Deano’s answer to: “Should we stop investing in our children, because they generate lower rates of return than other asset classes?”

Shocked at how many people don't understand that children are, and forever will be, a specific kind of asset class.

That the valuation fluctuates highly, is hard to measure empirically outside of pure financial return (and even then largely ignoring losses that would occur if children did NOT receive investment). And yes, it's a strange almost "derivative class", but instead of bundling up separate assets into an easy to manage mess, you divide an ostensibly simple asset "wholly owned" by a set of parents (in most cases), then apply addiitonal external effects on business growth potential and GDP. Which also explains why there ABSOLUTELY should be governmental influence on one's children and their upbringing – the effects thereof are felt most explicitly at the macro level, not individually.

All that said, it's also true that because people don't like to think of other people as assets generally (which also causes people to instinctually dislike prenups), the evolution of laws governing the care, maintenance, and exploit of these assets hasn't kept up with the times.

What's really needed is a hard-nosed look at the costs of investment, and the DESIRED returns, and then reshuffle the whole health/education/work system to optimize payouts… Heck, give every teacher a cut of their students' future earnings, and you'll hear a lot fewer complaints about pay and benefits. 😉

Should we stop investing in our children, because they generate lower rates of return than other asset classes?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.