Welfarism and an Aging Population

Does anyone know of studies on whether or not there is a connection between aging populations and welfare policies? Or perhaps something on how income affects birthrates within different societies? Any personal opinions?

It's just strange phenomenon and I don't quite buy the argument of the demands of modern life (all women are not career-driven workaholics, after all). I know children have gone from being a source of security at old age to being a issue of personal desire. So could state provided retirement funds drive down birth rates?

Yes, it is a mixed bag.  On the contrary side, the welfare state makes it easier for young adults to support children - the welfare mums.  So there should be more kids running around, to counter the effect of the old age security idea.

Of course the way the welfare state actually works over time - as a giant Ponzi scheme - we may end up having to rely on our kids to support us, after all.

Considering the "greying" of nations that do have state-provided old age pensions, I'd say that state-provided retirement funds do help drive down birth rates. However, they're only one factor out of many that have helped change children from an economic asset into an economic liability. Quite frankly, children are money pits in Western (and Japanese) society.

I'll fess up to being hostile to organized religion. I have my reasons, but they're not relevant to this thread. I do not, however, consider myself hostile to the family itself, but neutral. I am hostile to talk of "family values" from religious conservatives, as such talk is usually talk for letting the government police the bedroom, because my primary concern is not with families, but with individuals.

Byzantine:

The point is well taken.  But without families there are no individuals.  The end result of a radically individualist society is extinction.

 

I'm not sure I see the logic. How could a society that puts individual rights first and allows each individual to live as he will be inimical to families? Granted, our concept of family may have to change to fit a society that puts individual rights first, but we'll manage.

Libertarian societies are not necessarily atomistic, and most probably would not function if they were. When one says they are individualistic one means that politically-philosophically they centre on the individual and their rights, but this does not imply atomism. Extended families used to provide a financial anchor role that the State has now taken over, and cannot fulfill as satisfactorily.

Inquisitor:

Libertarian societies are not necessarily atomistic, and most probably would not function if they were. When one says they are individualistic one means that politically-philosophically they centre on the individual and their rights, but this does not imply atomism.

 

I think it depends on what you mean by "atomistic". The word has many different definitions, depending on the context. One could suggest that praxeology itself assumes that society is atomistic, as praxeology concerns itself with the actions of individual human beings. When individuals interact, they create society.

Byzantine:

Because families are communal dictatorships.  If the individual were the penultimate sovereign unit, families could not function.  And again, without mothers and fathers, no babies growing up to make babies of their own.  You end up with a radically secular society that is incapable of reproducing itself.

I don't mean to play the grammar Nazi, but didn't you mean to say that if the individual was the ultimate sovereign unit? "Penultimate" means "next to last". Now, if the individual is the next-to-last sovereign unit, what comes after? The mitochondria inhabiting the individual's body's cells, perhaps?

Putting that aside, why wouldn't sovereign individuals be able to meet, mate, and raise children? If the children decide to leave home if they disagree with how their parents run the household, how is that a problem?

Praxeology is based on methodological individualism (it builds from the individual, and moves upwards), i.e. it takes individual action as its ultimate starting point then seeks to analyse the results of this action. This does not entail any sort of atomism though on a societial level. It's merely a methodological tool.

Inquisitor:

Praxeology is based on methodological individualism (it builds from the individual, and moves upwards), i.e. it takes individual action as its ultimate starting point then seeks to analyse the results of this action. This does not entail any sort of atomism though on a societial level. It's merely a methodological tool.

 

You're right. However, somebody who isn't clear on the difference between political and methodological individualism can still mistakenly think that praxeology requires an atomistic view of society.

Byzantine:

Because families are communal dictatorships.  If the individual were the penultimate sovereign unit, families could not function.  And again, without mothers and fathers, no babies growing up to make babies of their own.  You end up with a radically secular society that is incapable of reproducing itself.

 

But why are families dictatorships? Because the parents own the house, the land, the stuff, and the kids are entirely dependent. (likely why they are called "dependents")

So what happens to that arrangement in Libertopia? Nothing. They are still "dependents" living in and on someone else's property. "My house, my rules."

Kids may very well gain a lever in declaring themselves soveriegn, and I don't doubt that a "social norm" will arise quickly (such as 14 being the historical age of majority) in terms of declaring ones self independent.

But the family itself? It predates the state. Remove the state, the family remains.