Very interesting points, I had never thought about things like that.

Posted by: CanForce 101 at February 25, 2006 02:15 PM

---

While it would be nice to think that people think that far ahead I rather doubt it. The biggest reason for the decline in birth rate is affordable and effective birth control. Nobody sits down and calculates the cost or saving of having a baby or not. Just as no one is concerned about the wellbeing of the nation if they have a child or not. Just as we all have the urge to reproduce we also have the urge to pleasure ourselves with all kinds of things that are seemingly available only if we do not have children. With the daily bombardment we receive from society around us it is amazing that we have kids at all.

Posted by: Joe at February 25, 2006 02:24 PM

---

While it would be nice to think that people think that far ahead I rather doubt it.

It's not that we think that far ahead, but rather what we don't think about. In generations past, adults would consider their autumn years, and it was a given that you needed several children to maximize the odds that enough would survive to adulthood and then prosper such that you would be taken care of.

Not that you would live that long compared to today, but there you have it.

Children and retirement went hand-in-hand.

Today, the opposite is true. The two are totally decoupled, except in that children would tend to limit your ability to save for retirement.

But you are right, Joe, about the fact that it's a wonder we have children at all. Just goes to show how powerful the urge to have a family really is, which is why people like Friedman and the Myrdals are not likely to ever win. Knock on wood.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 25, 2006 02:32 PM

---

Your very best article yet. Intelligent and courageous. The part about pensions just occurred to me within the last couple of months but you said it better than I could have. We need to acknowledge that one of the negative externalities associated with pension schemes is the breakdown of the family, it's that simple.

Posted by: Anonalogue at February 25, 2006 02:38 PM

---

Your very best article yet.

Actually, since it's an old article, it suggests I've already peaked, and quite a while ago. Darn.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 25, 2006 02:45 PM

---

I hadn't considered this correlation between the birth rate and pensions, but it makes sense. It makes me also realize that pensions make another direct hit on family ties--an obvious one that I hadn't seen until now. Since the state bears the responsibility of caring for elders, children no longer recognize their own responsibility to care for aging parents, financially or emotionally. Is it any wonder that so many of our seniors are isolated and lonely?

On a brighter note, I've noticed that conservative families tend to have more children. Like Steve, my wife and I are raising four (count 'em!) future Tory supporters. Eventually we should be able to vote in a majority government, even in Canada!

Posted by: Ben at February 25, 2006 03:29 PM

---

Its a tough pill to swallow for most people but this is the ultimate result of all socialist ideology.

Posted by: PGP at February 25, 2006 03:36 PM

---

Excellent & thought provoking... Thanks, Steve.

Posted by: Mac at February 25, 2006 05:45 PM

---

Well after 30 odd years of abortion on demand, we now have a population inversion. In short, there will be less taxpayers to pay for all the delightful socialist programs.

Solution from the Socialists: Raise taxes for ever more government programs. Further, back and fill the population inversion by raising immigration targets.

Solution from the Conservatives: Have more kids raised to be "happy taxpayers"; and thereby spread the "load" over a greater population, thereby reducing the tax burden.

Selfishness has a way of catching up on society; it just takes 20 or 30 years to show up. But show up it will.

I expect we will get a "get busy in the bedroom" message from the government in the not too distant future, like Germany recently did, as the immigration part of the equation won't do the entire trick of balancing demographics in the economy.

On the other hand, you get the liberals flogging the proposition of euthanasia as the most healthcare dollars are spent in the last three years of one's life. Prior to the election not a few were wanting to revisit this theme. These pro-death types are getting a little repetative and I might say not too creative.

Getting busy in the bedroom, sounds a little more exciting. But then I've done a little better than the proverbial 2 kids and dog; we have 3 kids and "Buster" the cat.

How bout that "Buster" we've bested the alleycats who haven't been spayed.

Of course I have to give full credit to my wife as my contribution to this entire 'affair' has been minimal.

Yep, women do not give birth to "blobs of protoplasm", but rather have children. Who woulda thunk it?

I gather one can only go into biological denial for so long until it has its comeuppance.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at February 25, 2006 06:31 PM

---

Steve.....I agree with 98% of your articles. But I'm telling you man, the contention that people who choose not to have children are somehow selfish individuals who are cheating society - that doesn't sit well with me.

Some people are meant to be parents. Some are not. That's just the way it is.

Generally speaking, it is the children conceived by accident or conceived by bitchy, self-centered 15 year old girls who view babies as status symbols who grow up to be the parasites of society. One way or another, through the cost of welfare and/or crime, we are force to pay for them again and again and again.

Where was I going with this? I don't remember. I've been into Captain Morgan's spiced rum. So there!

Posted by: Liebermann at February 25, 2006 07:12 PM

---

I can go get a job at an Institutionalized daycare so I can pay another daycare to childcare my kids.... THE IRONY!!!

Yet, I am still a non dependent worker, and the Conservatives are in power... hmmmm

Posted by: Sara at February 25, 2006 07:38 PM

---

The socialized (pay as you go) pension scheme that is being run by the large industrialized nations is a ponzi scheme. a scam, a fraud. Every government in the world has thrown conmen in jail for running similar scams.

The monies paid into CPP are a tax - they're paid out to current recipients - tax payers are not saving for their future. As many have been duped into believing.

The sooner we unwind this system the better - as baby boomers will bankrupt not only their own families - but the entire nation, to play golf.

A nation is like a tree. Its leaves (citizens) must add more to the tree in each season (lifetime) than they use in resources. Imagine what would happen to a tree, if the leaves instead of falling to the ground in the fall, demanded sap from the tree in order to stay green thru the winter? The tree would die of coarse. As will western society, if the leaves drain all the capital from our economy in order that they can 'enjoy retirement'.

Posted by: Curtis at February 25, 2006 08:09 PM

---

This is a great thread and Curtis, you're right, it is a ponzi scheme. I love when I get my latest statement from HRDC that states "at your current contribution levels to age 65 you MAY receive a pension benefit of......blah, blah, blah."

Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality. Winston Churchill

Posted by: Paul V. at February 25, 2006 09:12 PM

---

Children have no value (birth rates and pension)
Steve Janke ^ | fed 25, 2006 | steve janke

Posted on 02/25/2006 5:37:25 PM PST by -=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-

One the issues that faces most Western countries is the cost of government-sponsored pensions. For most countries, there is a real concern that the next wave of retirees may drain much from the plans, while the shrinking work force will be forced to pay in much more as a result. In the worst case, there are worries that these plans may become insolvent. +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585635/posts

Posted by: maz2 at February 25, 2006 10:18 PM

---

Interesting comments as usual, Steve, although I don’t find it a surprising perspective, given your own family situation. And it obviously resonates with many of your readers (except maybe Liebermann and me).

Also as usual, I agree with you on the notion that socialism causes more problems than it solves. However, I do have bones of contention with your post.

First, addressing your main point, I assume that if you’ve chosen to have children, their value lies in far more than a retirement scheme. So while government-sponsored pensions may have eliminated that one reason for having children, I imagine there must be at least a few others remaining.

Unfortunately I’m in no position to comment on the value of children to their parents, since I’m childless by choice. But that leads to my main concern about your post: if I understand your argument, as a result of my decision, I’m to be considered both a “cheater� and “self-centred�.

Funny, given the amount of money I’ve contributed over the years to various levels of government so they could redirect it to other Canadians, especially those with children, “cheater� and “self-centred� are not the first self-descriptors I’d choose.

My contention is that, contrary to your comments, childless people are not net burdens on society (“cheaters�), but instead are probably net contributors, at least financially.

In my own case, I believe I’ve contributed far more than my fair share to help Canadian families. As examples:

- I could easily get behind the idea of ending an ill-conceived scheme like the Canada Pension Plan, which is not fully funded, but rather paid for by future workers. However, if you lead that crusade, perhaps you could also have a think about how I should be fairly compensated for the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve contributed thus far to pay for the pensions of those going before me.

- if we don’t manage to cancel the CPP, I guess your kids will be stuck funding the meagre amount I’ll draw when and if I reach 65 – it should be right around the time they enter the work force. Perhaps you, and they, can take some consolation from the further tens of thousands of dollars I’ve paid in property taxes over the years for my small city lot, about half of which goes to fund their education.

- I wish I was altruistic enough to simply refuse, or maybe donate, the few scraps the CPP may eventually toss my way. I’d be better positioned to do that while staying financially viable in retirement if I had been able to keep even a bit more of the hundreds of thousands of dollars I’ve paid in income taxes to this point.

I realize there’s some intergenerational funding I’m leaving out. I know, for example, that I’ve received benefits from previous taxpayers like my parents, and that acts as a contra to my own contributions.

But with the large payouts involved, perhaps you can see why I don’t hang my head in shame in response to the suggestion that I’m taking advantage of families with children. In fact, my thoughts are that it would be nice if, even rarely, someone with kids who derives the benefit from the huge taxes I pay would simply say “thank you�.

By the way, even if I did have children, I’d never expect them to take care of me in retirement. In fact, one could easily argue that such an attitude is far more self-centred than that of the childless. There is only one person who is responsible for funding my retirement, and that’s me.

In any event, I hope that conveys a somewhat different perspective from yours. I don’t disagree with your main hypothesis, but I’m not fond of being demonized for being childless, especially given how much I continue to pay into the system.

Just my $0.02 worth, at least comments-wise.

Posted by: 2Sheds at February 26, 2006 12:43 AM

---

- if we don’t manage to cancel the CPP, I guess your kids will be stuck funding the meagre amount I’ll draw when and if I reach 65 –

If you're not drawing now, its unlikely you will be permitted to draw at age 65. (either the fund will be gone - or they've raised the age)

Do you know why 65 was chosen as the age to start retirement?

Because the average (male) lifespan was 63 years when social security was introduced in the United states, as part of the new deal. So the original plan, was for most people to pay in, for their entire lives, but then die before they could collect anything...

Posted by: Curtis at February 26, 2006 02:08 AM

---

As I see it, your argument is two-fold:

1) Children had value in the old days because they looked after their parents when they retired. Since we now have a pension to look after that, children are now seen as a burden because they cost a lot, and they aren't needed to take care of their parents anymore (the government does it), so why have them? As well, we have to pay higher taxes to pay for those pensions, hence less money for kids.

2) You don't need to have kids, because others pay taxes and have kids, and in the process, help put money towards your pension. The state, not kids, is all that's required to look after you.

Here are some of my questions to you:

1) Are you suggesting that the only value children have is economic?

2) Do you simply need money in order to be taken care of when you are older? Or, are your needs more diverse than that?

3) Do you think that it's possible that parents have less kids simply because they have less time and kids cost more these days? We have convinced ourselves that kids need everything on the market to be happy. Not in the old days. All they needed was some open space and a good imagination.

4) Did you have kids so that when you got older, someone would look after your needs?

Posted by: at February 26, 2006 03:12 AM

---

As I see it, your argument is two-fold:

1) Children had value in the old days because they looked after their parents when they retired. Since we now have a pension to look after that, children are now seen as a burden because they cost a lot, and they aren't needed to take care of their parents anymore (the government does it), so why have them? As well, we have to pay higher taxes to pay for those pensions, hence less money for kids.

2) You don't need to have kids, because others pay taxes and have kids, and in the process, help put money towards your pension. The state, not kids, is all that's required to look after you.

Here are some of my questions to you:

1) Are you suggesting that the only value children have is economic?

2) Do you simply need money in order to be taken care of when you are older? Or, are your needs more diverse than that?

3) Do you think that it's possible that parents have less kids simply because they have less time and kids cost more these days? We have convinced ourselves that kids need everything on the market to be happy. Not in the old days. All they needed was some open space and a good imagination.

4) Did you have kids so that when you got older, someone would look after your needs?

Posted by: Peter D at February 26, 2006 03:12 AM

---

"I've noticed that conservative families tend to have more children."

Actually, it is Muslim families that tend to have have most children. So now you know where we've heading.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 04:35 AM

---

Having been raised by a single mom back in the 60's and 70's, I kinda wonder how society would function if this kept up.

I guess we're reaping what we sowed.

Our Native population has a crisis also, many single mothers raising kids because the men aren't taught to look after their families...the government will.

Yeah, get ready folks, the crunch is coming in 3 years. 2009, when a lot of the "baby boomers" are retiring. Who will support their pensions?

Maybe these greedy politicians and CEO's see the hand writing on the wall - there is no way Canada pension can be supported being so top heavy.

So we allow more immegrants to come in - low skill, low IQ, because, well us whities won't touch the McJobs.

And these low skill, low IQ types dont' have the lust for all the toys because they know they can't attain it, so they are more traditional and family. Twist that statement any way you like, but the proof's in the pudding, who's got the kids?

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at February 26, 2006 05:53 AM

---

Steve: Good points, with one crucial point left out. The males ... Without taking into account the thoughts & views of Joe Average the whole thing becomes a bit unhinged.

We're moving into a system wherein the daddy's are increasingly those irresponsible louts at the bottom of society and those rich fish at the top of society. The guys in the middle --who have a lot to lose-- are increasingly wary of the whole parent thing. The guys in the middle have a lot to lose and little left over. If something goes wrong, they're in trouble deep. This means they simply don't want to marry of have kids.

The men's movements call it "the Marriage Strike." Although there is little if any "strike" in the matter as that implies coordinated action, which clearly does not exist. None-the-less, more and ever more the guys in the middle, who are the majority, are reluctant to marry and even more reluctant to have kids. If they choose wrong, they lose what they cannot easily replace.

It comes down to a balance of power situation. Family law and society have shifted and that shift has left too many young men thinking "I'm not included in this." So, we have fewer children due to women's actions AND men's actions. You left out the men.

Posted by: jw at February 26, 2006 06:08 AM

---

In the soviet dominion of Kanadar, just as both the parents are tax slaves to state debt, their children are state property to be politically conditioned to take their place as servants of the state and to render their productivity and property to it when they are fully indoctrinated. Just as you are constitutionally forbidden from owning your own property, your family and private life are also claimed by the eminent domain of the omnipotent single party utopian state of Kanada. Years of indoctrination and forced subservience have created a cowed, controlled population where there is no true dissent of state-engineered conditions and all exist for the preservation of the state.

Auldous Huxley would be so proud of his inspiration on the Liberal architects of post modern Kanada.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at February 26, 2006 08:51 AM

---

The post above sounds like something composed by that Addis PhD fellow who was on here about a month ago, complaining that the Liberal Party wouldn't secure a high-profile job for him in this country.

Posted by: Liebermann at February 26, 2006 10:10 AM

---

Sorry, wrong on both counts Liebermann.

Remember what I said when April 1 tax bill comes due and you and the wife see she will be working another year to make ends meet...meanwhile the kids are totally in the hands of state eduacation run by indoctrinated unionists in state employ. How involved are you in your child's development outside the policy driven superficial effort the state makes?

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at February 26, 2006 11:48 AM

---

"How involved are you in your child's development outside the policy driven superficial effort the state makes?"

Who's doing what now? Anyway, I suppose the government knows what's best for kids.

Posted by: Liebermann at February 26, 2006 12:17 PM

---

Posted by: Liebermann: "I suppose the government knows what's best for kids."

Then that is the most irresponsible and dangerous supposition you will ever make in your or your child's life....what ever little "life" the state has left to you which it has not yet laid claim to.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at February 26, 2006 12:35 PM

---

Quite a thought provoking piece. We have three kids but my husband, his parents and my father's side are from big families. I really don't think any of them had kids for the reason you're suggesting and we certainly did not. I didn't see anyone mention infertility as a factor in not having kids, which is sometimes caused by sexually transmitted diseases, which leads me to one of my pet peeves about abortion; that young girls can potentially have access to multiple abortions with their parents never being aware. Maybe some wouldn't care. The point is; at what point do we start educating young people about their sexual practices and the future consequences if no-one wants to discuss abortion?
There is recent evidence suggesting teens are not using protection, having multiple partners and think they can't get STD's from oral sex. These practices also jeapordize our blood supply. What about future organ donation?

Hans Rupprecht; you made some good points. Esp. about selfishness catching up with us. With baby boomers retiring we will see it with extended care spaces, hospital beds and trying to replace police, fire and other emergency and health providers. The Liberals answer? Import strippers and anyone else willing to volunteer on their campaigns. It's interesting that you mentioned pets. The pet industry seems to be booming. Lots of money spent on pets and their care. People even willing to buy insurance and pay for expensive surgery. Pets can't support us in our old age. Maybe those who can afford pets and have the time, should put those resources behind adopting kids if they can't have their own.

We never had kids for financial gain, now, or down the road. I do think it's sad families have so little value, yet we're expected to pick up the pieces when our elderly parents retire, get sick and get sent home because the health care system can't handle them.

Posted by: Cheri at February 26, 2006 12:37 PM

---

Since the most important years in a person's life are the first 5 years, I think we should pay bigger money to mothers or fathers to stay home to look after the kids instead of sending them out to daycares. This is in keeping with the CPC policy to let parents decide.
Although the press nowadays gives a different impression, the vast majority of children are wanted by their parents although the timing is not always perfect.

From what I've read having at least one biological parent raising the child fulltime up to 5 yrs of age, results in the most well-adjusted child that has the best chance of success later in life.
This front end cost would then be balanced out by lower costs in the medical/justice systems in the later years.
And every kid should have a pet. One of our cats is now walking across my keyboard to remind me to say that.

Posted by: rockyt at February 26, 2006 03:24 PM

---

CPAC on Goldhawk tonight has the childcare issue and people are welcome to call in if your interested... www.cpac.ca

Posted by: Sara at February 26, 2006 03:24 PM

---

I think that this issue is an entire self-generated imagining of what was, what is, and a Liberal what should be.

Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at February 26, 2006 05:09 PM

---

Good points.And my children are more valuable to me than a pension. Along these line...it is interesting to note that since I put a career on hold for a few years to stay home, my CPP statement shows big fat zeros on those lines. The fed government doesn't value what I did , but we(my hubby and I ) are satisfied.VF

Posted by: Vicki at February 26, 2006 09:34 PM

---

I get the feeling that most people here define value as being strictly monetary. I'm not trying to put words in peoples mouths here, but is that what some of you feel?

Posted by: Peter D at February 26, 2006 10:28 PM

---

Peter D: Monetary? Yes, that view exists and is one part of the broad spectrum of human reproduction. I do not agree with the ones who put it too high on the list.

In my family's genealogy we're at the 1520's. Then, children had real monetary value. At my family's current cutting point --with the father only 6 months out of serfdom-- having children that were not the property of the Duke at Wittenburg was a boon. NOW, now though? I fail to see the monetary part of the equation. Our society is too different from Switzerland in the 1500's.

---------
I might add in terms of the overall discussion:

- sperm count & motility is lower now than at any time since we started collecting data: That effects births in a big way. It is also universally left out of the discussion.

- two forms of male birth control pill (actually similar to Norplant) are now in human testing. In 7 to 10 years when one or both gets on the market, they will effect the human birth rate in new and complex ways. This too is left out of the discussion.

- in a similar manner: Dr's discussing the male implant often say that it is irrelevant as males are too stupid and untrustworthy to use birth control, ie. the article from Portugal of last week. This level of contempt is also an important factor in understanding human birth rates.

- the number of perennial bachelors now runs at 22% or so and is rising. It should be about 12% and stable. This effects human births in complex ways: It is also either left out of all discussion or used as a tool to shame and blame all males.

We cannot arrive at a place in which we understand children when we demand all discussion be either female only or based on "those evil males." Therein lies one of the essential tragedies of our "modern" society.

Posted by: jw at February 27, 2006 05:24 AM

---

...folks the crap hits the fan in two years.

Two years! In 2009 we start seeing the baby boomers retire en masse. From there it is down hill.

You want to see a demographic shift in North America? As one poster said, our priorities will be healthcare, nursing homes, and euthanasia.

Police, fire, military will take a back seat. But then again elderly folks can't defend themselves, so where is the money for infrastructure support going to come from?

You guessed it, immigrants. But wait, this gets better, a lot of the Liberal Party voters don't work...

Which means more stress on the infrastructure. If their pogie cheque gets cut off, the cartoon protests will seem like Sunday school.

I hate to be a bringer of bad news, but I don't see much future for Canada. The saying of sowing and reaping will be so true. All these years of sowing to "social programs" and "liberal thinking" has ruined Canada to the point of no return.

This is, if not, THE most critical time in Canada's history on dictating her future. If Harper and Co. don't find the intestinal fortitude to fix it, we're doomed.

And that's the good news. Look to France and Australia. Clockwork Orange isn't too far away. Why, well what kind of morals do kids today learn in school let alone on TV, computer games, or watching adults in business/politics. Heck even the Edmonton police force is going through some issues. Forget about the RCMP, I don't know how those fine fella's (gals) go to work in the morning knowing their bosses in Ottawierd have their fingers in AdScam and who know what else.

We rant about democracy and sending soliders and RCMP's to Jamacia and so on for elections, but forget about Edmonton Liberal voter counts of non existant buildings and addresses of stripper bars.

We have a Ward 10 mess here in Calgary, where a fellow by the name of Aftergood stuffs mail in ballots deriding our one jewel of a fair and clean election and gets fined $4,000. Oh this is after he said he wasn't guilty.

Maybe these politicians like Dingwall aren't so dumb, they can see the handwriting on the wall, no pension, no support structure.

Ah to be a Liberal voters, living in bliss. Payday someday soon. But at least we can blame the Conservatives for our country's ruin in a few years...

Sorry to be a party pooper, but look at the season, the harvest time is neigh.

Posted by: tomax at February 27, 2006 07:24 AM

---

...why'd I say two years instead of three?

By then I think the majority of people gearing up for the "golden years" will begin to realize they've been duped by Trudeau's utopia...and by then it will be too late to learn about being responsible citizens.

Plus the younger generation will revolt because they will see their hard earned tax dollars going to a bunch of greedy whiners who screwed them out of their right to a decent future even before they were born. (Read: Tax burden).

Soylent Green isn't too far off either, and the Home I'm going to won't be some arena turned 'mercy killing' field...

But besides that, Canada lost in Olympic hockey, so time to give those babies another big million dollar raise obviviously the salary cap has cramped their playing ablility.

Hmm, something about values...

Posted by: tomaX at February 27, 2006 07:31 AM

---

One thing that never seems to get mentioned is the CPP's increasing involvement in corporate Canada. I agree that buying real estate and stocks diversifies the portfolio and enhances returns for the Canada Pension Plan, to the benefit of all Canadians. However, we should be mindful that this also gives a large state-run investor large sway (and say!) in the day to day functioning of corporate Canada.

We need to make sure that CPP's shareholder voting and other such actions are made with a view to what is best for portfolio returns and are not made to suit some political masters in Ottawa.

Maybe I am just being paranoid, but there was that small matter of Adscam and other such examples of Fiberal impropriety over the last 12 years...

Posted by: MB Guy at February 27, 2006 01:13 PM

---

gee if all our predecessor had had no children what would canadas GDP be today.

0

Posted by: DrWright at February 27, 2006 02:39 PM

---

Canada's GDP?

Imported workers.

Posted by: tomax at February 27, 2006 05:09 PM

---

Great post.

I mention a great book that is must read for all. It's called: The Birth Dearth/What Happens When People in Free Countries Don't Have Enough Babies?
by Ben J. Wattenberg

When we brought our seventh bundle of joy home from the hospital we heard some grumblings in the ranks - some disgruntle co workers of hubbies. Who felt the need to inform us that our family of seven smiley faces were putting an unfair drain on the social system of canada. Just think, of the teachers we would need, and think of all the health care we would just waste! by using it....and on and on. My husband quietly piped up: We just produced the seventh tax paper in this family who will be working and paying for YOUR retirement. What are you doing to help funding retirement?
And that ended the rumblings.
Somehow, this fellow, well educated and all, didn't have any clue that children invigorate the economy. Just think with 14 feet in our family ---- all the shoes we own. And somebody had to make them all, because we sure as heck don't know how to make shoes! And we need clothes, and we need dental care - lots of dental care. We have great readers and keep the book stores around here in business! And cars....lets see. WE have 5 parked in the drive way - dads, sons, sons, sons and ever trusting 20 year old 1/2 truck.

People drive the economy, people pay taxes. Sounds like everyone should know that, but there are lots of people who truly believe that children are completely and totally a cost and not one penny of benefit.

Some more reading on the situation of shrinking populations in the world.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005010
The Population Implosion. Can America be Saved?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200405%5CFOR20040512c.html
Having Babies Seen As 'Patriotic Duty' in Australia

http://www.popco.org/press/articles/2004-1-myers.html
EUROPE'S POPULATION DECLINE: PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY?

Thanks for a great article.
Grace
happy mother to seven
and one great husband!

Posted by: Grace at February 27, 2006 11:06 PM

---

But now you've got higher taxes. You have to pay for that. What expense can you cut back on? What is there that you can you do less with, now that your discretionary income has been curtailed?

Of course, kids.

Steve:

I'm sorry, with all due respect, that makes no sense and is inconsistent with all data. The decline in the birth rate can be observed in any industrialized society from the moment it starts to industrialize, not from the moment it starts to socialize. Similarly, the decline can be observed before there was any "family planning" or contraception. Poor families produce more children. There are lots of sociologists who weigh in on why that may be but generally, sociologists and economists agree that poor families and families in poor countries need the extra hands to help around the house, till the fields, work at the factory, etc. With affluence comes a diminishing need.

So it is not socialism that is the result of declining family sizes, or the devaluation of families and children, but industrialism and capitalism.

As I commented on another post of yours (hey, if you get to repeat posts, I can repeat comments, right?!), capitalism that has done more to destroy the family unit and community than the watered down, diluted beyond recognition socialism that you claim we have. And I say that as a fervent market-driven capitalist.

Capitalism values money and efficient distribution. It was industrialization that separated families from the land and communities, moved people from their homeland and extended families. Caused children to grow up in cities, provinces, even countries where they did not know cousins and grandparents. This did make woman's work much more drudgery without the community and family support networks. It's todays capitalism that keeps us from having a family dinner every night and the father away from home and now the mother as well. A family needs both by the way. Was that all of the good?

Capitalism has been the great democratizing and liberating force and has eliminated much hardship and poverty. But just because we support an efficient market system, doesn't mean it hasn't brought some nasty side-effects with it. Recognizing that should be the first step in re-building family life. Not pointing fingers and decades old books that very few people have read.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at March 1, 2006 02:45 PM

---