u/Tricky-Mistake-5490

https://preview.redd.it/uuwjfseecxvg1.png?width=1892&format=png&auto=webp&s=cfe55313242b3574915e34110686587777aad51c

Libertarian and economists think I am crazy.

Socialists think it's correct and they love it. It seems that at least they give coherent answer.

I think many people, mainly leftists, but to a certain extent even conservatives or libertarians, secretly want superior people to have fewer children.

The leftists just openly says that.

The libertarian is uncomfortable that their idea of liberty will lead to the opposite outcome.

Me, I think people that are more economically productive should not only have more money but should they wish, should be able to easily and simply have way more children as long as they can afford those children and can consensually attract mates.

So if Elon wants 1k children by simply paying women I see absolutely no problem at all.

When people want to do something win win, they usually trade.

Say I want to hire people to do plumbing, I usually don't seduce the plumber. I just offer money. And offering money is actually kardol hicks efficient, pareto optimal, minimize transactional complexity resulting in coasean bargaining. Adverse selection predicts that if I don't do simple trade or transactional complexity is strong then I would get scammed.

Pick any industry. Say software, plumbing, manufacturing, phones, cars.

Imagine if employee cannot negotiate salary with employer. In fact, the salary must be 0 because hiring people commoditize workers and also to protect sanctity of plumbing.

Then the employer must also pay severance pay and the amount must be calculated by the state after the software is shipped. So it's not something that can be negotiated in front.

We would expect less software, less phone, less plumbing, less anything.

In having children women cannot negotiate amount of child support and payment. The state decides amount of child support.

And no economists like wow.... we gonna have low fertility among richer men because of this? Like we gonna under produce rich children? This gonna cost deadweight lost?

For simplicity sake, presume that having children is like producing or buying phones. People produce children to the point that marginal utility of one additional children exceeds the expected cost.

Due to adverse selection, presume that each party, potential mom and dad, presume each will do worse. So Dad presume that mom would take children away, fly to California, and turn sons into "daughters" if she can, and she can, because she can't sign enforceable contract saying she won't.

It's how I live my life actually. The reason I buy bitcoin. I don't believe other humans and presume the worst when dealing with them making sure they can't screw me. Normal behavior.

Yet I asked Grok and it says no. Linking income to child support don't reduce rich men's fertility.

Notice I am not asking if rich men will have fewer children than poor men. I am asking if rich men will have fewer children than if child support is capped, like in Texas, for example. Say a guy like Elon wants to live with 5 supermodels producing 30 children. It's easier for him to just pay. But child support rules seem to add "transactional complexity". Like the first supermodels that leave get bigger child support for her children and herself.

So what do economists think?

There is actually a paper saying that such support lower fertility among unmarried people

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp125802.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So this shows that child support reduce fertility among unmarried people.

It doesn't say rich men. Which is weird given that it's the high income that have to pay more.

It also talk about unmarried men. Which is weird. That suggest that rich men can reduce risk of child support by getting married. Nope. Marriage is so damaging to rich men. In addition to child support, rich men face alimony.

So kind of weird. Imagine if government say child support for black men is bigger. We would expect lower fertility among blacks. If government say child support for high income men is bigger, we don't expect lower fertility among high income men?

And instead of saying it is deranged, why not explain economically why?

What do sociologists think? Maybe there are factors beyond normal economy why.