Maximization Of Productivity As A Whole
Say the cost of producing a corn is $5 per unit.
Say the market price for corn is $10 per unit.
That means we need more corn producers.
What about if the market price for corn is only $3?
That means we need subsidy. Or do we?
Perhaps those simply mean that we have too much corn.
Productivity as a whole will increase if less people produce corn.
And the beauty of it is that the market will take care of it.
Can we apply the same principles for corn to humans being?
We do!
In fact, just like the market sort of take care of it in corn; the market will sort of take care of it in humans’ reproduction.
Making a kid is like starting a business. Each kid is then a business. The worth of a business, and hence, the kid, is then the interest discounted present value of the expected difference between the kids’ productivity and their maintenance costs.
Say the present value of the cost of raising a brick layers is $500,000.00. Say the present value of expected productivity a brick layer will get is $200,000.00.
That means we need more subsidy. Or do we?
Perhaps those simply mean that we have too many blue collar workers.
Productivity as a whole will increase if we produce more movie star, entrepreneurs, and dentists than if we produce more blue collar workers.
And the beauty of it is the market will take care of it.
You see, women prefer the rich.
Those who are genetically predestined to pick occupation with high demand and low supply will get richer.
Their kind will attract more women and produce more kids. Voila… Without governments intervention in reproduction we already improve productivity as a whole.
What about if we do not pick our occupation based on our genetic material? What about if we pick our occupation based on free will?
No different. Males prefer as many pretty women as possible. When genetic quality doesn’t matter, the market mechanism will still motivate males to pick occupation yielding the most income.
We will increase the number of those in higher paid occupation, not by reproduction, but by motivation.
What about the losers?
What losers? There are no losers. Everyone is better off under free market.
Losing used to mean getting slaughtered for males and getting raped for females.
Nowadays, those things don’t happen anymore.
There are no losers. Just those who are less successful than other. But there is always disparity of success no matter what the system is.
All right, we can tax kids and pay dividend to all citizens to buy votes from the losers; I mean those who are not as successful as us yet.
Poor people prefer more cash than making more kids anyway. Meanwhile, they can always choose porn and prostitution till they’re rich enough to attract a wife.