This article is apparently propaganda aimed to cause people to have more children. ¿Cui bono? Is Julien worried his own pension won't be covered, or is he trying to enslave his children so the benefits of their work will go to him but not to me? There are far too many humans for the planet to support right now.
People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. It was always some combination of "we've always done it like this" (at a societal level, that's religion), "there's nothing else to do" and "sex feels good".
(I know Latin doesn't use ¿ but I thought it was funny)
People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability.
AFAICT, that was the primary reason people had children. Not in the sense of "support me in retirement" because people expected to work until they died, but in the sense of "grow ourselves some workers to help out on the farm" for the poor and "somebody to inherit our title" for the rich.
It's arguing that more countries should adopt something like the German system, which recognizes that childless people should pay more for their pension than people with children.
An article saying "people who have children are double paying for their pension" is not effective propaganda in favor of having children.
Alternatively, pay people to have children. Isn't that standard capitalism? If you want something done, pay people to do it.
I know they have some 400€ bonus or something, but that hardly covers it.
I pay lots of taxes for lots of things that keep society running. One thing that keeps society running is a population that doesn't rapidly decline. If I also had to pay a tax to support the population, I wouldn't mind.
I know if there's a child tax it'll be levied on the actual workers while the billionaires pay nothing though. I think billionaires should pay, since they're the ones creating all the economic uncertainty that makes people not naturally have children.
People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability.
Sure they did. People having 15 kids to work on the family farm is a classic example. Any family business requires kids to take it over so the parents can retire. In many cultures the older generations live with the younger generations to take care of them as they age.
Even in a time before money, the younger generations needed to exist to do the hard jobs once the old people couldn't do them anymore.
Moderns are sometimes quite surprised to learn that, in the West and in Christian culture, children have always been obligated to support their parents. This is a concept called "alimentation".
As adult parents are obligated to care for their children, to give food, clothing and shelter for their well-being, children are also eventually obligated to their parents for the same exact care. It is a well-known fact that, eventually the human body wears out, we're no good for work anymore, we're sickly, we're widowed, all those things, and therefore children have always assumed the roles of caregiver and breadwinner for their parents.
In fact, there are still US laws on the books to this effect. That children may be obligated to pay medical bills or other support, if their parents cannot make ends meet. Adult children are sometimes blindsided by this responsibility. It seems a crazy thing, when I got to move out at 18 and my parents no longer had anything to do with me, that now they're calling in this favor. But that is, in fact, how the world has worked for thousands of years, formally and informally.
And that is why we've always done it this way, because the youth had respect for their elders, and cared for them, not this mercenary home-health nursing for-pay crap that we have today. That is the scourge of capitalism that unrelated people should be forced to "care for" people who are not their family, while their actual family tries to live off insurance coverage and the same mercenary system.
there are still US laws on the books to this effect. That children may be obligated to pay medical bills or other support, if their parents cannot make ends meet. Adult children are sometimes blindsided by this responsibility
In most (if not all) states, this responsibility is permanently and irrevocably severed if the parent abandons/disowns the child, refuses to pay child support after a divorce, etc.
Even if you later make up and re-establish a relationship with an adult child, there is no way to re-establish that obligation. It is gone forever. Being a bad parent can have consequences!
Moderns are sometimes quite surprised to learn that, in the West and in Christian culture, children have always been obligated to support their parents.
And that is why we've always done it this way, because the youth had respect for their elders, and cared for them
Which is it? They were obligated to do so, or they did so because they had respect (dad-gum it!), unlike the kids of today?
Comments
This article is apparently propaganda aimed to cause people to have more children. ¿Cui bono? Is Julien worried his own pension won't be covered, or is he trying to enslave his children so the benefits of their work will go to him but not to me? There are far too many humans for the planet to support right now.
People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. It was always some combination of "we've always done it like this" (at a societal level, that's religion), "there's nothing else to do" and "sex feels good".
(I know Latin doesn't use ¿ but I thought it was funny)
AFAICT, that was the primary reason people had children. Not in the sense of "support me in retirement" because people expected to work until they died, but in the sense of "grow ourselves some workers to help out on the farm" for the poor and "somebody to inherit our title" for the rich.
Is there evidence of this urban legend?
it's not a legend at all. I think you skipped the article I quote near the end. https://julienreszka.com/blog/pensions-buy-fewer-babies-cutt...
This is AI slop.
bots accusing bots of bottery
truly a 2026 moment
no it's not
Would millenia of data from primarily agricultural, family-worked farms suffice?
Sure. Let's see the ancient Egyptian papyrus where poor farmers describe how they actually don't like sex but they need more farmhands.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely brain dead.
It's arguing that more countries should adopt something like the German system, which recognizes that childless people should pay more for their pension than people with children.
An article saying "people who have children are double paying for their pension" is not effective propaganda in favor of having children.
Alternatively, pay people to have children. Isn't that standard capitalism? If you want something done, pay people to do it.
I know they have some 400€ bonus or something, but that hardly covers it.
I pay lots of taxes for lots of things that keep society running. One thing that keeps society running is a population that doesn't rapidly decline. If I also had to pay a tax to support the population, I wouldn't mind.
I know if there's a child tax it'll be levied on the actual workers while the billionaires pay nothing though. I think billionaires should pay, since they're the ones creating all the economic uncertainty that makes people not naturally have children.
Sure they did. People having 15 kids to work on the family farm is a classic example. Any family business requires kids to take it over so the parents can retire. In many cultures the older generations live with the younger generations to take care of them as they age.
Even in a time before money, the younger generations needed to exist to do the hard jobs once the old people couldn't do them anymore.
Moderns are sometimes quite surprised to learn that, in the West and in Christian culture, children have always been obligated to support their parents. This is a concept called "alimentation".
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01312b.htm
As adult parents are obligated to care for their children, to give food, clothing and shelter for their well-being, children are also eventually obligated to their parents for the same exact care. It is a well-known fact that, eventually the human body wears out, we're no good for work anymore, we're sickly, we're widowed, all those things, and therefore children have always assumed the roles of caregiver and breadwinner for their parents.
In fact, there are still US laws on the books to this effect. That children may be obligated to pay medical bills or other support, if their parents cannot make ends meet. Adult children are sometimes blindsided by this responsibility. It seems a crazy thing, when I got to move out at 18 and my parents no longer had anything to do with me, that now they're calling in this favor. But that is, in fact, how the world has worked for thousands of years, formally and informally.
And that is why we've always done it this way, because the youth had respect for their elders, and cared for them, not this mercenary home-health nursing for-pay crap that we have today. That is the scourge of capitalism that unrelated people should be forced to "care for" people who are not their family, while their actual family tries to live off insurance coverage and the same mercenary system.
In most (if not all) states, this responsibility is permanently and irrevocably severed if the parent abandons/disowns the child, refuses to pay child support after a divorce, etc.
Even if you later make up and re-establish a relationship with an adult child, there is no way to re-establish that obligation. It is gone forever. Being a bad parent can have consequences!
Which is it? They were obligated to do so, or they did so because they had respect (dad-gum it!), unlike the kids of today?
It's the opposite of propaganda.