The folly of paid maternity leave 
Posted By Mirko Bagaric on March 31st, 2008
The world is already overpopulated and people should not be forced to subsidy the lifestyle choices of others. Rather than encouraging more Australia children to be born, we would be better off allowing more people currently subsisting on the margins of life to migrate to our opulent shores. That’s why paid maternity leave, despite its feel good overtone, would be a mistake.
Financial incentives and disincentives shape personal choices. Hence paid maternity leave will result in an increase in the birth rate. But this would be morally and socially undesirable.
From the global perspective, it is not possible to make a respectable argument in favour of more humans populating the earth. Currently there are 6.7 billion of us. Fifty years ago there 2.5 billion and at the start of 20th century there were 1.7 billion people. These numbers are just that; numbers – there is no reason to think that one figure is preferable to another. Certainly, there is nothing that 7 billion plus humans can do that 6.7 billion cannot, except create more pollution, waste and accelerate the rate at which all other species are being obliterated.
Thus, there is no intrinsic benefit in breeding more people. If the world population halved rather than, as predicated, doubled in the next 60 years as a result of natural attrition there would be no basis for regret.
Ostensibly the argument for more people is stronger from the local perspective. The Australian population is ageing and we have a shortage of workers so it seems to make seen to increase birth rates.
However, this simply indicates that more people would preferable. There is no reason that they should be totally (or even mainly) Aussie made. In fact the world would be a far better place if migration restrictions were reduced, producing a rough equilibrium between population levels and the availability of resources.
It is only once this occurs that we will effectively deal with the dispiriting irony of thousands of Africans dying daily from hunger and poverty, while much of the first world gorges itself to ill-health. The on-going starvation crisis has nothing to do with a food shortage. The problem is simply one of distribution. There is enough grain alone produced on earth to make every person fat.
A person’s birth place is merely a happy or unhappy accident. Much of what is important to a person’s flourishing should not turn on so little – morality requires that to the maximum extent possible luck is taken out of the benefits and burdens equation.
It has been claimed that too many foreigners would diminish our material prosperity. Research is equivocal about this. Some models suggest the opposite – that immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy.
In any event, a slight diminution in the living standard of western countries is a small price to pay to reduce global destitution. To determine whether a more relaxed approach to migration is justifiable, one cannot look at the situation only from the perspective of the locals. There is no ethical basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another.
Certainly I am not suggesting that Australians people should be discouraged from having children. Many people find this the most important and meaningful activity in their life. And for them, we should wish them more children than they can pick names for.
But life is full of a myriad of decisions, choices and personal preferences. Few preferences are inherently desirable or objectionable. This is despite the fact that most preferences are motivated by one single consideration: self –interest.
Sure becoming a gun sportstar, computer whiz, crack doctor, top actor or author might bring some utility or joy to others, but it is negligible compared to the satisfaction derived by the individual. Such is also the case with the children. The rest of the community might benefit marginally by having another labour source, but nearly all the benefit is derived by the parent and child. It is not up to the community to foster this project.
There are a number of positive activities that I have wanted to purse. I’m still convinced that I would have made Peter Sampras’ grand slam record look mediocre if the government supported me in my tennis aspirations. But such is life. The community owes me nothing when it comes to supporting my lifestyle whims.
And such is the case with my decision to have children. The kids are great. The bring lots of joy to my life and make it better than it was otherwise. But childless people can lead just as fulfilled, complete and virtuous lives. They don’t come looking to me or the government for financial support to sustain and enhance their personal projects and activities. Neither should I. It sets a bad example for my children.
A version of this was published in the Herald Sun on 31 March 2008.