Here's my two cents on the subject...
Cent number 1- In this economic system, children are an "asset", and as such, do not produce any "GDP" within a household, yet are expenditures. In this, this man shows his utter incompetency to think outside the box.
This system is based on the individual, and hardly accounts for the fact of whether or not one wants to have children. Add that the typical wages one earns do not accommodate for the traditional family structure: i.e. having more than 5 children. Also add in the fact that this system is a dual income system, which makes it even harder for couples to have children as well because wealth is not widely available to single income household since 50% of the country's working age population entered the workforce without having a 50% increase in wealth to accommodate such an increase, and as such incomes were slashed, the parents began to have an "economic" mentality, and children became looked at as a burden if anything. Basically, the odds are stacked against couples already, despite what this man thinks. However, what he reveals is startling, in that in order to survive in this economy, one essentially has to do what this man has done and choose not to have children. We can only imagine the result if every single human being on the entire planet thought as this man does. We would no longer exist.
Think of what currency is needed for. It is needed for the basic necessities, that being food, water, clothing, and shelter. In the past, it was much easier to acquire these necessities outside of acclimating to any sort of organized "grid" (read economy), with agriculture, wells, and women who knew how to sew. The only issue I could see is the shelter but even then, it is also not that hard to imagine that these skills were much more widely available to one who had grown up outside of the organized grid, or were possessed by the surrounding community, or (importantly) lands and properties with architecture on them were inherited from previous families, making it possible to live on the land without the knowledge of building. Basically, all of these basic necessities that are required to live a human existence were not provided by an outside grid, but by yourself for the purpose of sustaining yourself, your wife and progeny. The point being, currency was not necessary. Trading also sufficed as an efficient form of currency for a long time, and this practice has all but died out...
Now we zoom onto our era, which no one possesses any sort of knowledge on any of these previous skills, we all have to outsource these skills and pay someone else to provide them for us. Granted, some people would choose to do this, even in ancient times, by going into a city and having these necessities provided for us via markets and skilled laborers. Typically, however, these people had to have amassed some wealth, and those who didn't, became beggars. Well, now, we all are the beggars, because the typical earnings have not caught up to the typical price of the basic necessities, and the result of which is most of our money is going to items that can be provided by ourselves and can be looked at as the foundation of being able to live on Earth, yet it is now being treated as an economic good. This is why we are poor: the system is unsustainable and is inimical to the family structure. Covetous people took advantage of the fact that these are products people need to live and they would pay ANY price to get them.
Cent 2- Some may argue that it may not be "selfless" in this current system to refuse to have children, what with the avoidance of necessary governmental interventions at the expense of the taxpayer because of the loss of potential GDP at the expense of children. However, I argue that this man is being completely selfish in his reasoning, mostly because he explains about how it benefits him and how he can live such a comfortable life, getting up whenever he wants, going out and riding his motorcycle x amount of times a day; I say that this man is not contributing to his society as well as he could. This is the typical mindset of one who thinks as he.
Generally, what would drive a man to give to his society would be the very fact that his help would help himself as well, help himself provide for his family, and in this case, it is a win-win scenario for all. Man helps society by discovering/building/doing something positive: society pays man back and in turn, man utilizes this as a means to provide for his family. That is a very selfless, healthy, and honestly pious way of living out the married vocation. If one does not have children, where is the incentive? We are speaking strictly economics here. The man in the video clearly does not show any incentive to produce something worthwhile, he only works to live, and he has free time. Well, I answer that idle hands are the devil's sandbox. He also is a very troubled man as a result. Basically, he is not the man that he could or should be! Women are good at helping men become this, because of that incentive.
Basically, all in all, his opinions only work in our evil economy, whose fruits are death.
(The above statement about incentive does not apply to religious orders or people who profess celibacy for religious reasons. I also recognize the few examples of non-professing religious people who did not marry and achieved great things.)
Topic: "Dont have children, they cause poverty." (Read 4596 times)