First of all we simply don’t know if this policy really encourages the sort of people who might be graduate students to have more children. For instance it might be that offering some subsidy convinces people who want to both be parents and go to or stay in graduate school that it’s possible. However, even with a subsidy being in graduate school might discourage people from having children (no amount of subsidy will change the fact that most of your friends don’t have kids). On the other hand if this subsidy hadn’t been in place at all perhaps more of these individuals would have chosen to leave graduate school entirely at which point they would have many more children. Or perhaps it works the opposite way and people who leave graduate school find they are too busy to have the children they wanted.

Ultimately we just don’t know what effect these kinds of policies will have on birth rates of smart, curious, high socioeconomic status individuals. Thus until we have some studies or at least suggestive models these aren’t sufficient justifications for implementing an unfair policy (I’m fine with small pilot programs to gather data with randomized participation). It seems pretty clear to me that all these incentivization based arguments about encouraging the right people to have children or female representation in the sciences are posthoc rationalizations of a program that people feel a guy level sympathy towards not real justifications that would cause us to rational adopt such a program.

Secondly, are you really prepared to say that we need to subsidize graduate child care because it’s more important that these sorts of people have children than janitors? If you are that’s a fine argument but most people aren’t willing to make it and I very much doubt that this is at any level what’s behind the child care subsidy.

The fact that the university tends to take a more parental type role to graduate students is really besides the point. The only reason I raised the issue of janitors in the first place was to show that a subsidy of graduate student child care is not morally mandated by our responsibility to make sure that children are well cared for. Frankly, given that graduate students are going to make sure their children are well cared for either way (even if they have to drop out) I don’t see how the moral duty to children argument even gets a foot hold here.

Still – for better or for worse there is a sort of parental relationship with graduate students and a more contractual one with janitors.

And for whatever reasons we have less children being born into the sort of household that you consider to be preferable and far more born into other sorts of households.

If you want to take my tax dollars to subsidize beneficial programs giving poor children nutritious food or beneficial educational programs I’m entirely in support. Hell, if there was good data supporting it’s beneficial effect on children I would support heavily subsidizing child care for all sufficently poor families. However, this is a completely different issue.

I mean owning a dog morally obligates you to feed it, but it toys, and take it to the vet but these expenses don’t suggest we should subsidize dog ownership for graduate students.

In fact I think graduate students, being a group selected for responsibility and intelligence are the perfect example of a group who doesn’t deserve subsidy for child care. Unlike other groups graduate students will make sure their children are treated well even without a subsidy. The effect of not subsidizing child care would be to force graduate students to choose between not having a child now and leaving for a higher paying job. This is no different than the choice any of the rest of us face when we want to do things that cost more than graduate students can afford.

Regardless even if you dismiss all of these points it doesn’t change the fact that there is no justification at all for taking money from other graduate students to give graduate student parents a better deal than parents on the janitorial staff. If your argument really held water we should immediately kick out all the graduate student parents and give all the subsidized slots to the maintenance workers since, after all, the graduate students could earn much more money if they choose to drop out.

Breaking it down there are three possible explanations for why most people have kids despite their large cost.

1) Most People are irrational and don’t realize how bad it is to have kids. If they had to do it again they wouldn’t.

2) Most People have children knowing that all things considered they will make their life less enjoyable but they reproduce as a sacrifice for the benefit of society (much like one might feel guilty and give to a charity).

3) Most People have children because all things considered they find their lives are more rewarding and enjoyable with children even including the huge costs in time and money children impost.

Now I think the answer is pretty clearly 3. One seems hard to maintain in the face of second children and I doubt you would advocate it. Every parent I’ve ever talked to endorsed 3 wholeheartedly, even those whose children suffer abnormally large medical expenses or the like.

Thus there is nothing to make up. If I really really wanted to own a porsche I shouldn’t be reimbursed because I wanted something expensive. Unless parents are lying when they tell us that having children is far more rewarding than any of the goods or benefits they give up this situation is no different than any outlay of money to live in a way you find rewarding. If anything the extent to which parents claim their lives are improved by children is a reason to pity those who can’t have children and transfer money from the better off (those who can have children) to the infertile. (not relevant to me but I just want to emphasize that it can’t both be a burden to be a parent and a burden to be infertile).

I will reply to the argument about giving the children a good upbringing in my reply to the other commenter. However, your reverse social security argument doesn’t really fly if parents are net beneficiaries of having children. Given that parents recieve a net benefit from having a child there is no reason I have to ‘pay back’ what was spent on me as a child to society. I already pay that back by treating my parents well throughout their life so I’m a net benefit to them. If I provided my parents a net benefit there is nothing I ‘owe’ because no one made their lives worse on my behalf.

I have all sorts of obligations on how to bring up the child. And if we had free association I could just walk out on the child but society doesn’t want me to do that so it tells me I will be punished in various ways (depending on how I go about it) if I do that. It is not unreasonable that I might be compensated for that.

Also to not subsidizing families with children would be to expose a particularly vulnerable group which does not have free association (or a huge range or rights) to a higher chance of harm at a time when that harm would have maximum negative effect.

Having a child is a considerable expense. Subsidies don’t make up for that. And I’m not sure it’s much like a luxury. It’s like reverse social security of a sort — with social security you pay for someone else’s retirement, and you might in the future have your retirement paid for by someone else. Your parents paid to raise you. Are you going to pay it forward?

So once we understand that the question is about the actual fairness not merely what people have decided lets examine the points you raise. In particular does the fact that having children causes a child to exist change the moral status of the act? Well I agree that is a reasonable position to take but it entails that we have a moral responsibility to have children.

Let me put the point differently. Either the choice to have children is morally neutral or it is not. Almost no one is willing to admit that we are being somehow immoral (or even imperfectly morally) by choosing not to have children. Thus it seems the child’s existence can’t be said to be a net positive (i.e. is balanced out by the resources he will use). Besides, even if you did believe this no one thinks they are having children out of duty to society despite their wish they didn’t have to have them. People have children because they want to have children so I don’t see the difference.

Regardless even if I grant your point my argument still stands since people see getting married or having a significant other as just as significant and non-trivial as having children.

Because society treats subsidies of children as conceptually different from subsidies of anything else, I think the rest of your argument doesn’t make sense. Well, it makes sense to you because you view them as the same, but it’s not a compelling argument because you are in a small minority in that opinion.

If you want to argue that child subsidies should be viewed the same as all subsidies, you could, but it would be pointless. Minds are made up on this issue, and the emotional foundation of those beliefs are firm. The foundation of this belief in society is not logical, nor does it seek to be logical because it is a fundamental belief, it is core to the very concept of society. Obviously the way this belief is expressed in terms of policy is chaotic and not always sensible, but attacking the belief itself won’t accomplish anything.

At least, that’s what I think. (FWIW I don’t have any children, but I don’t begrudge any subsidies given to children.)