Sunday, June 17, 2018

Introducing Family Capitalism





Imagine there are two groups, one that values having children even if they cannot afford it, and another that values having money and does not want children.


Group A will out-breed Group B. They will have all of the children and none of the money.
Group B will out-accumulate Group A. They will have all of the money and none of the children.


Superficially, this will look like "rising inequality." There will be a tiny group with all the money and no kids, and a vast group with all the children and none of the money; the "rich" and "poor" respectively.


Also, it is not black and white. There will be a group in the middle that values having some money and some children. They will be called the middle class. There is no force that ensures the middle group has to have a stable existence. The wealthy are perpetuated by their continuous preference for money over children, which destroys the competition from other business owners by limiting the number of progeny they have. If they had lots of offspring their wealth would be divided, or some of their children would go into business for themselves, either of which would tend to multiply competitors. In contrast, the poor are also self-perpetuating since their preference for children they cannot afford keeps them poor. The middle class, on the other hand, faces genetic decline if it starts acting like rich people, and financial decline if it starts acting like poor people; it is buffeted from both directions, since children are expensive and cut into the time needed to run a business.


Since IQ is positively correlated with valuing money more than children, the world will become radically unequal, dysgenic, and stupider, as the poor relentlessly expand and the rich relentlessly decline in number.


The connection between valuing wealth over children, and high IQ, is probably due to centuries of income being connected to birth rates under the feudal system. If you live in a society with high infant mortality rates, people who have children they cannot afford may have more children, but their children die in greater numbers. It makes sense that most humans would come to prioritize having sufficient income before having children, since their children would live to adulthood more often if they did, and greater survival selects for responsible family planning attitudes. On a farm children are also an asset rather than a liability, since they provide labor. Whereas in a city they are purely and expense you cannot recoup.


In the modern world these two aspects, income and birth rates, are detached from one another. Infant mortality rates are low, so poor children do not die as often as they used to, female education rates are high, so the smartest women have the fewest children because they waste their reproductive years in college, and no one lives on a farm, so children are a financial liability rather than an asset.


But what if they were an asset?


All this is exacerbated by Baby Boomers who work with governments to inflate housing prices to enrich themselves, by lobbying local governments to restrict the housing supply, which has the side effect of raising rents on their own children. If housing prices are high young people cannot afford children and everything implodes.


We need a way to make children an asset in such a manner that the reproduction of the next generation is aligned with the profit of the current generation. We also want parents to have a stake in the reproduction of their children so they vote accordingly.


Men and women have different needs. Let first work out two methods for how children might become a financial asset. It will become evident why one method is appropriate for women and not men, and the other vice versa.





Method 1: The Method for Daughters and Granddaughters

Every parent is entitled to 5% of a daughters income, for a total of 10% of income collected by the couple. The income starts accumulating when the girl starts working and is deposited into a locked account. The parent can invest the money but not withdraw it, and once the daughter has a child of her own the parents can unlock the account and make a withdraw.


If a daughter never produces a child the parents can unlock the account by selling it nor earlier than age paternal 70, to a broker, who the receives the income right.


You get the money locked away that is already yours and whatever fee the buyer pays you for income rights to the future income of your daughter. A daughter can "forward" up to 10 years worth of payment obligations to her own daughter, whose bill is calculated by taking the average income of the daughter up until then, multiplying it by 10%, and then attaching the bill to the granddaughter(s) financial obligation. If there are more than 1 granddaughter the obligation is split by all the granddaughters that are descended from that daughter, and the obligation starts on the granddaughter(s) 18 birthday(s), or whenever she/they start working, whichever is later, and the obligation is divided over 20 years. Forwarded time must only be used to have children, and one may only take a maximum of 2 years per child. Falsifying forwarded time constitutes fraud, and carriers a steep criminal penalty.


Say a couple has a baby girl when they are 20 years old, and the daughter begins working at age 17. She works until 75, and takes 10 years off from work to raise children, "forwarding" that bill to her own two daughters, (her parents granddaughters), which descend from her. The initial grandparents have a total of 3 children, 2 girls and 1 boy.

As a result the daughter earns a living for a total of 48 years, (75 - 17 = 58 - 10 years off = 48 years).


Adjusting for inflation she makes an average of 38,000 for each year of work, for a total of 1 million 824 thousand dollars of income.


(48 years x 38,000 = 1.824 million).


Each parent gets 5%, for a total of $ 91,200 dollars per parent.


The 2 granddaughters start working when they are 18, and they both make the same average pay as their mother, (38 K), so collectively pay 3,800 each into the grandparents fund, per year for 10 years, bringing the total payout to the grandparents to $220,400.


However, since the grandparents had her when they were both 20 and they both die when they are 85, and the daughter has her first kid at 20 and stops working at 75, the grandparents miss collecting 10 years worth of income, and so the total number of years of income is only 58 years, with 10 of those years being paid for by the granddaughters.


(Age of first conception + age of daughters first employment) minus (age of granddaughters conception + age of grandparents death).


(20 + 17) - (20 + (75-10)) = 48 years of work x 3,800 per year = $ 182,400 total.


This money is paid from the time the daughter has her own first child at age 26 until the death of the grandparents at the grandparent age of 85, 10 years before the daughters retirement.


  • Age of grandparents at daughters conception: 20
  • Age of daughter at first grandchild's conception: 26
  • Age grandparents were when they received their first payment: 46
  • Age when daughter first started working: 17
  • Age of grandparents when they both died: 85
  • Age of daughter when she retired 10 years after death of grandparents: 75
  • Number of years daughter continued to work after age 26, while grandparents were still alive: 39 
  • Average yearly salary of daughter: $38,000
  • Grandparents take: 5% per parent, for a total of 10%.
  • Initial payment to both grandparents: $34,200 lump sum and 316.66 per month for 39 years thereafter, with a 10 year gap in payments. (Subtract the 10 years she didn't work because she had a daughter of her own).
  • Total "bumper payment" from both granddaughters for the 10 years the mother didn't work: $38,000 total, or $19,000 each, divided over 20 years or 240 months, for a total of 79.17 per month per granddaughter.


The grandparents have a second daughter who makes exactly the same average salary per year, so multiply everything above by 2.


Total payout to the grandparents by their 2 daughters: $ 364,800


Now let us imagine that they have a son who makes and average of $75,000 per year. Sons are calculated differently using Method 2, which is simpler.





Method 2: The Method for Sons and Grandsons


We don't care if sons take time off from work to raise children since their wives can handle that. We also don't care as much if the son has sons of his own. Our goal is to maximize his income.


The son also owes his parents 5% each parent for a total of 10%. But there is no requirement that he have children for the parents to receive payout. The money from his paycheck is withheld until he has at least one child of his own, or until he reaches age 45, whichever is first.


The strategy with sons is therefore, invest in your sons for maximum income and marry them off. While the optimum strategy for daughters is turn them into brood mares so you can get paid immediately, and so you don't have to lose money by selling your income rights to a broker.


You can sell the income rights in daughters to a broker if they do not produce children, since production of children, or sale no earlier than parental age 70, is required for withdraw, but you can not sell the income rights for sons, since you will get paid if they reach 45 and you are still living.


With an average income of $75,000 the son produces a take home of 3,750 per year, per parent. If the son also begins working at 17, and the parents have him when they are 21 (he is the middle child), the the son begins accumulating income in a locked account when the parents are 38. If he is a bachelor the parents can withdraw from that locked account when he is 45, (making them 66 at the time), and they will receive a haul of $210,000. In addition, they will continue to receive $625 per month for the rest of their lives. They will live until age 85, and so collect another $142,500 over the course of 19 years.


The total income from all three children is therefore $ 709,700 broken down as follows;



  • First lump sum payment of $34,200, and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 1, starting when the parents are 46.
  • Second lump sum payment of $34,200 and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 2., starting when the parents are 49.
  • Third lump sum payment of $210,000 and $652 per month thereafter from the son, starting when the parents are age 66.
  • A total of $1,285.32 in monthly income coming from all three children at age 66.



Cha-ching. Don't we love family values?


(Daughter No. 2 technically begins working 3 years later than Daughter No. 1 and therefore the total haul is $709,700, or $7,800 less than what you would think).


Now add this to the normal Social Security you get and retirement is looking somewhat comfortable. Naturally, smart parents will want to maximize the income of their children by pushing them into high paying careers. This may have a negative effect on college enrollment since parents will prefer to maximize aggregate income of the child's entire lifetime. Anything that delays work delays profit. The best strategy is to get them working and earning money at a young age, push them into some high paying trade that only requires a couple of years of education, and have the daughters take a few years off work to crank out a bunch of kids so the parents can get the payoff right now. Then use the payments your getting from your children to get a mistress and a second round of kids.


Breed. Train for high income. Get you kid a high paying job. Repeat.


Alternately you may specialize by training most of your kids for high income while having a few of them produce grandchildren. Or you might start a business to ensure they all have high incomes, or you might pass on the family trade to all of your sons, or have a brother train your sons in his high income trade. Whatever the case, the parents will want to get their child into a high paying job, and get them married off to produce grandchildren.


Of course the children will want to repeat the process because of their own greed. And the grandchildren, and great grandchildren. . .


Remember that all of these calculations are before decades of investment interest are calculated in. This money is not sitting idle. At 8% interest an initial investment of $100,000 compounded over 30 years will yield $1,006,265.69.





Transferable or Non-transferable Rights


Don't give me any horseshit about this constituting slavery, since by that definition all redistribution already is. The welfare state enslaves the productive to the degenerate, Social Security enslaves the young to the old, and liberals enslave the young, productive, and White to the old, degenerate, and brown. They do not actually have a problem with with exploitation and racism. If they did they would not have conspired with regulators to artificially inflate rents in the coastal cities they control. If they did they would not be using those same artificially inflated rents to exclude minorities and poor people. Either they are as racist as the people that hate, or they are so power hungry and conscience free as to place power above their morals. Liberals don't hate inequality; they love sanctimony and power.


Family capitalism represents a property right in the income of children. That right may be transferable or non-transferable. If it is transferable then the parent can cash out the right by selling it to a broker. The broker is going to want to get the son or daughter the highest paying job possible in order to maximize his own take. But the effort he spends on hooking the kid up with a well paying job will never exceed what he expects to make, and he will focus on the ones who show promise the most, and will be unwilling to take lazy and degenerate kids as clients. The brokers job will be to (a), identify the ones with unused ability who are being underpaid by the market, (b), use his connections to get the kid a high paying job, and (c), collect the resulting rents.


Since the broker will always have that kid as a client, so long as he owns the income right, he will always be looking to get him paid more, and map out his career progression. This is like having a social worker who occasionally calls you up to try to add thousands to your salary. "Hey, we have this new position that will help you progress in your career. It pays 18 thousand more than you are currently making. Want the job?"


With transferability there may be an economic incentive to enslave the lazy into jobs where they can be put to use. A criminal might cost money to society as a hoodlum, but getting him into a job as a heavy machinery operator or something might generate a large profit. What if he doesn't want the extra money? What if he would prefer a low paying life of crime over a higher paying life of profit? Then lobbyists might pressure the government to allow them enslave troublesome, but potentially profitable minorities, the same way they endlessly pressure the government to increase the level of slavery/redistribution against White men. Behold the horrific spectacle of a Black guy being forced to make too much money.


If income rights in children are non-transferable then parents cannot sell those rights right away, which means they cannot invest the profits from sale right away, which means that the spendthrift cannot blow those profits as quickly. Making income rights transferable lets those with low time preference invest at an early age, taking the lump some payment early to get more compound interest from investment later, while letting the stupid piss away their wealth faster, while encouraging the system to change the law and enslave troublesome people with potential. Prohibiting transferability does the opposite of all of this; it wastes talent, puts the income in the hands of parents who have less skill at making that income go up, gives the kid fewer job connections, and subsidizes high time preference degenerates by making them wait for the money.





Birth Defects Versus Longer Telomeres


A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome. The longer it is the longer lived an organism tends to be. Paternal age is associated with greater telomere length in male sperm, which codes for longer lived offspring. Many octogenarians are the result of multiple generations of men having children in old age. In contrast to this, the older a woman is the more birth defects her eggs will have. Paternal age is productive for health in offspring while maternal age is destructive.


Method 1 is designed to get women to hurry up and have children, since their period of fertility is shorter and young maternal age is associated with positive genetic benefits. Method 2 is designed to allow men to have children at a later age so they can concentrate more on earning income to support a family, and because longer telomeres breed longer lived children. Any method is possible and this post is just meant as an example.





How Do You Do This In a Democracy?


In a democracy only collective and publicly managed slavery is legal. How do you adapt this for commie madness? Why you collectivize it of course.


You peg Social Security payouts to the number of children people have. You do all the same crap but you call it a childcare benefit, and you have the government administer it. It's all about branding. Slavery is fine if it's "the will of the people."


FYI: this whole system of partial property in the incomes of children could be a plausible alternative to Social Security under a system of anarcho capitalism, so long as the patch of sovereignty is willing to use the courts to enforce it. But don't expect it to spontaneously work without enforcement.





No comments:

Post a Comment

All spam will be deleted