Childfree = Free Riding?

A commenter on my post about being childfree accused me of being a “free rider” and referred me to this post at deepthoughtblog where this is explained:

“Actually, the childless-for-economic-reasons are taking money – from the next generation. Despite all the talk of ‘lockboxes’ not so long ago, the fact is that current taxes go to pay for the Medicaid, Medicare, social security, etc. of people who are (mostly) already out of the workforce. My father’s taxes went to the social security of his own parents, etc. back to the New Deal. When the current generation retires they will depend upon the next one to pay enough taxes to fund all the social programs they expect to enjoy. In effect, welfare programs collectivize children. But it is done so badly that parents shoulder all the short-term burden of raising children while the long-term economic benefits of children are distributed at-large. All of the economic incentives are to not have children and free ride on the backs of those economically foolish enough to be parents.”

I see deepthought’s point , but I disagree with it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I pay a lot of taxes that benefit other people’s children. My property taxes are mostly devoted to public schools that other people’s kids attend. I am regulated and taxed in a thousand ways all for the benefit of some mooching parents and their offspring. So the ride ain’t free by a long shot. I expect to pay out a lot more and bear opportunity costs that far exceed anything I might get from the next generation if I retire.

Secondly, deepthought ignores a big part of the value of children to their parents. People have children because they expect to be amused and entertained or otherwise satisfied in some mysterious way by them. This has subjective value just like any other act of consumption, and even though it is not usually discussed in terms of monetary value it is nonetheless part of the economic calculus that goes into reproductive decision-making.

I keep dogs as one of my hobbies. I have a fish tank, too. There are entire industries that cater for my pet keeping proclivities, and I consume (in the economic rather than dietary sense) not only the pets themselves but pet related items such as squeaky toys and plastic castles. I decided that the cost and trouble of having pets were more than offset by their entertainment value. Parents make the same kind of calculation when they decide to have kids or to add another kid to their family. The kids have economic value to them. What’s more, that value inures almost entirely to the benefit of the parents. I get nothing. Parents get at least as much satisfaction and amusement from their kids as the costs. If it were not so, reproduction would be utterly irrational.

I at least do not expect my neighbors to subsidize my hobbies. I wish I could say the same about parents.