Text | Thirteenth sister
An economic expert who claims to be a top think tank publicly gave an ideological education lesson at the Consumer Goods Expo, she said: "It is not right for young people not to have children", because "children are long-term consumer goods, and durable consumer goods"...
I've lived for a long time.
First of all, even if the child is a consumer product, what is the reason why young people can change their previous decision to have children right away after hearing this? Helicopters are also consumer goods, do I have to buy them? Cambridge tuition fees are quite high, do I have to pay?
Secondly, what are consumer durables? It is a consumer product that is used many times at one time, has a small number of purchases, and needs to be carefully decided, such as collectibles, cars, houses... So durability must be had? Selling leather pincers and saying that if his leather pincers can last 50 years, I have to buy them?
So where are you persuading young people to have babies? This is clearly warning them to make prudent decisions and not to give birth to a consumer product on impulse!
What's more awkward is that it's not a girlfriend's night talk, nor a private chat at a dinner, such a big public occasion, open your mouth to come?
Let's not consider why this economic expert turned the eighteen bends in the mountain road at such a meeting to talk about the topic of "young people having children", even if you want to use the current hot topic "fertility" to talk about "consumption", then you can talk about how you consume your children.
Why do you have to demonstrate your practice of "behavioral economics" by objectifying other people's children?
Even if we don't have to make a fuss about an "economic analogy concept", this statement at least begins to make us think: Where is the basic logic of persuading young people to have children?
Even demographers, directors of women's federations, and small pacesetters in the streets should boost fertility by publicizing "how to create a fertility-friendly society."
No matter how bad it is, you can also make people willing to have babies by creating emotional resonance, as some bloggers do.
Who would define people directly in terms of "long cycle", "durable" and "consumer goods" like this expert? Even the chimpanzees of Uganda's dense forests don't like it when you name your baby orangutans other than mammals.
And with this cold words, so extreme objectification of people, is there really a level? Listening to Jun's words, young people feel that this consumer product is afraid that they can't afford to consume...
I feel that the experts are probably more or less misnomering.
For us, children are at best an investment.
What she really wants to say may actually be this: spend on your children and wait for something in return.
In other words, what she wants to say may also be this: if you don't have children, who will promote consumption? Who will pull the economy? You don't consume, you don't pull, how can you be rewarded?
This novel remark has fully explained that this expert may no longer be able to contribute through her own strengths in her own economic circle, she can only jump out of her own circle, run to the fertility circle to talk about the economy, trying to use this "cushion" method to invigorate the causal relationship between the economic circle and the fertility circle, if the economy is not good in the future, she will easily find the reason - blame young people for not having children.
As an economic expert, don't think of ways to make the environment better, let the industry upgrade, make everyone's work more stable, let young people save more from a professional point of view... Instead, it's about "why don't you produce consumer goods"...
Is it only about having children to drive the economy?
According to this expert, just like investing in a project, in order to increase the rate of return, you should invest a few more. Having one is the minimum, otherwise the rate of return is zero, it is better to give birth to two, and if you give birth to more than three, the chances of getting a high return are improved.
But what experts don't know is that in real terms, everyone does not use the rate of return to reverse the willingness to have a baby. In a questionnaire, choosing "not giving birth" is nearly 4 times the choice of "giving birth to one", and 20 times that of "giving birth to three"...
And is it true that everyone has children for the so-called rate of return?
If the child is ordinary and cannot give his parents a rich return, don't we raise him, don't he not love him?
The difference between people and objects is that people will not only stare at the rate of return, there are no data and charts in their hearts, and most of the link parent-child relationship is from the heart to love and be loved.
For our children, we parents are not even an investment, we can only be counted as charity. But even if we do charity, we have to do it well, because we have the responsibility of parenthood and the joy that we cannot experience without children.
And you use consumer goods to define people, good people are said to be things, are you things?
This is probably from the perspective of God, looking at all living beings with a scythe in hand. The children we have devoted all our heart and soul to raising may be nothing more than data in the eyes of some.
Young people who do not have children do not even have data, of course, it is "not right".
But I want to say that we are willing to consume for the sake of children, but we are not consuming children. We can pursue the maximum value of raising a person, but we don't raise them just for the sake of return.
A child is not a consumer product, and we have at most the right to think of him as our work. But only by treating children as an equal person and accompanying them with more love and wisdom is our greatest contribution to this society. Without this basic sense of responsibility and patience, not giving birth may be a better option.
Even if a child is not so outstanding in learning, he will not become a great figure in the future, but as long as he is upright and kind, and does not become the kind of person who clearly has the right to speak but wants to objectify others, then it is already his best value to this society.