Pro and c&#111;ns of families

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 11:50

People always had birth control (Japan population under the second half of the Tokugawa shogunate had a total demographic growth close to 0% even when there was no major mortality because of birth control including infanticide).

Maharbbal, I was talking only about Europe.

Japan was indeed very close to Europe. The cases of infanticides at such a large scale are rare indeed but every people have developed its own techniques. For the pygmees (who are nomades and thus can't carry more than one kid) having sex within three years after a birth is taboo. In Southern France in the 17 and 18th centuries the priest were forced to adopt a doctrine allowing the women (more religious but who didn't want to disobey their husbands) to accept sodomy. I'm no specialist of that matter but there are thousands of ways.

1. late marriages (women got married when they were around 25 years old)

2. big per cent of people who choose celibacy (about 10%)

3. a fatal habit of French women, who usually gave their children to foster mothers. About 50% of those children didn't survive this 'experience'

very true but I fail to see the point.

Maharbbal, our preferences are 1 thing, while identification of problem of low natality rate in Europeans countries is another thing.

Not quite, in your wording you have to pick between free and educated women and high natality rate. Not only this reasoning is flawed (are women less free in France than in Italy as they have important differences in their natality rate?) but if it was actually a choice, I informed you that I'd go for the first one.
Anyway both involve heavy reliance on immigration so I'd personally go for free and fertile women.

Maharbbal, I have 3 brothers. They are my the best friends. I always can rely on them. This is only one among many other advantages of family where are more than 1 kid.

I know that considering your parents sexual life may not be of your fancy, so lets take a random Polish family who only had 3 kids by the end of their fertile period. If we consider that a woman is unfertile during the 9 months of the pregnancy and the following 12 month (and I'm generous) that means that mean that this couple's female has been unfertile during 21x3=63 months during their wedding. If we also consider that you have to 'try' for a full year to get actually pregnant that means that they may have had an active sexual life for 63+12x3=99 months. If we considered they married at 25 and were fertile till 40 (and got married still virgin), that means that during their 15x12=180 months of wedding slightly more than half of it can be covered by the woman's 3 pregnancies. That means absolute frustration for half of their married life� or that they used a form of birth control (coitus interompus, pill, condom whatever you want, but something happened). Or that the couple was not together for some 5.4 months a year.

BTW of abortions - it is another reason why population of Poland didn't increase as fast as population of Turkey after WWII. In the Communist time, Polish women made 37 mln abortions. As you can see, abortions had bigger impact on Polish populacy than WWII.
Abortion is an issue and there has been plenty of threads about it. This figure is huge indeed (if I'm not too wrong it is more than one abortion per actual birth). Although some precaution ought to be kept when one talks about abortion:
- abortion is used as a form of birth control, meaning that in other circumstances the pregnancy just would not have happened
- legal abortion undertaken by actual practicians save many women lives, and thus paradoxically may have a positive impact on natality rate
- abortion in the US may have helped to fight crime as women who knew they couldn't take care of their kids just aborted instead of rising badly people who would become criminals

I am a free donkey!

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 13:00

Originally posted by Maharbbal

1. late marriages (women got married when they were around 25 years old)

2. big per cent of people who choose celibacy (about 10%)

3. a fatal habit of French women, who usually gave their children to foster mothers. About 50% of those children didn't survive this 'experience'

very true but I fail to see the point.

I have only tried to explain why France had such low natality rate in some periods of the past.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Maharbbal, our preferences are 1 thing, while identification of problem of low natality rate in Europeans countries is another thing.

I don't agree that there are any important differences between natality rates in France and in Italy. The natality rate in France is about 2,0 while in Italy it is only about 0,6 (or so) lower. Important differences are between natality rates in Turkey (or Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc.) and in France (or Italy, or any other country in EU).

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Maharbbal, I have 3 brothers. They are my the best friends. I always can rely on them. This is only one among many other advantages of family where are more than 1 kid.

Maharbbal, my notice about my brothers had a goal to show you that there are advantages of bigger family. It was a reply on your notice:

'I don't see how this can be better than my mum who had 1 kid only�'

I don't understand what is the point of your considerations. Generation of my parents differs from generation of my grandparents. Opposite to the generation of my grandparents, the generation of my parents used some methods of a birth control. Therefore the natality rate in Poland in 1960's or 1970's was 'only' about 3.0, while before WWII it was close to 5.

BTW, the natality rate in Poland in 2006 was 1,24.

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:41

Originally posted by ataman

I don't agree. I have shown you�causes and�direct effects. For example:

- the cause - more educated women� (more women are educated and more women learn longer - for example they go to universities)

- the effect - usually women don't decide to born children when they learn; they�marry later (or / and use methods of birth control) and therefore they have less children

�

You haven't shown us anything, just made a statement of belief.

Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by edgewaters

A third factor may be responsible for both feminism and lower natality - say, education or living costs or social mobility. People who expect to have more income in the future might wait longer to have children, for instance.

�

Ok, so show me any feminised society which has a high natality rate.

If there's a third factor responsible for both then all societies with a feminist movement will have a lower birth rate.

Just like the flooding of the Nile and the movement of celestial bodies will always coincide, even though there is no causal relationship between them. You're right back where you started, assuming a causal relationship because of mere correlation - fine for a priest of the Chalcolithic era, but we're beyond this now.

Besides that, declining birthrates in places like the US predate feminism. In 1800, the birthrate (among whites, anyway) was 55 births per 1000 population per year. 1810, it is 54.3. 1820, it is 52.8. 1830, it is 51.4 and by 1850 it is down to 43.3

This was all before anything that could conceivably be termed "feminism" had happened. There was no suffragette movement in the US at all prior to the 1820s and it did not even make a minor impact on the society until the 1870s. Yet birthrates were falling .... and there is no rise in the rate of decline associated with the birth of early feminist movements like suffragism.

Edited by edgewaters - 07-Jul-2007 at 21:00

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 20:20

I have only tried to explain why France had such low natality rate in some periods of the past.

Thanks then to make my point: dramatic drops of natality may be totally disconnected with feminism.

Actually Italy is closer to 0.9 or 1 than to 1.4. Which means that France's natality is close to 100% higher than Italy, it makes all the difference between population rise or not.

Maharbbal, my notice about my brothers had a goal to show you that there are advantages of bigger family. It was a reply on your notice:

'I don't see how this can be better than my mum who had 1 kid only�'

lol my notice about my mum was in comparison with her mother number of abortions.

I am a free donkey!

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:14

Originally posted by Maharbbal

I have only tried to explain why France had such low natality rate in some periods of the past.

Thanks then to make my point: dramatic drops of natality may be totally disconnected with feminism.

To clear my point - I have always agreed that feminism isn't the only one cause which is decreasing a natality rate. Like bubonic plague isn't the only one cause of mortality of people.

But it doesn't mean that (IMO) feminism isn't responsible for decreasing of natality rate at all. IMO we are living in the period when 2 factors are the most important for a low natality rate:

1. feminism

2. using methods of a birth control

Here we have an analogy to bubonic plague. Although it isn't the only one cause of mortality of people, but there were periods in European history, when bubonic plague was the main cause of mortality of Europeans.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Actually Italy is closer to 0.9 or 1 than to 1.4.

What is the source of this information?

Originally posted by Maharbbal

lol my notice about my mum was in comparison with her mother number of abortions.

Oh, I see. I got you wrong.

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:22

Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by ataman

I don't agree. I have shown you causes and direct effects. For example:

- the cause - more educated women (more women are educated and more women learn longer - for example they go to universities)

- the effect - usually women don't decide to born children when they learn; they marry later (or / and use methods of birth control) and therefore they have less children

You haven't shown us anything, just made a statement of belief.

I have shown you the result of the poll which was made among Polish women. Polish women declare that during their education they don't want to born children and that they wait with this decision until they finish their education.

Most of Polish women also declare that they want to work after they finish their education. They want to make career (especially these ones who finish univeristies). And usually they don't want to be depended on men.

They usually declare that they want to have only 2 children (sometimes they want 3 children), but they affraid that a maternity will disturb their careers.

If it is not the result of the feminisation of the country, what is it?

BTW, according to other polls, an average Polish woman has 4-5 sexual partners in her life. Only a margin of Polish women are virgins when they marry. Most of Polish women use some methods of a birth control (though over 90% of the Poles are Catholics).

The ammount of divorces (though the lowest among European countries) is increasing. The ammount of marriages is decreasing. Many Polish women (especially if they live in cities) are and want to be singels.

Edited by ataman - 08-Jul-2007 at 01:04

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 10:54

But it doesn't mean that (IMO) feminism isn't responsible for decreasing of natality rate at all. IMO we are living in the period when 2 factors are the most important for a low natality rate:

1. feminism

2. using methods of a birth control

One question is what do you mean by feminism. Is it just cultural "I wanna be free ie no kids for me thanks a lot"? Women working cannot only be considered a feminist issue as clearly a couple with two kids couldn't live in Paris or London with one single salary at a minimum wage.
Moreover as we agreed before all periods have used birth control method. Birth control is merely a tool to fulfill a strategy. The real question being why is this strategy here in the first place?
As I told you before, some cultural factors may affect people's decisions (less influence by the church and other traditional institutions) but IMHO it is mostly economic.
First point: how much costs a child nowadays as opposed to say 1950?
Not only progress, consumerism and the end of the traditional networks means that you have to buy a hell lot more stuff than before (vaccines, babysitters, carts, etc) but as opposed to a generation or two before us, kids stay long in school and at home. In other words, in the 1950s judging by your own experience you could hope to see your kid independent at his 18th birthday with a job and all. Nowadays, considering the difficulty to find employment and the length of the studies one may have to consider keeping the kid at home up to 7 or 10 years more. Similarly in the US, one kid's higher education may cost some $100,000. With this kind of prices, one child is OK, two doable and three financially out of reach.
Second point: before WWII, in most European countries, the only way to be sure not to starve if you grew too old to work was to have your kids helping you. In a sense your children were your insurance policy as well as your retirement plan. And it was a rather cheap one as well (see my first point). Now the problem is different, you have kids because you want to not because you have to.

Here we have an analogy to bubonic plague.
I'm sure feminist will be delighted to be compared to that.
But ultimately, as feminism ain't the only (nor the main) reason for the drop of the natality rate, there is something strange to see conservative attacking feminism instead of the other reasons.
IMHO feminism has major positive effects for the women (freedom, education), for the couples (two salaries) and for the country (more work force). On the contrary the disappearance of free kindergardens and the rise of the real estate prices that account a lot for the drop of the birth rate and have virtually no positive effects.
At the end of the day, this political paradox can be twisted around by understanding that the number of children finally may matter less than their quality. Germany population halves Nigeria's but Germany is way stronger than Nigeria because they invest more in their children. Would it be dramatic if France went back to 40 millions inhabitants? Certainly not as long as productivity goes on rising. More often then not people fearing about the drop of the birth rate can't really tell you what they really fear. Can you?

What is the source of this information?

http://www.indexmundi.com/italy/birth_rate.html
Italy in 2006 is said to have a birth rate of 8.54 for 1000 persons ie statistically a bit more than 1.013 child per woman.

I am a free donkey!

Styrbiorn

Caliph

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810

Quote

Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 11:56

Originally posted by ataman

The ammount of divorces (though the lowest among European countries) is increasing. The ammount of marriages is decreasing.�Many Polish women (especially if they live in cities)�are and want to be singels.

And the average for male is what? How many male Polish persons are virgins when they marry?

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 13:17

Also I wouldn't say it is just women who don't want to have kids.

I have no kids; my sister has 4 daughters. They almost went through a divorce with the 4th one because they don't have alot of money and he was frustrated that she wanted another.

Economic conditions play a major role. In times where families were very large, having lots of kids was good; you could work more land, expand the crops, have a bigger harvest. The guy with 12 kids in 1750 was living in style, the envy of his neighbours; the guy with 12 kids in 2007 is almost invariably a pauper and recipient of charity in some form.

Edited by edgewaters - 08-Jul-2007 at 14:41

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 00:30

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

And the average for male is what?

I've read about it, but unfortunately I've forgot the exact data

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

How many male Polish persons are virgins when they marry?

A margin too.

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 01:04

Originally posted by edgewaters

Also I wouldn't say it is just women who don't want to have kids.

It's true. But statisticaly Polish men want about 1,2 more kids than Polish women.

Originally posted by edgewaters

Economic conditions play a major role.

IMO, it is a minor factor. Really. I don't think that economic conditions are so important. Why?

Look at Poland. The birth rate in Poland is only 1,24 although having children in Poland isn't so expensive. I write it from my experience. I have 3 kids by now (and we want to have 2 more). The cost of education is close to 0. Even universities are for free.

The cost of kindergarten is about 250zl (about $100) per month, per kid. But if a woman stay at home, kindergarten isn't necessary. That is why I don't have to spend money for any kindergarten.

The cost of flat is huge only in the centre of the city. But if you want to buy a flat outside the centre, the cost is relatively low. We (I mean my wife and me) were able to buy own flat after only 4 years. Most of the Poles have their own flats (BTW, I have read somwhere that the per cent of people who have own flats in Poland is much bigger than in GB, Spain and most of European countries).

What else? The cost of life isn't so big. Food is really cheap. Energy etc. are relatively cheap. The cost of living in Poland is much smaller than in western Europe (but we have also smaller salaries; for example I earn about 1000 euros per month and it is rather a high salary in Polish terms; an average salary in Poland is 2780zl/month, meaning about 730 euros per month).

So sombody should expect that Polish natality rate should be high. But it isn't. We have much smaller natality rate than 20 years ago (in 1985 it was 2,4), when Poland was in deep crisis. We have much smaller natality rate than 40 years ago (about 3,1), when Poland still was rebuilding after WWII etc.

If economic conditions are so important, why people who earn more money don't have more children? Sombody should expect that more educated people, who earn more money have more children. But it is contrary (at least in Poland). Better educated people earn more money but they have less childern than worse educated people who earn less money. There isn't correlation between the level of salary and the ammount of children.

Edited by ataman - 09-Jul-2007 at 04:32

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 01:22

Originally posted by Maharbbal

One question is what do you mean by feminism. Is it just cultural "I wanna be free ie no kids for me thanks a lot"?

Yes, something like that. I'll give you an example. My cousin has a wife and 1 kid (the son, who is 1,5 year old). They have their own flat and 2 cars. My cousin earn money for the whole his family. He expects from his wife only 1 thing - the care of kid. But his wife doesn't want to stay at home and she doesn't want to take care their kid. She wants to work. She wants to meet people (by now they live in a suburb of the city and she doesn't have too many occasions to meet anybody except neighbours). Of course she doesn't want to born next kid.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Second point: before WWII, in most European countries, the only way to be sure not to starve if you grew too old to work was to have your kids helping you. In a sense your children were your insurance policy as well as your retirement plan. And it was a rather cheap one as well (see my first point). Now the problem is different, you have kids because you want to not because you have to.

I agree. I forgot about it.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

IMHO feminism has major positive effects for the women (freedom, education), for the couples (two salaries) and for the country (more work force).

I agree that feminism has some positive effects for the women, but I don't agree that it has a positive effect for the country. More work force is good during a war, when men have to fight, but during a peace it increases unemployment.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

At the end of the day, this political paradox can be twisted around by understanding that the number of children finally may matter less than their quality. Germany population halves Nigeria's but Germany is way stronger than Nigeria because they invest more in their children. Would it be dramatic if France went back to 40 millions inhabitants? Certainly not as long as productivity goes on rising.

Of course the quality is very important. But it is much easier to develop the country if you don't have a big per cent of old people, and if you have enough recources of young people.

Look at France and China today and before WWII.

Before WWII China had about 450mln people (now it has about 1,3bln), while France had about 41mln people (now it has about 64mln). Before WWII France was the first rate power, while China was a weak, provincial country. Today China is stronger than France, although the qality of life still differes very much. In close future China will be a superpower, while France is and will be a second rate power.

It is much easier to develop economy than to increase a population of developed country.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

More often then not people fearing about the drop of the birth rate can't really tell you what they really fear. Can you?

I can

Some people affraid immigrants (the whole EU). Some people affraid that there won't be enough young people, who will work for their retiring (this is a real danger in Poland). Some people affraid that their country will lose its present-day meaning (like Russia or France). Some people affraid enemy countries, where natality rate is much bigger than in their country (like Israel).

Originally posted by Maharbbal

What is the source of this information?

http://www.indexmundi.com/italy/birth_rate.html
Italy in 2006 is said to have a birth rate of 8.54 for 1000 persons ie statistically a bit more than 1.013 child per woman.

Thanks. Very interesting site. But can you explain how do you convert these numbers?

Edited by ataman - 09-Jul-2007 at 01:55

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 14:40

Originally posted by ataman

IMO, it is a minor factor. Really. I don't think that economic conditions are so important. Why? Look at Poland. The birth rate in Poland is only 1,24 although having children in Poland isn't so expensive.

Sure, but what's the benefit? You're only looking at it in terms of the expense.

Birthrates have been falling since the end of the 1700s ... so has the benefit of having children, and in developed countries, there is no longer any economic benefit at all. Remember, at one time more kids meant you were not just spending less - you were earning more, they could work on the farm and provided for you in retirement. Now they need support until their mid-20s, don't send money home when they start working (rather usually ask for it until they get a good job), and often expect their parents to provide for their own retirement.

They are busy with their careers. And find fulfillment in work and consumerist living. What do they need children for? Children are, in the majority, born to the poorer classes in developed countries because children are fulfilling, and if a person doesn't feel fulfilled they have reason to have children. Also they can win respect and praise just by being parents, if that's something their job doesn't provide.

There isn't correlation between the level of salary and the�ammount of children.

Absolutely there is. The distribution of births favours low incomes within developed countries. An average of about 1 in 6 kids in North America is born to a household that is below the poverty line, but only about 1 in 8 households are below the poverty line.

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:21

How old are they in the first place? How do you now she doesn't want another one later? Besides using just one example doesn't demonstrate anything. I can give you some where the man broke up because he didn't want a kid.

please give me a glass of water� if you can demonstrate that I give you the Nobel prize right away.
Of course this is an old argument, in my knowledge Marx was the first to use it calling in substance the feminists of his age the useful idiot of capitalists as an increase of the size of the available workforce would decrease the salary.
But this in practice does not work. Take the example of France. According to this 65% of women and 75% of men in France were active (i.e. having worked at least once in their lives officially, the figure is amongst the lowest in Europe, and actually was respectively 50% and 80% in 1975).
Lets admit there are just as many women as there are men. Lets also assume that there are as many men as there are women unemployed. If the 25% of men not active got the jobs of the active women. You'd be with still 40% of women active.
According to this it would represent still some 8 million women. If you decrease this figure by the 3 millions people un- or ill-employed you'd still get 5 millions French female working on the initial 13. And I've been nice I haven't considered the fact that an important portion of the French workers are from foreign origin. So if tomorrow you want to prevent women from working in France you have to import that very day 5 millions male immigrants aged over 15 (i.e. at least 10 considering their family and the extra jobs they would create). OK lets say 2.5 because some of the women's jobs can be merely deleted, others replaced by robots and other done by men working afterhours.

Hey I didn't know you were for the importation of the equivalent of at least 8% of the European population worth of immigrants (in the European scale that is 24 millions people coming in instantly�).
Of course I'm joking but it was just to show you that what you are asking for is just not possible.

Of course the quality is very important. But it is much easier to develop the country if you don't have a big per cent of old people, and if you have enough recources of young people.

Granted, but on the other hand if you decide to adopt a new demographic model the earlier the better.

Look at France and China today and before WWII.

It is much easier to develop economy than to increase a population of developed country.

Yes of course. But the real question is do you prefer to live and rise your kids as the average Frenchman or the average Chinese? I won't discuss your argument as you don't take into consideration the fact that France was a colonial power and the fact that China was weak because torn appart by civil war. Ultimately it make no doubt that countries like the US or in the past USSR and now China are strong because they benefit from a wonderful effect of economy of scale, but France should have a hell lot of sex before competing with China� lol I'm ready to serve my country.

Some people affraid immigrants (the whole EU).
� errr

Some people affraid that there won't be enough young people, who will work for their retiring (this is a real danger in Poland).
Move to the Netherlands where they have a state of the art retiring system.

Some people affraid that their country will lose its present-day meaning (like Russia or France).
I hate Russian people and I certainly hate French people.

Some people affraid enemy countries, where natality rate is much bigger than in their country (like Israel).

lol Israel is the best example they only get what they did to others.

I'm teasing you. All these fears are felt by many. But IMO they are fairly irrational. That said I am also for a high birth rate because I'm in favour of people not feeling threaten and not being afraid.

Thanks. Very interesting site. But can you explain how do you convert these numbers?

You're right I made a mistake I was doing 8.54 x 30 (fertility window) / 500 (pop/2) but it should have been 8.54 x 79 (life expectancy) / 520 (sex ratio) = 1,29 (real figure here). My bad.

I am a free donkey!

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 00:21

Originally posted by edgewaters

Sure, but what's the benefit? You're only looking at it in terms of the expense.

I tend to agree that there aren't economical benefits. The only one which I can imagine is an independence on retiring system.

But if somebody isn't an old man, the best (from economical point of view) is to be a singel.

Originally posted by edgewaters

Birthrates have been falling since the end of the 1700s

It depends on the country. This statement isn't true at least for the central and eastern Europe.

Originally posted by edgewaters

... so has the benefit of having children, and in developed countries, there is no longer any economic benefit at all. Remember, at one time more kids meant you were not just spending less - you were earning more, they could work on the farm and provided for you in retirement. Now they need support until their mid-20s, don't send money home when they start working (rather usually ask for it until they get a good job), and often expect their parents to provide for their own retirement.

Well, there are exceptions, but your description is good for majority.

Originally posted by edgewaters

They are busy with their careers.

This is not an explanation.

It is true that somebody have to earn for family. If this is a husband, his wife might take care their children. If a wife of well educated man (who earns enough money) wants to work, doesn't want to stay at home with children, doesn't want to born children, it is a feminism.

Originally posted by edgewaters

And find fulfillment in work and consumerist living.

What do they need children for? Children are, in the majority, born to the poorer classes in developed countries because children are fulfilling, and if a person doesn't feel fulfilled they have reason to have children. Also they can win respect and praise just by being parents, if that's something their job doesn't provide.

Wow! According to this logic, my job doesn't provide me enough praise and respect and therefore I want to have 5 children. I don't buy this theory.

My job satisfies me very much, but I still want to have more children. Or maybe rather I want to have more children because my job satifies me very much. Thanks to my job, the level of my self-satisfaction is high. Thanks to my job I am an optimist. As a optimist I plan to have 5 children, because I know that I won't have any problem with providing my family enough money in the future.

I am 'capacity' enough and I am able to be fulfilled by my job and by my children simultaneously

Originally posted by edgewaters

There isn't correlation between the level of salary and the ammount of children.

Absolutely there is. The distribution of births favours low incomes within developed countries.

I meant, there is inverted correlation between the level of salary and the amount of children. The better educated people (read - the higher income), the lesser amount of children.

If economic factor is so important, we should observe correlation like this - the better educated people (read - the higher income), the bigger amount of children.

Edited by ataman - 12-Jul-2007 at 00:32

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 01:25

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Yes, something like that. I'll give you an example. My cousin has a wife and 1 kid (the son, who is 1,5 year old). They have their own flat and 2 cars. My cousin earn money for the whole his family. He expects from his wife only 1 thing - the care of kid. But his wife doesn't want to stay at home and she doesn't want to take care their kid. She wants to work. She wants to meet people (by now they live in a suburb of the city and she doesn't have too many occasions to meet anybody except neighbours). Of course she doesn't want to born next kid.

How old are they in the first place?

He is 29 years old. She is 30 years old.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

How do you now she doesn't want another one later?

She told me (and not only me). In fact, we expect that they will divorce soon.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Besides using just one example doesn't demonstrate anything. I can give you some where the man broke up because he didn't want a kid.

I've provided this example only to explain what I mean by 'feminism'.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Maharbbal, I have not write about salary. I have written about unemployement.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

But this in practice does not work. Take the example of France. According to this 65% of women and 75% of men in France were active (i.e. having worked at least once in their lives officially, the figure is amongst the lowest in Europe, and actually was respectively 50% and 80% in 1975).
Lets admit there are just as many women as there are men. Lets also assume that there are as many men as there are women unemployed. If the 25% of men not active got the jobs of the active women. You'd be with still 40% of women active.
According to this it would represent still some 8 million women. If you decrease this figure by the 3 millions people un- or ill-employed you'd still get 5 millions French female working on the initial 13. And I've been nice I haven't considered the fact that an important portion of the French workers are from foreign origin. So if tomorrow you want to prevent women from working in France you have to import that very day 5 millions male immigrants aged over 15 (i.e. at least 10 considering their family and the extra jobs they would create). OK lets say 2.5 because some of the women's jobs can be merely deleted, others replaced by robots and other done by men working afterhours.

Hey I didn't know you were for the importation of the equivalent of at least 8% of the European population worth of immigrants (in the European scale that is 24 millions people coming in instantly�).
Of course I'm joking but it was just to show you that what you are asking for is just not possible.

Eh,

Maharbbal, if your country will suffer a shortage of work force, the best way to prevent it is to birth more children today

You don't need to open your country for milions of immigrants. It will be enough if French women instead working outside home, will birth more future workers.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Of course the quality is very important. But it is much easier to develop the country if you don't have a big per cent of old people, and if you have enough recources of young people.

Granted, but on the other hand if you decide to adopt a new demographic model the earlier the better.

But why does anybody have to adopt a new demographic model (with all its disadvantages), if he can increase a natality rate?

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Look at France and China today and before WWII.

It is much easier to develop economy than to increase a population of developed country.

Yes of course. But the real question is do you prefer to live and rise your kids as the average Frenchman or the average Chinese?

This question reminds me a dilemma of Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c.

Polish nobility lived in the country which was losing a position of European power. Polish nobles remembered the past very well (they remembered a high position which Poland had until 1648) and knew what is necessary to do to regain old position of the state. They knew that it is necessary to reform the state follow foreign model - the model which limited freedom of individuals, but increased the power of the state.

This model - the absolute power - was terrible for the people who were born and who were living as a free man. But this model - the absolute power - acted very well everywhere it was introduced.

Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c. had to answer if they prefer to lose their freedom, but live in stronger country or to keep their old freedom (and see how their country is losing position). They chose the second option. They chose better life for their generation. It effected in next centries.

Maharbbal, your question includes the same dilemma. What does somebody prefer? What is more important for somebody - to live in the country which (by now) settles better condition of living for individuals (but thanks to them the country is losing its powerful position), or to live in the country which (by now) settles worse conditions for individuals, but thanks to them the country is gaining powerful position.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Some people affraid that there won't be enough young people, who will work for their retiring (this is a real danger in Poland).
Move to the Netherlands where they have a state of the art retiring system.

I doubt if Netherlands will open its country for 38mln Poles

Personaly, I don't affraid the future. I have 3 children by now. Even if the retiring system in Poland will fall, my children won't leave me alone.

My parents also don't need affraid the future - they have 4 sons.

Edited by ataman - 12-Jul-2007 at 01:36

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 01:53

In fact, we expect that they will divorce soon.

That maybe the answer, but hey it is you family business not of my concern.

Maharbbal, I have not write about salary. I have written about unemployement.

It is the same (more or less) I mean same mechanisms at play.

Maharbbal, if your country will suffer a shortage of work force, the best way to prevent it is to birth more children today

I don't know how poles do but in France at best it would take 20 years for these kids to grow up and learn something. A bit slow as an answer.

You don't need to open your country for milions of immigrants. It will be enough if French women instead working outside home, will birth more future workers.

I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm very concerned myself. If you have an answer to the deadlock: if we need more workers women must work, if women work there are less children, if there are less children we need more workers. Moreover you have to respect people's freedom, you can't just come up with a brilliant plan and impose it on others.
Seriously if you have the tiniest idea I'd happily hear it. Of course some women can just pull back from the workforce on their own but this won't do the trick.

OK I've been giving some thought into it. Here are some ideas but they'd need to be backed up by some stats:
- as I said before drop in the cost of a baby (no VTA on cheap baby food, many and free kindergarden, low prices on the real estate market, higher salary with low inflation, etc)
- propaganda not by the government but by NGOs pro-baby (not pro-family because the expression sounds too catholic rightist to me)
- support to fast transports, living next to work or working at home (more time at home = more time to make and care for the baby)
-support weddings and make adoption easier + force couples who want to divorce to go through a marriage therapy

This question reminds me a dilemma of Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c.

Interesting but at that time the crossroad was clear and somewhat up to a few hundreds individual decisions, not quite the case here.

I find you a bit too negative. Countries with low natality rates do very well very often.

I doubt if Netherlands will open its country for 38mln Poles .

Arrive all in one go, take them by surprise.

Personaly, I don't affraid the future. I have 3 children by now. Even if the retiring system in Poland will fall, my children won't leave me alone.

My parents also don't need affraid the future - they have 4 sons.

gosh I was sure you were under 20

I am a free donkey!

ataman

Chieftain

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108

Quote

Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 02:51

Originally posted by Maharbbal

You don't need to open your country for milions of immigrants. It will be enough if French women instead working outside home, will birth more future workers.

I don't know if this can be apply to France, but it might be done in Poland - the more retired man have children, the highest pension he should receive from retiring system.

Moreover - propaganda, propaganda and ones again propaganda. People should be convinced that the more chidlren they have, the higher position in society they have. Today a family which has many children is perceived as a pathology. Here you have a couple of typical questions (and statements) which you can meet in Poland if you have more than 3 children:

- Can't you use condom?

- Are you a crazy?

- Who will feed your children?

- You have 4 children? What a pitty.

- Why do you hear your priest? Are you a fanatic or what?

- If you have many children, you can't take care them properly.

- If you have many children, you can't support them in their future properly.

etc. etc.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

This question reminds me a dilemma of Polish nobility in the second half of 17th c.

Interesting but at that time the crossroad was clear and somewhat up to a few hundreds individual decisions,

Maharbbal, I don't understand your point. Can you explain it in another words?

Originally posted by Maharbbal

I find you a bit too negative. Countries with low natality rates do very well very often.

Which ones?

Edited by ataman - 12-Jul-2007 at 02:53

Maharbbal