To breed, or not to breed?

Julia said:

Surely Mr McCrindle can't be suggesting that young adults who live at home until they are 24 are not financially self supporting?
If the parents are still supporting them at that age, it's their own fault.
Not doing any child a favour by encouraging such dependence.

Click to expand...

There's a 31 YO bloke where I work who has moved back in with his parents. Personally, I have no respect for him. It's the parents fault for allowing him to move back in, but, it's his fault for staying so long...

It is not uncommon with some ethnic groups for the children to stay at home long after they become financially independent. They pay board and save, which is cheaper than moving out renting, paying for electricity gas water food etc.
Their savings are often channeled into a unit or a house which they rent out until such time as they marry and want the premises for their own family.

Not everyone kicks their kids out as soon as they finish school and are no longer a valid dependent for tax purposes.

inenigma said:

There's a 31 YO bloke where I work who has moved back in with his parents. Personally, I have no respect for him. It's the parents fault for allowing him to move back in, but, it's his fault for staying so long...

Click to expand...

But what a great saver!
Saving on Council fees, cost of rent of mortgage payments.
(also pay for 1 electric and gas meter)

This is real winner and help at hand either way parents can help son and son can look after parents.
While back it was OK for 3 or even 4 generations to share the same place in harmony.

Now everybody has to have own McMansion.

Honestly, have my second thoughts on families living together.
Why pay more?

Happy said:

But what a great saver!
Saving on Council fees, cost of rent of mortgage payments.
(also pay for 1 electric and gas meter)

This is real winner and help at hand either way parents can help son and son can look after parents.
While back it was OK for 3 or even 4 generations to share the same place in harmony.

Now everybody has to have own McMansion.

Honestly, have my second thoughts on families living together.
Why pay more?

Click to expand...

How about the social ineptitude older dependants gain by still living under the same roof as their parents? How about the lack of accountability they develop? How about the drain on their parents resources. I understand, in times gone by, it was normal for many generations to live under one roof and mutually support one another etc, but the mind set of stay at home kids and parents differs greatly these days from what it traditionally was.
Many parents try and be 'friends' with their children and hang out etc. Many parents still wash up and clean up after their children. Parents, at times, don't charge enough for rent and bills and as a result the child (adult) doesn't get a clear and realistic idea of what it is like to be self supported. The first sniff of hardship they get mum and dad to bail them out.
I understand this is anecdotal evidence and that individual cases may vary.
Unfortunately it is hardship that often breeds character, exposure to "doing it tough" that breeds positive financial/resource management, that inspires attainment, that produces capable individuals. Capable individuals are not created by sheltering, hand holding and molycoddling.

Stand on your own two feet, don't lean on the backs of others I say...

Going a little back to the original topic, I think the Govt chooses to "subsidise" raising children with their eyes fixed on the big picture rather than just easy pandering to a specific voting demographic.

I'm guessing Australia was in need of a boost to its birth rate to maintain viability to its population and in particular to it's working population. The trend towards ageing populations in all the developing nations is quite of concern. The foremost govt concern would be the shrinking tax base and burgeoning number of recipients for welfare and govt support. As the proportion of the population retired and placing increasing burden on public services such as healthcare increases there will be a growing need to spend tax revenue. If this is coupled with a shrinking number of workers/tax payers; then its not hard to see what will happen in a generation or two.

In light of this sort of scenarios, I would think the Govt would consider a few thousand dollar incentives to be a small investment for the long term to create more taxpayers.



Kenny

kenny said:

In light of this sort of scenarios, I would think the Govt would consider a few thousand dollar incentives to be a small investment for the long term to create more taxpayers.



Kenny

Click to expand...

Are people who use the $$$ incentives as part of a reason for having a child going to raise hardworking tax payers?? Personally I doubt it.

kenny said:

Going a little back to the original topic, I think the Govt chooses to "subsidise" raising children with their eyes fixed on the big picture rather than just easy pandering to a specific voting demographic.

I'm guessing Australia was in need of a boost to its birth rate to maintain viability to its population and in particular to it's working population. The trend towards ageing populations in all the developing nations is quite of concern. The foremost govt concern would be the shrinking tax base and burgeoning number of recipients for welfare and govt support. As the proportion of the population retired and placing increasing burden on public services such as healthcare increases there will be a growing need to spend tax revenue. If this is coupled with a shrinking number of workers/tax payers; then its not hard to see what will happen in a generation or two.

In light of this sort of scenarios, I would think the Govt would consider a few thousand dollar incentives to be a small investment for the long term to create more taxpayers.



Kenny

Click to expand...

The hang-over from the "Populate or Perish" policy. Single income families where the father subscibed to the 6 0'clock swill syndrome were given a "child endowment" cheque which went to the mother to ensure that the kids got fed. Tuff luck to the kids if she liked a drink as well

nulla nulla said:

The hang-over from the "Populate or Perish" policy. ...

Click to expand...

Some say now: > Populate and Perish < in view of current immigrant and population policy

Riddick said:

How about the social ineptitude older dependants gain by still living under the same roof as their parents? How about the lack of accountability they develop?

Click to expand...

How about some evidence this is the result of living with parents longer? It may very well promote more responsible and 'mature' thoughts and actions from an individual.

I think maturity, and what constitutes maturity, is an aspect overlooked when it comes to breeding. In comparison to animals, humans for some reason take a long time to mature.

Mature as in behaving responsibly, conscientiously and respectfully toward the newborn and toward society and the environment in general.

Under 20 years of life the human being generally exhibits immaturity. Obviously this is a phase of life BUT the immaturity can have more lasting and negative repercussions for society and the environment as a whole.

There has been a noticeable shift away from young couples producing children and this can only be better, not only for the couples but for the newborn, society and the environment as a whole.

Wysiwyg, your point about the positive aspects of maturity before reproducing is a good one.

However, don't you think this maturity is going to be somewhat delayed when young people remain in the family nest, thus not being required to plan for themselves, organise their responsibilities etc?

Age in years is one thing, but experience has to be added in before a person can reasonably be mature.

Julia said:

Age in years is one thing, but experience has to be added in before a person can reasonably be mature.

Click to expand...

All fine if their experiences don't involve destroying other peoples property, hurting other people, badly raised children, dysfunctional relationships, destroying the environment or in the worst case, destroying themselves.

As I noted, "obviously this is a phase of life" so during this phase which is age related, a youth could be spared the consequences of their own immature actions by remaining in an environment with less negative influences.

Can't put an old head on young shoulders is a timeless saying.