I’ll start with the second complaint because it provides the foundation for the answer to the first.
Let me clarify that I do not believe that people have babies just to get more government assistance. But I do believe that the availability of a safety net leads to riskier behavior. It is the Catch-22 of social programs. Assistance to ease the burden of difficult situations, by design, makes such situations less painful. As a result, there is less incentive to avoid those circumstances.
This is known in economic circles as Risk Compensation. As the cost of a particular action decreases, the frequency of that action increases. This was first demonstrated in the early 1970’s by University of Chicago economics professor Sam Peltzman, who found that the advent of seatbelts as required standard equipment in automobiles did not reduce the number of deaths per mile driven. While accidents were less likely to be fatal, there were far more accidents, with the result that fatalities stayed almost identical. In this case, when the cost of reckless driving decreased, the frequency of reckless driving increased.
Regarding government assistance, we see this in the person who chooses not to save for retirement in the belief social security will provide for them. For the young woman whose biggest fear of an unwanted child is the financial burden, the availability of government assistance just might be enough to subconsciously eliminate that concern from the equation.
So why doesn’t everyone behave recklessly? Dr. Gerald Wilde, psychology professor at Canada’s Queens University provides an answer. He argues that we each tolerate a unique level of risk, and we tailor our behavior accordingly. When risk declines, we compensate by taking riskier actions. The only way to prevent an increase in undesirable behavior when risk is reduced is to change the individual's target risk level, which requires a fundamental change in personal values.
This is where society’s judgment has its place. For it’s not only economic or physical costs that impact behavior. Dr. Wilde points out that social costs also play a role. For example, peer pressure can convince a teenager not to wear a seatbelt for fear of being considered a wimp. But peer pressure can also work to reduce undesirable behavior, as can be seen by the decline in cigarette smoking among teens. While education programs may have provided the initial spark, it is the social ostracization that now often accompanies smoking that is driving the real change.
We pride ourselves on our society’s tolerance. Yet, in being non-judgmental we make a value statement that certain behavior is acceptable. Moreover, government programs often codify that acceptance. But we pay a price for our tolerance because we remove a powerful cost that would deter the behavior.
Fortunately, many of our children are instilled with values that make having babies out-of-wedlock undesirable. But far too many are not. We are now into second and third generations of children who have never been part of traditional family units. These kids – both boys and girls – are far less likely to learn the values to break this cycle in the home. If not at home, then where?
From us. Passing judgment is society’s way of expressing its values. If we increase the social cost of unwanted pregnancies so that it outweighs other considerations, we can begin to break the cycle of poverty that has entrapped far too many people.
=========
Follow up:
A 2022 New York Times story on dramatic declines in teen births suggested the following reasons:
"The reasons teen births have fallen are only partly understood. Contraceptive use has grown and shifted to more reliable methods, and adolescent sex has declined. Civic campaigns, welfare restrictions and messaging from popular culture may have played roles."
No comments:
Post a Comment