A return to traditional family values may sound nice, but it makes no sense economically. The world has changed. We can no longer afford many children; women must devote themselves to work; and institutions must take over child-rearing.

This is the common objection to any proposals for restoring the traditional family. But it is a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. We cannot afford to go on as we are.

The United States fertility rate is currently at 2.1, significantly elevated by the higher birth rate of Hispanic immigrants. The birth rate of whites, at 1.9, is below the replacement rate. However, both the overall birth rate and the white rate are likely to fall in the years ahead to a combined rate of 1.7. This low fertility, along with government benefits that take over an increasing share of the nation’s wealth and replace the family economy, spells economic disaster by 2075.

According to the economist John D. Mueller, who provided the above figures in a recent speech, the United States, even with a birth rate significantly higher than that in Europe and parts of Asia, faces the same demographic crisis if it does not attempt to either increase fertility or reduce government spending. He writes:

There are four main reasons, then, for “demographic winter,” in order of importance: First, low rates of religious observance, which are associated with low birth rates and high incidence of abortion; second, social benefits so high as to displace gifts within the family, particularly the gift of life; third, legacies of totalitarianism; and finally, heavy reliance on so-called “consumption” taxes, which penalize investment in “human capital.”

Mueller contends we have two options: end legal abortion or drastically curtail government social benefits.

The United States therefore faces a clear choice. It can have legal abortion or a balanced social insurance system, but not both. If the share of social benefits doubles while legal abortion continues, the empirical relationships I have outlined strongly suggest that the U.S. birth rate will decline steadily from the current 2.1 replacement rate to less than 1.7

John Kelleher, who sent the above link, writes:

The marvel to me is that Mr. Mueller developed a more comprehensive theory of economics, by which one takes the family explicitly into account. This theory is actually a revival, he says, of economics as developed by Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, and this more comprehensive economics persisted until nearly the modern era.

And it is from within this more comprehensive economic fundament that he was able to formulate the questions that can put some numbers to the association between economic and political life and fertility rates. The fact that he is able to so with a precision that can not be replicated by working demographers and economists from within the customary paradigms is strong evidence to me that he’s on to something, and that we have lost — the correct word might be repudiated — a great deal of economic instincts that we once had, and which could still serve us well.

My own view, which is complementary I think, is that we are ever responsible moral agents, but can be ‘tempted’, as it were, by our culture and polity to a greater generosity and discipline, or correspondingly, selfishness and laxness can be normalized and made easier and easier to accede to.

                                                                            —- Comments —-

Michael S. writes:

“Mueller contends we have two options: end legal abortion or drastically curtail government social benefits.”

Or we could… do both!

Laura writes:

Now you’re dreaming.

Michael writes:

I prefer to think of it as the Audacity of Logic (ha!).

Please follow and like us: