Posted on 12/25/2006 11:37:23 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
German Family Affairs Minister Ursula von der Leyen hopes that the launch of new state-funded parents' support scheme will result in Germans having more children and as result help to reverse the steep decline in the nation's birth rate.
"Germany is a country, which has the longest and sharpest decline in the birth rate," von der Leyen told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
"I would be extremely pleased, if it succeeded in stopping this dramatic decrease of the birth rate," she said.
Analysts predict that Germany's current population of 82 million could drop to 50 million by 2050.
But in bid to encourage people to have more children, the German government is to introduce a new so-called parent's money benefit on January 1.
Under the new child welfare support, parents - either the mother or father - would be entitled to 67 per cent of their previous income, up to a maximum of 1,800 euros a month (2,363 dollars) while staying at home.
Von der Leyen, who has seven children. said the new parents money benefit represented the "first, but, key component" in helping Germany to address the greying of its population.
But she conceded that it will take some time "before people have the confidence to bring more children into the world again."
An amazing coincidence, I'd have to say.
In Sweden, the rate is 80% for 390 days, based on your income for the 240 days previous (there is a ceiling for that, though), but with 60 days earmarked for either parent. You can't be fired for taking those days, by the way.
I think it's a good system in our individualised society, where having children is an economic disincentive, especially for the mother. The country needs children, so in a free market system, they have to compete for the time and economic reasoning of the parents.
Well, good on you, mate!
Maybe the bonus is just enough to make people feel they can take the plunge. It at least gets them through the start-up costs. :-)
That said, it's sad that government subsidies have to be employed this way.
P.S. My gut feeling is that the plan won't work as well in Germany as in Australia. There is a fundamental optimism gap between the two countries. Also Germans are so numb to government subsidies already that I don't see this making much of a difference.
This is the country that just arrested a mother of 12 because the family was homeschooling. Who's going to birth children to be wards of the state? Nobody with sense ...
Nertz to 'em.
If industrialized nations want to increase their birthrate, the best example for them to use is the post-WWII Levittown scenario. It actually takes a lot of special planning to make a baby boom, and the US stumbled upon it by accident.
First, build or rebuild a city intended and planned solely for young married couples and small children. People beyond child bearing years, singles who want to play the field, and others who are "out of the game", are not invited to live there. If they can't have kids, they get transferred out of town. It should be clean and well landscaped.
Second, make moderately paying, but very boring jobs available for men only. Job promotion is secretly based on number of children. Women as homemakers are put in intentionally boring circumstances, with some modest home-based businesses available. Very few adult oriented entertainments in the city.
Third, design medium-large homes in clusters, with small private backyards, and a large common backyard for each 6-8 houses. Limit travel out of town.
Fourth, bring in religious leaders who emphasize having children at their services. With plenty of OB/GYN services, have little or no birth control and only medical emergency abortion.
Prior service military personnel are good to recruit from, as they have already had considerable physical and psychological screening. Women who come from large families and otherwise express an interest in having more than the usual number of children are also good candidates.
Behind the scenes, it is actually a very authoritarian place, but that is not obvious to those who live there. But the real purpose of the place is to propel a baby boom; anything else, any other prerogatives, governmental or individual, have to be secondary.
Your plan sounds good except the Germans will never accept living in a society where's birth control is limited and there's no abortion on demand.
Your plan sounds good except the Germans will never accept living in a society where's birth control is limited and there's no abortion on demand.
A country where people don't have children without government manipulation doesn't deserve to survive.
The problem is that statistically, in every nation, when a certain economic plateau is reached, which varies, the birthrate drops to about 2.1 children per family.
This is just slightly less than maintenance rate, but not critically so. However, with government interference, that birthrate can be pushed significantly *lower*.
That is, most often, governments try to mandate standard of living improvements for children. While this may be well and good for the children, it adds pressure to adults contemplating *having* children. Already stressful and difficult, each new government idea is the final straw to many couples who just give up on the idea of having children at all.
In a nation that prides itself on how well children *must* be treated, both by law and by social pressure, the birthrate drops like a rock.
So all that I really proposed it to *artificially* create conditions (with some improvements), that *naturally* occurred in Levittown and many other places in the US right after WWII, resulting in a baby boom.
Only a weird demographic and social situation could create such circumstances in the first place, back then; so it is quite difficult to re-create them intentionally. And this is where the subtle "authoritarianism" I spoke about earlier comes in: a strong, behind the scenes government that *protects* the artificial environment.
In other words, once the right kind of people are enticed to live there, the wrong kind of people have to be kept out, so that they can't interfere or impede the right kind of people having children. In addition, specialists, such as ministers and OB/GYN doctors, are brought in *on the understanding* that while preaching or administering medical care, they also encourage procreation.
This project is so vital to a nation that it warrants building or rebuilding a new city, just so people will be encouraged to have children. The jobs they are given are real jobs, but they are given to the people not out of any great economic need, just to help support them and encourage them to have children.
Only on the surface does it seem bizarre that a government would do so with the sole purpose of making tens or hundreds of thousands of "Cleaver" families. Encouraging such families could make an ordinary nation into a powerhouse in a generation or two.
Remember that authoritarianism that benefits a nation, its families, and its people as individuals, may not be such a bad thing after all.
In a nation that prides itself on how well children *must* be treated, both by law and by social pressure, the birthrate drops like a rock.
... but I see it in action in my area! We have the most crowded house - 2 adults, 8 children, 2 gerbils and a fish - of any family in our subdivision of 280 houses. And this is a neighborhood that includes Mexican, South American, Russian, and African immigrants.
I know our sleeping arrangements are against "child welfare" rules, in fact, because I have a baby in a crib in my closet!
On the other hand, there was no government subsidy to reproduce in my great-grandparents' time, and much less "drag" on families overall. My approach overall would be to eliminate as much government influence from every area of life (unintended consequences!) as possible, rather than having government deliberately act to increase birth rates. You can assume, as a generalization, that if government tries to produce result "X", you're going to end up with Q, R, and Z, but not X!
Granted, government does muck up things royally, as a rule. But there is also social pressure that is applied to young couples that makes having children much more difficult--and is far less controllable.
That is why such a radical step as a new city in the first place. To make a place with not only everything conducive to having children, but the absence of things that interfere with reproduction. And this can be an odd blend.
Great OB/GYN services, except with no birth control or abortion. Medical exams, even fertility exams before residency. No old people, adult singles who don't want to be married or have kids, homosexuals, genetic diseases, psychological problems, it's a long list of exclusions.
Employment has to be 100% for males, with only home-based businesses available for women. For the men, it is dreary and boring cubicle or retail work, and for women, it is boring housewifery.
The government will have to viciously fight off organizations and individuals who would do anything to get into such a situation for their own benefit. Young families are prime targets for any number of scoundrels and businesses that wish to exploit them.
So what is the end result? Families with no credit, but a good nest egg of cash, yet nothing to spend it on. Feeling very secure, but bored. Comfortable but not materialistic. Not able to travel much out of their city.
This is inherently a very odd place, and much like some parts of the US in 1950s suburbia. To call it a major, national project is an understatement.
Sounds like a recipe for divorce. I'm puzzled about the benefit to the nation of a bunch of people who hate their lives, each other, and their children!
I know lots of families with six or more children, and I don't think any of them would want to be involved with this kind of thing. It's not American.
As I said in a comment above, a society where the citizens don't voluntarily have children is doomed by its own dysfunction. Tough cookies for Germany, and tough for the U.S. if our birthrate falls below replacement level.
Was she disobeying a law?
Yes, I understand it is against the law in Germany to "deprive" children of government education.
To me, there's a real cognitive dissonance at work if a country wants to pay people to have children, but then forces them to allow their children to be indoctrinated with the values of people who won't have children.
Thanks. However, I don't believe your description of the state's motivations wrt public schooling is accurate.
It is no accident that one of the first things a modern nation does is establish public schools. Much of the ideological opposition to them is based upon nonsense, fantasy and delusion. Historically public schools performed admirably and are one of the reasons we have the super power nation we do.
My mom had seven sons and there is NO way she could have educated us and done the work necessary to feed, clothe and keep us clean. Even without the extra job of teacher she worked from dawn to 10 or 11 EVERY DAY.
Times have changed, housework-wise. When I was a child, I used to help my my great-aunt do laundry with an electric wash tub, a hand mangle, and a hand rinse tub. Then hang the clothes on the line! And that was an improvement from the days when her washer was diesel-powered :-).
I understand your point, and of course the government can force the citizens to send their children to public school, irrespective of the parents' preference. However, the government cannot force people to have children. It will be interesting to see whether bribing them will work.
Diesel powered washers wow. I can remember that my mom did clothes in a tub with a wringer and all until I was about ten or so. Heaven help you if you ran into the clothes line and knocked clothes off.
There are several things about homeschooling that I am skeptical about: one is that I do not believe most parents are qualified to do it, have time to do it right, would teach with the proper degree of objectivity (even with the Leftist dominated teachers' Unions there are still different perspectives simply because people just don't agree about everything), and it is unlikely that proper scientific equipment is available for teaching science.
I understand people wishing to remove their children from pernicious influences but one should not assume that kids believe much of what they are taught. I do not believe the state should completely restrict homeschooling but I also do not believe it should allow anything to be passed as schooling. My late wife was a teacher who anyone would have loved having she loved her kids and they loved her. The kids she taught would almost entirely have been totally lost with homeschooling given the Welfare Class nature of the parents.
I'd never consider saying that homeschooling is right for everyone, or even for the majority. (You sign up for a science course at community college or a private school that permits partial enrollment :-).
Regarding the German situation, my reasoning is this: If the mandatory public schools promoted values that encourage childbearing, the German population wouldn't be in a decline. Therefore, it's contradictory for them to pay people who don't want to have children to have them, while perpetuating a system that has contributed to the declining fertility.
Another issue, of course, is that, unless they limit the subsidy to ethnic Germans, they're simply going to be buying more German citizens of Turkish ethnicity.
"Sounds like a recipe for divorce. I'm puzzled about the benefit to the nation of a bunch of people who hate their lives, each other, and their children!"
Actually, what I am talking about is a lack of non-child-oriented adult entertainment. If daddy works a dull job from 9 to 5 on weekdays, he looks forward to any time off with his family. In practice, his work hours might be even shorter, since his having and raising children is the real purpose of such a city. Daddy is at work mostly to get him out of the way during the day.
It's harder on mommy, because many women don't see the value in being a housewife and raising their children, very hard work by all accounts. That is why I suggested home-based businesses for women. It gives them an outlet for their creativity, but doesn't exhaust them as much as work outside the home. The energy is for the children, and far more than just two per family.
A family with six children needs at least one parent in full time labor raising them for at least a decade, then half-time until the youngest is reasonably independent. Even so, the older children also have to be mutually supportive of the younger children to help out. And friendly neighbors with kids are also very helpful.
Adult entertainment would still be child oriented. Since their city is geared towards children, there would be plenty of organized activities needing adult supervision, from sports teams, scouting, religious activities, etc. Just an absence of bars, brothels, drugs, gambling, and other wastes of energy. A strong moral base from religious leaders is a big plus, as is some degree of sexual inhibition.
Early on, on the subject, I even mentioned a particular design of housing that has been experimentally determined to be conducive to having and raising children for maximum safety, socialization and parental supervision. A grouping of six or eight homes, each with a breeding couple and their kids, with small private backyards and a large communal backyard.
Such a city would be a great place to grow up. And while parents would find parenting a lot easier than usual, they would find *avoiding* parenting by doing other things to be difficult.
This was the circumstances in the US just after WWII. It was not intolerable to the people who lived through it. And by taking that model, and making it somewhat better, more enjoyable, even more conducive to having children, a nation might boost its birthrate from 1.4 to 2.6, well on the road to recovery and demographic balance.
But it is artificial, and difficult to bring about anywhere, be it the US or Russia or Japan. Its creation and maintenance would take considerable effort, money, and determination by any government.
But it is that important.
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.