Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: Is Europe Committing "Demographic Suicide?"
Quote:
Is Europe Committing "Demographic Suicide?"
February 5, 2006
By Steve Chapman
BERLIN -- Will the last person in Europe please turn out the lights? That's the question being asked from Moscow to Madrid, where people are having fewer babies than ever before. The continent is anticipating something hard to imagine 30 years ago: a shrinking population.
A generation ago, we were warned that the "population explosion" would lead to famine, war and environmental catastrophe. Today, the alleged danger is a population implosion.
No one disputes the basic trend. Here in Germany, the average woman has 1.4 children, well short of the 2.1 needed to keep the population roughly stable without immigration. In Italy, Spain and Greece, the rate is around 1.3. In the United States, by contrast, the rate is around the replacement level.
Even with the addition of immigrants, Europe's population is projected to decline after 2025. Germany alone will probably lose some 8 million people by the middle of the century.
European leaders have begun to take action. Last week, the French government announced higher government stipends for parents who take leave from their jobs to have a third child. German family affairs minister Ursula von der Leyen -- the mother of seven -- wants the Berlin government to increase subsidies for childbearing.
Pessimism abounds. "Germans are at risk of dying out," warns one expert. American Catholic theologian George Weigel says Europe is committing "demographic suicide." He fears for the fate of a continent that "declines to create the human future in the most elemental sense, by creating a next generation."
But rest easy: There will be a next generation of Europeans, and another one after that. To call a decline in population "suicide" is like referring to a diet as "starvation." Europeans are not refusing to reproduce -- they are just doing it at a slower pace than their parents and grandparents did.
This is not a sign of failure. It's a sign of success. For millennia, parents had to produce babies in large numbers just to see some survive to adulthood. Today, thanks to better nutrition and medical care, people can bear fewer children but still count on having grandchildren.
The economic calculus has also changed radically. Children used to become productive assets early in life, laboring in fields, factories or the home. So people generally had lots of them.
But in the developed world, kids no longer contribute much to their upkeep until well beyond adolescence. On the contrary, they require ever-increasing investments in education, as well as designer clothes, music lessons, sports camps and iPods. When the cost of a child rises, it's not surprising that most parents would choose to have one or two instead of three or six.
Once upon a time, of course, many people had little choice on whether to bear children. Let's call these people "women." Lacking birth control or many alternatives beyond marriage and motherhood, they got to spend a lot of time pregnant whether they wanted to or not.
For women in Europe, things have improved. They have other options -- pursuing demanding careers, extending their educations, remaining single -- and many embrace them.
Men, too, enjoy more choices than before, some of which are incompatible with large families. If males and females conclude that the pursuit of happiness entails fewer children, it's hard to see why governments should encourage them to have kids they don't especially want.
The only real problem is that the combination of fewer births and longer lives makes the European welfare state even less affordable than it already is. As the retiree population grows and the number of working adults falls, the tax burden on workers will get excruciatingly heavy.
Europe could increase its population by admitting immigrants. But there are other obvious remedies to the problem. The first is for people to extend their working lives, supporting themselves instead of asking younger folks to support them. It's hardly cruel to say that the tradeoff for getting to live past 80 is to keep working past 65.
The other antidote is to boost economic growth -- generating greater income and wealth that can be used for a variety of purposes. That is something many countries in Europe know they need to do anyway. The looming demographic change may serve the useful purpose of getting them to do it sooner rather than later.
Like any major change, a declining population will cause some pain. But with intelligent adjustments, there is no reason Europe can't be prosperous and stable with fewer Europeans. A couple of years ago, after all, it was exactly that.
Today, the alleged danger is a population implosion.
Oh great something else to worry about - if the environment, terrorism, crime, our health wasn't enough - we now have to worry about not having enough children (Or is that the 'right' people not having enough children?)
Tell you what my generation does sure seem to be something of a lost one - when one considers how considerations of responsibility and economic realism tends to take away that mood for lurve. Approaching 30 and with the clock ticking the plan is in my circumstance (At least) based around the notion of buying a property first and then thinking of populating it. Trouble is that with every year house prices going up at a rate which doesn't match any rise in wages (Notice that as opposed to salary) - we are in these terms getting poorer by the year.
I would have thought that less people would be a good thing in many ways - if only elites were prepared to perhaps encourage the rest of the population to share their burden. However this isn't the case since the ingenious solution is to get more people in, de-skill and therefore de-motivate individuals/groups further.
It has been nearly five hours and still I have yet to have had any intellectual attempt to put me right on this - seriously Come on and give me hell call me a loser, a waster or lazy - inform me that I am not being factual or my argument is a fallacy.
Come on and engage me - whilst my 'leftie' mentality welcomes it as I am asking you nicely to listen. Perhaps I could serve the purpose of reinforcing your 'justified' sense of superiority, and as I am doing this for you - that is reminding you what it means to be human (Or shall we say have our faults) - as I am telling you, how much it hurts, remember I am doing this for nothing!
Despite an ancestor labeling himself as a chartist - I really have no faith in idiotology or serving as a pawn to some arsehole who thinks this is merely chess - this is art, an art that is to gauge your reaction.
So cmon Myron and co(nservatives) - I don't give a S*** whether you are new ones or failed Liberals - I just want to see if you are capable of rising to this challenge I am setting you - GO ON TELL ME I AM WRONG!
Your rant is gratuitous. I only posed a question based on an article that does not appear to take a political position.
The dilemma for Western European governments is that the decrease in birth rates and consequent shrinking population portend an inevitable inability to fund the social benefits presently in place because the tax base will contract.
One possible solution is immigration. This is the path chosen by Western European governments thus far. But immigration changes the demographics of the country. In France, Germany and to a lesser extent the UK, the social consequences of changing demographics owing to increased immigration have been evident in the form of domestic unrest, which has resulted in popular opposition to immigration.
Absent immigration, the only other possible solution is to cut social benefits in future. But the populations of Western European countries have grown accustomed to these benefits and refuse to accept decreases in same. Merely considering cutting Germany's social benefits system cost Schroeder the recent election.
This summarizes the dilemma as I see it: increase immigration or decrease social benefits.
Last edited by myron myron on Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
As the article points out, Lena's solution has been gaining acceptance:
Quote:
. . . the French government announced higher government stipends for parents who take leave from their jobs to have a third child. German family affairs minister Ursula von der Leyen -- the mother of seven -- wants the Berlin government to increase subsidies for childbearing.
You want more babies, but not more welfare babies. That's the rub.
Joined: 21 Apr 2005 Posts: 12147 Location: North Virginia, USA
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject:
yeah, it would mean that taxpayer dollars would have to diverted from elsewhere or taxes must increase. Both are very poor options, I think, for the current generation.
subsidize people to have families? Awesome, welfare families for everyone!!
Subsidising doesn't even come into it - I honestly am hoping that you are not equating mine and other's experience with the negative connotations connected with welfare?
Paying people to have babies doesn't even come into it - this is about working towards a goal other than keeping your head above water (Perhaps you do have a choice as to whether you go under) - this is about doing it for yourself (And family) and not to line the pockets of private landlords.
Quote:
Absent immigration, the only other possible solution is to cut social benefits in future.
So the choice is:
A) To cut Social benefits and run the risk of falling victim to people's desperation.
B) Encourage Immigration - but only the kind which decreases the earning potential of the lower wage earners (Whilst it maximises business profitability / the earning potential of Higher and Middle Management)
Joined: 21 Apr 2005 Posts: 12147 Location: North Virginia, USA
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject:
ILWL, I was just kidding.
But like Myron has suggested, something is gonna have to give here.
You either need to shore up on the money it takes to provide these benefits somehow, or you need to cut benefits to maintain the same spending by our current generations retirement age.
While cutting benefits would be the easiest way to maintain status quo, it probably would be a very unpopular choice. So naturally, people would have to either pony up more money later to help make up for the lack of workers or have more babies now to ensure we have enough for the future.
And let's not forget the increased social tensions incident to increasing immigration.
It's a conundrum.
What do you propose be done, ILWL?
First off - It isn't a good idea that whilst these sacrifices are being demanded that we have our elected representatives voting themselves pay rises.
Second - In Britain we are getting to the point where affordable home ownership is essential and despite soundbites along with gesture there is very little of substance being done in this field. There was a scandal last year (Reported in Londons Evening Standard) that highlighted what a joke this was with housing tagged as affordable going for £300 000+ - guess it will always be affordable to someone!
Third - Do not justify immigration in a manner which is insulting to the current working population. Having Multi-millionnaires tell you that it is just survival of the fittest is hardly a way to encourage either acceptance or integration - however maybe (Just perhaps) that is the point.
The situation is more then worrying when China is evoked as a justification - my mind is telling me how far should this 'free' market economics be taken?
My idea is based upon a notion that perhaps (Within British industry) initiative and hard work should be positively encouraged - if there is work that needs doing there should perhaps be scope within businesses to encourage individuals within the company to increase their earnings outside their normal contracted hours - not as overtime more as a Private Negotiated Contract!
I don't think that you would understand this Myron - but this country whilst it puts down it's working population for being lazy etc - it hardly encourages (Or rather rewards) hard work. You get penalised for working overtime with a higher rate of taxation - whilst I think that the case should be that it is untouchable.
In this country - the average wage is at around the £30 000 mark, as far as London wages are concerned £22 000 is considered to be low - so maybe an idea would be that anyone earning a basic of under £18 000 (Based on a 37hr working week) should have the ready incentive of any hours worked over this being their own.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
