Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think Paperback – May 8, 2012

American moms spend more time taking care of kids today than they did in the 1960's. This is perhaps the most surprising of many bold but well-backed claims in economist Bryan Caplan's book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.

"According to time diaries, modern parents spend an incredible amount of time taking care of their kids. As expected, dads do a lot more than they used to. Since 1965, when the average dad did only three hours of child care per week, we've more than doubled our efforts. Given how little dads used to do, though, doubling wasn't hard. What's amazing is the change in the typical mother's workload: Today's mom spends more time taking care of children than she did in the heydey of the stay-at-home mom [13 hours/week vs 10]."

The major argument of the book, backed up by many twin and adoption studies, is that parenting matters much less than we think- at least as far as children's long-term outcomes are concerned. A lot of kids' outcomes seem to be determined by factors outside parents' control; the biggest way parents do influence their kids long-term outcomes is through genetics. Adopted kids generally end up with education, income, IQ, and many other outcomes being much more similar to their biological parents than their adoptive parents.

In turn, Caplan draws two main conclusions from this argument. One, lay off the tiger parenting, since all it accomplishes is to make kids miserable. Two, for those who do want to influence their kids: "The most effective way to get the kind of kids you want is to pick a spouse who has the traits you want your kids to have."

I just finished reading the book, and then read through all the negative reviews. Basically, my sense is that all of those who wrote negative reviews misunderstood what the book is about, and instead focused on single statements taken out of context.

First: This book does NOT tell you that you should just put your child in front of the television all the time, because your parenting makes no difference. It also doesn't tell you that you should feed your kids fast foods, stop monitoring them altogether, or otherwise neglect them, because it won't matter. This is NOT what the book is about. The fast food and TV instances that (defensive sounding?) people seem to cling to like a last straw are given as examples in specific cases: If both you and your child are stressed out, and you're trying to force the kid to do something they don't want to do because YOU think it's important for their future (e.g. practice violin or go to ballet class), and you're stressed and screaming at them to do it, and no one's happy, THAT'S when the book suggests to relax, take an hour for yourself, and let the TV babysit. The idea is that a relaxed, happy parent, is FAR more important to a child's long term well being than an hour of ballet. And any parent who's ever been stressed (i.e., ALL parents), know that their stress does not rub off very well on the kids.

Second: This book doesn't say that parenting doesn't matter AT ALL. It says that REASONABLE parenting, with love, affection, attention, and fun times spent together is sufficient to let your child make the most of their potential. You do not have to be a SUPER parent, just a loving attentive normal parent, to achieve the same results.

Third: This book doesn't say everyone should have more children. The guy is very much a libertarian who believes in personal choices. What the book is saying is, if you think you might have liked more kids (or kids period) but ruled it out for very specific reasons, that he then outlines, THEN, you should rethink those reasons. Those reasons, among others listed in the book, include (1) if you think parenting is all about stress (it says you can be more relaxed, and explains why), (2) if you dread the early years (they pass quickly), (3) if you think that for a kid to be the best they can be, they need ALL of your free time and constant attention (they don't). If you hate kids, it doesn't claim you should have them anyway. If you've always only wanted 2 kids for whatever reason, it doesn't say you should have 3 or 4, it's just asking you to consider why you want 2, and if your reason is one of the ones listed, to rethink it.

Forth: The science stated in the book is SOUND. Those are REAL studies with REAL results. He also quotes twin/adoption studies that show small effects of nurture, but those effects are always small/not replicated in larger studies. You can look up the publications yourselves. ([...]

Fifth: Whatever variations are NOT accounted for by genetics, are probably driven by epigenetics (not mentioned), parental nurture, and social (outside the house) nurture. But those are the SMALLER part of the equation, the variations are driven MOSTLY by genetics.

Sixth and Last: This book does *not* claim, and I repeat, does *not* claim, that all you do as a parent doesn't matter. It absolutely states, gives personal anecdotes, and points out studies that confirm that what parents do DOES matter in the short run, where short run can be years, basically as long as the kids LIVE in the home, or just left it. If you teach your child to be polite, they'll be polite. If you don't, they probably won't be. What the book IS saying, is that in the LONG RUN, into their 30s and later, THAT is when your upbringing with begin to fade away. It doesn't matter how you bring up your kids, they're likely to end up with roughly the same earning power, roughly the same IQ, roughly the same level of happiness, and a couple of other measures, whether or not you insisted on taking them to ballet class when they objected, or to practice team sports even though they hated it. And THIS is why the book says (see point 1), RELAX. Have FUN with your kids, rather than stress them and yourself out over activities neither one of you is enjoying. Give them your attention when you're happy and relaxed, and if you need to let them watch TV for an hour to get some quiet time for yourself so that YOU can relax, and then spend QUALITY time with them, allow yourself to do that. You won't be hurting your kid's future income.

I am giving the book 4 only stars because I think the chapter of mock conversations is ridiculous and boring and feels like a space filler, because I think he didn't always do a great job of emphasizing some important points, and because I think he should have at least mentioned epigenetics, which likely explain most of the variations in personality between identical twins raised together (basically, conditions in the womb determine later gene expression, and twins never experience the same conditions, one is always more squeezed that the other).

Lastly, I'd like to mention that I also think his idea for how potential grandparents could maximize odds of getting grandchildren (or more grandchildren) is amusing and makes some very good points.

This book started out strong but lost me in the middle. I am an engineer and had my first child this year at age 30.

Pros:
> Like other posters have noted, this provides an economic context for having more kids. I was looking for something other than my gut telling me to have more.
> The book starts out heavily research-based.

Cons:
> Research takes a back seat in the middle. After he concludes that your parenting can't mess your kids up too bad, he starts in on why families are smaller and getting started later. He doesn't actually cite studies which ask women why they are delaying having kids or only want one. This would have been hugely helpful and could help dispel/support some of the things we tell ourselves (e.g. it'll ruin my career, it'll delay my career, it'll ruin my body, we won't have any more fun, etc.)
> *Severely* downplays the risks of waiting to have kids on the basis that fertility treatments can always make it happen. His pie-in-the-sky treatment of this grossly misunderstood option is further harming women (and men) who delay having kids. Only 35% of IVF treatments result in a baby, and only 30% of treatments result in a live birth (on average). That's a lot of miscarriages. And, those numbers go *down* with each successive attempt. He doesn't even satisfactorily address fertility (i.e. that only 10% of eggs are capable of being fertilized at 40, versus 40% at 30).
> Makes a lot of libertarian-type statements, completely clueless to how laws like FMLA, anti-discrimination laws, breastfeeding rooms, and job-protection statutes have helped women, especially those who are the primary breadwinners in their families. His case would have been a lot stronger if he'd accepted the laws as necessary (after all, regulations are reactive to conditions) and researched the impact these have on women today. This is particularly galling given how elegantly he discredits the Idealistic Fifties.

Final judgment: If you must, read the first few chapters for the economic and child-safety research summaries. You could probably just get that on the internet for free. Definitely skip the rest.