Well, yes and no. I am with you on a social compact that supports families, whether one has children or not. But I don't think a "baby bonus" is the same thing as supporting children. (In economic terms-your field, not mine) it's an incentive for someone to have (or have more) children. That is an ill-advised policy, without much, much more policy in place for the 20 years after the birth. And that's a lot of government, and government expense. So. . .yes to child care credits, I say, and no to baby bonuses.
And on a personal note, it is offensive to denigrate someone like my wife, an emergency room pediatrician for 38 years, just because she didn't have children. Vance loses that argument every time.
Exactly! Sure, the policies he advocates are probably popular in reality, but his mean-spirited phrasing is…not compelling. And I say that as a young mother.
This is interesting argument, but only in the abstract sense that you accuse others of falling into. What’s missing in this piece is any socio-economic-political context. Essential, beyond simply the idea that we should “all go forth and multiply,” is that, as denizens of the “modern world” that produces extraordinary wealth, we Americans and others in the world have set as a “prime directive” that lives should have value beyond, for instance, as commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace. In the early centuries these were known as slaves, serfs, and conscripts. Some people in the 18th and 19th centuries found themselves effectively as slaves to industry and the wage system.
Today, we, as the wealthiest society ever, continue to have unconscionable levels of poverty and lack of support for the actually lives of ordinary people. It takes a village, but what happens when the village is wiped out by, for instance, agribusiness? We continue to fall way short of our prime directive except for a relative minority of wealthy elites. One of thousands of proof-points is the epidemic of “deaths of despair” which has contributed to the first time in our history that our society’s life expectancy has diminished. The existence of MAGA is a direct outcome of 40+ years of Neoliberal fantasy and elite deceptions about “Trickle-down Economics.” —- public policy designed by conservatives to extract as much blood, sweat, and value from the working class as possible. What this policy left behind was ruined lives, communities, and widespread despair and resentment. It left behind MAGA.
In my reading of American history, elites have always cornered the market for the value of life and of lives. Every generation of the wealth has had its own “woke” culture that set-up self-dealing privileges and extensive barricades to keep out exactly what Donald Trump calls the “suckers” and “losers” who are always left with little more than the admonition that they should pull themselves up by their own boot-scraps (play-on-words intended).
Context matters. Here’s one: Making it in America such that one can put some distance between oneself and all-consuming financial vulnerability and peril requires many years of education and advanced degrees and many more years of “indenture” in big firms or other prescribed professional career paths. This requires the sacrifice of much else that one might be and do, including, sometimes, having children. And sometimes, for those who for this or any other reason decide to or cannot have children, they often do choose other forms of self-actualization in this society and also ways to explore other aspects of the possibilities for human dignity and life.
The problem conservatives have had forever is that they think and live in abstract “woke” value systems of their own exclusive creation. And then they judge everyone who doesn’t adhere to these as lesser people. And they always find ways to blame the victims. And here we are again.
Agreed, I have seen no instances from the many countries that have tried of direct or indirect (tax) cash support materially influencing family size. My sense is that the cash incentives are not solving the stress points, for two reasons:
(1) family stressors come from not directly financial sources, e.g. irregular work hours, job insecurity (even if there are other jobs available), the need for two incomes without readily available and flexible childcare, and
(2) the cash incentives are not large enough (and can never be, due to cost disease) to overcome structural obstacles like expensive housing and childcare.
If that's right, then family supporting policy solutions would orient towards encouraging more regular hours and job security especially for lower skill workers, and changing laws (entailing both regulation and de-regulation) in the housing and childcare markets to enable/incentivize a big boost in output.
Are there examples where government incentives to increase family size have worked? The fact that wealthier couples tend to have zero or fewer children suggests it is not economics driving there decisions. In nearly every country wealth growth translates into smaller families? This is important but I don’t see a policy solution.
I'm curious about the same thing. My impression is that economic incentives have had middling results at best when it comes to boosting fertility. I'd be interested in instances that did work, and what sets them apart.
The birth rates in Eastern Europe bottomed around 2000 as prime age women were ones who emigrated after the fall of the Iron Curtain. They have increased since then with incentives that as an American seem outrageous. But apparently not enough as rates are still well below replacement rates or even US levels. I have family in Czechia and partial salary replacement for 3 years for each of 2 children was achieved.
So Matt Stoller suggested I subscribe and I am so happy I did. I've waited a lifetime for an actual conservative voice. I hope you're making a dent.
This passage is fantastic:
"We each therefore begin our lives with an incalculable debt. That we did not “choose” the debt is of no moral import—it is inherent to our existence, it is the only choice. And we have only one possible way to repay it, which is to work equally hard to bring about the next generation. This obligation, to be fruitful and multiply, can of course be drawn from religious texts. But drawing upon the traditions and culture of modern America, an equally strong case for the obligation can be made from concepts like “paying your fair share” and “sustainability,” or, in the negative, condemnation of the “free-rider” who consumes without replenishing resources held in common."
In a world as overpopulated as ours is--we are killing off nature, including ecosystem services (google "ecosystem services" if you're not familiar with the term) which are necessary for our continued existence, we absolutely should not be putting our major energy into multiplying. Anyone who wants to bring up more than one, or two kids at most, should adopt.
If the rest of the world consumed at the rate of Americans, it would take five earths to support all 8,000,000,000 of us.
Conservatives tend to look askance at the way Finland and other Scandinavian countries make it easy for parents both to have children, and to participate meaningfully in those childrens' lives. For example, in Finland, both parents of a new baby receive a half a year's paid leave from their jobs, which the parents can take in sequence or concurrently. Similar "subsidies," made possible by high taxes, but also by an attitude on the part of both company owners and workers that extra hours of work above normal requirements fail to provide major improvements in total productivity because they reduce the amount of productivity per unit time, by cutting into peoples' free time. Scandinavians also don't have to pay costs that Americans do, also reducing another incentive for overwork. For example, education is made free through the university level.
To be sure, fertility has declined in Scandinavian countries of late. The reason appears to be prioritization of work over social life, including family, as important to life satisfaction.
It should be noted that it was the Biden Administration's American Rescue Plan (AKA The American Families Plan) that boosted families' earnings with government payments during COVID. Do you really think a modern Republican administration would have passed anything like that?
> Conservatives tend to look askance at the way Finland and other Scandinavian countries make it easy for parents both to have children, and to participate meaningfully in those childrens' lives.
Because their system doesn't actually produce results, as you yourself later admit.
> It should be noted that it was the Biden Administration's American Rescue Plan (AKA The American Families Plan) that boosted families' earnings
While also raising prices enough to cancel out the benefits. However, the effect on the national debt was real enough.
You are twisting what I said. Their system does produce results--just not as robust as they would have liked. And, no, the American Rescue Plan did not raise prices much at all, and certainly not nearly enough to cancel out benefits.
Vance may put “parents first”, but he certainly does not put women first.
Vance believes that abortion should be denied to rape victims. He says two wrongs don’t make a right. He needs to introduce us to a group of his wonderful rapist fathers that he supports who turned out to be great dads after he fought to get them visitation rights to their children. Fatherhood is one of the most wonderful outcomes of brutal rape and Vance knows it. For the women involved not so much
Um ... Vance fought for visitation rights for rapists? Huh? Sources, please?
I get it that you think having no abortion-ban exception for rape is appalling, but please don't put words in your opponents' months that they haven't said. Supporting the right of babies conceived in rape to live doesn't mean any sorts of rights for the rapists.
I see nothing "light" or "logical" in your initial argument; just lots of "imaginary," and that's a good way to stir up a lot of hate without helping anyone. I know lots of people like to do that online, but don't be part of the crowd.
What is this debt that the living owe prior generations to reproduce? They are dead. There is no debt to collect. Our obligation is to the people who are here now, first and foremost, and to those of the future. That means we must be adaptable and able to respond to what's needed to nurture human flourishing today, not beholden to tradition. JD Vance and conservatives don't support children. They support a system of male control - "patria potestas" - over women, over children. That's what's being resisted, not legitimate parental support.
Attention new conservatives. Understand the real concern that Americans have regarding population growth and how that is destroying nature, wild spaces and ecosystems, as well as adding too many consumers demanding ALL resources. And if your goal is to make it easier to put women back in the home, barefoot and pregnant with a framing of making it better for one parent to work instead of two who must, you begin to look like the Old Guard, sexist Republicans of the 20th century and prior. How about instead of focusing on having MORE children you focus on reducing unstable population growth, first by drastically cutting immigration, and secondly by concentrating more on policies that support and protect the existing children of American families? Focus on economical improvements for working class families, not the number of children they have. And NO, taxing childless parents who contribute far less of an ecological footprint is not going to win my vote. American Compass has a real chance to find the middle ground in supporting legal and reasonable business success while also not leaving working class families behind. BE CAREFUL, because right now, what I am reading and hearing from you has not won my vote. FIND THE MIDDLE. Don't just talk about it like Biden, Harris and the progressive Dems do. Otherwise you risk looking just like them or even worse.
I don't know of or care about whatever "Gaea" is supposed to be. Clearly you missed the entire point. If you are going to say anything, state an actual position one way or the other instead of stupid comments like these.
Hey Silly, you wrote children OUR the future instead of children ARE the future. Children are great and need to be educated so they can learn to spell. Before pontificating, maybe make sure your own mind is in order.
The tension between the obligations a culture wishes to impose and the autonomous desires of the individuals within it, will always be in tension. And the validity of individual choices cannot be hand waved away as being of no moral weight, even if it those choices threatens the continued existence of that society.
We cannot have this conversation without emphasizing the fact that only women can get pregnant and give birth. If the individual choices of women are of no moral weight, then what would prevent a culture from deciding it could rape, impregnate and force women to bear children against their will? I am sure that there are more than a few people who see women’s highest destiny as that of breeding stock and motherhood but, there are many women who see their lives evolving in directions that do not involve being mothers. Not being a parent is an option that should not be the exclusive prerogative of the male half of our species
Well, yes and no. I am with you on a social compact that supports families, whether one has children or not. But I don't think a "baby bonus" is the same thing as supporting children. (In economic terms-your field, not mine) it's an incentive for someone to have (or have more) children. That is an ill-advised policy, without much, much more policy in place for the 20 years after the birth. And that's a lot of government, and government expense. So. . .yes to child care credits, I say, and no to baby bonuses.
And on a personal note, it is offensive to denigrate someone like my wife, an emergency room pediatrician for 38 years, just because she didn't have children. Vance loses that argument every time.
Exactly! Sure, the policies he advocates are probably popular in reality, but his mean-spirited phrasing is…not compelling. And I say that as a young mother.
This is interesting argument, but only in the abstract sense that you accuse others of falling into. What’s missing in this piece is any socio-economic-political context. Essential, beyond simply the idea that we should “all go forth and multiply,” is that, as denizens of the “modern world” that produces extraordinary wealth, we Americans and others in the world have set as a “prime directive” that lives should have value beyond, for instance, as commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace. In the early centuries these were known as slaves, serfs, and conscripts. Some people in the 18th and 19th centuries found themselves effectively as slaves to industry and the wage system.
Today, we, as the wealthiest society ever, continue to have unconscionable levels of poverty and lack of support for the actually lives of ordinary people. It takes a village, but what happens when the village is wiped out by, for instance, agribusiness? We continue to fall way short of our prime directive except for a relative minority of wealthy elites. One of thousands of proof-points is the epidemic of “deaths of despair” which has contributed to the first time in our history that our society’s life expectancy has diminished. The existence of MAGA is a direct outcome of 40+ years of Neoliberal fantasy and elite deceptions about “Trickle-down Economics.” —- public policy designed by conservatives to extract as much blood, sweat, and value from the working class as possible. What this policy left behind was ruined lives, communities, and widespread despair and resentment. It left behind MAGA.
In my reading of American history, elites have always cornered the market for the value of life and of lives. Every generation of the wealth has had its own “woke” culture that set-up self-dealing privileges and extensive barricades to keep out exactly what Donald Trump calls the “suckers” and “losers” who are always left with little more than the admonition that they should pull themselves up by their own boot-scraps (play-on-words intended).
Context matters. Here’s one: Making it in America such that one can put some distance between oneself and all-consuming financial vulnerability and peril requires many years of education and advanced degrees and many more years of “indenture” in big firms or other prescribed professional career paths. This requires the sacrifice of much else that one might be and do, including, sometimes, having children. And sometimes, for those who for this or any other reason decide to or cannot have children, they often do choose other forms of self-actualization in this society and also ways to explore other aspects of the possibilities for human dignity and life.
The problem conservatives have had forever is that they think and live in abstract “woke” value systems of their own exclusive creation. And then they judge everyone who doesn’t adhere to these as lesser people. And they always find ways to blame the victims. And here we are again.
Agreed, I have seen no instances from the many countries that have tried of direct or indirect (tax) cash support materially influencing family size. My sense is that the cash incentives are not solving the stress points, for two reasons:
(1) family stressors come from not directly financial sources, e.g. irregular work hours, job insecurity (even if there are other jobs available), the need for two incomes without readily available and flexible childcare, and
(2) the cash incentives are not large enough (and can never be, due to cost disease) to overcome structural obstacles like expensive housing and childcare.
If that's right, then family supporting policy solutions would orient towards encouraging more regular hours and job security especially for lower skill workers, and changing laws (entailing both regulation and de-regulation) in the housing and childcare markets to enable/incentivize a big boost in output.
Are there examples where government incentives to increase family size have worked? The fact that wealthier couples tend to have zero or fewer children suggests it is not economics driving there decisions. In nearly every country wealth growth translates into smaller families? This is important but I don’t see a policy solution.
I'm curious about the same thing. My impression is that economic incentives have had middling results at best when it comes to boosting fertility. I'd be interested in instances that did work, and what sets them apart.
Hungary perhaps.
The birth rates in Eastern Europe bottomed around 2000 as prime age women were ones who emigrated after the fall of the Iron Curtain. They have increased since then with incentives that as an American seem outrageous. But apparently not enough as rates are still well below replacement rates or even US levels. I have family in Czechia and partial salary replacement for 3 years for each of 2 children was achieved.
So Matt Stoller suggested I subscribe and I am so happy I did. I've waited a lifetime for an actual conservative voice. I hope you're making a dent.
This passage is fantastic:
"We each therefore begin our lives with an incalculable debt. That we did not “choose” the debt is of no moral import—it is inherent to our existence, it is the only choice. And we have only one possible way to repay it, which is to work equally hard to bring about the next generation. This obligation, to be fruitful and multiply, can of course be drawn from religious texts. But drawing upon the traditions and culture of modern America, an equally strong case for the obligation can be made from concepts like “paying your fair share” and “sustainability,” or, in the negative, condemnation of the “free-rider” who consumes without replenishing resources held in common."
Thank you!
In a world as overpopulated as ours is--we are killing off nature, including ecosystem services (google "ecosystem services" if you're not familiar with the term) which are necessary for our continued existence, we absolutely should not be putting our major energy into multiplying. Anyone who wants to bring up more than one, or two kids at most, should adopt.
If the rest of the world consumed at the rate of Americans, it would take five earths to support all 8,000,000,000 of us.
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/
And, Propublica projects that within several decades, MILLIONS of Americans will become climate refugees.
https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-will-force-a-new-american-migration
And we should be fruitful and multiply now? I don't think so.
Spot on Cass. Thoughtful Americans are in your camp
Yes, encouraging families in a positive way would be good policy and good politics.
Conservatives tend to look askance at the way Finland and other Scandinavian countries make it easy for parents both to have children, and to participate meaningfully in those childrens' lives. For example, in Finland, both parents of a new baby receive a half a year's paid leave from their jobs, which the parents can take in sequence or concurrently. Similar "subsidies," made possible by high taxes, but also by an attitude on the part of both company owners and workers that extra hours of work above normal requirements fail to provide major improvements in total productivity because they reduce the amount of productivity per unit time, by cutting into peoples' free time. Scandinavians also don't have to pay costs that Americans do, also reducing another incentive for overwork. For example, education is made free through the university level.
To be sure, fertility has declined in Scandinavian countries of late. The reason appears to be prioritization of work over social life, including family, as important to life satisfaction.
It should be noted that it was the Biden Administration's American Rescue Plan (AKA The American Families Plan) that boosted families' earnings with government payments during COVID. Do you really think a modern Republican administration would have passed anything like that?
> Conservatives tend to look askance at the way Finland and other Scandinavian countries make it easy for parents both to have children, and to participate meaningfully in those childrens' lives.
Because their system doesn't actually produce results, as you yourself later admit.
> It should be noted that it was the Biden Administration's American Rescue Plan (AKA The American Families Plan) that boosted families' earnings
While also raising prices enough to cancel out the benefits. However, the effect on the national debt was real enough.
You are twisting what I said. Their system does produce results--just not as robust as they would have liked. And, no, the American Rescue Plan did not raise prices much at all, and certainly not nearly enough to cancel out benefits.
> And, no, the American Rescue Plan did not raise prices much at all
Consult your grocery bill.
Vance may put “parents first”, but he certainly does not put women first.
Vance believes that abortion should be denied to rape victims. He says two wrongs don’t make a right. He needs to introduce us to a group of his wonderful rapist fathers that he supports who turned out to be great dads after he fought to get them visitation rights to their children. Fatherhood is one of the most wonderful outcomes of brutal rape and Vance knows it. For the women involved not so much
Um ... Vance fought for visitation rights for rapists? Huh? Sources, please?
I get it that you think having no abortion-ban exception for rape is appalling, but please don't put words in your opponents' months that they haven't said. Supporting the right of babies conceived in rape to live doesn't mean any sorts of rights for the rapists.
Hey Dave: An imaginary logical extension of his extreme views on the issue. Lighten up.
I see nothing "light" or "logical" in your initial argument; just lots of "imaginary," and that's a good way to stir up a lot of hate without helping anyone. I know lots of people like to do that online, but don't be part of the crowd.
Dave is a misanthropic nihilist who hates humanity and wants it to go extinct.
Well Dave, I see nothing light or logical in requiring a raped woman to bear her rapist’s baby. Do you asshole?
New euphemism for "lying" just dropped.
What is this debt that the living owe prior generations to reproduce? They are dead. There is no debt to collect. Our obligation is to the people who are here now, first and foremost, and to those of the future. That means we must be adaptable and able to respond to what's needed to nurture human flourishing today, not beholden to tradition. JD Vance and conservatives don't support children. They support a system of male control - "patria potestas" - over women, over children. That's what's being resisted, not legitimate parental support.
Still enjoying the squealing from the market fundamentalists. But the basic problem is that we are not one country.
This is both moralistic and wrong. Non-genetic inheritance exists, supporting others' children exists, right to make your own choices should exist.
Attention new conservatives. Understand the real concern that Americans have regarding population growth and how that is destroying nature, wild spaces and ecosystems, as well as adding too many consumers demanding ALL resources. And if your goal is to make it easier to put women back in the home, barefoot and pregnant with a framing of making it better for one parent to work instead of two who must, you begin to look like the Old Guard, sexist Republicans of the 20th century and prior. How about instead of focusing on having MORE children you focus on reducing unstable population growth, first by drastically cutting immigration, and secondly by concentrating more on policies that support and protect the existing children of American families? Focus on economical improvements for working class families, not the number of children they have. And NO, taxing childless parents who contribute far less of an ecological footprint is not going to win my vote. American Compass has a real chance to find the middle ground in supporting legal and reasonable business success while also not leaving working class families behind. BE CAREFUL, because right now, what I am reading and hearing from you has not won my vote. FIND THE MIDDLE. Don't just talk about it like Biden, Harris and the progressive Dems do. Otherwise you risk looking just like them or even worse.
I'm sorry you hate humanity so much you want to destroy it in the name of Gaea.
I don't know of or care about whatever "Gaea" is supposed to be. Clearly you missed the entire point. If you are going to say anything, state an actual position one way or the other instead of stupid comments like these.
Hey Silly, you wrote children OUR the future instead of children ARE the future. Children are great and need to be educated so they can learn to spell. Before pontificating, maybe make sure your own mind is in order.
The tension between the obligations a culture wishes to impose and the autonomous desires of the individuals within it, will always be in tension. And the validity of individual choices cannot be hand waved away as being of no moral weight, even if it those choices threatens the continued existence of that society.
We cannot have this conversation without emphasizing the fact that only women can get pregnant and give birth. If the individual choices of women are of no moral weight, then what would prevent a culture from deciding it could rape, impregnate and force women to bear children against their will? I am sure that there are more than a few people who see women’s highest destiny as that of breeding stock and motherhood but, there are many women who see their lives evolving in directions that do not involve being mothers. Not being a parent is an option that should not be the exclusive prerogative of the male half of our species