CMV: People who raise children create a positive externality for society and should be compensated for it.
A positive externality is when someone’s actions create benefits that others receive without directly paying for them. I think raising children clearly fits this definition in modern societies.
Parents privately bear large costs: direct financial costs (housing, food, healthcare, education), opportunity costs (career slowdown, reduced mobility, lost income), time, stress, and risk (children may require lifelong care).
Meanwhile, society broadly benefits from the outcome:
\* Children become future workers and taxpayer
\* They fund pensions, healthcare, and public services. They reduce the fiscal burden per capita by maintaining worker-to-retiree ratios.
\* They contribute to economic growth, innovation, and institutional continuity
These benefits are socialized, while the costs of producing them are mostly privatized.
Importantly, child-free adults still benefit from:
\* Pensions funded by future workers
\* Healthcare systems sustained by the next generation
\* A functioning economy and stable institutions
To be clear, this is not a moral argument about whether people should have kids. Reproduction itself is a personal choice. But economically, it seems clear ot me that having child
From a neutral view, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Not convinced this is settled yet.
Bluntly speaking, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone At least from my perspective.
this feels more about execution than intent which explains why reactions are split That’s the key detail here. Time will tell.
Reaction: Its that simple
I get the idea, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s where it gets complicated This could age very differently in a week. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
I get the idea, the way this is presented changes how it lands Others will probably see it differently.
Reaction: problem solved
this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Let’s see what happens next. That’s just my read on it.
To be fair, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Not gonna lie, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s where it gets complicated
To be fair, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that friction is hard to ignore Feels like an opening move, not an ending. Others will probably see it differently.
Stepping back, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome which is why the comments look the way they do Time will tell.
From the outside, this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Let’s see what happens next.
From my side, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that’s where the disagreement starts
If we’re being honest, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s what makes this interesting. Feels like an opening move, not an ending. Others will probably see it differently.
Trying to be fair, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s what people are responding to That’s just how it reads to me. That’s the impression it gives me.
Reaction: Hate when it happens
Trying to be fair, this feels rushed rather than thought through which turns this into more of a debate This could age very differently in a week. That’s just my read on it.
Putting bias aside, the follow-through is what will decide this That’s the key detail here. This could age very differently in a week. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
there’s a lot said here but not much clarified We’ll see how people react over time.
To be fair, this feels like a half-step, not a full move Others will probably see it differently.
Not gonna lie, this solves one problem while creating another
Reaction: Conformity Gate