Any wealthy country that is really serious about raising its birthrate needs to do something about providing good quality affordable housing for working age people.
...and education. But that would destroy the present incarnation of the Republican party.
The sort of thing that drives me spare, is Reform complaining that women aren’t having enough children whilst simultaneously complaining too many people are migrating to the country (regardless of status). Do you think we need more people or not ? Make up your fucking mind !
They have made up their minds. They want more white English people, and fewer brown people.
One of the nordic countries has encouraged women to have children by saying they will never pay tax again or some such if they go back to work.
That's a much better idea if you want to keep social cohesion and the birth rate up.
Do you know which country? In 2025, Sweden had a birth rate of 1.44, Norway 1.42, and Finland 1.3, all well below the replacement rate. My children have friends in both Finland and Norway, who are in the target age range for having children. They feel that the best incentive to increase the birth rate is increased paternity leave, and fathers sharing the burden of child-rearing and domestic chores equally.
They also want to reintroduce the two-child benefit cap, so they only want rich women to have lots of children. Or maybe they're not serious about wanting women to have lots of children. Who can say? It's even more incoherent than the rest of their 'policies.'
Declining birth rates in the west are a serious problem. It means the economy cannot pay for the elderly population, the baby boomers and more. It's when we started going into debt as western nations.
Hence rapid immigration in western countries, to try stall that.
But that creates its own problems.
One of the nordic countries has encouraged women to have children by saying they will never pay tax again or some such if they go back to work.
That's a much better idea if you want to keep social cohesion and the birth rate up.
I thought rapid immigration was because people in the countries they’re fleeing from are in desperate situations there.
And what problems does that immigration cause, and for whom?
Apparently immigration causes problems for people who think their nation should be only occupied with people who have white skin. Though complaining about immigration can distract people from the contents of files on Epstein, and we should all remember Epstein.
This is rather off-thread, but...
A low birth-rate is only an anxiety in the short term, when a large cohort passes into the 'needing care' bracket and the cohort in employment (and so paying tax to fund services) is relatively small. In the longer term, the population rebalances (with all age cohorts smaller) and this brings many desirable consequences, including less pressure on land and housing, lower emissions and power demand.
In the year I was born the world population was of the order of 2.7bn, a density of 18/sq km. It is now over 8.3bn, a density of 56/sq km. Managed, ie non-coercive, population reduction would be by far the most effective strategy for mitigating global warming. Unfortunately, politicians think in terms of 5yr horizons, not 50.
Controversial?
Comments
...and education. But that would destroy the present incarnation of the Republican party.
They have made up their minds. They want more white English people, and fewer brown people.
In fact it isn’t a Nordic country, but Hungary.
I thought rapid immigration was because people in the countries they’re fleeing from are in desperate situations there.
And what problems does that immigration cause, and for whom?
A low birth-rate is only an anxiety in the short term, when a large cohort passes into the 'needing care' bracket and the cohort in employment (and so paying tax to fund services) is relatively small. In the longer term, the population rebalances (with all age cohorts smaller) and this brings many desirable consequences, including less pressure on land and housing, lower emissions and power demand.
In the year I was born the world population was of the order of 2.7bn, a density of 18/sq km. It is now over 8.3bn, a density of 56/sq km. Managed, ie non-coercive, population reduction would be by far the most effective strategy for mitigating global warming. Unfortunately, politicians think in terms of 5yr horizons, not 50.
Controversial?
Dafyd Hell Host