by Bryan Caplan
Shrinking environmental problems are admittedly still problems, and there is usually some bad news mixed with the good. Air is getting more pleasant to breathe, but most scientists say that our emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. I don’t deny that putting another person on the planet will mildly aggravate some problems. Population does have some negative side effects.
So should we thank the Toni Vernellis of the world after all? Not so fast. If the birth of a human being has a lot of positives and a few negatives, the constructive response isn’t to denounce “people.” The constructive response is to selectively target the negatives. Name specific problems, and figure out the cheapest way to handle them.
Selective targeting requires more imagination than mass sterilization, but it’s worth the extra mental effort. If you want to do something about man-made global warming, you don’t have to reduce the number of human beings on the planet. You just have to get humanity to reduce its carbon emissions. A carbon tax is one simple way to get from here to there. To discourage emissions, make emissions more expensive, then sit back and watch lifestyles and technology adapt. The same principle applies to virtually any population problem you can imagine. Don’t like congestion at rush hour? An electronically collected toll is a straightforward way to get traffic moving again.
Improving the environment without cutting population is not wishful thinking. We’ve been doing it for decades. Resources are more abundant. Air and water are cleaner. Problems remain, but the smart path to a better world isn’t restraining our numbers. It’s targeting specific problems by raising the price of bad behavior. To sterilize yourself because your son or daughter will eventually drive a car is truly a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
ONE MORE KID: GOOD FOR YOU, GOOD FOR THE WORLD
Self-interest and concern for others are often compatible. People who have good manners get ahead and make the world more pleasant. The same goes for people who have more kids. Pathological cases aside, the parents are better off, and so is the rest of the world. The kids are better off; they get the gift of life. Economic growth is faster; more people mean more ideas, the fuel of progress. Choices are more abundant; the more people there are, the more options the market offers. Retirees are better off; it’s hard for the elderly to call it quits without a lot of younger workers to pick up the slack and serve the early bird specials. Contrary to doomsayers, natural resources have been getting more abundant for over a century, and air and water quality have improved for decades. Population admittedly has some bad effects on the environment, but restraining our numbers to solve them is like using a sword to kill a mosquito. Bad incentives, not people, are the fundamental environmental problem. Better incentives, not fewer people, are the fundamental solution.
I know my account sounds one-sided. When you’re stuck in traffic or can’t find a parking space at the mall, who isn’t tempted to hiss, “If only there weren’t so many people around here”? Nevertheless, the good effects of population far outweigh the bad. If there weren’t a lot of people in your area, there might not be a mall; there might not even be a road. Idealizing the past is easy, but you wouldn’t want to live in the uncrowded world of 1910. Ten years from now, you probably won’t even want to return to the world of today—and no matter how much you complain about the crowds, you won’t move to Hays, Kansas.
7
SELFISH GUIDELINES FOR WANT-TO-BE GRANDPARENTS
If I had known grandchildren were this much fun
I would have had them first.
—Unknown
YOU CAN HAVE TOO MANY CHILDREN, BUT NOT TOO MANY grandchildren. Like your kids, they’re cute, they’re playful, and they bring hope. Unlike your kids, you can send them home when you’ve had enough. It’s the deal of a lifetime. Maybe that’s why there are over a million Google hits for “child-free,” but only a couple thousand for “grandchild-free.”
The catch is that you can’t make your own grandchildren. You have to rely on your kids to create the next generation while you’re still young enough to enjoy it. If you’re tired of waiting for your kids to give you some grandchildren to spoil, what can you do?
On the surface, grandchildren are a matter of luck: Some parents get lots, others get none. While luck plays a role, here are some tips to tilt the odds in your favor. The sooner you get started, the easier it is to make a difference—but late is better than never.
PRIVATIZING NATALISM
After natalists finish lamenting low birthrates, they usually get on a soapbox and demand that the government “do something about it.” There are two big reasons why I refuse to join their chorus. First, while I agree that more kids make the world a better place, I oppose social engineering—especially for such a personal decision. When people are deciding how many children to have, government ought to mind its own business. Second, libertarian scruples aside, asking politicians to solve your problems is a waste of time. The government won’t listen to you. If you want the job done right, you have to do it yourself.
The main weakness of traditional natalism is that it’s scary. Once we admit that more kids are a good thing, aren’t we on a slippery slope with a contraception ban at the bottom? Quite the contrary. The heart of the natalist position is that more children are good, not that government intervention is effective or morally acceptable. The value of kids and the role of government are two separate issues. Natalism can and should be privatized.
Unlike the typical government, I won’t oversell the effectiveness of my advice. My first guideline for getting more grandkids demonstrably works well. The other guidelines are merely plausible hypotheses. They are difficult to scientifically test, which is probably why no one has tested them. Still, they’re common sense, there’s suggestive evidence in their favor, and there’s not much downside. While I can’t prove they’re effective, I am willing to bet on them—and plan to use them myself.
GUIDELINE #1: HAVE MORE KIDS
In modern societies, the most reliable way to get a lot of grandchildren is to have a lot of children. While success is not guaranteed—one retiree I know has five grown children but only one granddaughter—research confirms the obvious. The most comprehensive study ever done looks at the entire Danish population born during 1968 and 1969. It finds that Danes with more siblings have more children. The General Social Survey confirms the same pattern in the United States: People with more brothers and sisters have more sons and daughters.
It’s tempting to infer that doubling your number of children more than doubles your expected number of grandchildren. That’s too optimistic. Fertility runs in families because of nature, not nurture, so doubling your number of children only doubles your expected number of grandchildren. Still, that’s nothing to sneeze at, and there’s a free bonus: Every child is an insurance policy against getting no grandkids at all. If each of your offspring has a 20 percent chance of childlessness, you can reduce your probability of grandchildlessness to 4 percent by having two kids, and 0.16 percent by having four. If you want to continue the chain letter of life, be sure to mail a lot of copies.
Of course, this strategy only works for aspiring grandparents who are still young enough to have more kids. If you start craving grandchildren at your retirement party, your window of opportunity has probably closed. If you can take advantage of this strategy, though, why not consider it?
When our parents nag us for grandchildren, their words usually fall on deaf ears. Because this book is about selfish reasons to have more kids, I won’t try to make you feel guilty about ignoring their pleas. I’ll just point out that by the time you reach your parents’ age, you’ll probably want more grandchildren, too. You should take steps to satisfy your future desire while you’re still young enough to make a difference.
HOW GOVERNMENTS GOOSE THE STORK
Having more kids is not a foolproof way to get more grandkids, but it definitely tilts the odds in your favor. Unfortunately, most of us don’t start thinking about grandchildren until
our children grow up. If you’re ready to become a grandparent, you’re probably not in the market for a thirty-year plan. You want fast-acting ways to make your grandparental dreams come true.
At this point, it would be convenient to forget twin research. Convenient, but dishonest. Back in the “Parent’s Guide to Behavioral Genetics,” we explored the main twin studies of family size. All found that differences in parenting have little or no effect on children’s fertility. In other words, the techniques that parents typically use to influence their children’s fertility are roughly equally effective—or equally ineffective. If you want to boost your kids’ fertility, you need to go off the beaten path and try an unconventional approach.
This advice is normally vacuous. Searching for effective unconventional parenting strategies is usually like searching for a needle in a haystack. But fertility is an exception. Governments often try to influence childbearing—and researchers who study their policies know some approaches that clearly work. Government preaching and nagging seem about as futile as parental preaching and nagging. When government rewards parents with money and other tangible benefits, however, storks fly.
The single most impressive experiment: In the late Eighties, Quebec began sending cash bonuses to new parents, and gradually increased these bonuses over the next decade. From May 1992 to September 1997, Quebec’s parents got Can$500 for their first child, two payments of Can$500 for their second child, and twenty payments of Can$400 (Can$8,000 in total) for each additional child. The program was then abolished. The main researcher who studied Quebec’s program concluded that Can $1,000 in first-year benefits—just over 700 American dollars at the time—increased the probability of having a child by 16.9 percent. Families eligible for the full Can$8,000 payment plan were 25 percent more likely to have another child. The response was much stronger for women who were married and/or over twenty-five years old.
Another research team looked at the effect of paid parental leave in Austria. Under Austrian regulations, an employee on parental leave received roughly 340 Euros per month from the government, plus the right to return to her previous job. Before July 1, 1990, a parent could take one year of official leave after the birth of a child. From July 1, 1990, until 1996, the time limit was doubled to two years. Then the limit was cut to a year and a half. Researchers took advantage of this policy seesaw to measure the effect of the 1990 experiment—and found that twelve extra Austrians were alive for every 100 women of childbearing age. Other researchers argue fairly convincingly that “family-friendly” policies—paid parental leave, subsidized child care, and so on—partly explain relatively high birth rates in Sweden and other Nordic countries.
Personally, I oppose “family-friendly” subsidies and regulations. But you don’t have to support these programs to learn from them—and if you do support them, you don’t have to win over public opinion to act on them. Quebec and Austria convince people to have more babies with the right incentives. So can you.
Unless you’re fabulously wealthy, there’s not much that you as an individual can do to raise your nation’s birthrate. Yet there is plenty that you as an individual can do to raise your family’s birthrate. Instead of preaching and nagging, people who want more grandkids should replicate successful natalist experiments on a smaller scale.
GUIDELINE #2: BECOME THE IN-LAWS FROM HEAVEN
Many grandparents already offer their children generous assistance. So why don’t twin studies detect an effect of parenting on fertility? I could be wrong, but I see a crucial difference between the programs of Quebec or Austria and the behavior of generous, helpful grandparents: Successful natalist programs give parents assistance without interference. Grandparents rarely offer their children the same deal. Within the family, assistance and interference come as a package. To get grandparents’ help, people have to tolerate their unwanted input. For all too many parents, that’s a Faustian bargain—and the origin of expressions like “the in-laws from hell.”
To run successful natalist programs at the family level, you need to defy grandparental stereotypes. Promising assistance without interference is a good start. The problem is convincing your children and their spouses that you mean business. Winning their trust won’t be easy; how do they know that you won’t start meddling as soon as you get your grandchildren? There’s no perfect solution, but building a reputation is largely a matter of time and consistency—so you might as well start today. Your mission: Convince the next generation that you are the in-laws from heaven.
What are the in-laws from heaven like? My two-word slogan is quietly useful. Tread lightly. Don’t bundle your babysitting or other assistance with unwanted advice about how to raise your grandchildren or run the household. If you don’t know whether your advice is unwanted, here’s a blunt but wise rule of thumb: If someone wants your advice, they will ask for it. Whether or not your kids and kids-in-law say this to your face, they’re probably thinking it. When you were a new parent, I bet you were thinking the same thing.
The Golden Rule tells us to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s good advice, but not enough to ensure family harmony. The late economist Bernie Saffran taped a rebuttal to his office door: “Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They may have different tastes.” His point: Nice is not enough. The Golden Rule is kind, but not respectful. If you want your kids and kids-in-law to appreciate your help, treat them as they would like to be treated.
I understand if my advice makes you angry. If you’re a family elder, maybe you feel like it’s your turn to get your way. Perhaps you feel like your respect has to be earned—and your daughter-in-law hasn’t earned it. If you’re handing out money and babysitting, maybe you think you’re entitled to a say in your grandchildren’s upbringing. But even if you’re completely right, being completely right won’t get you more grandchildren. Your interference could be off-putting enough to keep your next grandchild from being born in the first place. With so much at stake, is it really so hard to drop the hard line?
Avoiding petty interference is one thing, but it hurts to stand idly by when you believe that your grandchildren’s welfare is in danger. Just keep matters in perspective. If your grandchildren’s parents are severely abusing them, don’t just speak up; take action. Otherwise, think twice before intervening. Keep thoughts like “You’re raising him wrong” and “You’re spoiling him rotten” to yourself. Remember the central lesson of twin and adoption research: Even if your kids are moderately bad parents, your grandchildren will probably still turn out fine. Before you speak up, ask yourself: Would adoption agencies consider your grandkids’ parents fit to adopt? If so, correcting their deviations from your ideal of parenting is imprudent. The parents probably won’t listen, they certainly won’t like it, and they might feel too stressed to give you another grandchild.
GUIDELINE #3: TACTFULLY REWARD YOUR KIDS FOR EACH GRANDCHILD
For the sake of argument, suppose you’re comfortable with the idea of spending money to get more grandchildren. As Troy McClure, The Simpsons’ hammy documentary narrator, might say, “So, you’ve decided to design your own natalist program.” How should you proceed? If you show up at your children’s homes and ask them to name their price, they’ll probably think you’re crazy. In the bestcase scenario, they’ll interpret your offer as: In exchange for your support, they agree to endure your . . . eccentricities.
To get the most bang for your buck takes more tact. Don’t suddenly offer explicit bribes. Build a solid reputation for hands-off helpfulness before any grandchildren come along. After laying that foundation, casually communicate that you’ve only shown them the tip of the iceberg. If and when grandchildren come along, you’ll happily step up your contribution.
One serious snag to worry about: Even in a loving family, it’s hard to convince others that your help comes with no strings attached. Perhaps this is why government checks so clearly affect childbearing. People know that no matter how many checks they cash,
the government won’t pop in to critique their parenting.
For trust issues like this, actions speak louder than words. If you’re ready to help financially, the best way to prove that there are no strings attached is to make one-shot gifts. No matter what you say, a monthly check feels contingent. It’s more convincing to celebrate the birth of each new baby with an early inheritance—and the suave excuse, “This will all be yours eventually, anyway.” True, you’re giving up control, but as computer geeks say, “That’s a feature, not a bug.” Grandparents’ money talks louder when they surrender control. Or to be more precise, when you surrender control over your grandchildren’s upbringing, you get extra control over a more important outcome: their number.
You don’t have to be Bill Gates to strategically design wills, trusts, and one-shot gifts. A middle-class income is more than enough. Compared to the out-of-pocket cost of raising a child to adulthood, the baby bonuses in Quebec and Austria were small. They worked anyway. Since most people intrinsically desire children, modest incentives are often enough to convince them to have an extra baby.
You don’t need to openly tell your children that their inheritance partly depends on how many grandchildren they give you. Don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. Just give generously to your children each and every time they enlarge your family. Then write a will that gives each of your children equal shares of whatever’s left.
