Posted on 08/15/2006 10:13:18 AM PDT by untenured
Germany has seen another decline in its birth rate, which is Europe's lowest.
Official figures show that the number of births fell by a further 2.8% last year. Meanwhile, the mortality rate rose by 1.5% compared with 2004.
The birth rate is exceptionally low in the former East Germany, where the city of Chemnitz is thought to have the lowest birth rate in the world.
Economists say Europe's population decline threatens to damage economic growth for decades.
The data from Germany's Office for Federal Statistics show there were 686,000 births last year - half as many as in the early 1960s.
Germany has had the lowest birth rate in Europe for some time and this trend has been confirmed.
In 2005 it had 8.5 births per 1,000 inhabitants, compared with 12 in Britain, 12.7 in France and 15.2 in Ireland.
The German cabinet approved proposals earlier this year for a new state allowance to encourage people to have children.
Germany registered 830,000 deaths last year - an increase of 1.5% over the 2004 figure.
 |
FERTILITY RATES
Live births per 1,000 inhabitants in Europe in 2004
Germany: 8.6
Latvia: 8.8
Poland:9.3
Hungary: 9.4
Greece: 9.4
Czech Republic: 9.6
Austria: 9.7
Italy: 9.7
Spain: 10.6
UK: 12.0
France: 12.7
Ireland (highest birth rate): 15.2
EU 25 average: 10.5
Source: Eurostat
|
Another German genocide, this time self-inflicted.
Dont worry...Muzzies are ready, willing and able to fill the void.
What the hell is the matter with these people?
They've decided on a final solution to the German problem, apparently.
Germany has exactly no nukes. Zero. Nada.
Only nuclear armed Europeans are UK and France
I think that's why Western governments are soft on immigration - a desperate attempt to bolster the labour force.
The U.S. is 14.14
But somehow the United States better mixes child rearing and the job market than do other advanced societies.
> Europe is hopeless and dying.
Agreed. Someone put it rather well: People who choose not to have children are voting against the future. It always reminds me of the close of Childhood's End. When all the children have gone, what is the point? Hedonism and suicide are the only options left.
OK, is there a practioner of the "dismal science" in the house who can help me out with this one:
If the population declines, what exactly is WRONG with having slowed economic growth?
Shouldn't the economy grow - or shrink - in proportion to the population?
And what would the U.S. birthrate be without the wetbacks?
Have you seen some of those girls?, the way they dress and armpit hair! No wonder.
Slightly higher than your IQ.
"And what would the U.S. birthrate be without the wetbacks?"
Yes, it would be lower if we measure just regular ole majority White folks. While we're at or above replacement levels of 2.1 births per female, we are having less children than various minorities and at a slower rate.
At first glance my five children makes me look like a real producer. But my family is a "yours, mine, and ours" family. My wife and my ex average only 2.5 births per woman and some of those were after age thirty. Some females become grandmothers in their thirties.
If Miss deHaiti has her first child at age 15 and her sixth/last child at age 32 while Mrs. SoccerMom has her first at age 30 and her second/last at age 33 then you can see where we're going. Factor in similar breeding habits among their children and do the math on who has the most descendents after 65 years. It is a squad vs. a reinforced platoon.
Some societies could manage a shrinking economy - Japan, maybe, with people working as long as they were able, and limited care for the elderly disabled.
Most countries would collapse under population pressure from the outside.
Mrs VS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.