PDA

View Full Version : How the Austrian Business Cycle explains the destruction of Family Values




AlexMerced
03-31-2010, 08:47 PM
at the mises.org forums someo posted...


Nathan Hayes posted on Wed, Mar 31 2010 10:24 PM So, I got in an argument with my supposedly conservative mother about the morality of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This act, from what I understood, makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee who takes extended leave to help a family member who is sick. Long story short, I am apparently a heartless libertarian who can't understand basic human decency. I tried to explain to her that this is a form of regulation used to cover problems created by other regulations. That taking time off from working wouldn't be as problematic if one has planned ahead for such an event. Also, that it is immoral to spread the problems of one person to another using the force of government.

She walked away before I could bring up the third man; the employee who would replace the empty position. Does he not deserve the job? What if he can't afford medical care for a loved one because he can't take the job?

I'd like to hear the position of other people on this issue. Does anyone know of any articles that go deeper into this specific topic?



to which I responded...


Alex Merced replied on Wed, Mar 31 2010 10:42 PM Another consequence is that is part of a large package that subsidizes "family" building. There is nothing wrong with families, on the contrary it's important for individuals to build their interpersonal support system but a good way to ruin a good thing is too subsidize it. Latley a thought that has going around in my head is the correlation of family and child tax benefits, legal benefits, and services and how it's correlated with overtime with increase divorce rates and unwanted children.

In the case if you subsidize something you get more of it, but usally less quality of it like we've seen in education and healthcare. So if you subsidize marriage through tax benefits and other benefits it'd be consitent that it'd lead to more marriages, but less quality ones. Also if you provide benefits for having children it lead to more parenting, but less quality parenting.

I still have to take a look at the data if it matches up in any significant way, but something tells me there is truth to this thought process.

(also couldn't a child be considered a long term investment project that people may enter during artificially low interest rates thinking there'd be enough capital to complete the project? Just Saying, why can't the ABCT apply to family planning as well.)

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 05:22 AM
no one had any thoughts on this?

sevin
04-01-2010, 05:45 AM
So if you subsidize marriage through tax benefits and other benefits it'd be consitent that it'd lead to more marriages, but less quality ones. Also if you provide benefits for having children it lead to more parenting, but less quality parenting.

It makes perfect sense to me. Just look at how many poor families there are where the mothers have children just so they can get more government assistance. You know a child born into that environment is going to have a terrible upbringing.

I don't know if the same applies to marriage, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just one more example of how government ruins life for many people.

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 07:24 AM
It makes perfect sense to me. Just look at how many poor families there are where the mothers have children just so they can get more government assistance. You know a child born into that environment is going to have a terrible upbringing.

I don't know if the same applies to marriage, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just one more example of how government ruins life for many people.


There is a couple interesting things about Marriage Taxation

- Being able to pass on gifts and estates and avoid taxation is much easier in marriage (the legal institution) so in order to have wealth transfer smoothly from generation to generation marriage is enouraged yet excluded from certain portions of the population.

- We all see marriages being subsidized by immigration and healthcare benefits, which honestly probably do more to destroy the "sanctity of marriage" then allow same sex marriages, which to me seems to be more a battle over who gets access to certain tax advantage which is why marriage shouldn't be a legal institution at all, strictly a spirtual one.

- Also the marriage penalty that occurs if couples make almost the same income to me seems to re-inforce the "stay at home spouse" culture, which has it's consequences.

Sometimes I feel some of the legal institutions that were made to re-enforce values, have destroyed those values by inciting a counter-value movement like todays neo-feminist. Kinda like how neo-cons trying to protect their agenda so much incited a lot of us to be a part of this liberty movement.