Balancing the Makers and Takers
Ideally, every able-bodied person in society would contribute to the general welfare and common defense, but that just ain't happening. And any vision of making it happen is just as utopian as the left's rainbows and kittens fantasy of everyone getting everything for free. Were we to get our utopia, the truly needy would face absolutely no want. There would be so many makers that the safety net would function with perfection and so few takers that it would never be threatened with bankruptcy. It is fun to imagine such a world, but that world does not exist in reality.
The reality we face is far from either the right or left utopia. Heritage has recently updated its policy research on poverty and marriage. The correlation between family instability and poverty is breathtaking. It is not just poverty that is increased with the demise of marriage; civil society itself is put in jeopardy by this epidemic. As Heritage puts it:
Most poor children live in single-parent families. Seventy-one percent of poor families with children are headed by single parents, mostly single mothers. Compared to children raised in an intact family, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; and drop out of high school.
This is a recipe for creating imbalance between the makers and takers in society. We're not creating takers by circumstance alone; we're breeding them.
If the trend were to continue on its upward trajectory there would be no escaping a societal collapse. The question, however, is whether the trend will only continue to rise or if there is a stability point.
Are there enough people left who will marry before having children to prevent the utter devastation of our nation? If the ratio between wed and unwed births stabilizes, which side will prevail? Will there be enough makers to support not only themselves but also the takers? I know we won't achieve our utopia, but will civil society reproduce itself enough to fend off both the barbarians outside the gates and the hordes within?
- Comment (107)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Conservatives and religious types do tend to have more children than liberals. So, demographically, we're in good shape. Except for the "takers," as you call them, since poor and non-working people are more likely to bear children unmarried.
The problem is that no contraception is 100 percent effective, so people who are having lots of sex are simply statistically going to have "oopses" (what a shame we act as if children are an accidental consequence of sex rather than part of the act by design). If these babies are born to unmarried parents, their lives really are much sadder on average.
What I really want to see among conservative lawmakers and thought-leaders are pushes for policies that recognize having no daddy devastates children and thus society, rather than supporting policies that cushion people who thus choose to hurt their own children. Aka: End no-fault divorce, reorient "family courts" towards preserving marriages and giving fathers equal rights, end welfare penalties on marriage, limit abortion, and so forth.
This has been annoying me lately as Indiana Republicans have just announced they will push for pre-K next session. Kids with married parents don't need pre-K.
May '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
This is a point far too few advocates for SSM realize: marriage is not just a private good, it's a public good. When it's weakened, we all suffer. The most vulnerable suffer most.
Dec '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Wow. Contraceptives and SSM in the first two comments. This post could go the distance...lol.
But seriously, the main thought that inspired this post was that there may be a balance point where society survives but in a much less than optimal condition. Of course, we're barely getting by on credit right now, so we may already be far beyond the tipping point of balancing the makers and takers.
May '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
The King Prawn:
But seriously, the main thought that inspired this post was that there may be a balance point where society survives but in a much less than optimal condition. Of course, we're barely getting by on credit right now, so we may already be far beyond the tipping point of balancing the makers and takers.
A balance like that can't last long, can it? History keeps happening. Threats to the civil order keep emerging.
We urgently need a renewal at the level of culture.
Dec '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
katievs
The King Prawn:
But seriously, the main thought that inspired this post was that there may be a balance point where society survives but in a much less than optimal condition. Of course, we're barely getting by on credit right now, so we may already be far beyond the tipping point of balancing the makers and takers.
A balance like that can't last long, can it? History keeps happening. Threats to the civil order keep emerging.
We urgently need a renewal at the level of culture. · 0 minutes ago
Agreed. What are realistic expectations on the level of renewal we can reach? Was the founding era simply unique in all of human history, or can that level of civil engagement be replicated?
Apr '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Improving adoption might help, too-- I know a few folks who have managed it privately, but nobody in the last decade that's managed it in a public system.
An increase in takers and single parent families is going to happen when it's more important that nobody be allowed to disapprove than that folks behave "properly."
Two points:
single parent families will exist no matter what, both for shameful reasons and simple sad reality,
and
the urge to shame folks hasn't gone away-- it's been shifted to PC directions.
I'm sure most folks can think of examples, but I was recently called elitist, stuck-up and not open to conversation because I pointed out facts from the article the guy had linked that he didn't like. Someone should make a devil's dictionary for things like discussion= validate my worldview, elitist= allow those politically different to speak, stuck-up= willing to point to theft as bad....
Apr '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Well, things like the TEA party indicate that the traditional sort of folks are getting fed up.
It's important to keep in mind that civilization is constantly invaded by barbarians. They're called children, and we have to convert them. Paraphrase of an old saw, yeah, but we must not let ourselves get tangled up in thinking this is impossible. Far greater problems have been solved before. Sure, it'll be kind of ugly and unpleasant-- that's life.
A good start is not letting people shame you for things that aren't shameful, and being polite and loving while still having standards.
Apr '11
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Well, yeah. But what culture? I've read your posts here. You oppose a return to men as head of the family. You oppose the very concept of headship. So what are we to renew? Certainly you don't want a renewal of traditional family culture.
And what about incentives? Why isn't anyone asking why men don't want to marry? Why don't women want to marry, but they want children out of wedlock and a paycheck form an absent father? Why? What incentives are at work?
And why should young men "man up", where "man up means do what women tell you and shut up. What incentives are young men operating under? Shame hasn't stopped women from sliding into sexual irresponsibility, so why would it stop men?
What incentives do young women live under? How does female hypergamy affect women's choices? How do affirmative action, sexual harassment laws, and popular culture incentivize women's behavior? What do the best sellers in chick lit tell us about women's attitudes and incentives?
What culture? What incentives? Those are the questions that matter.
Dec '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
This is kind of the nub of the problem. As a society we're not civilizing our home grown barbarians at the same rate we used to. They grow, produce another generation of uncivilized barbarians who continue pillaging the fields and farms of the productive. The UK has been tracking the number of children in homes with no working adult in the household. It's probably about time we did the same.
Apr '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
I could go for that.
My angle of attack is to 1) have as many kids as we can reasonably manage, and 2) influence people not to be such dips when it comes to raising their kids. Only having one parent, or being poor, doesn't mean you're assured to fail so you should never try-- and it for dang sure doesn't mean that I'm going to give someone a free pass when they're twits.
Apr '11
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
It is not the nub. The central question is civilizing into what civilization? What does it mean to be civilized? As a man? As a woman? As a child?
There is no general agreement on these questions. We live in decadent times, literally as in de-cadenced, out of step with one another.
Liberals believe they can change one thing, say healthcare, but leave all other social incentives unaltered. This is obviously false.
Conservatives believe that sexual roles can be radically changed, but all other social incentives will remain unaltered. Yes, I know conservatives didn't make these changes, but the changes are facts. It's insanity to expect all other social incentives to remain the same.
So, what culture do you get after feminism? You can't have a world where men act the role of 17th century gentlemen and women as 21st century feminists.
And make no mistake, that's what you're trying to construct. Insanity.
May '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Jeff
Well, yeah. But what culture?
What do you mean "what culture"? I don't see culture as something imposed from without. It emerges from the free acts and attitudes of individuals.
The kind of culture I'd like to foster is one that celebrates "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable..."
When it comes to marriage, it means restoring the public ideal of "one man, one woman, for life." It means seeing children as gifts, not liabilities. It means encouraging responsibility and discouraging irresponsibility and licentiousness.
Stuff life that.
May '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Jeff
What culture? What incentives? Those are the questions that matter.
"Virtue is its own reward" and vice brings real misery. One of the central evils of progressivism is that it comes between persons and the natural consequences of their free choices. It makes doing right less rewarding and doing wrong less punishing than they naturally are.
So, rolling back bad laws can go a long way toward restoring the natural incentives for good living.
People who work hard and stay faithful will be seen flourishing. That's all the incentive we really need.
Edited on October 6, 2012 at 7:59pmDec '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Jeff, I'm not trying to construct anything. I'm merely asking whether or not our society can withstand the changes that have been overwhelming it since the 60s. I suspect the makers will be swamped and society will collapse, but I can still root around for some glimmer of hope that might avert the disaster.
Feb '11
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Coming back to the question, if Keynes is right that free markets will not naturally come to equilibrium at full employment, I don’t see why we should expect the welfare state to naturally balance out takers and makers. The dynamics are driving us to collapse, but innovation and increased productivity continue to stave off the ultimate conclusion.
Historically, increased affluence has been the best means of birth control. As family income rises, people tend to spend more money on their children and have fewer of them. Here’s an old graph showing the phenomena; you can find more by Googling.
If makers have lower birth rates, the ratio of takers to makers will rise over time. So long as productivity increases counterbalance the increasing ratio, the system might be sustainable. But there is no natural law that insures productivity will increase at a faster rate. In fact, the fiscal policies associated with the welfare state might thwart increasing productivity.
Edited on October 6, 2012 at 8:46pmApr '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Related to the initial question is if makers do have lower birth rates-- or if the two ends of the spectrum both end up as takers, just the "single mom with a dozen kids by as many men" end is more obvious. Voluntary DINKs are counting on "breeders" like me to supply the folks that will take care of them when they can't care for themselves, both directly and financially. As with single parent homes, there's a natural level of that which can't be avoided-- folks who never marry, folks who just couldn't have kids, etc-- but anybody that's been around a largish city with more than one kid has probably run into a couple of the nasty, sanctimonious folks who think two is too many. (My eldest looks a bit younger than she is, if you haven't been around kids recently, and I got some nasty reactions just for having a baby and being pregnant. MANY more nice people, and a ton of "bless your heart"s, but if it's from pain or mistaken ideology - there are folks who don't like anyone having kids.)
Jun '10
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Mandatory jail time for unwed fathers and mandatory sterilization for unwed mothers. People might start thinking about their bed mates as potential husbands and wives instead of hook-ups. Young men might start thinking "what would she be like to live with?" Young girls might start thinking "if I get pregnant, what kind of father would he be?" Yes, I'm an extremist, but it doesn't mean my ideas are without merit.
Jan '11
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
The "sexual revolution" has created a society of diminishing returns.
May '11
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
It is not the fact of marriage that improves a child's chances, it is the values, attitudes and skills of people who have the ability to stay married that are the key factors. Unfortunately, when children became optional, so did being responsible parents.
Apr '12
Re: Balancing the Makers and Takers
Did that, though usually with an eugenics excuse. The "idiots" part was usually better publicized, but "loose morals" was also used for selection. Beyond the way it treats people like stray cats, who the heck would trust the gov't with that kind of power?!
Perhaps sex resulting in pregnancy might be treated as entering into a common law marriage. (That as the dividing line because it's simpler to prove.) And if one or both of them are already married, treat them accordingly.
Shotgun marriage, no father with gun skills required.