Often, when we look at disincentives for childbearing, we think of them in terms of opportunity costs for the individual. But if children are cumulatively being considered a societal good, we should also weigh the cumulative opportunity costs to the individuals as a societal tradeoff. It seems to me that Ron Hosh's substack (of "luxury belief" fame) generally lives up to its tagline of "general incoherence," but he raised this point/question in this post. The kids have to come from somewhere; what tradeoff(s) should society make?
Teenage pregnancy? Major tradeoff against developing the human capital of the parents and, thusly, the parents' ability to develop the human capital of the children. (And, if you want to follow the HBD line of inquiry, you might hypothesize dysgenic selection effects.)
College students? Lesser tradeoff than above, but same general issue.
20-something professionals? We're taking human capital out of the economy, just after investing in its development, rather than trying to maximize its compound interest.
Hosh also brings up geography and sexual orientation (same-sex couples using IVF is a thing), though I don't think the tradeoffs here are as clear.
Have any of you thought about this? My answer to "Which couples should be having more children" is "All the couples who don't have as many children as they want" which I don't think cleaves cleanly enough across any demographic to give a more clear tradeoff than the subsidies required to support the children not-conceived out of financial concern. But others here are more open to social engineering than I am.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It does perhaps create a career ceiling for high SES women until they are perceived as being "done" having children though. If you make a lot of money, you are at least somewhat indispensable, but your employer must consider that you will be out for a couple months 2 or 3 times over the next several years, so you can only become so indispensable. One solution to this is making paternity leave as robust as maternity, which has its own fun side effects of making 20-30 year olds of any gender who are likely to start families less attractive to employ.
That does seem like a good way to discourage the current massive discrimination against anyone over 40.
Although the equilibrium probably looks like "companies prefer to hire people who've made a visible precommitment to not having children, through public castration rituals and gleeful participation in anti-natalist subcultures."
So basically the same as right now really. HR had better see that funkopop collection when they check your
Facebookbluesky page.Yes, both of these are what I find funny! The anti-straight discrimination in high end consulting is very real, and it can be a good move in interviews to volunteer that you already have kids.
I wonder if some of the twitter posts about not hiring anyone over 30 (because they are probably aware of their value and will negotiate more aggressively) is also to do with the fact that so many professionals delay starting families until their 30s these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link