it’s not sustainable! Have babies now, and there will be people to care for the currently middle-aged when they retire – but those babies will one day retire too. Maintining constant population growth forever isn’t possible, the earth can only produce so much food even if every acre of usable farmland is used intensively. Sooner or later, growth *has* to stop. Increasing the birth rate would only buy time, putting off the problem for now so that in a couple of centuries it rears it’s head once more even bigger than before.

]]> By: angela shanahan http://www.frcblog.com/2008/08/are-babies-bad-for-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-1182 angela shanahan Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:21:47 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=560#comment-1182 This is not an accurate representation of the productivity commission report. I have actually read the report and it doesn't say this at all. It does refer to a fertility boomat two different ends of the class education spectrum ad points out teheconomic problems. For example, the tax 'churning' which we se in australia ,ie the attempt to give back something to tax payers because of their children, can be counter productiv for the middle classes. People can end up either slightly worse off or not much better off than if they paid no tax. Then at te other end of the spectrum in Australia as in many other western countries, we have had a huge rise in the number of ex nuptial births to twenty something women with poor education since the 90'sNow many of these women are family oriented and once would have married . Courtesy of the sexual revolution they no longer expect the father of their children to marry them - so they go it alone.( Many do eventually marry- if not him then someone else) Aside from the bad- and costly- social effects, the welfare system will be stretched supporting them- meanwhile support for middle income families with higher education xpecttions etc.will dwindl under a Lobor government. All wihe support of the neo ecologists .The last government was quite even handed and supported middle class families as well, which is wise policy, bcause as the current rise in fertility shows that policy let the brakes of many thirty something women who wanted to have children all along , but delayed it. This is not an accurate representation of the productivity commission report. I have actually read the report and it doesn’t say this at all. It does refer to a fertility boomat two different ends of the class education spectrum ad points out teheconomic problems. For example, the tax ‘churning’ which we se in australia ,ie the attempt to give back something to tax payers because of their children, can be counter productiv for the middle classes. People can end up either slightly worse off or not much better off than if they paid no tax.
Then at te other end of the spectrum in Australia as in many other western countries, we have had a huge rise in the number of ex nuptial births to twenty something women with poor education since the 90′sNow many of these women are family oriented and once would have married . Courtesy of the sexual revolution they no longer expect the father of their children to marry them – so they go it alone.( Many do eventually marry- if not him then someone else) Aside from the bad- and costly- social effects, the welfare system will be stretched supporting them- meanwhile support for middle income families with higher education xpecttions etc.will dwindl under a Lobor government. All wihe support of the neo ecologists .The last government was quite even handed and supported middle class families as well, which is wise policy, bcause as the current rise in fertility shows that policy let the brakes of many thirty something women who wanted to have children all along , but delayed it.

]]>