Why is Europe losing the will to breed?

Finnaninho

Why is Europe losing the will to breed? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

Children are now a luxury. The average cost to raise a child to adulthood is upwards of £200,000. It's nearly impossible for the middle classes to live and work in a European city without drastically sacrificing quality of life and comfort.

What we're doing now isn't enough and we need to change something fast. Preferably before our public budgets collapse under public spending on healthcare and pensions.

I read that early this morning; it was an excellent, especially thought-provoking article.

When two incomes are needed to buy a house that one income would have bought in 1970 you know our priorities are so messed up. How are we supposed to have 4 kids or such when both parents must work outside home simply to pay for the property/mortgage? In my local crèche it's over €1,000 per child per month. This is on top of the mortgage. The sums do not add up, to put it mildly.

Parents across Europe are not given the basic infrastructure by their government to make it practicable for us to have more children - and our government with its refusal to act on the housing supply crisis, its dogged determination to make it worse by building up Dublin rather than regional cities, and its wholesale inability to look to continental Europe/ challenge free market mantra for solutions to the crèche issue is almost certainly the worst offender in all 27 EU states.

worded

Financial castration

Johnboner

Europe is one of the most overpopulated regions in the world in terms of density. Of course they are stopping breeding due to not enough space. Ireland is exempt as millions died during the famine, but other countries kept breeding and breeding non stop until ridiculous levels of density. So why being less populated is a bad thing I have no idea.

Atlantic Dawn

Try buying a house in Ireland, the only people I know breading are the entitled to a free house gang like their people before them.

Stigura

Eiristan.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Finnaninho

Quit your jobs, have 10 kids, and demand that they all be raised, housed, and otherwise cared for by the state. Forget about this whole working and mortgaging lark, keep pumping out kids, and you'll soon be on benefits comparable to the take-home pay for a six-figure job.

Yeah, that's not viable. Try looking after so many kids. Anyway, surely there's a middle ground. People should be able to work and afford to look after a few kids themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doolox

It is salutory to note that the rise of freedom for the masses, ie the peasantry in Europe started in 1347 with the Black Death and its resultant fall by 1/3 in the population of Europe, a consequent scarcity in the availability of labour and better treatment of serfs and peasants by the ruling classes when faced with discontent and possible flight from bad landlords by the remaining peasants and serfs to people who would treat them better.

It is reckoned that some 2 BILLION jobs will be lost in our lifetime all over the world and these jobs will not be replaced, due to automation and globalised displacement to cheaper sources of labour.

The means by which the poorer masses had secured their livelihoods from the rich are becoming more difficult and uncertain, leading to the creation of a large body of people known as the precariat. Basically people on temporary contracts separated by increasingly longer periods of unemployment.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to raise children and increasingly undesireable to do so as the religious, tribal and family impulses to do so become weaker in the face of mass entertainment, advertising and the building up of aspirations to enjoy consumer driven activities. People are more inclined to put the foreign holidays, the latest styles, the bigger car etc before the 2nd or 3rd child and now have the medical means to do so.

In addition there is for the first time in history a global awareness of the finite nature of our home planet, the increasing unsustainability of uncontrolled growth in population and the need to match finite resources to a stable population across all the nations of the Earth.

A global solution to this problem is needed but is unlikely to happen until some big disaster undeniably linked to uncontrolled population growth occurs to goad ALL the nations of the Earth to come together and devise a governance and set of laws to allow this necessary control of population to happen.

UN predictions show that education and womens labour rights causes fertility rates to drop to manageable proportions and this will probably stabilise the planet at 10 billion or so by 2050 with a drop to about 9 billion after that.

A huge increase in knowledge about food housing and transport will need to be made to allow this to happen.

222233

Finnaninho wrote: »

Children are now a luxury. The average cost to raise a child to adulthood is upwards of £200,000. It's nearly impossible for the middle classes to live and work in a European city without drastically sacrificing quality of life and comfort.

What we're doing now isn't enough and we need to change something fast. Preferably before our public budgets collapse under public spending on healthcare and pensions.

Why change anything isn't it fine the way it is, do we really need all those people. I'm in my twenties, I would see my career as the main deterrent from having kids though not money, maybe that will change with time. 200k? If I envisage myself having 200k to spend I'll be buying a villa.

sawduster

I don't buy it -- the only evidence or argument he's given are declining birth rates and there could be many reasons for that. I'd hazard a guess that we're losing the means to replace ourselves rather than our will. As mentioned already it now takes two incomes buy a house and childcare is almost another mortgage. Add to that decreased job security, a marginal rate of tax over 50% in return for poor services and it isn't hard to see why people might be a little hesitant to have three kids.

Hector Bellend

Could this be an explanaton for why I like **** and porn so much.

red ears

Working people can barely afford more than 1 or 2 children.

DEFTLEFTHAND

People are holding off on starting families these days.

Couples put their careers first before thinking about starting a family.

In years gone by this wasn't the case, as people got married younger, and women had babies earlier. Prime years for childbirth are between 20 and 30.

Big families were a thing in Catholic Ireland as we all know. The family unit was held up as being something vital for society. Being a mother was the most important job in the country.

It's still very much a thing in other cultures, but obviously not anymore in most western countries

Irish Praetorian

Johnboner wrote: »

Europe is one of the most overpopulated regions in the world in terms of density. Of course they are stopping breeding due to not enough space. Ireland is exempt as millions died during the famine, but other countries kept breeding and breeding non stop until ridiculous levels of density. So why being less populated is a bad thing I have no idea.

Few problems with this, Europe might be densely populated but it's also one of the wealthier parts of the planet which ideally is where population growth is the least damaging, as compared with more poverty ridden parts of the world, where high birth rates have an incredibly retrogressive effect on societal development. Same problem with outsourcing childbirth to an underclass surviving only on state support. In the ideal scenario we ensure that anyone able to provide a decent standard of living for themselves and a child can do so, whilst those who can't aren't encouraged to see a child as a meal ticket.

Also brief foray into the point of population decline; a decline in population is not some overnight affair where suddenly houses become cheap and there's jobs for all (except with a plague maybe). Population ageing in the manner we're seeing looks like it's going to involve an increasingly large population of old age retired persons needing increasing medical and other support, which would need to be paid for with a smaller and smaller working age population - think working 8 hours a day, sending half of that to the government and needing to rush home to change grandma. This is of course before we bring in the genius idea of mass importing people from an alien culture who will dutifully content themselves to 'pay our pensions' and have the decency to kill themselves before ever becoming a burden on the state.

darkpagandeath

worded wrote: »

Financial castration

Aye pretty much, Huge cost involved in having a child. I would wager as well women taking on professional jobs. Women having those kinds of jobs is great don't get me wrong. But I think it does massively have a negative on wanting to have children.

Wheeliebin30

When I look at what kids have nowadays to when I was growing up are people been sensible with their money?

1 day a month if you were brought to bray for chips on the dart you were delighted with life.

Compared to nowadays it just seems more pressure to constantly give the kids something to keep them happy. Ipads for 4 and 5 year olds, it's ridiculous.

That's just one example. I think spending and the need for material goods has gotten out of hand.

darkpagandeath

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

When I look at what kids have nowadays to when I was growing up are people been sensible with their money?

1 day a month if you were brought to bray for chips on the dart you were delighted with life.

Compared to nowadays it just seems more pressure to constantly give the kids something to keep them happy. Ipads for 4 and 5 year olds, it's ridiculous.

That's just one example. I think spending and the need for material goods has gotten out of hand.

Lol Wheelie. Happy to go to Bray :P

Wheeliebin30

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lol Wheelie. Happy to go to Bray :P

I was too:)

Nothing against bray or its people by the way!

darkpagandeath

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I was too:)

Nothing against bray or its people by the way!

Me neither it's just well... It's Bray :P Best of it was the waltzers and the arcade ?

Wheeliebin30

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Me neither it's just well... It's Bray :P Best of it was the waltzers and the arcade ?

Ah yeah, the arcade with the smell of greasy chips and burgers. But mostly people brought packed lunches.

You wouldn't see that nowadays, kids wouldn't be happy having to eat ham sandwiches and drink tk lemonade:)

darkpagandeath

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah yeah, the arcade with the smell of greasy chips and burgers. But mostly people brought packed lunches.

You wouldn't see that nowadays, kids wouldn't be happy having to eat ham sandwiches and drink tk lemonade:)

I dunno do the travellers still fight on the beach ? Used to be pretty entertaining.

worded

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Try buying a house in Ireland, the only people I know breading are the entitled to a free house gang like their people before them.

The Ill breed them, you feed them brigade

Only fools and horses work ...

That's not my way of life but I see it.

R.D. aka MR.D

What a bizarre article. It sounds like so many arguments you see online about how proud Europeans are being ruined by immigration.

The world changes. Countries change.

It was also superficial when it came to women's roles. Their careers are blamed but no solution is offered. Why is the argument always framed around the assumption that women need to primary care givers. Yes women need to physically take time to have the baby but as some prominent examples have shown, they are auite capable of getting right back to work in a week or two. The argument could centre on how society doesn't expect men to be the ones to give care. It's entirely possible these days (i admit it would have been more difficult in the past). Or is that idea too modern and new to be accepted by Euorpeans who should be focusing on maintaining their traditiona by adding to an already very populated earth?

The consumption and therefore damage to the earth of a european child is far greater than that of those born in less wealthy places. So is it really so terrible that there are fewer of us?


I think it's terrible if people want children and feel that they can't have them because of money but I've never met one childfree person who would LOVE a child but chooses not to have one because of money. I've met people who don't have more children because of money but do people really need more than one or two? Children are a want and not a need.

JupiterKid

There is definitely a disconnect between the consumerist culture we now live in where having several holidays a year, a fancy car, a bigger house, spa breaks etc. are clashing with the possibility of raising a family. Having two large incomes to afford a house is a major problem.

But the world is already overpopulated. It's just that the population excess tends to be in poor, third world countries that can't afford to absorb big population increases. Seeing children as a liability and a luxury is also a problem. People in the developed world should be encouraged to have more children, but 8 or 9 children per family is also not the answer. 2 or 3 children is enough. And those in the developed world having the most children are the most deprived. The underclass is breeding but the middle class is not. The system is broken and needs radical change if having families is to be seen as a priority for society.

But Ireland's birth rate is actually in rude health, despite the alarmist media articles. It is countries such as Italy, Germany, France and Japan that are in serious trouble in terms of very low birth rates.

The key thing is to allow women have successful careers whilst supporting them to have children. That's not happening at the moment. The culture of work is not family friendly and this needs addressing.

adocholiday

I'm 30 now and married. My wife and I would be the 'ideal candidates' for having kids because we both work professional jobs and contribute a fair chunk of our salaries to the state. The 'problem' is that we are currently saving for a mortgage, while trying to actually live and enjoy life at the same time.

Living in Dublin it's not possible to fit a child into that equation. Between rent, savings, car payments, bills, a few nights out per month etc. there isn't a whole lot of money left for rearing a child.

Meanwhile many of our non working counterparts are having 2 or 3 kids by their mid 20's, who are being raised with the perpetual hand out for their entitlements. They're not concerned with saving for a mortgage or paying the bills so it's easier (and more financially beneficial) for them to have kids.

Working people need to be incentivised to have kids, and non-contributing people discouraged from having them. The balance is wrong and it will lead to problems down the road.

pickarooney

How does it make sense for couples with two jobs to have more children when they have no time to look after them, or couples with no income to do so when they have no money to do so. Surely one income between two people, split evenly, is the ideal balance yet nobody ever does anything to make this a reality.

Finnaninho

The world changes. Countries change.

Not all change is good and I would suggest that native people being replaced in their own nation is definitely not a good thing. Be it in Europe or elsewhere.

somesoldiers

Not surprised by this at all. I earn what I always thought was a good wage, until I went looking for a mortgage of 250k. As I have "two drains on my income" (is how one bank put it) a wife who has decided to take a few years out to raise the other "drain on income", I would need to be earning over 100k to get this. I darent tell them we have another "drain on income" on the way....

listermint

Isn't the world over populated anyway.


We are due a global disaster at some point

Irish Praetorian

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

The consumption and therefore damage to the earth of a European child is far greater than that of those born in less wealthy places. So is it really so terrible that there are fewer of us?

Two problems, firstly a European demographic decline is not just some wilful business of more wealth and houses all round overnight, it means a difficult and burdensome demographic transition with more of the population needing to be paid for by what young people remain.

Secondly, those less wealthy places cannot expect to A. be content to live in some idyllic poverty in perpetuity, B. have their societies accept the retarding effect of high birth rates in perpetuity, and C. benefit from the increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller European population.

IvyTheTerrible

Well calling it breeding kills the mood...

Gbear

I was wondering what this load of random ****e glued on to the end was about:

Apart from the social pressures that depress birth rates, our civilisation is also under internal assault from postmodern intellectual elites and their acolytes in the mass media, who enthusiastically embrace moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism and political correctness and attack our values and weaken our will. We must repulse these attacks, regain our confidence and boost birth rates back up to replacement rates.

But then I spotted who wrote it and it made more sense:

William Reville is an emeritus professor of biochemistry at UCC

He's always puzzled me. He's presumably a brilliant man, but some absolute mental stuff is tacked on as well.
That last paragraph has nothing to do with the rest. It's just an unrelated whine, using the usual buzzwords.

The article represents a good question that needs answering but maybe not for the reason that Dr. Reville is thinking.

Because he's coming from the whole Jesus perspective, he's trying to impose a pattern and a design on to the process but thinking there needs to be one is a false assumption that stems from magical religious thinking.

There seemed to be a feedback loop caused by women entering the workforce.
The value of workers has dropped because of the increased supply so the more women joined the workforce, the more they needed to to increase their standards of living.

That has of course had changes on our demographics.

However, the practicalities for us as a species aren't really all that important by themselves.
Women should feel entitled to do whatever they like.
They don't owe anything to the economy.
They don't owe anything to our species and they don't have any debt of offspring to pay.
There is no moral imperitive to keep the human race alive.

What's important here is that people decide what they want, work towards that, and accept the consequencess.
Women can't have it all. That's not an admonishment. They were just the ones who didn't have the access and have only recently taken a full seat at the table so they're having to make that decision now.

Something has to give in our society.
We can't all have fulfilling work, get paid massive wages and have giant families that are all cared for, financially and emotionally. Not without post-scarcity.
We can't have the kind of society where you have two equal partners that both have strong careers but few children and have a massive pyramid scheme of social security to pay for old people.

We don't need to fix the replacement rate. Not unless we're determined to hang on to systems that were designed for it. Then we do.

Mirror game

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

adocholiday wrote: »

Meanwhile many of our non working counterparts are having 2 or 3 kids by their mid 20's, who are being raised with the perpetual hand out for their entitlements. They're not concerned with saving for a mortgage or paying the bills so it's easier (and more financially beneficial) for them to have kids.

Working people need to be incentivised to have kids, and non-contributing people discouraged from having them. The balance is wrong and it will lead to problems down the road.

I'm all for looking at this side of things and totally agree it needs to change. But you're talking about such a large group of people there could be trouble!.
So first, there is something very important and not that difficult that needs to be done.
We need to take money from the super rich to bring about more equality. This is such a small group it shouldn't be that hard.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wheeliebin30

listermint wrote: »

Isn't the world over populated anyway.


We are due a global disaster at some point

Yep population control.

Mother nature has always found a way to slow it down.

Mirror game

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd like to see the figures of the rich just to be sure. We have lots of info on the low earners(almost everybody) and nothing on the rich.
Surely it's more important to know what the rich have and what they are earning. I'm talking about all countries getting together so as we have info on all worlds rich.
I look at it like this
0 to 1 million per annum - low earner (almost everyone)
1 million to 365 million- (million a day) -middle earner
365million or more -high earner
Fist we need look at the high earners and reach across into what the have and have a massive redistribution of wealth, then look at the middle and then see where we're at.
I guess first we need to get more info on the high earners.

eviltwin

Personally I don't want to produce lots of children. Nothing to do with money or anything like that. I've better things to do with my life, other things I want to do. I suspect for a lot of people it's the same.

R.D. aka MR.D

Finnaninho wrote: »

Not all change is good and I would suggest that native people being replaced in their own nation is definitely not a good thing. Be it in Europe or elsewhere.

That's your perspective and you are entitled to it. I agree with you to an extent, for example what happened to Native peoples in the Americas. They were taken over against their will but if people are coming to a country and naturally (through their decisions) the traditions of that country change then I don't see a problem with it. Children of immigrants to Ireland pick up Irish traditions and bring some of their own. I have no problem with that.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Two problems, firstly a European demographic decline is not just some wilful business of more wealth and houses all round overnight, it means a difficult and burdensome demographic transition with more of the population needing to be paid for by what young people remain.

Secondly, those less wealthy places cannot expect to A. be content to live in some idyllic poverty in perpetuity, B. have their societies accept the retarding effect of high birth rates in perpetuity, and C. benefit from the increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller European population.

Studies have shown that in the US at least the immigrants tend to have as many children as they would in their home country when they first arrive but as they go down the generations their children born there have the same as the average person in their new country. As another poster pointed out the spread of education and opportunities for women will likely result in lower birth rates everywhere.

If you look at Japan who refuse to open their country to immigrants, they are already having huge problems. Way too many old people and Japan as a country will eventually disappear because of it and the last generations will suffer a great burden.

Finnaninho

You have no problem with the Irish and other European groups eventually becoming a minority in their own country and their country's culture radically changing?

NiallBoo

Why is it always assumed that people want to have children?

There's a lot more to life than progeny.

I find it daft that it's still something expected of people - it's not like we're dying out. Even more daft that people seem to think that you can't want to add to the world or leave it a better place if it's not "for my children".

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

1 day a month if you were brought to bray for chips on the dart you were delighted with life.

Compared to nowadays it just seems more pressure to constantly give the kids something to keep them happy. Ipads for 4 and 5 year olds, it's ridiculous.

Suddenly feeling old when people are reminiscing about day trips in olden times on the DART (opened 1986!). Although in fairness, even then property prices in Dublin were affordable. I know somebody very well who bought a site in Blackrock, Dublin in that year on the gains he made on selling a house in Galway - and he was the only income coming into the family home. Now, the site in Blackrock or anywhere in that area would be at least the same as the entire house price in Galway. It would take two incomes and the overwhelming majority of professional people would be unable to afford it on their combined income. Dublin has steamed ahead of the rest of Ireland in the past 30 years alone and distribution of wealth across this state is now lopsided in favour of the Dublin region.

There has been a huge shift in generational inequality almost entirely due to property prices (although pensions are going to become a major issue for the same generation of professional people who cannot afford a Dublin house now), and the Irish political system is proving wholly incapable of legislating for this - e.g. through spreading the wealth of the state more fairly by, for instance, building up urban centres across Ireland that have declined due to the rise of Dublin. Entirely to stop so much of my income going on property costs, I would love to live outside Dublin, but my job is here and all chances of promotion and other industry jobs are also here. This is the same for very many people and you don't need to be a genius to see what this state will look like in 40 years time if the same lopsided development continues to be encouraged. We need far more state intervention on this issue - but alas all they've done so far is help property developers by making apartment sizes smaller, given handouts to developers in the form of grants to first time buyers which they know will result in house prices increasing and reduced standards and quality controls around housing. The rich get richer, sponsored by our government. In terms of expecting the state to address inequality, they are clearly determined to increase it. (Irish Economy: The housing crisis is all about the politics of debt.

You'd be crazy to have children and all the joy they bring when so much of your income must go to the de facto state-sponsored (read above article) parasites who control the supply of property in Dublin.

One thing in that article I didn't understand was the following line:

'European societies increasingly are no longer self-sustaining. For example, if current trends continue, every new generation of Spaniards will be 40 per cent smaller than the previous one.'

Why?

R.D. aka MR.D

Finnaninho wrote: »

You have no problem with the Irish and other European groups eventually becoming a minority in their own country and their country's culture radically changing?

No, why would I?

Irish culture is already changing. Yes some things that are changing are bad but some things are really good. Culture changes through time. Ireland of the 1920's was different to Ireland of the 1950's and all different from 1617 and 2017.

What makes a country yours? Being born there? Irish people will never be in the minority in Ireland because the people that immigrate and have children will still be Irish.

I understand that people are very nationalist. I just don't agree with it. Each individual country isn't some special snowflake devoid of influence and benefit from another.

The_Kew_Tour

eviltwin wrote: »

Personally I don't want to produce lots of children. Nothing to do with money or anything like that. I've better things to do with my life, other things I want to do. I suspect for a lot of people it's the same.

And many people who have kids still act like kids themselves

mailforkev

Choice is part of the answer.

Contraception of any sort wasn't freely available here until the 80s, condoms weren't on proper sale until I was in my teens in the 90s.

Within a generation families have dropped from 3,4,5 kids plus to 0,1,2.

Once people have the power to make a choice, it's clear that not everyone actually wants a rake of kids (or any).

Finance deffo is a large factor too though. I don't know any couples with 3 kids who don't have a very high income.

R.D. aka MR.D

Gbear wrote: »

Because he's coming from the whole Jesus perspective, he's trying to impose a pattern and a design on to the process but thinking there needs to be one is a false assumption that stems from magical religious thinking.

Really? Now I can see why it immediately made me uncomfortable.

Quandary

I work in a disadvantaged school in a particularly rough part of Dublin. In my class this week, one of the boys was telling me about his new baby brother who is the 7th child. The ages of the kids are 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 - I'm pretty sure the ages are accurate . The Mam is only 29 too!

This is just one example. There are 18 kids in my class, one only child, and the average number of siblings is 3.5!

They are a lovely family and the kids are all very well raised, never in trouble and very respectful. Now they're not exactly heading off on 2 foreign holidays a year but the kids have everything they need and always seem to have the latest games consoles , flashy football boots, best of clothes etc..

Neither parent is working, they have a sizeable council house, so in terms of paying their way they are not exactly pulling their weight but they are able to live a relatively comfortable life while having a huge family that most working couples could never hope to afford.

Maybe the rest of us are doing something wrong!

Wanderer78

Globalization and neoliberalism have failed and if we don't start addressing these issues fast, I sadly believe we 're inching our way back to a major war

NiallBoo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing in that article I didn't understand was the following line:

Why?

Well...he's rounded up a bit with the numbers(it should be less than 40%), but he's just saying that a below maintenance birth-rate leads to a population reduction.

Of course he's put his racist hat on here and isn't counting immigrants as "Spaniards", and further that the children of immigrants won't be Spaniards either.