You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
No Babies?
2008-06-29
The NYT wakes up to what Mark Steyn said in America Alone: demography determines destiny. Italy has a birthrate of 1.2 and despite the efforts of some it isn't going to get better. If you make it to the end you'll see why America is doing better: our society's flexibility in the job market and the expectation that men will help around the home serve to increase the fertility rate. Just the first few paragraphs of a very, very long piece here:
IT WAS A SPECTACULAR LATE-MAY AFTERNOON IN SOUTHERN ITALY, but the streets of Laviano — a gloriously situated hamlet ranged across a few folds in the mountains of the Campania region — were deserted. There were no day-trippers from Naples, no tourists to take in the views up the steep slopes, the olive trees on terraces, the ruins of the 11th-century fortress with wild poppies spotting its grassy flanks like flecks of blood. And there were no locals in sight either. The town has housing enough to support a population of 3,000, but fewer than 1,600 live here, and every year the number drops. Rocco Falivena, Laviano’s 56-year-old mayor, strolled down the middle of the street, outlining for me the town’s demographics and explaining why, although the place is more than a thousand years old, its buildings all look so new. In 1980 an earthquake struck, taking out nearly every structure and killing 300 people, including Falivena’s own parents. Then from tragedy arose the scent of possibility, of a future. Money came from the national government in Rome, and from former residents who had emigrated to the U.S. and elsewhere. The locals found jobs rebuilding their town. But when the construction ended, so did the work, and the exodus of residents continued as before.

(Around 1961), Europe represented 12.5 percent of the worldÂ’s population. Today it is 7.2 percent, and if current trends continue, by 2050 only 5 percent of the world will be European.
When Falivena took office in 2002 for his second stint as mayor, two numbers caught his attention. Four: that was how many babies were born in the town the year before. And five: the number of children enrolled in first grade at the school, never mind that the school served two additional communities as well. “I knew what was my first job, to try to save the school,” Falivena told me. “Because a village that does not have a school is a dead village.” He racked his brain and came up with a desperate idea: pay women to have babies. And not just a token amount, either; in 2003 Falivena let it be known he would pay 10,000 euros (about $15,000) for every woman — local or immigrant, married or single — who would give birth to and rear a child in the village. The “baby bonus,” as he calls it, is structured to root new citizens in the town: a mother gets 1,500 euros when her baby is born, then a 1,500-euro payment on each of the child’s first four birthdays and a final 2,500 euros the day the child enrolls in first grade. Falivena has a publicist’s instincts, and he said he hoped the plan would attract media attention. It did, generating news across Italy and as far away as Australia.

Finally, as we loitered in front of a mustard-colored building up the street from the town’s empty main square, a car came by. Falivena — a small, muscular man in a polo shirt, with gray hair and a deeply creased, tanned face — flagged it down, for the young woman behind the wheel, Salvia Daniela, was one of the very people he was looking for. They exchanged a few words, and we followed Daniela back to her apartment to meet her family. Daniela, who is 31, and her 36-year-old husband, Gerardo Grande, have two children: Pasquale, 10, and Gaia, who is 5 and was one of the first “baby bonus” babies. Daniela and Grande say they are committed to being a traditional family, but it isn’t easy. Grande works for a development company and manages a bar in the evenings so that his wife can devote herself to the home. Their apartment, though cheery (with lots of enlarged photos of the kids), is cramped. “The baby bonus helped us,” Grande told me. He added, gesturing toward Falivena, “We think this man is a great mayor.”
Posted by:Steve White

#24  lotp, good to hear about the size of military families growing.
I guess I just see the indigents at my work.

My son would make the best dad, coach and husband, but he will most likely wait until he's out. While I'm proud of him, I would love it if he passed on the proverbial torch to another, but he's still wanting to go back to Baghdad.
My daughter is so wrapped up with her program and what she's doing she hasn't been seeing anyone seriously and probably won't be having kids anytime soon either.
Posted by: Jan   2008-06-29 21:34  

#23  On which criterion, Frank? LOL
Posted by: lotp   2008-06-29 18:40  

#22  All they want in a husband is intelligence, good character

setting the bar kinda high, huh? Well, I guess I'm out...
Posted by: Frank G   2008-06-29 18:37  

#21  Two trailing daughters and a temporary daughter. All want a good husband and several children (temporary daughter thinks she wants three of her own and three adopted, but she's young and romantic), in a traditional family (although td #2 wants a husband who can manage the homefront when her career gets busier than usual). All they want in a husband is intelligence, good character, and willingness to put as much into home and family as they are. And they plan to marry straight out of college, so y'all now know where they're to be found.
Posted by: trailing wife in Lackawanna   2008-06-29 18:28  

#20  One trend that eases my anxiety about that, Jan, is the size of many military families.

A lieutenant colonel friend of mine is pregnant with her 6th. She chose a career path that made those pregnancies possible without impacting her ability to contribute to her units -- PhD in electrical engineering, etc. IIRC she was out a total of 5 weeks with the last one, but continued to do a lot of work remotely via computer, phone and occasional visits to the office during that time.

Another friend just retired at LtCol; she and her military husband have 6 kids too. Both PhDs in technical areas.

Another friend of ours, now retiring after 28 years as a full colonel, and his wife have 11. He's also a PhD, applied math, and they homeschool.

And a lot of the more junior officers I know have 3-6 kids, all of them educated, responsible, contributing members of society already (and show signs that will continue into adulthood).

A small percentage of the population, to be sure, but a positive trend nonetheless.
Posted by: lotp   2008-06-29 18:04  

#19  lol, if I were to have more children it would be an out of body experience.

I have two, one married to the service for now, and he probably will plan on getting a full retirement from the military, and the other working on her 9th year of college. She will be done very soon however.

The trend of most only having 2 or 3 kids is concerning while looking at the anchor baby moms having 6 to 8 most if not all on welfare.
So I feel the quality not just quantity needs to be looked at, and that piece of it all is scary. We're breeding more that want something for nothing, those here that don't aren't reproducing.
Posted by: Jan   2008-06-29 17:30  

#18  Thanks for the links, Anon, particularly the second one-should be required reading.
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-06-29 16:55  

#17  2daughters and 3 grandchildren for me. I'm now 55 and wouls like to find someone but can't seem to. No more children, though.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2008-06-29 14:21  

#16  Btw, sorry to sound overdramatized, but that's how I feel, that's not overdue teenage angst.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-06-29 14:12  

#15  If that's the case, then it isn't. Allahu ackbar.

Agree. Let the living get what they deserve. No warm bodies, no civilization, no warm bodies, no ideas, no warm bodies, no religion.

Fertility, Faith, & the Future of the West

The Return of Patriarchy (very good)

WORLD POPULATION PROSPECTS
THE "ISLAMIC BOMB" (from Gérard Pince, a very nice french fellow, a retired businessman teaching free-market values to an uncredulous world)
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-06-29 14:10  

#14  I'm 39, unmarried with no kids. I've found that American women are obsessed with status, money, and sex, but have NO interest in marriage. I think most of them have NO idea what it means to be a wife or mother. I'd love to start a family, but my parent's generation did a hell of a job permanently destroying the American family. I see cats in my future, but no kids.

I agree with Scooter. I'm 35, no kids, date alot of chicks but none want to settle. I've been married and divorced and even she did not want kids but did want a career. Seems like all the women I go out with want to live a "Sex in the City" life and play grab ass.

You might find this an interesting book to read both (NP! entries by Erik Svane):

Witch Hunts in Contemporary America

Happy Father's Day

Btw, myself : no babies, no future, nothing, just getting old and dying alone, I don't give a crap, why should I? I long for the void, and I just fear to go to Hell (wouldn't that be ironical?). I'm an evolutionary dead-end, I've given up, I don't care, as long as I'm comfortable, I'm already dead anyway, nothing. I'll just see after if there is something more worthwhile, I hope, but, again, Hell, sigh.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-06-29 14:05  

#13  Three for me, two married and grandkids soon, I hope.

Of the four college roommates I kept up with there were twelve kids; so five of us had 15 offspring.

Maybe it was a Chief Illiniwek (U of I, Champaign)thing, but the Chief's banned now, as hostile and abusive.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-06-29 14:04  

#12  The sad reality is that there is less space every year. That is a planned situation, planned by business to continue business growth. Without population growth, there is no need to expand. No overtime, no priority development, just reuse the old and make repairs and slow down to smell the flowers. So, if Americans don't create sufficient population growth, immigration will have to suffice. That's why the Wall Street Journal is pro immigrant and anti-fence. It's just a matter of greed, tax and spend greed. More spending, more taxes, more for me.
Posted by: wxjames   2008-06-29 13:59  

#11  I'm with Frank, again, damn it. And both my daughters would love to get married and have kids. And one may next summer.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-06-29 13:14  

#10  I agree with Scooter. I'm 35, no kids, date alot of chicks but none want to settle. I've been married and divorced and even she did not want kids but did want a career. Seems like all the women I go out with want to live a "Sex in the City" life and play grab ass.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2008-06-29 13:11  

#9  three kids (that I know of....) - I did my part.
Posted by: Frank G   2008-06-29 12:33  

#8  Scooter, look where your tennis shoes are made. Inports, man, inports.
Posted by: Super Hose   2008-06-29 12:21  

#7  Geez, Scooter. You need to get around more.
Posted by: Whert Black2644   2008-06-29 11:49  

#6  I'm 39, unmarried with no kids. I've found that American women are obsessed with status, money, and sex, but have NO interest in marriage. I think most of them have NO idea what it means to be a wife or mother. I'd love to start a family, but my parent's generation did a hell of a job permanently destroying the American family. I see cats in my future, but no kids.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2008-06-29 11:18  

#5  A hundred years ago a wife generally did not outlive her husband. The complications of child birth coupled with a social compact that gave married women the monopoly on sex so that family, not the state, would take care of the elders financially and medically. Since child mortality rates were also high, that meant you had to produce a pride of kids to ensure your future care and viability. Well, the predominately male medical establishment had pretty much addressed the first two issues by mid century. The franchise was extended to the ladies before quarter century and they set out to 'right' property and inheritances laws to equatable status. Then they set out to champion social issues that brought us Social Security and Medicare to shift the responsibility from family to state. The purpose of family began to lose a lot of its social function. Toss in no fault divorce, cause it was like pulling teeth because of the old monopoly social status, and thus you get state sanctioned polyandry and polygamy and Lawrence vs Texas, and you've pretty much killed off the engine of reproduction.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-06-29 09:04  

#4  Western civilization has not considered itself worth preserving since the late 1960s when multiculturalism gained control of our educational system and we stopped assimilating immigrants. This has been cooking for a long time.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-06-29 08:18  

#3  Given the choice, western civilization does not consider itself worth perpetuating.

Western civilization has until recently considered itself worth perpetuating -- but didn't assume that the civilization and the genetic stock were inherently linked. (Okay, except for some racists it didn't.)

There has been an enormous complacency, loosely grounded in old experience, to the effect that we could fail to conceive and raise up civilized offspring, that we could erode civil courtesy and push the limits of constitutional freedoms, and that civilization would not only do fine it would be even better as a result.

We're about to find out it doesn't work that way.
Posted by: lotp   2008-06-29 08:13  

#2  Things in the US aren't quite so pretty. Native population reproduction is below replacement rate. It is only because of the fecundity of recent immigrants that we are above. This is the supreme existential, spiritual problem. Given the choice, western civilization does not consider itself worth perpetuating. If that's the case, then it isn't. Allahu ackbar.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-06-29 08:11  

#1   pay women to have babies. And not just a token amount, either; in 2003 Falivena let it be known he would pay 10,000 euros (about $15,000) for every woman — local or immigrant, married or single — who would give birth to and rear a child in the village

I wonder how his village didn't get flooded with Muzzies huddled masses of Dar yearning for Western freedoms (the freedom to prey on Westerners)?

Grande works for a development company and manages a bar in the evenings so that his wife can devote herself to the home

(a) Two jobs. Obviously, an enemy of the State deliberately setting up a bad example---what's wrong in applying for welfare?
(b) "so that his wife can devote herself to the home". And a male chauvinist pig to boot.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-06-29 07:43  

00:00