Through the efforts of journalists such as Mark Steyn and others, the peril of Europe's low birthrates is becoming better known. An industrialized society must average 2.1 births per woman simply to maintain a level population number. More than that, poplulation rises, less and it falls.
Most European nations have lower-than-stable birth rates, and many have rates so low that they have been termed a "death spiral," too low to recover without massive changes in social mores and economic-legal standards that seem most unlikely. The Stanford Review explains,Not even one EU member state has a fertility rate that will replace the death rate... . In fact, eleven EU countries, including Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy have a negative population growth rate. Instead of Europeans, the population is being replaced by Muslims, whose birth rates are much higher than those of Europeans. French cities such as Lyon and Marseilles have become mostly Muslim Arab cities. European identity is being usurped, and Europe is in a death spiral, demographically and culturally.
The International herald Tribune reported in September on "Empty playgrounds in an aging Italy."
GENOA There are hundreds of stores in the Fiumara Mall - Sephora, Elan, Lavazza Cafe. But in a nation long known for its hordes of children, there is not one toy store in the sprawling mix, and a shiny merry-go-round stands dormant.
"This is a place for old people," said Francesco Lotti, 24, strolling with his fiancee in Genoa's medieval old town. "Just look around. You don't see young people." Even for people their age, "there are not many places - no clubs, for example." Playgrounds? He looks quizzically at his fiancee. They can count them on a few fingers.
While all of Europe has suffered from declining birthrates, nowhere has the drop been as profound and prolonged as in this once gorgeous Mediterranean city, the capital of Italy's graying Liguria region. Genoa provides a vision of Europe's aging future, displaying the challenges that face a society with more old than young, and suggesting how hard it will be to reverse the downward population spiral.
Nowhere, though, is the issue more urgent than in Russia.
Russia has the highest death rates among all countries with at least moderate levels of economic development. The present life expectancy for a typical male is about 58 years, below what it was 20 years ago in Russia. ... Even more worrisome to many Russians are the very low birth rates during the past couple of decades. The total fertility rate- the number of children born to the average woman over her lifetime- is expected to be just 1.28 in 2006, or just a little more than one per couple. Russian fertility is among the lowest in the world. ... The Russian decline is currently about 700,000 persons per year, but the rate of decline will accelerate as the number of women in childbearing ages continues to fall. A World Bank report projects that with unchanged birth and death rates, Russia's population would fall from its present level of about 140 million persons to under 100 million by the year 2050. If this happens, such a huge nation would then be largely empty of people.
The old Soviet government "offered Medals of Glory to mothers who had many children," but the Russian government
has proposed a ten-year program with very generous benefits for Russian women who have a second child- about 70 per cent of Russian women of child-bearing ages presently either have no children or only one child. Under his plan, women who do have a second child will get up to $110 more per month in child allowances, they would be able to take leave from work for up to eighteen months while receiving 40 per cent of their salaries, and they would get larger subsidies for child care. But the most novel aspect of Putin's proposal is to give a cash bonus of over $9000 to women who have a second child. This bonus is considerably larger than the annual earnings of a typical Russian worker, men or women, and it could be used for mortgage payments and for many other large outlays. Putin acknowledges that this program would require lots of money (perhaps 1 per cent of Russian GDP), but he claims that it is necessary in order to "change the attitude of the whole society to the family and its values".
Meanwhile, back in France, the government has awakened, too, and is offering financial incentives for more children. Unlike Genoa and other Italian cities, French cities are far from devoid of children. Reports the WaPo,
When the municipal day-care center ran out of space because of a local baby boom, the town government gave Maylis Staub and her husband $200 a month to defray the cost of a "maternal assistant" to care for their two children. ...
While falling birthrates threaten to undermine economies and social stability across much of an aging Europe, French fertility rates are increasing. France now has the second-highest fertility rate in Europe -- 1.94 children born per woman, exceeded slightly by Ireland's rate of 1.99. ...
France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.
This summer, the government -- concerned that French women still were not producing enough children to guarantee a full replacement generation -- very publicly urged French women to have even more babies. A new law provides greater maternity leave benefits, tax credits and other incentives for families who have a third child. During a year-long leave after the birth of the third child, mothers will receive $960 a month from the government, twice the allowance for the second child.
This being France, the subsidies of children are not only cash incentives but also a burgeoning of the socialist state apparatus, with very generous, paid work leaves and even tax deductions for nanny payments.
We should recognize that the United States also subsidizes children with deductions from taxable income amounting to several thousand dollars per child and certain child-related expenses - but unlike Russia and France, there is no increase in the financial incentive for more than one child.
French women may yet achieve true replacement rates of birth. But even with Russia's strong financial incentives for having children, its birth rate is so low that even an enormous improvement - say a demographically huge increase of one-third from the present 1.28 births per woman to 1.7 - means that the country's rate of decline slows but does not stop. And no one really expects such a large increase to be attained.
But bless them for trying. It has to be done.
Related:
Germany's birth rate falls off the cliff
Europe, East and West, wrestles with falling birthrates
The front page of the Wall Street Journal ran an article on this topic today:
. . .
In Estonia, Paying Women to Have Babies is Paying Off
This is why I have always figured the next unexpected new technology will be some sort of ex-vitro birthing technology. And if we think abortion and life debates are icky now, just wait until some of these puppies come online.
My bet is on either the Russians and/or the Japanese to be the first to build these...
Germany has been paying graduated incentives for kids for years (with increasing marginal returns). I recall an op-ed by a woman complaining that "kindergeld" didn't cover the full cost of raising children. The headline over it was "What are children worth to the State?" which I thought rather creepy, printed in German.
There are so many flaws with this approach it's hard to know where to start. For example, money is an incentive to those for whom money is an incentive. Not necessarily to those you'd like to have bearing and/or rearing the next generation.
Having children is a statement about the future. A better approach might be a less direct one: working to make one's society one into which more people will wish to bring children.
I suspect that there's another agenda at work. The states of Europe are, explicitly or implicitly, ethnic ones. Is the future really that vibrant for states which define themselves ethnically?
Italy?
If it is possible for a country to struggle with both immigration and declining birthrates, than we have to face the fact that we are not looking at a simple economic argument. Now we are talking about assimilation or, worse, chauvenism.
At first blush i find this to be an idea sure to be rife with unintended consequences. Lets try to establish a few things:
1.Population growth isnt necessarilly a panacea. Implicit in the argument is that we need more productive citizens who will hopefully in turn reproduce themselves. The assumption is that more raw births are going to match the mean of 'productive citizenship'. That may not be true.
2.I think it is a dangerous leap to assume the babies born for a cash bonus are likely to become a net advantage for a society. If those babies, on average, end up costing a society in terms of crime and social services, it seems to me (particularly with the soon to be overburdened social services) the societies end up in worse shape than a smaller (even shrinking) but viable society.
3. The idea that unwanted babies are a much greater crime risk was pioneered by Economist Steve Levitt in his book Freakonomics. He used abortion data. Its a troubling conclusion, but so far it hasnt been effectively debunked. Putting the moral and emotional implications aside, it seems obvious that children born to parents who dont want them (or want them for the wrong reasons) on average will fare much worse than those born into loving homes.
4. I think this may well be a case of looking too far down the road. Its similar to projecting how oil at X dollars a barrel will grind society to a halt- it would be true if it happened in a day but these are long term trends that sheer self-interest will nudge us into productive directions along the way. I have enough faith in humanity not to assume we will breed ourselves out of existance. And the idea that other nations like China will use the opportunity to eclipse us seems to assume that they themselves wont be evolving. The market will provide a solution, I dont think we have seen the last baby boom.
I disagree with Dave, although I do recognize that you wouldn't want to create a situation in which economic incentives were the sole reason for having another child.
The USDA estimates that it costs approximately $200,000 to raise a child to the age of 18, not including any lost income from a spouse that stops working or works fewer hours. (pdf here) Also doesn't include college costs.
So having a child involves significant financial commitments. One thing people do in the face of a substantial financial commitment is put off having kids and the later you start having children, the fewer you will have.
The government provides a personal deduction of about $3,200 per dependent, which is worth about $800 a year for a person in the 25% tax bracket. I doubt that's an incentive for anything.
The federal government also provides around a $5,000 child care tax credit per family. This is a significant incentive (assuming childcare), but only for the first child since childcare will cost more than $5,000 per child in most places.
I don't know if we need to be subsidizing childcare specifically, but I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to double or quadruple the existing personal deduction for dependents. You would potentially be making it easier for people to have more children without rendering it simply a matter of finance.
In this, I think Comrade Putin is right. Putin acknowledges that this program would require lots of money (perhaps 1 per cent of Russian GDP), but he claims that it is necessary in order to "change the attitude of the whole society to the family and its values".
This is necessary. Your reward system is your unacknowledged value system. It must be fixed, and if it costs, it costs, but do it!
I agree with Donald Sensing too. Great post, Donald! And - ". . . bless them for trying. It has to be done." Just so.
In addition, I look on these payments as incentives for women to have their babies alive and not to kill them with abortion. Since there are already economic incentives for abortion, which is partly why women do it, how can it not be moral to match and better them? And since the alternative means of stopping abortion is to impose penalties, rewards are obviously the more attractive alternative in every way.
#4 from Dave Schuler: "There are so many flaws with this approach it's hard to know where to start. For example, money is an incentive to those for whom money is an incentive. Not necessarily to those you'd like to have bearing and/or rearing the next generation."
It's OK by me if the lower classes breed.
#4 from Dave Schuler: "Having children is a statement about the future. A better approach might be a less direct one: working to make one's society one into which more people will wish to bring children."
If making babies is to be only the business of those so far above financial and practical concerns that this for them is only a question of making "a statement about the future" there won't be many babies born alive.
#4 from Dave Schuler: "I suspect that there's another agenda at work. The states of Europe are, explicitly or implicitly, ethnic ones. Is the future really that vibrant for states which define themselves ethnically?"
Not if they don't have babies, no. But if they do have babies, yes.
on October 20, 2006 9:54 PM
#6 from Mark Buehner: "At first blush i find this to be an idea sure to be rife with unintended consequences. Lets try to establish a few things:"
OK, but I don't promise to agree with what you attempt to establish.
#6 from Mark Buehner: "1.Population growth isnt necessarilly a panacea. Implicit in the argument is that we need more productive citizens who will hopefully in turn reproduce themselves. The assumption is that more raw births are going to match the mean of 'productive citizenship'. That may not be true."
It's immigration (or rather an invitation to Christian Europe's ancient enemies to send settlers and occupy the emptying lands of Europe) that has not been a panacea. If you know people are going to be brought up in your culture, a productive one at peace with itself, you have every reason to be hopeful about those kids, and willing to put in a bit of extra effort to help them take their places in their country and their society later on. Helping the next generation with problems like that is sort of what society is for. If your policy is in effect to wipe out your own future generations before they ever give the cry of life, you have no reason to think this is a good idea and will work out for the best in the long run.
#6 from Mark Buehner: "2.I think it is a dangerous leap to assume the babies born for a cash bonus are likely to become a net advantage for a society. If those babies, on average, end up costing a society in terms of crime and social services, it seems to me (particularly with the soon to be overburdened social services) the societies end up in worse shape than a smaller (even shrinking) but viable society."
Life rather than death is to the advantage of society, because society is people. Sterility and death are great investments, for one generation. I've known childless old people whose houses were stuffed with expensive consumer goods and mementos of foreign trips. Bravo, you get to die with the most toys. But that's the end of them. And if that's the choice our culture continues to encourage and make, that's the end of us, deservedly so.
And by the way, the speculation that babies born for a bounty will be worthless investments is mere speculation, whereas the data is in for our shrinking societies, and no they are not viable.
#6 from Mark Buehner: "3. The idea that unwanted babies are a much greater crime risk was pioneered by Economist Steve Levitt in his book Freakonomics. He used abortion data. Its a troubling conclusion, but so far it hasnt been effectively debunked. Putting the moral and emotional implications aside, it seems obvious that children born to parents who dont want them (or want them for the wrong reasons) on average will fare much worse than those born into loving homes."
NO I WILL NOT PUT THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS ASIDE! This is the biggest category of killing of innocent and defenseless human beings in the world, it is the number one issue, and I will not agree that this be "set aside". And, the civilization of the West, which is the best, is being erased in this way, and that too is a moral issue, and one far too big to be just set aside.
A system that gives incentives to abortion and by decades of anti-family policies has in effect robbed those who want to have their babies is terribly wrong. It must be fixed.
As for this censoriousness about people having children alive for the wrong reasons - it's flabbergasting and senseless. The kids get to live. That's what matters.
#6 from Mark Buehner: "4. I think this may well be a case of looking too far down the road. Its similar to projecting how oil at X dollars a barrel will grind society to a halt- it would be true if it happened in a day but these are long term trends that sheer self-interest will nudge us into productive directions along the way. I have enough faith in humanity not to assume we will breed ourselves out of existance. And the idea that other nations like China will use the opportunity to eclipse us seems to assume that they themselves wont be evolving. The market will provide a solution, I dont think we have seen the last baby boom."
Decades of anti-family policies have effectively exploited those dedicated enough to go ahead and have and raise their babies regardless of how unprofitable society made it. Prophets like Bob Santamaria (in Australia) warned all along that this was a bad idea and the bills were going to come due. But people preferred to legislate, decade after decade, as though that was looking too far down the road. Consumption in, affordable family formation and maintenance out, and let the good times roll. It was a bad idea, and the bills are falling due. What is the answer now? Just another invitation not to deal with the problem.
This is like taking our children to the tophet of Cathage year after year, decade after decade and consigning them to the fire in return for promises of short term goods, answering moral objections with "we'll set that aside" and practical objections with "you may be looking too far ahead, humanity won't breed itself out of existence because if we aren't keeping our babies alive the Romans certainly are, and just keep your mind fixed on short term prosperity." If we listen to answers like that, we deserve to go the way of the civilisation of Carthage.
For anyone who thinks the moral implications in this issue can be set aside - did you advocate that all such issues as Mark Foley's masturbatory messages and Monica's semen stained blue dress and William Jefferson Clinton's fibs about smut be set aside? What counts as a weighty moral issue for you?
What scale of values did you demonstrate in the last moral issue on which you were tempted to hyperventilate? (As we all are from time to time, and me too.)
In my opinion, there are two overwhelming issues in the world, and the slow wiping out of the future generations of the West, mankind's best hope, is both of them.
In order to address this in a key front line state (though only arguably part of the West), Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin thinks it would be justifiable to spend even as much as one percent of GDP yearly - to save Russia, with perhaps the most corrupted pro-abort culture on Earth (due to Communism) from sterility and destruction. Yes, Vladimir Vladimirovich, I agree: for innocent millions to be spared and for Russia itself to live rather than die is worth even that much money.
When I lived in Paris throughout much of 80's, many of these incentives, so recently and breathlessly reported by the Washington Post (why does anyone even bother quoting it any more?) were already in place--and had been since World War I. I personally knew several women receiving a combination of stipends, tax-breaks, and outright one-time payments to bear children; as with the German mothers cited above for whom 'Kindergeld' is never enough, these too universally complained about the paltry sums they were awarded by their fellow-taxpayers. There were even several 'greves' (marches and demonstrations) for 'more pay'. Nonetheless at that time, despite these incentives, the French birthrate continued to decline.
What has changed? Two things. The first is that the vastly accelerated increase in (mostly Muslim) immigration since the 80's accounts for an increasing number of these births; the second is that the French don't allow their statistics on such matters to be independently scrutinized (nor industrial productivity and unemployment statistics), so there is actually no way of verifying the percentage of 'native' French births or the validity of the replacement-rate overall any more than there would be for a Third-World country. Which France, sadly, is slowly becoming. And paying to become.
What's so great about white people that we need more of them? It is my feeling that the other races will be able to destroy the world without us.
M Buehner -- Leavitt is a popularizer, his abortion reduces crime theories have been disproven over and over again. What reduced crime was ... wait for it ... the Crack generation being in jail or dead as the Crack epidemic worked itself out. Pretty much most of Leavitt's work is about the level of Paul (Japan is taking over the world) Kennedy.
The fundamental problem of falling birthrates among more affluent citizens is NOT money. Rather it is feminism. America is the least feminist (and thus most oriented towards women's rights) western nation, and European nations the most feminist (and thus the least amount of rights).
The fundamental objective of feminism is the elimination of traditional nuclear families (read Millet or Greer or Ehrenreich or Friedan). The traditional two-parent family is viewed as a prison for women, thus childbearing to be avoided and child-rearing to pawned over to others. Women's improved status and lack of social structures (where older women mentor younger ones on romantic choices) often leads to women making bad long term choices that prevent family life. Stories about fertility treatments also lead women to delay making choices for the right man in the mistaken belief that biology can be trumped. Akin to seeing Shaq and assuming all men can be starting NBA centers.
"What's so great about white people that we need more of them?"
Yes we're all white trash and should die. That's the attitude that feminism and progressivism-ism embraces. Meanwhile romanticizing primitive tribal brutality as "authentic."
The problem is cultural. Families and marriage and children are thought to be ugly and the mark of stupid lower-class people. While being childless is thought to be hip and cool and edgy. Look at say "Wonderful Life" and try to imagine such a movie being made today. You couldn't. Meanwhile we have portraits of "marriage and family" as "the Squid and the Whale" (try to imagine THAT one being made in the 1940's.)
Guess which huge, overpopulated country is salivating at the prospect of a depopulated Siberia (soon to be renamed Sinoberia)?
If anyone could remake It's a Wonderful Life I'd bet Ron Howard and / or Tom Hanks could. I don't expect it'll happen. Maybe Forrest Gump is as close as we'll get. :|
#15 from PacRim Jim: "Guess which huge, overpopulated country is salivating at the prospect of a depopulated Siberia (soon to be renamed Sinoberia)?"
Link?
But I don't doubt you.
Nature hates a vacuum.
I think people are swimming against the tide here. Society as a whole has been designed on the basis that kids where inevitable and that we could indefinitely exploit women's child-raising labor.
Our vastly more efficient society allows the full exploitation of women's labor, and guess what, it's a lot more valuable than the grunt-work of raising kids. This means that the opportunity costs of raising kids has sky-rocketed. Essentially, choosing to have kids means that the family economic status (and in this society, economic status = social status) drops markedly.
Unless one is innately strongly attracted to having kids (and evolution hasn't universally built that into us as it's been fairly unnecessary until now), there's a strong negative benefit to having kids.
Ergo, the birth rate drops.
Expect to see the same thing in immigrant populations as soon as they can benefit from their labor.
[And yes, I'm the happy father of two children, but I was certainly aware of the costs and would not expect everyone else to naturally make the same choices as I did.]
#2 From Foobarista:
"This is why I have always figured the next unexpected new technology will be some sort of ex-vitro birthing technology. And if we think abortion and life debates are icky now, just wait until some of these puppies come online.
"My bet is on either the Russians and/or the Japanese to be the first to build these..."
I've been thinking along those lines for some time myself. The only problem I can see is that it would be massively expensive: in order to arrest population decline, a modern industrial state with a low natural birth-rate would have to be grow millions of babies a year. And those babies will have to be housed, fed, clothed, educated.... which will take a lot of money, and a lot of manpower.
Not that I see that as an ultimate objection, just as a difficulty that will be overcome if it proves necessary.
I see this moving in stages, actually. We're already seeing the first stage now, with tax incentives and such being offered in order to, in effect, bribe women to get pregnant. As Donald noted at the end of the post, that almost certainly won't work.
The next stage is what I think of as a 'three-child-policy': ie, all women must (by a certain arbitrary age) bear three children. Essentially, this is coercive childbearing; morally repugnant, yes, but a panicking society (and I imagine societies will start to panic, given another couple decades of greying demographics) won't necessarily care about that. I can easily see ministries of fertility being set up, with a remit to play matchmaker for unwed women, ensure they get pregnant ... even perhaps hold them in 'fertilitentiaries' if they try and avoid their duties.
Of course, three-child-policies are unlikely to be universally accepted, and are unlikely to work even where they are (even if they do succeed in lifting the birth-rate above replacement level, I can imagine a number of dangerous societal side-effects.)
Which leads us to stage three, the baby factories. Yeah, the ick-factor is off the scale, but if nothing else works, well ... humanity will do what it has to to survive. Even if on the other end, it's no longer really human. But then, that's evolution for you.
As Kierkegaard (#12) says, I am afraid most of the French improvement in birth rate comes from its Muslim immigrants, who sometimes have up to six children in order to take that money, that State subvention, as a second full income.
AFAIK, in Italy and in Spain, it is increasingly difficult to have children due to stagnating salaries and higher costs. Moreover, low-tech business that are common in these countries do not want them, but prefer immigrants, which are paid less.
Those immigrants come to Spain mainly from Latin America, but also North Africa and East Europe.
Overall, I think the societies of Western Europe, locked in their Welfare states, do not really want children. On an environment of globalization and high pressure on costs, the only way to keep that Welfare State working, that is, the only way today's privileged people (civil servants, public companies employees, pensioners...) can maintain their standard of living, is employing immigrants.
For instance, an economist declared this week in Spain, that no politician would ever attempt to reform the pension system, with 8 million pensioners or soon-to-be-pensioners, out of 30 million voters. That is the crude truth: privileged people won't give back a single euro, having to be carried out the adjustment needed for all the workers, on the shoulders of the new ones. It does not remain enough money left to have children, and it does not matter at all, because immigrants are preferred because they could be paid less.
I have a modest propsal I think will solve a number of problems in one fell swoop.
The Europeans need people to do the jobs that native-born Frenchmen don't want to do -- cleaning, landscaping, soldiering -- and they have met this need with Muslim middle easterners and Africans. These laborers are too culturally alien to be easily transformed into proper Frenchmen.
We, on the other hand, meet our very similar needs with Mexicans. Mexicans convert quite easily to Americans, usually in a single generation. I see no reason why Mexicans should not also make perfectly acceptable Frenchmen.
Since we (and by 'we" I mean Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan)complain that we have a surplus of Mexicans gaining illegal entry to the US, why don't we seize the Mexicans we don't need and fly them to France? (Extraordinary rendition, but without the torture.) We could trade them for cheese.
Surely any right-thinking Frenchman would rather have his cafe serree prepared by a Mexican rather than an Arab barrista. And once these new Mexican immigrants had been thoroughly educated in the writings of Sartre and Camus and come to fully appreciate the genius of Jacques Tati (and acquired at least a superficial understanding of the proper pairing of wine with food,) they would be able to pass as Frenchmen.
We could call them Francatinos. Or possibly Mexigauls.
Immigration should be considered separately from birth rates. There is no objective reason that technology can't susbsitute for labor. Japan gets along fine without lots of low cost immigrant labor. China is not keen on importing low-cost labor from it's neighbors either (comparitively speaking). Astonishingly, about 30% of Chinese children are overweight (according to one study).
Abortion has been available for decades. Rising living standards have been at work in Western nations for hundreds of years. The Welfare state dates back at least to post-War period. The opportunity cost thus has been at work since at least 1950 and arguably since 1920 in Western Europe.
What's at work is that women are marrying and having children later. At best having only one child. Children are seen as markers of inferior status. And the traditional family and social organizations have been atomized within mass media and isolating modernity, characterized by lots of social and physical mobility and isolation.
Add to this a depiction since the 1960's of the family as the source of all ills or a prison for women and it's no surprise that women take a pass on the institution. And instead go for short-term thrills, "a series of short-lived but passionate affairs" as Barbara Ehrenreich wrote. With the expectation as noted in City Journal that they will always be young, beautiful, and sexy with men competing for their attention.
What's notable is how resilient family life in the US has been compared to Europe. While married people are a minority in the US, the margin would be much worse in Europe I'd imagine.
I would argue the thread of utopianism ("family life is not perfect! It MUST be destroyed along with the Patriarchy!") is much stronger in Europe (hence the admiration for Europe by the utopian Left) while the reform-minded nature of Americans leads to a "fix-it" approach to marriage and family life and much marginally higher levels of marriages and children.
Wow, talk about opening up a kettle of outrage. For the record i happen to be against abortion- and particularly against the bad law that now dictates its status. But that doesnt mean i feel the need to rabidly assault any observation that I dont like, simply because i dont like it. Get over yourselves, lets take the moral outrage as a given for a moment.
But this isnt about abortion, per se. It about bribing people into having unwanted babies. Its quite telling how far down the road we've gone when suggesting that intentionally conceiving unwanted babies might not be the best thing for society results in knee jerk condemnation. Tell you what David, if you are so convinced that all life is good life and a plus for society, do you advocate bribing mothers simply to bring babies to term and then raise them in government orphanages? Sure would be lots of takers- 9 month job, kinda like being a teacher. Wouldnt that be our quickest solution? Whats wrong with that plan?
Jim Rockford,
The crack generation has not disappeared.
What has actually happened is that distribution territories are now firmly established and police do as little as possible to disrupt them for fear of starting a crime wave.
About 15 years back in my town (150,000) they rolled up a big drug distribution gang. The FBI predicted that the murder rate in our town would go up as a result. It did. Some innocent kids got killed in the crossfire.
There hasn't been a big raid since. I do not believe the drug trade has declined in any significant manner.
So let me ask a question:
Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?
Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.
Do they still teach alcohol prohibition in schools?
#23 from Mark Buehner: "It about bribing people into having unwanted babies."
No, it is not about bribery, nor is it about unwanted babies. It is about wanted and very necessary babies, and perfectly legitimate and open government support for something vital to the nation and the state.
#23 from Mark Buehner: "Tell you what David, if you are so convinced that all life is good life and a plus for society, do you advocate bribing mothers simply to bring babies to term and then raise them in government orphanages? Sure would be lots of takers- 9 month job, kinda like being a teacher. Wouldnt that be our quickest solution? Whats wrong with that plan?"
For a start, I do not advocate bribery but honest government and pro-natal, pro-family policies.
And what's wrong with your plan is that it has nothing to do with human sentiment or anything real that's happening in the world, especially Vladimir Putin's proposal, which I agree with.
#21 from m. takhallus: "I have a modest propsal I think will solve a number of problems in one fell swoop."
I commend your positive thinking, but I see a flaw, a questionable assumption, in your modest proposal.
#21 from m. takhallus: "Surely any right-thinking Frenchman ..."
There's the flaw.
#21 from m. takhallus: "... would rather have his cafe serree prepared by a Mexican rather than an Arab barrista. And once these new Mexican immigrants had been thoroughly educated in the writings of Sartre and Camus and come to fully appreciate the genius of Jacques Tati (and acquired at least a superficial understanding of the proper pairing of wine with food,) they would be able to pass as Frenchmen."
It is a wonderful idea, but first you have to populate France with people who would see the need for it and the desirability of it, whereas of course the geographical region known as "France" is being settled by a new people even less reasonable than the French.
The idea is so attractive that it's hard to abandon it, though. It might be tried in Spain, or let's say Italy.
#21 from m. takhallus: "We could call them Francatinos. Or possibly Mexigauls."
How about "Latins"? That has a ring to it.
Only, you again have to get the old native population to go for it. And there might be conflict with the fierce colonists from Europe's ancient enemy. Perhaps the old Europeans would rather die off without putting up any resistance to the colonists.
David Blue (#25)
No, it is not about bribery, nor is it about unwanted babies. It is about wanted and very necessary babies, and perfectly legitimate and open government support for something vital to the nation and the state.
No, it is not even about babies. I think the whole question has an important economical background, completely ignored here; and bribing is simply the only thing an European state knows to do.
m. takhallus (#21)
I am sorry, but Latin Americans in Spain prefer the United States, where they can make money easier and life costs are lower.
Jim Rockford (#22)
There is no objective reason that technology can't susbsitute for labor.
There are some: unability of local businessmen to adopt technology, preference of investors for monopolistic markets, lack of tradition in highly organised companies needed in order to apply technology...
The Welfare state dates back at least to post-War period.
But it did not faced a globalized environment. Moreover, the working of the common market has been pretty imperfect, but improving with time. Many European companies really began to face international competition in the late 1980's.
it's no surprise that women take a pass on the institution.
It is not surprise for me, since in my country women don't usually want to have a baby unless they have a good job (the father's income rarely is enough), which is not easy to get, and when you have it, becoming pregnant often means that you are fired... therefore, the best is not having any children.
IMHO the problem is deeply rooted in economy.
Jim Rockford: What's at work is that women are marrying and having children later. At best having only one child. Children are seen as markers of inferior status.
Agree with problem, not the cause. Women are at the forefront of the information economy, graduating from college at greater rates than men. They want to cash in on this investment and they know (and the statistics support) that the later they have children, the more money they will make over their lifetime. They have their first child later. The later you have your first child, the fewer children you will have. Women are negotiating against themselves. Maybe they wanted three chilren, but will settle for two.
Mark Buehner: It about bribing people into having unwanted babies.
If the government were paying the full cost of raising chilren, then the decision to have children (and how many) would be completely based on personal preference. If we assume raising a child cost $200,000 over the course of 18 years and the government paid every mother the present value of that amount, then no rational mother would have a child simply to get her costs recouped. Now, people aren't always rational or they may think they can get by with less, which is a good reason not to subsidize anywhere near 100%.
#15 PacRim Jim,
Not so fast. China also has a fertility rate below replacement level - only 1.7.
I've moved back to Italy and I can see some of the problems you mention, However, in the north (maybe excluding Liguria) natality seems to be on the rise, and only a minority (10-15%) is from immigrants. Immigrants which, moreover, are not always muslims: there are africans of other religions, there are chinese, filipinos, indians, south-americans, eastern europeans...
It's a bit more complex than some think.
PD Shaw (#28)
It is not only the cost of raising the child what it is at stake. It is also the cost in, usually, the woman career. Having a child often means to loose your job, and in Europe's static economy, you may not find another which offers you so many opportunities.
Who compensates for it?
The European Welfare State and its economic model interferes with birth rate. Then, add the low-tech industry, battered by Asian imports, to the Social Security and businesses such as the real state (bubble), that are simply Ponzi schemes, which keep avoiding a crash as long as new people put the money in them, and you get that immigrants are desperately needed in Europe to underpin the privileges of aging Europeans.
Ah Socialism!! How lucky you are for not suffering it!
A comment on the concept of "bribing women to have unwanted babies." Such descriptions imply that there would be women who absolutely were dead set against having babies and had one anyway to get the money.
Most change occurs "at the margins." In this case I think this would typically mean that a potential mother who was considering having a baby anyway might have her judgment tipped in favor of having the baby, considering the money, whereas she might have her judgment tipped the other way if the money wasn't there. That wouldn't be bringing in "unwanted babies," that would be encouraging women who are considering motherhood otherwise to go ahead and take the plunge. Women who really don't want babies wouldn't have them for a measly subsidy, and women who would have babies anyway still will, and will happily accept the money as a coincident benefit for something they would have done anyway.
This is not to say I necessarily think this is a great idea--just to point out that subsidizing women to have babies doesn't necessarily result in a flood of children the moms simply don't want.