|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 18 2014 20:17 MoltkeWarding wrote: Just how do you "invest" in your demography? This is the most serious crisis on the horizon, yet I have not seen any proactive proposals floated apart from basically subsidising the costs of parenting. Everyone is treating it as if it were a primarily economic problem. The entire ethical agenda has shifted towards horizontal "compassion" at the expense of the vertical. Family by its very nature implies hierarchy, and that is something our parents' generation liberated themselves from long ago. simple. immigration
|
On November 18 2014 20:37 aXa wrote:Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on. here's the result of such policies: France: Show nested quote +France is an outlier among developed countries in general, and European countries in particular, in having a fairly high rate of natural population growth: by birth rates alone, France was responsible for almost all natural population growth in the European Union in 2006, with the natural growth rate (excess of births over deaths) rising to 300,000.[208] This was the highest rate since the end of the baby boom in 1973, and coincides with the rise of the total fertility rate from a nadir of 1.7 in 1994 to 2.0 in 2010.[209][210] From 2006 to 2011 population growth was on average +0.6% per year.[208] Germany: Show nested quote +The fertility rate of 1.41 children born per woman (2011 estimates), or 8.33 births per 1000 inhabitants, is one of the lowest in the world.[4] Since the 1970s, Germany's death rate has continuously exceeded its birth rate.[168] The Federal Statistical Office of Germany has forecast that the population could shrink to between 65 and 70 million by 2060 (depending on the level of net migration) source: wikipedia
Germany has never matched French postwar fertility, having shed its rural population, and in recent years, receiving a larger share of immigration from lower-fertility countries. However, there is a vocal lobby moving for day care investment after the spectacular failure of Elterngeld. Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know. However, I think that it may be beneficial to those few socially ambitious women remaining who still maintain an idyllic vision of family life. The general trend however is probably irreversible. For at least a generation now, childbearing has been associated with narrow provinciality in the intersubjective fabric of German life, and the fashion is more important than the calculation in the long term.
simple. immigration
From where?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a good question, but the source is probably not as important as the integration process. demographics wise you are counting on the second generation immigrants to integrate, how successful that process is determines the quality of your new people.
there's some studies on urban vs rural immigration that bears this out. while nominally a source distinction, the effect on integration is really the driving mechanism for divergent 2nd generation results.
there's also a lot of self selection filters for immigration traditionally. the enterprising/rich/educated are the ones who move, but only if the host country has the appropriate opportunities.
|
The source is decisive to the integration in practical terms. There is an enormous gap between Poles and the Chinese. Not to mention the entire reason integration is so difficult in Germany is because the German view of different cultures and ethnicities is closer to the maxims of Herder than to to any ideological basis for Germanness. In their basic mental reflexes, the world of the Germans is a diverse ecology of discrete cultural essences.
|
On November 18 2014 22:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 20:37 aXa wrote:Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on. here's the result of such policies: France: France is an outlier among developed countries in general, and European countries in particular, in having a fairly high rate of natural population growth: by birth rates alone, France was responsible for almost all natural population growth in the European Union in 2006, with the natural growth rate (excess of births over deaths) rising to 300,000.[208] This was the highest rate since the end of the baby boom in 1973, and coincides with the rise of the total fertility rate from a nadir of 1.7 in 1994 to 2.0 in 2010.[209][210] From 2006 to 2011 population growth was on average +0.6% per year.[208] Germany: The fertility rate of 1.41 children born per woman (2011 estimates), or 8.33 births per 1000 inhabitants, is one of the lowest in the world.[4] Since the 1970s, Germany's death rate has continuously exceeded its birth rate.[168] The Federal Statistical Office of Germany has forecast that the population could shrink to between 65 and 70 million by 2060 (depending on the level of net migration) source: wikipedia Germany has never matched French postwar fertility, having shed its rural population, and in recent years, receiving a larger share of immigration from lower-fertility countries. However, there is a vocal lobby moving for day care investment after the spectacular failure of Elterngeld. Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know. However, I think that it may be beneficial to those few socially ambitious women remaining who still maintain an idyllic vision of family life. The general trend however is probably irreversible. For at least a generation now, childbearing has been associated with narrow provinciality in the intersubjective fabric of German life, and the fashion is more important than the calculation in the long term. From where? But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after China and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility.
Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know. This is pretty obvious tho. If making children is asking for a sacrifice, or at the source of a conflict between professionnal and private life, then it's obvious ...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh maybe for some germans. also not sure why this matters for integration. early americans were racist as fk but they managed fine within civil institutions. this is why little italy isn't besieging chinatown. (but i guess the marginalized ghettos did besiege the whitetowns and koreatowns)
|
But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after w and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility.
French population only grew once for a protracted period since the end Franco-Prussian war: during the trente glorieuses, and I am unaware that this was the result of any novel policy, as it was a general European phenomenon, although France experienced it more sharply than other countries. Germany, starting from a higher base in 1871, had rates of fertility dropped off markedly during the economic proprosperity of the late Wilhelminian years. Since that time, there have only been two notable up swings in birth rates defying the downward trend: during the Nazi years, and during the postwar recovery. Because population growth was a significant element of the Nazi programme, modern German opinion is snookered in its ability to promote this useful cause by ordinary social propaganda. Economic subsidies are more or less all they dare to do, since it is relatively generic and unimaginative in the way it simply throws money at a problem.
uh maybe for some germans. also not sure why this matters for integration. early americans were racist as fk but they managed fine within civil institutions. this is why little italy isn't besieging chinatown. (but i guess the marginalized ghettos did besiege the whitetowns and koreatowns)
You were talking about integration. The Chinese junk peddlers in Manhattan's Chinatown are not integrated, by any stretching of the word. Actually, it is almost hilarious the predictability with which Germany's Chinese demographic finds itself employed in the ethnic cuisine industry.
|
On November 18 2014 23:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after w and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility. French population only grew once for a protracted period since the end Franco-Prussian war: during the trente glorieuses, and I am unaware that this was the result of any novel policy, as it was a general European phenomenon, although France experienced it more sharply than other countries. Germany, starting from a higher base in 1871, had rates of fertility dropped off markedly during the economic proprosperity of the late Wilhelminian years. Since that time, there have only been two notable up swings in birth rates defying the downward trend: during the Nazi years, and during the postwar recovery. Because population growth was a significant element of the Nazi programme, modern German opinion is snookered in its ability to promote this useful cause by ordinary social propaganda. Economic subsidies are more or less all they dare to do, since it is relatively generic and unimaginative in the way it simply throws money at a problem. What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
|
I don't think fertility has much to do with the economy at least when it comes to developed countries. America has pretty high population growth in comparison and considerably less social security and more work hours /capita. It seems to be more of a cultural thing. I think the fact that people here stay with their family quite a lot longer may play a pretty important role. Nowadays you're rarely going to see someone in their twenties buying a house and marrying. (home ownership in general is extremely low here anyway)
|
On November 19 2014 00:15 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think fertility has much to do with the economy at least when it comes to developed countries. America has pretty high population growth in comparison and considerably less social security and more work hours /capita. It seems to be more of a cultural thing. I think the fact that people here stay with their family quite a lot longer may play a pretty important role. Nowadays you're rarely going to see someone in their twenties buying a house and marrying. (home ownership in general is extremely low here anyway) It's not just economic, but it is politic. The US is a different beast as it is way bigger and way more diverse, from a cultural standpoint, than Europe - even from an economic perspective. The entirety of the XIXth and early XXth century, French politicians tried to raise fertility and they succeed : they started to give money to familly with more than 4 kids as soon as 1913, and a policy of familly is voted as soon as 1935 or so, with the creation of a "code of familly". I'm just stating a very simple fact : the politics took this matter seriously and helped, through various meaning, to increase fertility and it worked in stabilizing it at one of the highest rate of western europe.
|
But I'm not sure if you can apply this today. Monetary stimulus is probably not as effective as people are relatively financially secure here anyway. They got their material needs covered and self determination for women actually wasn't a big thing two hundred years ago either. I guess gender equality plays a big role and the huge role of religion and the high marriage rate in the US are probably more important than money.
|
On November 19 2014 00:36 Nyxisto wrote: But I'm not sure if you can apply this today. Monetary stimulus is probably not as effective as people are relatively financially secure here anyway. They got their material needs covered and self determination for women actually wasn't a big thing two hundred years ago either. I guess gender equality plays a big role and the huge role of religion and the high marriage rate in the US are probably more important than money. It's not about money. In fact, the early XXth and XIXth century archaic philosphy is more adapted to the question than a relatively close minded economic perspective : its about the "moeurs", which is both customs in famillies, and the moral attitudes that are linked with them. That's what you need to change : the economy of power within the familly, the arbitrage between the professionnal and the private world, the perspective of future generation in a grand political and ideological project. But it needs spendings.
|
So whats the verdict here ? sell my euro stocks ?!!?!??! , i always thought having managble debt in this era is good , seeing how the US owes money to the all world and everyone letting them have more debt because they are the "big consumer" of the world doesnt seem healthy for them.... once China/Saudia decides "we had enough" i.e - we lose more money on your debt then the export you buy from us (Fuel/everything else from china) then it will be a sad day for the US , currently China cannot grow without the US buying power , but all good things come to an end , and if the debt will be soooooo big that the US will never be able to return it then China will pull the plug it lights out in a single day for the US economy , the only way they are growing these days is because the loans they get every year to conitnue to pay the internal salaries and what not. they always seemd to me like gambling addicts who get more credit , but the loanshark will stop it one day. but this is just me who never studied this field (went for the boring computer engineering )
|
monetary aid for children does not solve Germanys problem. May a couple solely relying on the social system get their 6th child, because it is financially "worth it"... Yes maybe. Will any educated woman, that somehow has to manage her job and career sacrifice everything to get a child, only because you give her a few hundred Euro per months? Certainly not.
In fact the last round of reforms, allowing fathers to spend a similar time at home with the child as the mothers (and increasing that total time), was imho one of the most constructive things ever to somehow solve that situation.
|
Funny, after "Well economic growth for Germany is probably not possible and given limited resources in this world not even desirable." this thread went to "Let's grow Germany's population!". Because that is totally not a red herring...
|
On November 19 2014 00:52 lord_nibbler wrote: Funny, after "Well economic growth for Germany is probably not possible and given limited resources in this world not even desirable." this thread went to "Let's grow Germany's population!". Because that is totally not a red herring... I personally don't care about Germany's population, I'm just saying there is a link between the fertility rate and the policies/economic policies. It is not red herring, but simple analysis, to believe that the current policies are both close minded, directly detrimental to europe, have bad long term impact on Germany's global situation.
|
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum.
As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services.
|
On November 19 2014 00:57 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me. It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum. As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services. Germany has an older population because its fertility has been lower since 20 years or so... You're playing on words, it is exactly what I was saying. And yes spending on families is a failure in Germany, mainly because it is based on the same "moeurs" that explain the lack of birth to begin with : most of the time, it is benefit for stay at home mothers, or traditionnal famillies (married one) and usually discourage women from working, something that does not help the arbitrage between professionnal and familly life. The birth rate is then nothing but the result of a conflict between two opposite values : labor and familly.
|
On November 19 2014 01:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 00:57 MoltkeWarding wrote:What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me. It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum. As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services. Germany has an older population because its fertility has been lower since 20 years or so... You're playing on words, it is exactly what I was saying. And yes spending on families is a failure in Germany, mainly because it is based on the same "moeurs" that explain the lack of birth to begin with : most of the time, it was benefit for stay at home mothers, or help traditionnal famillies (married one) and usually discourage women from working, something that does not help the arbitrage between professionnal and familly life.
Your implication was that French policy making since the 19th century had been trying to raise birth rates, but there had only been one drastic upward swing in that rate in the last century and a half. Within a few years, French population will return to the same flat line that she had experienced during the 19th century (with the help of a continual influx of fertile African migrants, otherwise it will probably decline). Germany's population cohorts will likely continue shrinking at one-third per generation, but the reasons for that are rather particular to German society.
As for the negotiation between personal and professional life, that is a marginal factor in a person's decision to have children today, because those moral milestones were crossed by a generation prior to our own. There is no reason to think that it would be more effective than any other kind of spending, because the entire post-natal care idea is merely shifting resources around and replacing one kind of incentive with another. On the balance, I don't see why we should promote absentee parenthood more than engaged parenthood either, but saying it will net better baby output is a certain way to appease a distinct protest lobby.
Only the tenor of that argument is serving an agenda of its own, and it's not the agenda of childbearing fertility.
|
I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
|
|
|
|