tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post3880506013451435755..comments2023-10-31T00:46:35.316+13:00Comments on Anti-Dismal: The family as a firmPaul Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-30603541014664380062012-06-12T16:33:10.253+12:002012-06-12T16:33:10.253+12:00If kids are a consumption good or an investment go...If kids are a consumption good or an investment good isn't the family just a vertical integrated firm which is making either a final product or an intermediate production.Paul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-67960802471192327832012-06-12T15:54:43.924+12:002012-06-12T15:54:43.924+12:00Agree on the spousal arrangement potentially usefu...Agree on the spousal arrangement potentially usefully being modeled as a firm. But harder to work kids in. In one obvious way, they're a product. In another, they're a consumption good for the spousal couple. In a third, they're an investment good that yields non-financial rewards after a period of time. And, they're also a costly, not easily alienable liability. The value of the flow of consumption benefits and of the future investment returns is heterogeneous across couples and, in some cases, isn't enough to produce the maintenance flow sufficient for keeping the stock up to a socially acceptable standard; in worse cases, the couple gets utility from running down the capital stock. <br /><br />I still like Becker's rotten kid theorem and reckon it's far more generalizable that commonly realized: it's just the Coase theorem applied to families, with equal potential applicability to rotten parents. <br /><br />But it's hard to say whether you should even start by having kids as labour, long term (mostly non-pecuniary) investment, consumption goods, or something else....Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.com