Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish birthrate slumps 22% in a decade

Options
1246719

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Is it the cost of childcare or the fact that over the course of the past 20 years it became absolutely necessary to have 2 incomes to pay a mortgage and raise a family as opposed to a single one.

    It got twice as hard, it requires twice the amount of work now. A real shame that the increase in female participation in the workforce resulted in this outcome as opposed to more couples both working part time and costs not inflating



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,717 ✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld



    Yep, I should have made my point without quoting your comment.

    Apologies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭chuchuchu


    The main reason for drop in fertility rate is education and contraception. Its happening in Japan and Korea, any country that becomes developed. I guarantee you the population in Afghanistan will sky rocket with the Taliban traditions.

    And more recently we have had abortion legalised in this country, so perhaps thats a reason for the most latest decline.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,717 ✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    The system, aka greed, wants us to have more kids and more consumers and worker bees. It will find others if we won't. And to hell with the planet. You might be ok now, but your kids and grand kids won't. It's the dumbest pyramid scheme ever.

    The cost of an Irish kid could save several kids lives in the third world. Say you have 2 kids, should you have another kid or save those lives ? Or should they die and more like them so you can continue to consume way more of your share of the ever diminishing cake ?

    Should species go extinct so you can continue to have more cake ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    "The Straights"? Strange to label roughly 95% of the population in such a manner.

    You wouldn't like it if everyone referred to you as "The Gays" I presume.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Miadhc


    Yeah, i think it's around 6 or 7 thousand babies terminated every year.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I've no issue with straight people, of course.

    But I personally believe that too many gay people want to become "as Normal as The Straights"; and that means wanting to have kids; absolving themselves of how gay men actually live in society etc. So I reject that, and think it's fake.

    I think gay people should be proud of being gay. But not let the campaign become about living exactly the same way as Straight Men and Women. How boring!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    Lastly not having kids is abnormal,a high percentage do

    Once you factor out those who want and can't and the gays, the numbers less than 10%



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,760 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    The 1st World has and continues to extract a massively disproportionate amount of the World's resources (and I am probably more guilty than most on that front)

    The only solution to deliver a sustainable society over the long term is for the 1st and 3rd Worlds to merge into what could then be called the 2nd World



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That's not strictly true though. Your two examples, Japan and Korea, both had massive increases in the costs of living, as living standards increased. They're extremely work centric places, with the expectation of overtime as part of normal work days, which leads to couples having little actual time together. Also, culture plays a major role here, as Korea went through their own limited children policy with educational conditioning to teach that sex was bad or shameful (which while removed by the government, continued to be taught by the parents who experienced it themselves), and in Japan, the more modern cultural development has led to a lack of interest in marriage, but children outside of marriage are still seen as being extremely wrong/shameful. And Afghanistan/Taliban will skyrocket because of the focus on children as being an indication of wealth or prestige, along with the desire to marry them off to form alliances through blood.

    It's not hard to understand why the rate of children declines. First, costs. Second, contraception. Third, the decline in traditional culture/religion. Fourth. Marriage and children are happening later in life, so women having kids at 30-34 drastically decreases the amounts that can be had before it becomes dangerous (for both the woman and the child). There's other reasons, but it's simply not appealing to a lot of people anymore.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Sounds good. You drop down to a 2nd world living standard first and the rest of us will follow on.

    Lead by example.👍



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern




    Developed countries are more sustainable than developing. Just look at where most extinctions are taking place. It aint the most rich countries. Most extinctions are due to colliding of worlds, not population growth, eg. rats spreading on remote islands.

    The average Irish Catholic family wasn't 7+ kids. Even in 1960, the fertility rate was 4 per a woman



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    That's actually a good point when thinking of the costs of childcare. The poster said €2,500 a month for 2 kids, which works out at €6.25 an hour per child (assuming 20 days in the month, and in creche for 10 hours a day). And the creche has to pay rent, insurance, wages and overheads from that. A dog walker charges €10-€15 per dog walk.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That doesn't make much sense. There are already 2nd world nations.. Also that which is being consumed is quickly being added to, by developing nations worldwide. The separation between Western nations and the developing nations is no longer as large, as we move further away from the importance of industrialisation, and find other ways to generate successful economies, but for most nations with large populations, they're going to industrialise.. they have to due to the demands by the population sizes, and developed nations remain the market for their products.

    And, I've seen what China is like... and they're quickly meeting Europe for consumption, and I'd say they've easily surpassed us for ecological impact.

    There is no realistic way to deliver a sustainable society, because less developed nations want what we have. They're not going to give up the opportunity to industrialise, and mimic the successes of Korea, Japan, or whatever.. based on low cost labour and production, which leads to resource usage, and pollution. These claims for a sustainable society, or limiting resource usage generally come from nations who have already achieved success.. but there's a lot of countries who are nowhere near that point yet. And you're never going to get acceptance from African, Asian or S.American nations not to modernize/industrialise.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,760 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I'll probably be long gone by the time it happens. However the point I make is that the world is simply not sustainable with the levels of population growth and the increased consumption of those of us with wealth.

    In my lifetime the world population has increased by a factor of 2.6. Over the previous similar period it was a factor of 1.9, and before that 1.4.

    In my lifetime Global GDP in USD has increased 63 times, or 27 times on a per capita basis. However that needs to be adjusted to reflect inflation, which for USD would be a factor of 10 or so over that period.

    GDP after deducting inflation is a decent enough proxy for what we are extracting from our global resource. We are increasing what we are extracting at a rate that is simply unsustainable. I would suggest it's pretty much impossible to get the 3rd World up to the standard of living many of us in the 1st World enjoy at current population levels. Double the population again doubles what we are extracting without any "levelling up". The best way to address all of this would be to have a managed reduction in global population. However that requires a global approach, and again I cannot see that level of international cooperation in my lifetime. Alas, like everything else, that results in us passing on the mess we have made to our children and grandchildren.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,270 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    They are not the only children in the crèche.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I thought you were joking about the whole climate change thing in your earlier post tbh 😬


    Say you have 2 kids, should you have another kid or save those lives ?


    It’s not really an either/or question though, because people can do both - they can have however many children they want, and they can contribute to charities and organisations working to alleviate poverty in developing countries. I had always planned on having six children, stuck in my head for some reason, but when I met my wife she told me I could fcuk off with that idea 😂 As it happened, we have one child. It doesn’t follow that I’m saving the planet by not having the other five children I had originally intended to have.

    I don’t mind acknowledging that I have no interest whatsoever in saving the planet, my interest is in ensuring that my child does not have to live like they’re just existing in a developing country, which is what would be required if the idea was to consume as little of the earths resources as they do in developing countries, producing as little pollution as they do in developing countries, compared to developed, industrialised countries.

    Data Centres are just one example of enormous amounts of energy consumed with equally enormous amounts of CO2 emissions produced -



    They go well beyond any individual attempts to address climate change like switching to an overpriced toy car (like a Tesla) or buying what is being marketed as an environmentally friendly phone that’s a heap of shyte, for the same price as a second-hand flagship phone -

    The Fairphones are priced in the middle of the range of mobile phone prices; for example, the Fairphone 4 in 2022 was priced from €579.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone


    Buying a second-hand flagship phone means people can still afford to contribute financially to charities and organisations saving lives and addressing poverty and lack of education in developing countries, and they can still afford to have children and to enjoy life rather than simply existing until they expire, as the only way our species would go extinct is if we got a mad notion into our heads that everyone needs to stop reproducing in order to save the planet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,270 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    The second world was the communist world.

    I'm not sure that a return to a Soviet lifestyle is particularly appealing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Miadhc


    That wasn't real communism bro. Real communism has never been tried 🤡



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    They have a staff ratio

    Going by the above say 7 euro per child and one staff member for 3 smallies, 5 for toddlers etc, it's tight enough



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    Would you not take the soylent green route to save on resources



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The former soviet/communist/Maoist/Marxist nations are still considered to be 2nd world by many. So, China is still a 2nd world nation. Of sorts. There's no direct need for a Soviet lifestyle to be a 2nd world nation. Parts of China would be comparable with the lifestyles available in Ireland, while other parts are comparable with the poorest parts of the US. Many 2nd world nations are a mixed bag in terms of lifestyles and standards of living.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,270 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    At 5:1 they (the creche) get €31/HR based on the hours quoted above per staff member. Many creches really don't bother with under 1's because it can't work financially for them

    But as I said the 5:1 ratio for toddlers has come about as a result of regulation, a response to a failing. Failures in Ireland are always responded to with regulation which makes things more expensive.

    Oh and I should add, that if parents want a private childminder in the home, they have to deal with the childminders taxes, have payroll and payslips and employers prsi ( the childminder themselves isn't expected to do this themselves, like for any other service). It's absolutely bonkers what's required of parents these days by our State. You're not required to pay a plumbers taxes for them...



  • Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭drivingmissdaisy


    Nothing to do with education and contraception, its too expensive to have children.

    Afghans have a bad standard of living, having 1 or 10 children wont change a thing, now compare to the west?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Wow really? I never thought of that.

    Theyre not the only costs of a creche. If it was such a bonanza there would be many more creches across the country, and not as many people leaving the industry. A local one to me recently closed and is now a coffee shop, easier to run and better profits available.

    If a parent isn't willing to pay €6.25 an hour to have their child minded then they need to suck it up and mind the child themselves, rather than moaning about the cost of childcare.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    A plumber doesn't work all week in the same client's house. Revenue deems a childminder to be an employee, not a contractor, and therefore payroll/employer PRSI should be operated.



  • Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭Oscar Madison


    I or we have three children. All grown up now & it wasn't cheap!

    They never went without & were all loved.

    All three went on to Third Level which again wasn't cheap but would I

    prefer to have the cash or the kids? A no contest but my children.

    I worked in a factory with an average wage but my wife earned a little more.

    Our priority was our children & their futures. Anyone who decides NOT to

    have children do not know what they are missing out on!



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    I read part of the thread and it’s seems a lot of racism

    Its been discussed at a World level that the population might have reached it max or close to it, why the reducing birth rates? Education.

    The higher education of women reduces the number of babies as they see career etc more important. As education levels increase across the World the birth rate drops.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Absolute rubbish with the accusation of racism.

    But you're right on the education part, to a degree. It'll presumably still take decades for the third world to catch up and, in that time, they're set to breed like rabbits.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,486 ✭✭✭Hamachi


    Agreed. It’s not racist to point out that curbing birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa is the key to staving off a global population explosion. It’s not even a third world issue. It’s that specific region.

    I’ve already said this, but the usual suspects just ignored it. Demographers have predicted that the global population will peak in the 2060s. Some of us posting here will likely see this in our lifetimes. This peak could be achieved earlier if there was a willingness to tackle fertility rates there.

    Ireland is actually in a pretty sweet spot demographically. Slightly below replacement level fertility and a fairly young population pyramid. The ideal would be to hit replacement level, which is about 2.05 for a developed nation, and remain there.

    Of course, you have the usual morons droning on about ‘zero population growth’ in a country that doesn’t have a population problem.



Advertisement