Will 'Too Many Babies' Hurt the Economy?

The new labor Government in Australia has a 'Productivity Commission' which has come out against children, warning that further increases in the birth rate will only harm the economy.

FRONT ROYAL (Catholic Online) - The Australian government has something called a "Productivity Commission," the enlightened members of which recently declared, in the words of the Daily Telegraph (August 6, 2008), that "babies are a drag on the economy."

This marks a striking turnaround for child-poor Australia, where the birth rate has been below replacement for decades. Indeed, the former Prime Minister, John Howard, was so worried about the country's birth dearth that he encouraged Australians to "have a third child for the country", and granted couples a $5,000 bonus upon the birth of each child.

The new Labor Government, however, heavily influenced by radical feminists and environmentalists, has a less sanguine view of humanity. Echoing its anti-natal views, the Productivity Commission has come out against children, warning that further increases in the birth rate will only harm the economy.

Those of us who believe that babies are blessings will have trouble believing the Commission's dismal calculus. No one, from the poorest farmer to the most number-fixated accountant, would deny that the birth of a lamb in Australia's sheep-covered outback makes everybody richer. How could the birth of a baby--so much more valuable than a lamb--possibly make every Aussie poorer? It just doesn't make sense.

Viewed through the eyes of the productivity czars, however, the matter is cut and dried. Each Australian worker produces only so much. Multiply this times the number of workers and you have the country's GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. Anything that reduces the number of workers reduces the GDP, which is, by definition, bad for the economy. The problem with babymaking, in the Commission's view, is thus straightforward: It takes women out of the work force.

The Commission has ginned up a plethora of impressive-looking statistics to back up its claims. But both its assumptions and its methodology are flawed.

It ignores the need of children for nurturing and fails to take into account the hidden costs of childcare. That most women with small children prefer to remain at home and care for them is irrelevant, in the Commission's view, because such preferences do not produce paid employment outside the home. Never mind that many mothers work out of their homes or have part-time employment.

That children cared for by their mothers (instead of by hired strangers) are healthier and better adjusted, do better in school and fall sick less often, and have lower rates of premarital sex, drug use, and criminal activity--all of which result in cost savings for society--has no part in their computations.

Supporting FREE Catholic Education with Grass-fed Beef

The hidden costs of institutionalizing children in terms of increased medical, counseling, and law enforcement costs are well documented in Brian Robertson's Day Care Deception (Encounter Books, 2003).They are substantial.I realize that some women have to work outside the home and that childcare is their only option. My comments here are not directed at them and should not be taken as criticism.

Blinded by the numbers, the Commission is also oblivious to the dynamics of families. Most fathers will willingly work longer hours so that their children can receive the maternal care they need, while stay-at-home moms can achieve economies that women who work outside the home can't.

Considerable cost savings can accrue from not having to maintain a second car, from eating out less often and, most importantly, from not having to pay for expensive day care, as Christine Davidson has shown in her Staying Home Instead: How to Balance Your Family Life (and Your Checkbook). Families with a full-time homemaker may have somewhat less disposable income than two-income families, but the odds are that they actually live better, happier, and healthier lives.

I particularly object to the Commission's claim that its costs $385,000 to raise a child to adulthood. Any parent of two or more children knows that there are real economies of scale at work here; each and every child does not have to have its own bedroom and bath, for example, as the Commission assumes.

Finally, the Commission warns of the dangers of reducing the taxation base (by encouraging women to bear and rear children) as society ages. But the only way to stave off population aging is to have children - Lots of them. And since children grow up to become workers, any reduction in the tax base (because of the immediate increase in stay-at-home moms) would be short-lived, soon to be offset by the increased numbers of young workers.

Taken to its logical extreme, the Commission's views would dictate a complete moratorium on childbearing. All women would then have no excuse not to join the workforce. For several decades, the country would enjoy robust economic growth. The Productivity Commission would presumably be ecstatic. Then everyone, including the members of the Commission, would grow old and die.

My point is that children are the only future a nation--or a family--has. A nation that, distaining families and children, presses women to abandon childbearing and join the work force in search of short-term, largely illusory economic gains has no future. Infecundity leads to death.

Help Keep Catholic Online Free

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author, most recently, of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits (Transaction Press, 2008).

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'