Ensuring a healthy growth in population (can political pollicy encourage childbirth?)

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | August 19, 2007 | Jonathan Last

[Mrs. Don-o]

Regular readers will recall that we are on the verge of a population problem. Fertility rates have been falling across the globe, and in nearly every industrialized country are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Despite the appearance of a world bursting at the seams with an ever-greater number of people, the current growth rate is slowing and the world's population is likely to peak about nine billion and then begin contracting - precipitously - by 2080. Regular readers also will recall that there are convincing, if not certain, reasons to suspect that population contraction could be bad for civilization. So what is to be done? We've never had a population contraction in modern times, but it has happened before. The Greek historian Polybius wrote, circa 140 B.C., about his own civilization's fertility decline. The same fate eventually befell the Roman Empire, where birthrates became so low that Caesar Augustus instituted a "bachelor tax" to punish men who did not marry and produce children.

Such measures would be untenable today, but while population contraction won't become a global reality for 70 more years, the decline in fertility is already worrying some governments. In Poland, which has a deathly fertility rate of 1.26, the prime minister recently proposed tax exemptions for mothers. In Russia (fertility rate: 1.39), the government offered a bonus of $9,200 for women who had a second child and has begun running youth camps where young men and women are encouraged to procreate right then and there. Portugal (fertility rate: 1.48) is trying to change its pension system so workers with fewer than two children will pay more into it through taxes.

Elsewhere, the support for natalism has been more rhetorical. Before being elected prime minister in Turkey (fertility rate: 1.89), Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that contraception was "treason to the state" and that Turks should "have babies, Allah wants it."

Yet experience shows that it is easier to depress fertility - as the governments of China and Mexico have - than it is to goose it. For instance, Soviet Russia tried desperately to get women to have children as it faced collapse in the 1980s, going so far as to award a "Motherhood Medal." It didn't help. Sweden has also been struggling with dangerously low fertility. Through a series of incentives, officials managed to move the country's rate up to replacement level for a moment in the 1980s, only to see it plummet again in the 1990s. It stands today at 1.66.

Fortunately for us, the United States is in a better position than these other countries - for now. Buoyed in part by immigration, our fertility rate sits just below replacement (2.09). And the good news is that we have gotten rich before we will get old. (One of the demographic quirks about population contraction is that as the fertility rate drops, the average age increases; to put matters crudely, old people are more costly than young people.)

But this benign situation is not likely to last. More likely is that at some point in the coming years, pro-natalism will become a significant feature of U.S. politics, too.

So what will pro-natalist politics look like? The single most important factor in predicting fertility is what demographers unromantically refer to as "desired fertility" - the number of children a couple would like to have. This figure, however, is more restrictive than predictive. If the desired fertility rate is 2.0, for instance, the actual fertility rate may wind up lower, but it almost certainly won't be higher.

For instance, studies show that among Europeans, actual fertility lags noticeably behind desired fertility. German and Italian women born in 1960, for instance, had desired fertility rates of 2.0 and 2.1 respectively, but a real rate of only 1.65. Across the continent, if women had reproduced at the levels they wished for, Europe would not be facing a baby bust. There has been a similar gap between desired and actual fertility in the United States. U.S. women born in 1960, for instance, desired 2.3 children but produced only 1.9.

Desired fertility is particularly difficult to manipulate, as the failure of the Motherhood Medal demonstrates. But fortunately, in the United States that aspect isn't a big part of the problem: Desired fertility numbers are actually rising, with 42 percent of Gen-Xers - compared with only 29 percent of baby boomers - saying three or more children is the ideal size for a family.

A pro-natalist politics, then, seeks not to persuade people to have children, but rather tries to make having children more economically feasible. And it can start, as most everything in government does, with taxes.

In 1950, the Social Security tax rate was 1.5 percent for employees, with all wages above $3,000 tax-free. This meant a worker paid a maximum of $144 ($1,100 in today's dollars) in annual Social Security tax. By 2003, the maximum Social Security tax was $11,136 in constant dollars - a 1,000 percent increase. To put it more starkly, the median tax rate of a family with one earner in 1955 was 17.3 percent. By 1998, that median rate had jumped to 37.6 percent.

Since everyone is eligible for Social Security, these taxes are a transfer of wealth from those who create the next generation of human capital to those without children. Pro-natalist politicians will find ways to change this system, perhaps by cutting Social Security taxes for families with more than two children.

College is another problem. The unending spiral of college tuition both increases the costs for prospective parents and saddles with debt many young couples who might be contemplating starting a family. But just as important, the expanding timeline of college and the increasing necessity of graduate degrees continue to push back the age of entry to the workforce - and hence the financial ability to start a family. The problem is that nature has its own fertility boundaries. The entire college system needs to be changed to make it both more affordable and flexible to young couples who want to start families.

Pro-natalism shouldn't be antithetical to either Democrats or Republicans. Certainly, both parties would face some internal resistance - Republicans from big-business types who care only about sucking the most out of employees, Democrats from those who see traditional families as patriarchal structures that should be destabilized. But at this moment, either party could claim pro-natalism as its own.

Sooner or later, one of them will. The 2008 election may be about Iraq and George W. Bush and the housing market. But the future of U.S. politics is going to be which party helps people have babies. And that's up for grabs.

[RockinRight]

Are naturally-produced hormones not excreted as well?

I understand your point and have also seen the articles. But none of them explain how naturally produced hormones don’t have the same effect - would they not also be excreted?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Google estrogen river fish sex male --- which gives you 152,000 results in 0.46 seconds ---and tell me what's your impression of the first four or five articles.

[Kaylee Frye]

4 and a SAHM, sigh, you’re my hero! I hope to be you in about 10 years! :)

[RockinRight]

Solid post - but I will make one correction:

Every one of those abortions involved a man who was complicit in some way.

Not necessarily. I knew a guy in college whose girlfriend was pregnant AND had an abortion without him knowing a thing about it till months later. He was devastated.

[RockinRight]

It appears to me that pesticides are possibly also part of this phenomenon.

[Pining_4_TX]

First you do away with Social Security, so people stop seeing the government as their safety net in old age.

Next, you lower taxes substantially, so people can keep what they earn and be able to afford more children and for mom to stay home.

The third thing is beyond government’s reach - encourage people to live close to their parents. Yes, you heard me! Women who have help in the form of grandma living close by, have more kids. That is a fact.

[RockinRight]

Good points. Never thought of the third one. My parents live 350 miles away, and hers live 450 miles away.

[VOA]

Regular readers will recall that we are on the verge of a
population problem.
Fertility rates have been falling across the globe, and in nearly
every industrialized country are already below the replacement rate
of 2.1 children per woman.

The only "population problem" is that the sane parts of the planet
have been convinced to follow a number of cultural-suicide mantras:

1. Ladies, don't get married, because "a woman needs a man like
a fish needs a bicycle" (advice from the eventually-married
Gloria Steinem)

2. Ladies, don't have children, because you need to get ahead and
break that glass ceiling! (Don't even consider there won't be
down the road there won't be anyone willing to push your wheelchair
for less than $1000/hr.)

AND

3. You don't need your money to raise your family...You are supporting
the families of illegal immigrants and parasitic folks in places
like "Palestine", etc.

The problem is that the sane, productive countries have been
"reasoned" into committing birth-rate suicide.

And the people in countries that can't even construct a decent
sewer system are producing apace...supported by tax dollars from
the USA and the dying Post-Christian/Post-Modern empire called
Western Europe.

[Mrs. Don-o]

All from the CIA World Fact Book. Total fertility rates, 2007 estimates:

Iran 1.71

Tunisia 1.73

Algeria 1.86

Turkey 1.89

Pakistan 3.71

Saudi Arabia 3.94

Afghnistan 6.64

That's not "perpetually high birthrates." they're all over the map.

[Mrs. Don-o]

All from the CIA World Fact Book. Total fertility rates, 2007 estimates:

Iran 1.71

Tunisia 1.73

Algeria 1.86

Turkey 1.89

Pakistan 3.71

Saudi Arabia 3.94

Afghnistan 6.64

That's not "perpetually high birthrates." they're all over the map.

[Fishrrman]

Yes! But I'd make it graduated: 10% for first child, 25% for two, 40% for three, etc. etc., and everything doubled if one parent stays home AND cares for children. No just "stays home" while outsourcing childcare.

And, as you say, applicable to the married only, since marriage tells the world you're serious.

Any law or policy like this wouldn't last 10 minutes in any court in the United States, not even in the conservative ones.

A matter of a little clause in the fourteenth amendment regarding "equal protection under the laws".

You're going to have to come up with something else....

- John

[TASMANIANRED]

Sorry I was a little flip with my comment.

I was stating an obvious in a sarcastic fashion.

I challenge your statistics about 40% of American women having an abortion...

It is a statistical number that in no way is a reflection of reality.

Truth is some women use abortion as their primary means of birth control...Total number of abortions says absolutely nothing about the number of women that have them.

Not kidding myself that no one that I know may have had one but I’m quite certain that Mom didn’t and that I haven’t...
and considering that my siblings have had a total of 19 kids that none of them did either..

There is a segment of society where life at either extreme is not a particularly valuable asset....

[TASMANIANRED]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061221/ai_n17078742

Haven’t found the US repeat rates but here is UK’s.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, I don't know. There are a goodly number of protections, tax provisions and regulations which benefit the institution of marriage per se. Here, our fellow citizens in the gay marriage movement have done some of the homework for us:

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders: PROTECTIONS, BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE UNDER MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL LAW

It seems the law quite extensively privileges married couples over unmarried couples. Marriage is an institution which the state may favor for perfectly secular, public-policy reasons.

If you're an unwed father, can you take an automatic tax deduction for your dependent children?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's my statistical links:

"At current rates more than one-third [of American women] will have had an abortion by age 45."

"If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45."

I gave 40% as my estimate, which is conservative, because (1) the above figures refer only to surgical, not to chemical abortions, and (2)There is no uniform abortion reporting requirement, and it is widely conceded that the reported abortions are underestimated.

I agree that there are segments of society where abortion is chillingly routine, others where we still see it as shocking and horrifying. But it cuts a swath across all political parties, religions, races, classes and partisan affiliations.

[Salvation]

New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception

Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)

 

(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

 

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning

 

Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004

IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)

Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning

Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage

 

Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism

 

British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch

 

Natural Family Planning

[GovernmentShrinker]

What a bizarre cherry-picking of statistics! How did you decide to leave out:

Mali (90% Muslim) — 7.38 (highest fertility rate in the world)
Niger (80% Muslim) — 7.37 (second highest)
Somalia, (nearly 100% Muslim) — 6.68 (4th)
Yemen (nearly 100% Muslim) — 6.49 (6th)
(including 5th place Afgahnistan, which you randomly chose to mention, this makes 5 of the top 6 overwhelmingly Muslim countries)
Mauritania (nearly 100% Muslim) — 5.78 (14th)
Guinea (85% Muslim) — 5.75 (15th)
Oman (nearly 100% Muslim) — 5.70 (17th)
Gaza Strip (nearly 100% Muslim) — 5.64 (19th)
Djibouti (94% Muslim) — 5.23 (27th)
Gambia (90% Muslim) — 5.21 (28th)
Senegal (94% Muslim) — 5.00 (31st)
Comoros (98% Muslim) — 4.97 (32nd)
Eritrea (CIA just gives Muslim first, State Dept. estimates 60%) — 4.96 (33rd)
Maldives (nearly 100% Muslim) — 4.78 (38th)
Sudan (70% Muslim) — 4.69 (41st)
West Bank (75% Muslim) — 4.17 (49th)
Iraq (97% Muslim) — 4.07 (51st)
Saudi Arabia, which I assume you included due its being home to Mecca and a major breeding ground for terrorists, is 53rd.
Pakistan, which I assume you included due to its very large population, is 59th.

Further down the rankings, but still with rates above 3.00, far above Western rates, are Syria, Libya, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh (population 150 million!, 83% Muslim), Tajikistan, and Malaysia (60% Muslim).

Of the low fertility rate countries you mentioned, Turkey has an aggressively secular government (e.g. headscarves have been prohibited in all government buildings and universities for over 50 years), and both Algeria and Tunisia have long had governments that have actively opposed Islamic fundamentalists, and both also spent long periods of their recent history history under French rule (i.e. they are very atypical of predominantly Muslim countries of any significant size). Algeria is also an oddball in the Muslim world because it has no Arab ethnic background (or African, which is the second most common Muslim ethnicity).

[ModelBreaker]

I think feminism has a lot to do with it. But it seems that every society, even Rome, reaches a point where this happens.

You may be right. Feminism may just be one symptom of a deeper sickness. Wealthy societies become self-indulgent and selfish. Feminism may just be a way of rationalizing what we want anyway--a life free of commitments and the hard work of raising children.

[TASMANIANRED]

I wouldn’t put a lot of creedence in the Abortion federations stats...

Too much room to fudge and fabricate.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Of the low fertility rate countries you mentioned, Turkey has an aggressively secular government... and both Algeria and Tunisia have long had governments that have actively opposed Islamic fundamentalists..."

You're right on the money there, GovernmentShrinker. I wasn't denying the overall high fertility rates of Muslim countries; I was disputing the assertion that they have "perpetually high birthrates", as you said. This is clearly not the case, since Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Ceylon, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and others are in fact below replacement level, below ZPG!

My point is that high fertility rates in Islamic countries are not inevitable or perpetual; and your point, also true, is that low fertility among Muslims, as among Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others, often correlates with low religious observance.