Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 09/24/2010 View Thu 09/23/2010 View Wed 09/22/2010 View Tue 09/21/2010 View Mon 09/20/2010 View Sun 09/19/2010 View Sat 09/18/2010
2010-09-24 Europe
Demographics catch up to Italy
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2010-09-24 11:28|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6471 views ]  Top

#1 I was taught by my Parents that i should only have Children if i could afford them.Muslims are taught to have as many as possible as to spread Islam and rob the West!
Posted by Paul2 2010-09-24 12:02||   2010-09-24 12:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Italians, for reasons of secularism, despair, and apathy, aren't bothering to have families. It's all about self-fulfillment.

It's not just Italy, it's the West. Medical science's triumph over deadly complications of child birth and reduction of infant mortality coupled at the same time of the introduction of state support of the elderly removed the historical need for large families. Unintended consequences. Consider it social ecology in which fundamental aspects were altered with 'good intentions' but without fore thought of implications.
Posted by Procopius2k 2010-09-24 12:13||   2010-09-24 12:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Having children (or declining to do so) is a political act.
Posted by Iblis 2010-09-24 12:28||   2010-09-24 12:28|| Front Page Top

#4 When nations reach a particular economic plateau, they universally drop their birthrate to between 2.1 and 2.3. It happens automatically.

However, government and culture can lower it much further, by putting increasing demands on potential parents. Often these are unintentional, trying to raise the living standard of children.

But the end result is the same. Every effort results in smaller families, and more people deciding to have no children at all.

On the US has ever, temporarily, come up with a way around this problem. It resulted in the baby boom after WWII, and required very specific criteria.

1) Men and women were kept apart (because of the war) until they had the strong goal to get married and have children. There was a strong social sanction against having children outside of marriage. No abortion, and little birth control.

2) Most employment was in new cities, with little recreation, and abundant housing and ob/gyn medical care. Men worked, women didn't. Both were bored. The new cities were family oriented, and there was a minimum of "non-breeding" adults in the area.

But, though the circumstances that brought about the baby boom were pretty much spontaneous, the US government then began a very determined program which stopped it in its tracks, and moved the nation back to a less-than-replacement demographic.

This involved encouraging women moving into the workforce while raising taxes to coerce them into the workforce, encouraging easy credit and materialism, providing abundant birth control, and then abortion.

The culture then provided abundant recreation and entertainment, sought to discourage "large" families, and encouraged "sexual freedom" as different from procreation.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-09-24 12:40||   2010-09-24 12:40|| Front Page Top

#5 I was taught by my Parents that i should only have Children if i could afford them.

Holidays and entertainment cost so much these days, how can one afford to have children in addition, right?

It is repeated ad nauseum in the American press that it now costs about a quarter of a million dollars to rear an infant to adulthood, not including the cost of the necessary university education. This, of course, is bloody nonsense. It may well cost that much to rear the child in a certain standard of living that includes new designer sneakers, the matching iPod, and individual bedrooms in a McMansion in the suburbs, but careful shopping for what is now called 'vintage' clothing, an off-brand music thingy, and bunkbeds in a cozy house in decent school district will accomplish the same goals of amusement, shod feet, and a rain-free head at a considerably lower cost.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-24 13:34||   2010-09-24 13:34|| Front Page Top

#6 TW

In UK it seems to be the unemployed families that have big families as the state pays extra for each kid.

Anyone with a mortgage have to work throughout their adulthood whilst people in social housing dont bother as their rent and council tax are paid for if they dont work!

Which one has the easier life?
Posted by Paul D 2010-09-24 15:26||   2010-09-24 15:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Drugs, alcohol, free sex and psychedelic music...

Typical lunch break for the UAW.
Posted by Infidel 2010-09-24 15:59||   2010-09-24 15:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Paul D., responsible people chose to work, and arrange their lives to make use of the income. Why live in a council flat when one can afford something nicer, why live in a flat when one can afford to buy one's own house? People like us do not work in order to be able to live when, as you say, life on the dole is an alternative; people like us live as nice lives as the salary for the work we would do anyway allows. The only question is those foolish enough to live at the very edge or beyond their income, but even they would still be working anyway, since even they could easily quit their jobs and join the lotus eaters living in council flats on the dole.

Take joy in being someone who has chosen his own destiny. To do otherwise would be to destroy your soul.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-24 16:09||   2010-09-24 16:09|| Front Page Top

#9 TW

I wish i could say it was only the muslim immigrants with the big families and unemployed.

Thanks to Labour we have become welfare heaven!

Posted by Paul D 2010-09-24 18:08||   2010-09-24 18:08|| Front Page Top

#10 I think of having a kid as a leap of faith. Faith in God, faith in one's self and faith in your spouse (I said spouse, not partner). Question is: Do you have faith?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-09-24 19:16||   2010-09-24 19:16|| Front Page Top

#11 Paul D., we on the far side of the pond hope the Tories will act to reduce the number on the dole. Let us know how that goes, 'k?
Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-24 19:21||   2010-09-24 19:21|| Front Page Top

#12 It has little to do with going to church.
How the hell are you supposed to feed and cloth and educate 8 kids in this day and age? A 4 or 5 bedroom house to house them in a decent neighborhood? Shoes and clothes and school supplies?
Christ almighty, you better hope you hit the lotto!
Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-09-24 19:55||   2010-09-24 19:55|| Front Page Top

#13 Oh please, the cost of raising children is now is much lower than when I was young and I'm not that old.

The price of clothes, shoes, and food is less than ever. Shirts and shoes are less than $10; pants $20. A decent outfit can be purchased for under a 100 bucks. It cost me $200 to buy a crappy suit for my College visits, and when I moved to campus I took all of my clothes, which filled less then half a closet.

Food is even less. 50# of rice less than $20. A gallon of milk has been $3 for thirty years. A loaf of bread can be made for a quarter's worth of ingredients. The microwave and dish washer creates time that was not available in the past.

Transportation costs so much less. Gas was over a dollar a gallon and my truck with 60k miles used three times more than my car with 200k miles does now. Good tires lasted 20k miles, versus 80k today. I can't even imagine how much money is not being spent repairing modern vehicles that we had to spend in the past.

The marginal cost of buying or renting in a decent school district vs a crappy one is a cost, but not more than in the past.

There is no comparison to the Commodore 64 computer that I bought for $200 30 years back vs last month's $200 netbook.

Are there lots of ways to blow your pay on expensive stuff. Ipods, restaurants, designer jeans, gaming systems. Sure. Choose not to.
Posted by rammer 2010-09-24 21:26||   2010-09-24 21:26|| Front Page Top

#14 Christ almighty, you better hope you hit the lotto!

Or be in a union.
Posted by Pappy 2010-09-24 21:33||   2010-09-24 21:33|| Front Page Top

#15 well, when our 2nd was born, it didn't cost us any more to live than it did before the wife was preggers... we still spent almost everything we made and didn't have much extra to show at the end of the month - same as all our childless friends.

the difference is that we spent more on what we needed instead of just blowing it on shiny objects and toys for ourselves. the eating out almost every night took a hit too.

somewhere along the way we learned to save and squirrel away some of the booty.

our single and childless friends still blow it all and live check to check. i would say that not having kids is costing them.
Posted by  Abu do you love  2010-09-24 21:36||   2010-09-24 21:36|| Front Page Top

#16 It's nothing to do with Christianity, it's a global trend.

Israel - exluding the Haredis who do little else but have children while getting handouts, Jewish birthrate quite low

Japan - overwhelmingly Shinto/Buddhist - massively low birth rate, aging population

Russia - Orthodox Christian - population already declining

India - The wealthiest and most developed states in India already have birthrates at or below replacement level, all the population growth is coming from the poorest states in India like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

Even the more Urban/educated Muslim countries like Iran and Algeria are recording massive drops in birth rates in just the last couple decades.
Posted by Gaz 2010-09-24 23:09||   2010-09-24 23:09|| Front Page Top

#17 It's going to be an interesting dynamic when Social Security et al go down and the unmotivated unemployed kids eat through their parents capital and will find that they now have to support mom and dad. Mom and dad probably will discover that maybe an extra kid or two would have provided better options for long term support.
Posted by Procopius2k 2010-09-24 23:10||   2010-09-24 23:10|| Front Page Top

#18 maybe an extra kid or two

by different spouses seems to be the trend, ensuring variegated results and almost unanimous animosity between and betwixt the various parent-child-step-monster members spiced up with legal battles. Oh joy, I think a cyanide pill when Im ninety sounds more feasible.
Posted by Ding a dang ding  2010-09-24 23:23||   2010-09-24 23:23|| Front Page Top

#19 Israel - exluding the Haredis who do little else but have children while getting handouts, Jewish birthrate quite low

Gaz, the last time I read something about that, the Jews of Israel had birthrates resembling where they (or their ancestors) had come from. It's not just the Haredis who have high birthrates, but the Jews from Arab and African countries, and also the Settlers, who are mostly Modern Orthodox, as far as I can tell -- at least they eagerly send their children to do their Army service. Or did I miss something?
Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-24 23:27||   2010-09-24 23:27|| Front Page Top

#20 Oh, and what rammer said. Although the cost of tertiary education and music lessons and Hebrew School have definitely gone up, but those are optional.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-24 23:29||   2010-09-24 23:29|| Front Page Top

23:38 Frank G
23:30 rjschwarz
23:29 trailing wife
23:27 trailing wife
23:23 Ding a dang ding
23:18 trailing wife
23:12 Barbara Skolaut
23:11 CrazyFool
23:10 Procopius2k
23:09 Gaz
23:02 Redneck Jim
23:02 Old Patriot
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:54 Swamp Blondie
22:50 tipper
22:47 Redneck Jim
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:35 Frank G
22:27 Steve White
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:15 Redneck Jim
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:02 OldSpook
21:58 OldSpook

Search WWW Search