A female baby is born with all the eggs she will ever have. The later in life one is fertilized, the greater are the chances of serious birth defects. In Vitro Fertilization, IVF, is a proven technology – Already approximately 5 million people were “test tube” babies. - A small, but growing faction of “live births.” Many women delay starting a family so they can advance their careers. Some are already storing their “young eggs” at liquid nitrogen temperature, for potential later use – mainly by IVF, possibly with “donated sperm” if they don't want any tie to a particular man. Some women, who lose their ovaries / uterus to cancer are doing this too, as are lesbians, not yet sure they want a “fatherless baby.” – All in part just to preserve the “motherhood option,” until when they are financially better off, etc. Technology and modern society are trying to cancel “Mother Nature's plan” - first birth as a teenager, when the eggs are most healthy. “Woman's liberation,” the sexual revolution, both started in full force in the 1960s, has made sex a mainly a recreational activity, now for both sexes; but by in large, still is an essential component of reproduction. The separation of sex from reproduction is only a tiny, but growing trend now. It has a strong driving economic force, especially for “liberated women.” The “wife role” and its economic dependance on a “bread winner” husband, that was so dominate 100 years ago is dying, for most, if not the majority of college educated women. Many female college graduates, hope they can “have it all” (Career & Kids) and corporations, hungry for their talent and skills, (not to mention their lower salary cost) are trying to help, but the fundamental “investment” a man and woman make in the creation of a baby is very different biologically (five minutes vs. nine months). Society is trying to make the man more financially responsible for his off springs, even if he wants no relationship with them. None-the-less, this fundamental biological difference remains; even if their reproduction is by sex with a husband, instead of IVF with donated sperm. Also in most advanced societies (US excepted) the costs of education and health care of the new born, at least until a working adult, is paid by taxation of all, not just a burden on the parents, so IVF with donated sperm is not a much greater financial burden on the unwed mother, except in the US. I don't have data on the average of the “mother” at first birth, but am quite sure it is years later than it was in 1950, when women became mainly “wives,” especially for college graduates. In a generation (~20 years) from now, with more IVF & young eggs frozen, “first baby” may well be more than a decade later than now. When the typical parents' net worth may be several times greater than now. If true, these richer parents will be spending part of their “later-life” wealth on babies and children of even 20 or more years age. For example, 70 year old parents will be putting their first born thru college, and if the average age at death is then 85, his younger brothers ad sisters too. This is a new voluntary economic force for wealth transfer, both trans-generational and from the wealthy to the poor. That will lessen the need/use of compulsory “inheritance taxes,” which many rich now avoid anyway via trusts, university endowments, etc. As “it takes money, to make money” is reflection of reality and taxes reductions for the rich granted, mainly during the administration of GWB, have facilitated the current very rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever smaller faction of the population, who unfortunately have great influence on Congress and thus the tax loop hole creation process, the separation of sex from procreation, may be part of how this unstable growing concentration is stabilized. It is especially unstable in an economy that depends on Joe American, getting “his share of the pie” so he can keep buying. Without children in their care, the old now have fewer expenses, especially even in the US with Medicare, Medicaid, & Obama care. In China, especially during the one child decades, there were few investment opportunities, except real estate. Thus, with up to 8 living grandparents, all anxious for a grandchild, it was very common for a young marrying couple to pay cash for an apartment. Any needing a mortgage took out one for only a small fraction of the purchase price. Thus, in some ways large trans-generational wealth was the norm there for a few decades. Wealth concentration, for the most part, was for those well connected to CCP leadership and / or via corruption and it was extreme. It is too soon to tell if the current crack-down on corruption is real, or just the more acceptable way to increase the concentration of political power. Note: "help with immigration" was added to title for reasons given in last two paragraph & first footnote of post 3. (Initially I did not recognize this effect)
You are saying nothing with this post. There is no transfer of wealth between the "rich" and the "poor". It's all staying within the same family. Nothing is changing from your examples. What difference does it make if part of the inter-family transfer takes place a few years before the parents die or a few years after? Also, if you are talking about the "rich" none of this is material. Helping to buy a house and to pay for college is immaterial for someone who is wealthy. What does eggs and IVF have to do with anything?
That is in general true, even more so than now, slightly. (Less of the rich family's wealth sent to the government, via inheritance taxes.) The difference is that currently some what more of the estate goes to the government to decide how to spend it. (inheritance taxes). Also different it a greater fraction of parents, if first child comes say 15 years later than average now, is that they will have more wealth to aid the child - pay tuition at better colleges - won't qualify for need-based scholarships, so deplete the universities endowment funds less - This is a benefit for those who have their first child at the current average age - they have less money, and more is available for scholarships. Again true and with delayed first birth, even more so. - Same point as just made above as a greater fraction of parents will be "rich." Surely you know the answer to that - a technical way for the decade older than now and better positioned financially to be able to better educate their children, and give them other advantages, including a healthier diet with less cheap starch like potatoes, memberships in swim clubs, etc. It may even increase the net birth rate, which without immigration needs to be about 2.25, instead of the current 1.5, thus the US could be more selective about who is allowed to legally immigrate - say only those with needed skills or college degrees, etc.* I am not advocating a wider adoption of freezing young eggs for later fertilization, but fewer serious birth defects, richer parents better educating and aiding their children would be nice; so much as giving a "heads up" to a still small, but growing social trend. - - - - - - - - - * When I immigrated to Brazil, I had to prove: I had wealth enough to support myself, and would not be working (take a Brazilian's job) and was not a "crook" - that required me to visit my local police and get a "Gold Star" certificate! - I did not know such things even existed. US can not adopt tough immigration measures as it need more babies to not decrease in population. When I immigrated (~21 years ago) the birth rate was more than 4 per fertile woman, but now with better education and economic gains for the masses,** it is at about replacement rate. ** To a great extent, this advance in education, health and wealth of the masses (Decreasing concentration of wealth - in contrast with USA where wealth is rapidly becoming more concentrated) is due to the "Bolsa Familia" program, introduced about 15 years ago and significantly expanded now, as its great success became clear. Here is link describing (numerical data, not just words) it and how wealth concentration in Brazil, China, India and US is changing: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...r-more-worse-news.105212/page-36#post-3182366
IVF and/or freezing eggs isn't a sure thing and it's certainly not inexpensive. I have a friend who just went though that process for a year or more.
Agreed. It is a new and rapidly improving technology, which must implant the carefully selected (from several others) developing embryos* in to the womb. The selection criteria are improving with time as is the probability of a later delivery of a healthy baby (of the desired sex, except in India where giving that information to the parents to be is illegal) * If mother is 35 years or less usually 3 or less are implanted. Older "mothers to be" usually get more. Typically now, it is the rapidly dividing blastocyst stage (a fluid filled cluster of 50 to 60 cells) that is used, but as technology improves later, larger stages of development may become more common. Perhaps undesired birth of twins can soon be guaranteed (14 or more days of "invitro development" prior to implant.) I don't have data, but obviously many of the less viable implants spontaneously abort. Technology for monitoring in womb development is also rapidly improving. Soon, if not already, the changes of a healthy baby deliver for a woman in her 40s, using her young eggs stored for 20 years earlier will be GREATER than if the historic sexual process were used.
Egg viability is just one factor in when people can have children. The ability of the woman to carry the fetus to term is another big one. Thus IVF might be able to slightly push back the average age of childbirth over other methods, but it's not going to be very significant over the long term (especially just over just having kids later the natural way.)
My point was, as implied or explicitly stated, in the OP & in my second (post 3), Was that IVF and long term storage (say the 20 years that I have mentioned) allows for wealthier on average old parents to have their biologically own child more than a decade, perhaps even two, later than now. Obvious if both parents are in their 70s or later, a 9-month surrogate mother would be rented. There are a few cities, in India used by wealthy, many foreigners including some actresses and others whose careers would suffer by having a baby the natural way, where those women are the main income of the village / city. If a wealthy old man has taken a new young wife, and wants her to have his child, then that is not an IVF cryogenic egg case - I was not discussing it. Again, I am not predicting IVF, stored eggs, and surrogate mothers will become the norm. - Just noting it a small, but growing trend, that if continues may have great social and economic impact. - I. e. as stated earlier - this is "heads up" on what new and improving technology may do. Again I note with native born mothers now only having 1.5 babies and 2.25 is required for population replacement, that means for every such a mother, there needs to be 0.5 female immigrants (assuming they also adopt the 1.5 birth rates). 2.25 = 1.5 + 0.5x1.5 and most will come with at least one male, so for stable long term population the next generation will be two (or more) immigrants for each 1.5 new citizens born to native mothers. Over time, that makes a large social (and probably economic) change. There could of course be fewer immigrants having more babies to achieve the same results. Don't miss-understand. US needs immigrants. This country was built by immigrants, but it would be nice if their skills, not related to creating babies, were weighted more highly in the acceptance criteria. IVF, and long term storage (plus the obviously needed surrogate mother) can boost the birth rate, especially among those most economically able to provide very well (high college tuitions, etc) for their children.
Older Chinese are turning to the USA to find a surrogate mother for their "test-tube" baby as being a surrogate mother is illegal in China. USA birth also gives baby US citizenship, and it can get Chinese also when back in China. I bet this all got started when the one-child rule was enforced. I. e. The Chinese woman did not have a second child, but could adopt one - in this surrogates case, biologically their own child - but I'm just guessing. That might also be why the surrogate profession is illegal in China. In India, surrogate make good salary by their standards and one who has delivered six or more healthy babies is in high demand and charges much more than the average.
