There's a superficial kind of logic to your position here -- but also a highly negative bottom line problem, ascribable to simple mathematics. Unless you also find a way to stop old people dying, we must replace the population or we simply disappear.

People will continue to replace the population, due to ego or accident, or, perhaps, more noble desires. I don't expect anybody to pay for my lifestyle. I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's. Well, I do thing it's essential, in order to have an educated democracy, to pay for the poor. It's also the humane thing to do. The poor should also have adequate health care. I'm not talking about public health care for everybody. A disastrous idea. Just that people living in poverty should have preventive and emergency care. And even if you're the biggest grinch in the world, there's a bottom-line aspect to that. Stave off somebody's diabetes with preventive medicine and you save, probably, thousands a week in dialysis. It's not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.

I'm not surprised by the results of the study, either. I have a close friend who is a great mom, and although she finds being one fulfilling, she has confided to me she'd like to leave the kids with the grandparents for a few weeks and take a "Thelma and Louise" road trip.

I think the real problem these days is that kids are looked upon as a fashion accessory/status symbol; parents look upon their children as objects for the parents' fulfillment, sources of narcissistic supply. (Not all parents, of course, but way too many.) And this kind of parent is precisely the type of person that should not be breeding.

I never had kids because my mom was a narcissist, and when I grew up I realized that raising a well-adjusted and happy child was both a lot of work and probably something of which I was not even capable. I have never regretted my decision. I have regretted that more people didn't do some work on themselves before producing children who would then follow their parents' terrible example. We all pay for that, and in more forms than just money for "education".

Why give the poor a break all the time? Should the poor have to pay more taxes than I do for fire and police service, because on percentage they use it a hell of a lot more than I do. Should the poor have to pay a higher percentage of taxes for government sponsored health care, because they use it a hell of a lot more than I do. Not while I don't have a problem with helping DISADVANTAGED people, I have a huge problem with people who won't get off their backsides and get a job and stop sucking on the government teet. I pay taxes, a large portion of which goes towards education, for a number of things I never have used nor anticipate having to use. I have never had to call the fire department or police department, should I have to pay less, of course not.

An educational system is vital to the fabric of society, as are Policemen and Firemen, and a host of other things we pay taxes for. Just because you don't need or want those services does not mean that you do not benefit from them in one way or another.

Also, if you charged for a basic primary and secondary education you would have a lot more poor people running around as well.

I'll gladly pay for police and fire. You bring little bundles of joy into the world, you pay for the privilege.

Oh, and I never suggested education shouldn't be mandatory - it should be. I'm just demanding a change in the funding stream. There should be public schools of a certain standard; the entire public just shouldn't be paying for them.

Society benefits from the education of children. Does it then also seem reasonable that those who did not have children and who did not pay for their education should also not have access to their services later in life? Should we prevent childless people from seeing a specialist doctor who was raised on an education that they did not help pay for?

Amy, I think your philosophy in this aspect is part of the larger problem. Humans crawled out of the trees and survived on the savanah due to society and a communal raising of children. As such, it was the responsibility of the clan to produce effective offspring because they would later contribute to the clan's success. Now, paradoxically, the clan is getting larger but the children are becoming more sheltered. They are raised by one or two individuals instead of the entire community. The greater concept of community is left to suffer.

Under your plan, the only people that could afford to have children would be the poor and the wealthy. The wealthy have very few children already and the poor currently have access to public education without it really helping them much. Basically you would alienate the working middle class. The income gap is wide enough already.

Several years ago I was having lunch w/ my OB/GYN and she mentioned that she had just delivered a baby the night before for a 13 year old girl. It got me, liberal democrat that I am, thinking that maybe to have a child, one should have to apply for a license. That all girls when they reach their menses would be fitted w/ a birth control patch. That would not come off until said license was granted. Now, I'm well aware that folks on both sides of the political divide will be up at arms on this, but I think it important to shock the system so to speak so that we could at least come up with some new ideas to replace the tired old ones that are not working presently.

Hear hear. I'll gladly give up public funding for my 3 kids' education when the government also stops robbing me to provide farm subsidies for farmers growing excess crops, pork projects that benefit family members of the conressman voting for them, regulations that benefit only competing industries, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

"Unless you also find a way to stop old people dying, we must replace the population or we simply disappear."

And .... why is this a problem? Who would care? Not the planet, or anything else living on it, except maybe our pets.

I agree that if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. I don't think you have to be rich to afford kids, but you've got to be making more than minimum wage. What's wrong with waiting a few years, until you CAN afford them?

We never feel sorry for people who buy a house that's too expensive for them, or a boat or a sports car they can't afford. But for some reason we think people are entitled to all the kids they want to crank out. Because somehow it's different with kids, like they aren't a luxury. Like the same concepts of financial planning shouldn't apply to the decision to have kids. Well please remove the rose-colored glasses, wake up, and smell the poverty!

"Society benefits from the education of children. Does it then also seem reasonable that those who did not have children and who did not pay for their education should also not have access to their services later in life? Should we prevent childless people from seeing a specialist doctor who was raised on an education that they did not help pay for?"

If I had to pay for the education of that specialist doctor, I should get his services for free. Or, if I don't have to pay for his education, then I should have to pay for his services. You seem to think it should work both ways and the rest of us should have to pay twice. I think the doctor should pay for his OWN education and then pass the cost on to me in the form of charges for his services, IF I use those services.

One last comment. This is whiny-assed crybaby crap:

"Western culture is the worst place to be if you want to be a parent," she says. "If you look at any other culture, people would think that this is nutty."

EXCUSE ME??? But at least we don't have malaria or polio!! In terms of health, literacy, and lifestyle, today's Western kids have it made! Better than kids at any other time in history, and better than kids in most other parts of the world. If Western parents want to micromanage and indulge their children to the point where they have no lives of their own, that's THEIR problem. And if that was the point behind the "Western culture sucks" comment, then I'd agree with it. But naturally, the article then turns into a begfest for more government programs to pay people to have kids and then stay at home with them for months and months, etc. So we should just FURTHER remove parents from the responsibility for their own decisions. Gak.

> Humans crawled out of the
> trees and survived on the
> savanah due to society
> and a communal raising of
> children.

Says who? They lived in communities, but that was out of bitter necessity, not mutual respect. One reason they'd been up in trees was that they were pretty rude to each other on the ground. Life was short and harsh, and helping the guy in the cave over the hill turn his crippled, toothless daughter into a prom queen was never a priority.

> They are raised by one or
> two individuals instead
> of the entire community.
> The greater concept of
> community is left to
> suffer.

I agree with you that nuclear families are constrained and unstable, and that this inability to correctly place boundaries is bad for individuals and communities. But it's wrong to think that there was a golden age when everything was better. Even though the village should treat the children better than it does, Hillary Clinton is wrong to suggest that 'we're all in this together.' We're not.

Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries! What do we owe each other? People who bring children into the world have a primary responsibility for their conduct and well being.

Besides, who knows how wide the income gap should be?

So let me clarify Amy. If I'm poor and bring children into the world, you don't mind paying tax dollars so that they can get an education (as all the other things the poor get from your tax dollars) although I myself won't be paying into the system. But if I am middle-class, paying a fairly high percentage of my own money towards taxes that help fund the education system for myself (and the poor guys kids, as well as the poor guys food stamps, medical care, housing, etc...) you have a bigger problem with me than the poor guy?!?!? Okay, I can see the logic, I think?

>Says who ...

I never claimed it was due to mutual respect. The community is stronger when its parts are stronger. When the community is stronger, the individual benefits from the community. Therefore, it is beneficial to the individual to contribute to the well-being of the other individuals in the community as long as those other individuals are doing the same. Perhaps this is naive utopianism, but that is how early hunter-gatherers worked. It was in a person's best interest to raise all children to be productive instead of raising children who could not contribute.

Even today we operate the same way. It is better to support children as a community than it is to rely solely on the individual.

This is really a moot point anyway. Such a thing would never come to pass simply because it would cause more problems than it would solve and because it is too much of a status quo to be changed.

I am all for the reduction of government that Libertarians hold as their banner, but it is outrageous, short-sighted schemes like this one that prevent Libertarians from being taken seriously.

Amy,

As a non-libertarian (and a parent) I'd have to say you've made a category mistake. Your argument is that because American parents aren't made happy by their children, children by definition don't make people happy and we'd be as well off without them. I'd argue, on the contrary, that a society that loses faith and pleasure in its children is a society on the ropes, and that the United States (among many others) is one such society, as evidenced by the study cited by the Washington Post.

The same fallacy applies to your line about public education. Public education, in my view, is the cornerstone of civilization, no less. When it fails, we all fail. If even a fraction of the tax dollars currently going into California's prison system (bigger than all the countries in northern Europe combined, largely because of draconian sentences imposed on petty drug offenders) went into the education system instead, we'd have a much more functional society, and a much safer, better educated one.

To blame the failures of public education on the very idea of public education, as you do, is to get the argument precisely ass-backwards. If you don't believe me, look at the state of the world before public education became widespread in the 19th century, and after. A hell of lot more obscurantism, extremist politics, religious nuttery, poverty and misery in the age before education (which, not coincidentally, was also the age before representative democracy). We're already backsliding towards more of all that -- do you really want to encourage the trend? Believe me, the tax dollars that go towards public education are worth every cent.

> I never claimed it was
> due to mutual respect.

Point taken.

> The community is stronger when
> its parts are stronger.

The question is begged. Communities can be too strong. Hitchens once said "The idiocy of rural life grows nothing but footprints."

Amy's complaint, which deserves hearing (and I think respect) is that there are limits to the treasure communities must automatically pass to parents. This includes education for children, which Amy concedes is an absolute necessity.

"The community is stronger when its parts are stronger. When the community is stronger, the individual benefits from the community. Therefore, it is beneficial to the individual to contribute to the well-being of the other individuals in the community as long as those other individuals are doing the same."

Hey Silver Fox, I'm as libertarian as they come, but don't disagree with this statement in the least. I just don't see why we need to have the government involved for people to strengthen their own communities. If anything the government has in most cases (and with great inefficiency) supplanted the voluntary efforts people used to engage in to hook up with their neighbors and make those improvements.

My dad went to school in a one-room schoolhouse financed entirely by the VOLUNTARILY pooled resources of his own parents and neighbors, which were used to hire a teacher. It was dirt cheap, and he developed better math and reading skills than a lot of kids in today's computer age. Now people pay fortunes in tax dollars to fund compulsory government schools that are often more custodial than educational in nature. What a waste.

(I actually disagree with Amy's comment that school should be mandatory. I don't see why teachers should have to spend a third of their classroom time dealing with truancy and discipline issues for students who don't want to be there. It is completely unfair to the students who want to learn, and it is impossible to teach anything through compulsion anyway. If the little brats don't want to be there, let them leave. We need ditchdiggers and garbage collectors.)

Pirate Jo :

I see your point. We certainly do need ditch diggers and garbage collectors, but we also need intelligent/informed/educated voters.

I whole-heartedly agree that public schools are seriously lacking in value, and that they tend to be "custodial in nature". Basically, the impression I get from your comments is that education should be an aspect of capitalism. The better schools will rise to the top, have greater demand, etc. If you want your child to have a good education, you will have to pay for it. Everyone else can just settle.

Will you also concede, however, that we only need so many ditch diggers and garbage collectors? Don't you think that children should at least be educated to the point of not being a burden on society? Surely a child born to ditch-diggers is fated to dig ditches, and if that does not satisfy him, or if enough ditches have already been dug, what does he do? I'll tell you what he does: he becomes a burden on society. He steals and gets thrown in jail. Who pays for jail? The taxpayer. There is no getting around that.

So maybe there should be some sort of minimum education provided by the state that allows children a better chance at becoming contributing members of society. If you are well-to-do and you want a better opportunity for your child, then you can pay for one.

I think this is what we have.

Pirate Jo

You have plenty of examples of both systems (no mandatory government subsidized education and mandatory education) throughout this world. Most third world countries provide no mandatory government subsidized education, most other countries do. Where would you rather live? If our government ceased to make education mandatory, and to subsidize it, we would more than likely eventually become a third world country ourselves.

Good questions, Silver Fox. I'd say, look at what the capitalist system has done for televisions. Used to be, most people couldn't even afford one. Now the very best ones cost thousands of dollars and only a few can afford them, but most people can still afford a very nice one. In the future, most people will have what only a few people can afford today. The richest people can always afford the best, but the options for the rest of us keep improving.

In my city, government educations cost $5,000 per year per student. In some places it is much higher. (In Atlanta, which has some of the worst schools in the country, it is closer to $13,000 per year per student, although this info is over a year old.) Think about what kids are spending their time in school doing and ask yourself whether they are getting something worthwhile for that much money.

I think that under a private system we would have a lot MORE kids qualified to do something besides dig ditches. Also, I can't say that I agree with your comment about the offspring of ditch diggers growing up to do the same thing. You make it sound like a person's parents are the only source of education and job training a person has. I just don't see that as something that ends the day you turn 18. People are limited more by bad choices than by their parents' income.

Senor, you make it sound as though this single issue is what separates the U.S. from a third world country. I recommend you read some of what John Taylor Gatto has to say on the issue. He is undoubtedly more qualified to comment on it than either one of us.

I don't think people should live beyond their means, Senor L, but I also don't think children should suffer for being born to assholes. I don't live beyond my means and expect anybody else to pay for me. If I liked children, I'd have no more of them than I could afford to raise in a reasonable way (food, health care, educational costs, etc.)

"Society benefits from the education of children."

Society benefits when I get a new computer. I write better and faster on a better machine. Does that mean society should pay for my new computer?

To Modest: I think many people don't think about having children, they simply have them and are disappointed by the effect it has on their sex life, their disposable income, and their ability to vacation anywhere other than Motel 6. Many people seem to enjoy watching the Superbowl. I don't begrudge them their viewing, but I'd rather sit on a tack. The agony is, to borrow from Hobbes, "brutish and short."

I'm not suggesting an end to "public education" -- ie, schools misrun as they are now by the government. (That's a whole 'nother can of worms.) What I'm suggesting is that those who have children pay for their children's education, and those who don't only pay for the education of the destitute.

Moreover, as somebody brought up above, the push to send hoards of people to college is ridiculous. Not everybody is college material, and quite frankly, there are plenty of people who never went to college -- Wendy McElroy being a prime example -- who can think rings around a large percentage of people who did.

Amy, there is a difference between people who are destitute, as you put it, but who want to learn, and those who just don't want to learn in the first place, and that could include plenty of rich kids. Which is why I say, if they don't want to be there, don't force them to. If you have a motivated kid whose parents are poor, I can see your point about wanting to help him. But then don't you just give his parents incentive to crank out seven or eight kids, knowing that the rest of us to have to pay for all of them to go to school? If being destitute gets your kids a free ride to school, isn't that just an encouragement for more people to be destitute? Senor did make a pretty good point with that one. You don't want to punish the middle class people who were smart enough to limit the size of their families to what they could afford.

And great point about pushing hoards of people into colleges!!!! That landscape is going to have to change.

Free school for the incontinently breeding poor? Gee, that'll learn 'em, Amy!

We have to pay for them now. There would have to be real standards for being destitute, just as there are now. There is public assistance to the poor now. People don't dream to be poor for that purpose. They wouldn't get money for education - their kids would simply be allowed to attend school at a reduced cost or without cost. Because some people abuse the system isn't a reason everybody should get to abuse everybody else.

Amy - I also think people shouldn't live beyond their means, I certainly don't. I also think there are a ton of idiots out their raising idiots. Personally I have one child who is a straight A student with a 98 average in the sixth grade. I have no doubt that society will ultimately benefit from the public education she is receiving. Having said that I intend to send her to private school for high school, regardless of cost because the high school in our area does not have the academic record that her current school does. I agree with you in principal on a number of points raised in this thread but that doesn't change the reality that the current system is about as good as it gets, unless you want to get into the whole voucher argument.

Pirate Jo - While I will readily admit that Mr. Gallo is far more qualified to discuss the issues that separate a third world country from the US, I was simplifying the matter, which is what you did with your comment about your father's education. Undoubtedly there were a number of factors that played a part in your fathers education beside the fact that it was privately funded. His parents and local community obviously valued education as he apparently did himself. The teacher that instructed him more than likely was more driven to provide a learning environment that he could excel in because she didn't have a union to protect her from being fired for doing a lousy job. There are a lot of problems with public education, but the reality is it is better than not having public education.

"[...]maybe to have a child, one should have to apply for a license. That all girls when they reach their menses would be fitted w/ a birth control patch. That would not come off until said license was granted."

My response to this quote is a modest proposal for the other sex: give vasectomies to all boys at the age of 10, at public expense, no exceptions. When they turn 21, they can apply for a license to have the vasectomy reversed. In order to be granted this license, men would have to contribute a DNA sample that can be used henceforth in paternity testing. Accepting the license would act as a waiver to have one's salary garnished for child support payments, and waive the individual's right to child custody or unsupervised visitation if the man has been convicted of a violent act. Above all, I propose not focusing solely on controlling women when one proposes to limit reproductive freedom. We've had enough of that already.

I wonder if those here who are so anti-marriage and anti-children would continue to be so if: 1) there were any person on the planet who wanted to marry them; and 2) if they had a sincere offer of co-parenting from a healthy human being.

I smell desperation... and much bitterness. Yuck!

But I am in agreement that it's best that you don't reproduce.

As someone who never wanted kids, I will say it all balances out. It is pretty much a matter of attitude, I think.

I miss my old life, but there is something about chug-chugging a young boy on your shoulders through the snow with a train whistle and flashlight pretending to be The Polar Express in the dark that has it's moments too. It's like you take so much more out of their enjoyment than you take out of your own.

I have two kids. The first one was a surprise--in spite of my being married-- and not an unwelcome one. I agonized over the decision to have a second child for a number of reasons. I didn't want to raise a single child-- all of my friends who were "only children" had 2 or more themselves, so it can't have been all that hot a way to grow up and I value my relationship with my sisters. That being said, I knew there's no guarantee that a 2nd child would ever be friends with the older one. (luckily they are. So Far)
I also didn't know if we could afford it. I know how to live very meanly-- the sacrifices one should make when one has kids requires mean living. Someone with a vested interest in the child's welfare should be home-- so you live on one income or a cobbled-together batch of incomes that keep you from starving.
Tag-team parenting.

My younger child is now nearly 17. I have been able to advance in my career enough to become eligible for health insurance. We've never been on any public assistance after that first year of reduced-cost lunch at school for the older boy.

Kids are expensive and require full commitment. Anyone who blobs out a kid without consideration of those facts is a fuckin' crackpot. Being a parent isn't a career that you can just change because you're tired of it.

I'd love to license people to earn a child. The problems arise out of who gets to decide the conditions. It could become instantly stratified through class and race, religion, etc.

My husband asks this of Amy: if it's to no one's benefit --outside the families--to educate children, what's the corrolation regarding who should pay for unemployment insurance?

stirring the pot,
Deirdre

Cosmi, just when the conversation was seeming so intelligent, thanks for dropping in with something simplistic and small-minded for a little change of pace.

For the record, it's not lack of a partner that keeps me from wanting to marry or have children. See photo credit at the bottom of this blog item. Trust me, my name is not Gregg Sutter, but he does let me steal his photographs. Hmmm, a hint!

Deirdre, I'm not saying nobody benefits outside the family -- although many of us do suffer, depending on who has a one-night stand at a bar, for example, and...oops, "forgets" to use protection. Many people benefit from my trips to Paris because I learn stuff there I use in the column. Should you all be funding my trips there? We benefit from a good doctor. Why not pay for every kid's medical school education? And then, if you're going to pay for all that, why should their parents have to buy them shoes and clothes?!

My own deep admiration aside, Amy-- society as a whole does not benefit from your trips to Paris. Society as a whole DOES, however, benefit when the rising generations are not ignorant savages.

That being said, I tend agree with you more than my husband does, but I also agree with the other correspondent about farm subsidies. Our tax systems fund a great number of things I'd rather not be spending my money on. My local property taxes, however, seem like a drop in the bucket compared with the money I'm sending over to be blown up in Iraq.

Amy,
I find most of your railing against child-centric assumptions, smug married bastards and the like refreshing and often spot-on and you are perfectly capable of slapping down those who would accuse you of suffering from Crone's [sic!] disease.
But there is a weakness in your argument about being forced to pay for your child's education if you can afford it. It is, as modest proposal/senor indicated above, a mark of civilised society to accept access to free public education as a right for everyone. To hell with slippery slope outrage over middle class college-or-die culture, or feckless parents then demanding free clothes and trainers in addition to schooling.

The moment you start means-testing a right, you devalue the principle.

Surely, sometimes a notion has been the "status quo for eons" as you put it BECAUSE it's a notion worth hanging on to?

There's been an idea rolling around in my head that might sound like lunacy, but it seems to tie in well with all tax-related criticisms above.

Why not add a new tax form, which allows you to elect which programs you wish to pay for? If you don't want to pay for farm subsidies, don't. If you don't want to contribute to public education, don't. Some programs might be mandatory (such as police and fire departments (which apply universally, and probably a "base tax" covering general government bureaucracy), and may depend on your personal situation (having to pay for education out of your taxes if you have kids).

If you don't like the program, you can pay through the "old" system.

In the long run it would give you, the taxpayer, a heck of a lot louder voice than just your vote would. It would also probably open up a totally new market for accountants.

It's idealistic, and most likely has logical gaps that a bus could drive through, but it's similar in that respect to the "compulsory birth control, no kids until you have a license."

Ps. I seem to always get IE script errors when viewing comments or adding my own. Just FYI.

>>"... we must replace the population or we simply disappear."


> And .... why is this a problem? Who would care?

Let's start with the last generation of Americans. Imagine a population of, say, one-twentieth today's number, with an average age over 50. Think they'd care? I do. Now expand your thinking to all the other nations whose services these wretches would be forced to beg for. They'd care too. It'd be a problem, it really would.

Children bring wealth and health to a society. They are our biggest assest.

The graying of Western Europe is a big problem right now, and will only get bigger. In some Scandinavian countries, they are now paying women to have children. Italy has a negative birthrate. Currently it's only because of immigration that the population can sustain itself and thrive.

Children... who later become young people... add intellectual currency and vitality to a nation. Without their strength and economic contribution, there is no one to support those generous government pensions that Western Europe enjoys.

The reason people are not having children is because of the expense. In Italy, many Italians can't afford to buy their own home... live with their families until they're in their 30s, and later have one child.

Young people, young workers... add intellectual currency and vitality to a nation. Without their strength and economic contribution, there is no one to support those generous government pensions that Western Europe enjoys.

The reality is that today's children will be supporting your Social Security when you're old.

and if you don't want to pay for children's educations now... why should they pay for you later???

"The reality is that today's children will be supporting your Social Security when you're old."

They will also create future drains on Social Security when they themselves are old. So all this proves is that SSI is a financially and morally bankrupt Ponzi scheme that never should have been implemented in the first place. I don't expect anyone's kids to pay for me later. With all the money I save by remaining childfree, no one else will have to.

Pirate Jo:

Perhaps you, personally, feel confident that you will never need Social Security in the future, but there are plenty of others who work very hard for many years just to get by. Without some form of social bolstering, they would probably just wind up dying. Since our culture is not usually in the habit of just letting people die when they have ceased to be useless, we end up paying for the elderly one way or another. I'm not saying that the government is the best institution to operate Social Security, but it is the most stable institution we have. This is one reason why currency is backed by the government and not banks, like it used to be.

It almost sounds as though you are advocating a very cold, ulitarian approach towards society. If you are poor or old or basically useless then you can just die. Again, this is very short-sighted. Many of the early advancements in science, art, and culture were brought about by people who had ceased to be productive but who were able to carry on living because of various aspects of society.

And what about cultural capital? Generally speaking, innovative ideas and businesses come from the young, not the middle-aged or elderly.

Our ability to maintain children and create youthful, productive workers is why the United States is one of the most flexible and healthy economies in the world.

People are not going to stop having children. This is, again, just a suggestion that they pay for what they pump out. Many children will be benefits to society. A great many will not. Should we, if we continue to pay for other people's children to be educated (so they can put the money they would spend on their kids' education into big, shiny SUVs and wide-screen TVs), get rebates on the ones who turn out to be drunks and felons?

"It almost sounds as though you are advocating a very cold, ulitarian approach towards society. If you are poor or old or basically useless then you can just die."

It sounds to me like you cannot conceive of people helping each other through any other means than coercion via the government. Do you know that if a private company tried to institute a program like Social Security, the officers and directors would be thrown in jail? There are no assets backing the money you pay in - it does not have the reserves to pay out promised benefits. But if you object to this criminal misuse of other people's money, it must be because you don't care about poor people. In reality, programs like SSI help make people poor in the first place.

My only point was that propping up Social Security is not a good reason to have kids.

Exactly.

Amy,

I don't know who you're thinking is sitting back sucking up tax dollars while their kids get a free ride... but as an upper-middle class parent, believe me, we already pay for our kids' educations, and we pay big-time.

In many cities, public education only offers a bare minimum standard. If you don't want your kid to grow up to be that burden on society/lumpenprole/drunk or felon that you mention, you have to supplement and supplement in a big way. That means extra classes, enrichment, music and art classes (those have been cut from a lot of school budgets), after-school programs so that you can work.

And our family is typical of those in our income bracket. Most people I know spend a large part of their disposable income on their children's education/enrichment. We can't afford to let a substandard public school education do the work for us... not if we want our kids to have a shot at a decent career later in life...

which will later benefit society because the well-educated will create ideas which help the planet... and the well-paid contribute more into Social Security, which will give you more stability as an elderly person.

"In some Scandinavian countries, they are now paying women to have children."

"They" - the ones paying women to have children - who are "they," exactly? And where do "they" get the money to do this? Well, from the very same people who aren't having children in the first place! And why are they not having kids in the first place?

"The reason people are not having children is because of the expense."

And why are these people finding it so hard to afford children? How about ...

"those generous government pensions that Western Europe enjoys."

Vicious cycle ...

Maybe people with kids have no business living in those cities. My parents moved to Farmington Hills so I could get a good public education. As Sandra Tsing Loh points out, however, all public schools aren't terrible, but people like to think that way, even without ever stepping foot in the local public school.

Anybody who is relying on social security to care for them in their dotage is seriously naive.

well in California, proposition 13 gutted a lot of local school funding because the cranky elderly and childless didn't want to pay their money out in the form property taxes so that other people's kids could get a good education.

California's schools used to be a model for the nation. After Prop. 13, overall they went way, way down. And we haven't recovered.

Consequently, New Jersey has very good public schools. Their teachers are some of the highest paid in the nation. And their property taxes are higher than ours.

I guess it just depends on society's priorities. Pay upfront or pay later, in the form of an uneducated population... but you have to pay.

BTW...

my kids are getting a great education that I pay for, so I'm covered. :)

"It sounds to me like you cannot conceive of people helping each other through any other means than coercion via the government."

Do you really think we can rely on people helping each other? People are selfish. _A_ person may be generous and kind, but people in general care very little about their fellow human beings.

For example, people have known for a long time that smoking in public places bothers other patrons, impairs their health, etc. But how many establishments do you see willingly banning smoking from their places of business without government intervention. Now, granted, maybe the government should not have this power, and maybe it is an abuse of its powers, but it just goes to show that many people will do whatever they feel like as long as they do not consider it morally wrong. Letting children grow up in ignorance or letting old people just die seems like someone else's problem.

Either way you look at it, however, society has to pay. Personally, I would rather pay now in the hopes of a better future, than later in an effort to correct a problem.

"_A_ person may be generous and kind, but people in general care very little about their fellow human beings."

Well, I simply disagree with you on this one. I think people care more about their fellow human beings than they care about anything else. The average person's relationships with friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc. is more important to him than anything else in his life. People will bend over backwards for complete strangers, too, if the outpouring of support for the Katrina victims is any indication.

What do you think people did before welfare? It hasn't even been around for all that long.

I'm reminded of the expression, "If people are basically good, you don't need a government. If people are basically bad, you don't dare have one."

If we end up with paying schools for the middle class and free schools for the poor, our nation will become more polarized and more segregated than it is already; the rich will get richer faster and the poor will get poorer faster.

Pirate Jo:

The welfare system is also flawed. The problem, in all of these cases, is not with the idea, but the execution. The government is certainly not the best at doing anything, and many times it is the worst, but we don't see anyone outside of the government stepping up to take care of these problems.

As much as I would like to see a system where a government was not necessary, I have to be realistic. People just don't care for other people. This has been true since the beginning of hominid communities. Humans care for people in their immediate community because it has the most direct benefit for them to do so. People have always been xenophobic. The cut-throat process of evolution has seen to it that this is beneficial strategy. A non-xenophobic society that meets a xenophobic society would tend to be easily destroyed.

As such, people basically care for people to whom they can relate. This is not to say that individuals do not care for strangers, but in general, a person will look out for his own needs first. Again, evolution has seen this survival strategy to its current form.

The problem is that people are stupid. _A_ person may be smart, but people are stupid. _A_ person may be generous, but people are greedy. You cannot leave it up to the people to form a decent society by themselves. At least, not the way people are right now. If you could eliminate poverty and make wealth insignificant, then maybe we could do without a government. Until then, people still need to be controlled.

Let's get back to the real issue, as I see it of course:

Are parents generally selfless for having children and furthering our species? Or are they generally selfish, having children to fullfill themselves and their notion of paradigm?
If the answer lies in a grey area between, where do we draw limits?

It is my opinion that the society I live in has swung too far toward the selfless pole. Though it is nice to give people the benefit of the doubt, let's at least acknowledge the selfish ascpect of parenthood and accept reasonable limits.

As an aside, bonus points to Crid for actually using the term 'beg the question' correctly. It's use seems to be increasingly missappropriated by people simply wishing to interject with a question.

I don't think we can get anywhere judging parents as being selfish.

I can flip the discussion and state with just as much certainty that people who choose to remain childless are selfish. Especially those that remain childfree because they'd rather spend their money and free time on themselves.

However, if you consider yourself to be a person who would inflict emotional or physical harm on a child, then it would be selfless to not have a child.

Parents are just too convenient a whipping post in the media these days. And most of us are too busy or exhausted parenting and working to refute the nonsense and slander that gets spread. (Today's my day off... so I have the time...)

The term "selfish" has negative connotations - it implies that you don't care whether your decisions cause harm to other people. I'd rather use the term "rational self interest."

People have all kinds of options available to them with regard to what they can do with their lives. Depending upon your own desires, you may want to have kids or you may want to do other things instead, and any of those choices is valid within the framework of rational self-interest. The whole "selfishness" issue comes up when some people denigrate the choices of others. I've seen both sides.

Childfree people get beat up with sanctimonious drivel about choosing to "spend their free time and money on themselves." (Whose time and money is it, anyway?) Every time they hear it, they sense envy coming from the other side. They read articles like this one saying parents aren't as happy as they pretend, and think 'Well THIS explains a lot - those guys are just jealous!' Their defense is that at least they're not asking anyone else to pay for their choices - that the parents are the selfish ones for demanding that their choices be subsidized.

On the other side, not all parents ARE trying to get other people to pay for their choices. Many of them would be happy to foot the bill for their own kids and want to assume the ownership for their actions. And they're not all sitting around feeling sorry for themselves, trying to portray themselves as persecuted martyrs who are nonetheless doing humanity a huge favor just by reproducing. Some of them genuinely love being parents and don't see their own feelings reflected when they read an article like this one. They are parents because that's what they wanted to do, and they don't pretend otherwise. Lastly, just because they have kids doesn't mean they have become braindead slaves to their bratty offspring, so they don't appreciate it when childfree people paint them with that brush.

> I don't think we can get anywhere
> judging parents as being selfish.

Then you're blind to an important truth: The having of children is GRATIFYING to people. It's a reward in itself, no matter how things (or the kids) turn out.

I personally can't understand it. Don't make a lick o' sense. But it's true!

Some of us think too much public policy is built with a cheerful blindness to this truth.

Well, to me a much more well-rounded discussion would be examining differences between what feminism promised women of my generation (I'm 43, grew up in the 1970s), what we were told childrearing would be, versus what is the reality; and what really children need versus the theory; and why we can't have well-functioning public schools. And why is it you hear so much whining and complaining from these moms?

Please explain how it's a selfish reward in itself. And how it is selfishly gratifying to have children, in rational terms... please.

Because I'd love to poke holes in your argument. Extreme positions are extremely easy.

> Please explain how... it is
> selfishly gratifying to have
> children.

Again, I can't explain it! It makes no sense to me. But people are notorious for describing base motives in noble terms. And we see so many parents who are so fucked up, and so uninterested in helping their children lead warm lives on a cold planet, that the only explanation is that they're getting some thrill from just bringing them on board. Maybe they're indirectly marketing their biogical 'excellence' or something... Didja see Cosmi, earlier today?

Humanity's spent the last ten thousand years getting a grip on masculine evil. It's not actually under control yet, but we know what it's called and where it lives. Taking control of the girlish monster could take another 10 millenia. Consider your own response: Reading even a HINT of suggestion that feminine nature might be about fulfillment instead of loving sacrifice, up come your dukes.

> in rational terms...
> please.

That "please" was a nice touch!

Since I cannot even imagine a viable system along the lines of what Amy has put forth (one that did not worsen the existing problem of income gap and middle-class alienation), I can only address the idea that public education should not be necessary.

Even if I did not have a child I would have no problem paying for the education of others. I recognize that it benefits me personally to ensure that the future citizens of my country have some form of education.

Maybe if people were able to think critically and analytically, then we could do without a lot of what the government provides, but as it stands, people are prone to believe anything that is put in front of them and they are dangerously resistent to having those beliefs challenged. As such, it is good to have some sort of regulating, moderating institution that has the best interests of society at heart (not that we have such an institution).

We live in a much larger society than humans have evolved to live in. Because of this, we have come up with ways to indoctrinate individuals into our society in a way that will make them productive contributors to the society when they come of age. Before public education, children who might have had great potential became mired in the classes of their parents, stifling their contribution. With the advent of public education, parents no longer have the right to abuse their children by denying them an education. The intelligent ones get a shot at moving up in the world and the not-so-intelligent ones are no worse for the experience.

"Please explain how it's a selfish reward in itself. And how it is selfishly gratifying to have children, in rational terms... please."

It seems pretty obvious that it's gratifying for some people and not for others. Maybe a better question is, why on earth would any sane person have children if it's NOT selfishly gratifying for them?

Maria, I'm only eight years behind you in age - born in 1970. I'm very curious about the things you observed regarding the promises of feminism when it comes to childrearing. I'm trying to put my finger on the different things I saw and experienced that shaped my own views but am having a hard time coming up with anything specific. Basically I just never wanted kids but not sure why that is. Might as well ask why I think tomatoes taste okay cooked in chili but are gross when they're raw.

Good question, though - what is it with all the complaining from some of these moms? Somehow I don't think it's representative of ALL moms, but for the ones doing all the griping, what is their problem?

Pirate Jo/Crid/Maria,
If we get any more polarized on this, we're going to end up with the script for Ian Fleming's "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" - the cloyingly child-centric Dick Van Dyke versus the doomed child-free Kingdom of Vulgaria (with resident evil child-catcher!).

The problem here comes from two sets of resident "experts": those without kids who are thoughtful experts about their own choices, and on the other hand parents who understandably bridle at the idea that they think they've grabbed life's great prize and STILL expect society to reward them.

I don't think it's a secret that the parents here seem to recognize that pushing out a brat brings fulfillment and colossal duty. And that Amy's notion of pay-as-you-go public schools for middle class parents seems a back-sliding non-starter if you value education as a civilised right of advanced society.

Of course, if you DON'T value education in this way, then it might look jolly attractive.

(BTW, Amy's orginal article, which reveals that kids aren't the key to perfect happiness - a study "from an associate professor of sociology" no less!- gets a big fat "d'oh!" from me.
It's a finding simultaneously too loaded and shallow to bother shredding.)