Babies a "drag" on economy according to report

news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24134255-5017313,00.html

"A major analysis of the nation’s increasing fertility rate said it was at its highest level for 25 years - but the Productivity Commission yesterday warned further increases may aggravate rather than solve the problem of the ageing of the population.

This is because it will shift women out of the workforce while they care for babies, depressing labour supply and reducing the taxation base as our population ages, the Daily Telegraph reported. "

"More highly educated women can earn good money if they work rather than stay at home to care for children and this had depressed the birth rate. "

Yes we must stop babies at all cost. :smiley:

Relativism of the “Population Control” Genocide crowd run amok. :mad:

it amazes me everytime I see one of these idiotic reports.

Perhaps somebody might explain to me why pointing out that there may be negative economic consequences from an increased birth-rate is somehow a ‘bad thing’?

Are economists supposed to ignore any possible negatives and, if so, does this go for any other phenomena? Are they to become like GOSPLAN in the USSR which only ever reported good news?

Isn’t one of the purposes of economic analysis to say “if you do X then Y will follow”? The report doesn’t say “stop having babies” just that “more babies will have various economic consequences”?

What, on earth, is wrong with that?

I read the article.
It sounds like the article is trying to tell people to stop having children. :frowning:

The idea that population growth is detrimental to societies is not new.

It is a mistake IMHO to think something like this is harmless, even if true, in the strict materialist view.

It is a mistake to equate human beings as commodities, their inherent dignity being reduced to mere dollars and cents.

Ideas like this have been the basis for inhumane programs of coercion and denial of basic human liberties for a long time now.

Better hope Mother Teresa is not listening to that rubbish.

So, what you’re saying is that any long-term negative effects should be ignored? That the Australian government, for example, shouldn’t bother to plan for building more schools? Just wait for the children to turn up and find some way of coping?

Or that firms with significant numbers of women employees shouldn’t be making preparations for increased maternity leaves, part-time working etc? Or that mortgage lenders shouldn’t be changing their criteria to take into account fewer second incomes?

It’s all very well seeing any comment about the birth-rate as an affront to Catholic morality but ignoring the ‘negatives’ is absurd.

If any of it is true, which I doubt.

Isn’t one of the purposes of economic analysis to say “if you do X then Y will follow”? The report doesn’t say “stop having babies” just that “more babies will have various economic consequences”?

What, on earth, is wrong with that?

“FORGET those plans to have a third child for the country because further increases in the birth rate could harm the economy, the nation’s productivity watchdog has warned.”

If the article is to be trusted, the commission has ventured from the theoretical realm (what effects x will have on y) into doling out advice (whether x ought to take place). It just so happens that the advice is ludicrous. That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong here.

Looks like pure journalese to me - the idea that economic reports contain phrases like “Forget those plans to have a third child . . .” is drummed out of people in Economics 101.

Well, they’re all Liberal Marxist Relativists of course.

Actually, the claim is that an increasing birth rate has short term negative consequences with not enough long term upside. In effect, the commission thinks that it’s better for women to enter the workforce and hence expand the short term taxation base, rather than having more children and thus expanding the long term taxation base.

The report reflects a misguided notion of what makes a healthy economy. Government’s purpose is not to scheme about how to extract the most tax money it can from the people. If the tax levied on the population isn’t enough to cover the spending of the government, then we have a problem – and given how much money is being thrown into the money pits of our burgeoning nanny-state, it’s obvious that the problem is on the side of spending.

It doesn’t say anything about ‘better’, it makes observations about consequences.

Are you Australian?

but the Productivity Commission yesterday warned further increases may aggravate rather than solve the problem of the ageing of the population.

It’s “better” to solve a problem than to aggravate it.

Common sense – she’s a beauty!

So, what you’re saying is that any negative economic consequences should not be mentioned? The GOSPLAN approach.

The effects of population growth should be measured in a non-biased way looking at all available data, including those studies that show population growth, when combined with a society that has economic freedom, raises the overall standard of living for those societies.

Population growth is not a zero-sum game where everyone loses.

This story is just another exercise in furthering the Malthusian fear of population growth and the extremeist environmental view that human beings are bad for the planet.

We’ll just have to differ on the subject of this report.

More or less. Instead of the classical Malthusian fallacies, this one adds some creative twists like comparing a bigger tax base today versus deferred taxation in the future. The basic idea is the same flawed Malthusian premise, though.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.