There's also an interesting debate in Will's comments over whether social security systems actually depress fertility by encouraging people to free ride on the fertility of others. Contra Will, the evidence for this phenomenon is pretty strong, and also fits pretty well with expected models of human behavior.
But arguing, from this, for natalist policies is depressingly like the social democrats who say, "Well, we need national health insurance, and now that we have national health insurance, we need the state to tell you what to eat and drink so that you won't cost the national health system so much money." The cure for bad incentives from government regulations is not more regulations.
The correlation between education levels, and specifically women's education, and birth rates is pretty clear. Women who are educated have fewer children. This is pretty clear across borders too, as countries with low education rates for women tend to have very high birth rates (see: Yemen). Some have confused this with wealth. Comparing wealthy countries with low education for women and poor countries with high education for women reveals that the correlation with education and women is consistent. Costa Rican women are more educated than Saudi Arabian women, and tend to have fewer children.
Social security arguments are both ludicrous and dishonest. So it seems par for the course that conservatives would seek to try and find evidence that fits the mold of philosophy, and end up in an intellectually dishonest loop of cherr-picking data. See also Iraq and Intelligent Design.
Megan links to a scholarly article, freddiemac claims that it's "both ludicrous and dishonest" and dismisses it without argument or apparently reading it. Who's the intellectually dishonest one cherry-picking data?
After all, I (and Megan, I'm fairly sure) agree that education, especially women's education, reduced child mortality (if you're pretty sure that your children will survive, you're not going to have as many as insurance), and other factors make a difference too. There's both a plausible story and a good correlation. As the paper shows, there's also a strong correlation, even after taking into account the above factors, with increased access to capital markets and with social insurance programs. It would not be surprising that people who have other ways to provide for their retirement besides depending on their children have fewer children.
Social security programs are going to incentivize such free riding- it is an inevitable consequence of how the system is financed. 15% of one's income is being used to pay present benficiaries, which is 15% of income that cannot be used to raise children. There are going to be people that will have fewer children than they would have had otherwise, including zero children, and, because their retirements will be paid by future generations, this is free riding by definition.
John Thacker,
Thank you for demonstrating feckless conservative dishonesty. Megan mentions an unlinked debate and links to an article that, in the preface, does not mention education levels as a correlary to birth rates in any way, and requires a 5 dollar fee to read. Links without substance are now proof?
This appears to be the paper in question.
freddiemac,
While the abstract doesn't specify that it controls for education, the education correlation is discussed in the body of the paper and was included in regressions, as well as several other variables that have been observed to impact fertility.
Papers don't list the details of the controls in the abstract and most stuff that gets published is properly controlled, so it's generally safe to assume that controls for other factors that are well known to have a correlation are included in a paper unless you've read it through and don't see them. If you don't want to take an abstract on face value, you've got to read the paper - dimissing a paper on the basis that the authors might have missed a control isn't persuasive, because if the they are competent and the paper made it through review, it's likely in there. If you won't or can't read the paper, it's best to refrain from commenting on it's methodology.
Re: Social security programs are going to incentivize such free riding- it is an inevitable consequence of how the system is financed.
Any system, even a fully privatized one, that allows people to provide for their own retirement is going to do the same. So if you oppose Social Security for natalist reasons you should also oppose pensions, 401k IRAs and even plain old savings accounts.
Lost here however is the other side of the ledger. A system where people could only depend on their own resources is also goinbg to be one where rather few children are born, both because individuals will be busy squirreling away money for retirement and because families that are saddled with providing for their elders will have fewer resources for children.
depressingly like the social democrats who say, "Well, we need national health insurance, and now that we have national health insurance, we need the state to tell you what to eat and drink so that you won't cost the national health system so much money." The cure for bad incentives from government regulations is not more regulations. - Megan
Societies are complex, as are bicycles. A bicycle has both gears and brakes. One might say to someone who is traveling at 15 mph in 5th gear and needs to stop at a stop sign, "The cure for moving too fast isn't to use some artificial rubber device to slow yourself down -- you just shouldn't be in such a high gear in the first place!" But in fact, bicycles that lack high gears are bad because they can't move fast enough, and bicycles that lack brakes are bad because they can't stop fast enough. Similarly, societies need national health insurance because no one should die of being poor, and they need policies to encourage healthy living both because healthy living is in itself good and people are tempted to be bad, and because, having national health insurance, everyone pays for other people's unhealthy living.
To finish off the analogy, societies need social safety nets, and they may need other policies to compensate for perverse incentives created by those social safety nets.
JonF,
To the extent that private plans use government debt, government debt not spent on capital building, then your point might hold a little water. However, if the private systems are geared towards private business, then your point is incorrect.
Given two options to prepare for retirement- (1), saving and building capital, and, (2), having children, neither option is free-riding. In the former case, you are providing the capital that will sustain your retirement by forgoing present consumption, and in the latter case you are investing in and providing the future labor.
Yancy:
Only up to a point. If everybody on the planet elects for option (1), we'd better hope that the Japanese plan for robotic nursing-home workers pans out, 'cause some funny things are going to happen to labor costs.
Mike Earl,
And if everybody on the planet drove cars we'd all be dead and the glaciers would have melted 20 years ago. Should you therefore be against driving cars?
If everybody on the planet went to the Grand Canyon, the place would be a dump, filled with tourists, hotels, restaurants, etc. (oh wait that's happening)
The "if everyone else does it bad things will happen" is a great way to avoid doing just about anything.
But your argument is nothing new. It goes all the way back to Aristotle's Golden Mean...