The white plague.

[Genghis Khan]

Two of the points the articles given by Marcus and Perun are:

1. Women in Germany and Italy in particular, it seems, believe there is a male-oriented bias in the workplace. 
2. The future financial costs of retirement-aged people will be a heavy burden on the shrinking population.

My points in response to the above:

I am completely flabbergasted by the fact that both German and Italian day-care facilities and schools close before the parents finish work.  Which morons decided on this policy?  (There is no other way of saying it).

The governments are at least partially responsible for the problem in point #2.  In Canada, as well as other western nations, the government has a policy of taxing people for their own future retirement.  Some people including myself oppose this program for two reasons.  One is that it presupposed people are dumb or irresponsible and cannot plan their own future.  I know for a fact I am saving for eventual retirement and I’m not even 30, yet.  Secondly, I think that when people allow governments to make such key decisions, they do not learn self-responsibility and become lazy.  Many people my age spend exorbitant amount of money on material things that are not that crucial.  Savings are not taken into account because many of my peers believe that the government is already taxing them enough for their retirement savings.  This attitude may still prevail for my generation without disastrous results, but for how long?  How will the elderly in year 2050 be supported by populations that have shrunk as drastically as mentioned in the articles?

Canadian governments have had various versions of the “baby bonus” policy, much like as in France and Sweden.  I think that currently only two-parent families receive a baby bonus.  The current conservative (right-wing) government is very much against the concept of single parenthood.  Although judging by current wind blowing in Ottawa, what constitutes baby bonus can (and probably will) change.  I'm against any kind of baby bonus on principle, as the government hand-picks the group of people that will receive this special privilege at the expense of other groups.  Some provinces like British Columbia (B.C.) are also considering paying money for each new baby born.  (Maybe it is already enacted in B.C. I have not followed this issue closely).  For Canada’s fertility rate see here.

The articles brought some good points against government intervention.  The best argument is that the western world is so concerned about depleting non-renewable resources and over-crowding, yet they’re willing to perpetuate this cycle when natural phenomena could help alleviate the burden our planet in facing.

I agree with Marcus and one of the articles’ conclusion in that only the individual and his/her spouse should decide when and if children are in their future.  No nation needs any Hitler-like policies.

EDIT: Third to last paragraph was edited.  Some of it was incorrect.

 

[Anomica]

Genghis - what do you mean by "baby bonus" system in Sweden? I really don't understand what you mean. Is it that the government pays a kind of child allowance for each kid you are responsible for? When that system started it was to ensure that all children had a "lowest mutual standard" that would help families with food, clothes etc. The main problem I have with that system is that you get it regardless of income which means that if you're unemployed and unemployable, living on social welfare or if you earn millions every year you still get the same amount, about 1000 Swedish krona a month (= US $ 140/ $ 1700/year). Mean income in Sweden in 2003 was $ 30 000. Is that what you mean by baby bonus? Just so that I understand what we're talking about here

Daycare fees in Sweden are based on income, and my wife's and my own mutual income is approximately $ 75000/year, and daycare for us costs $ 1500/year which includes breakfast, lunch and a snack in the afternoon. They open at 6.30 in the morning and are open until 6 in the evening. There are 1 or 2 24-hour places in my hometown as well, for the night-shift workers, same or similar fee. Also, we have maternity/paternity leave for a total of 18 months from the birth of the child, and you have to take your days before the child turns 7, I think. Income during these months is 80% of your salary up to a roof of about $ 43000/year, if you earn more than that you still get the same amount.

Our system should be an incentive to have children, but it's not with a birthrate of 1,65 children / woman. Still, on a European level we're not the lowest. It's not financial issues that keep the birth rates low - the explanation must be found elsewhere. Personally I belive it's largely due to the self-realisation trend.

 

[Urizen]

The main problem I have with that system is that you get it regardless of income which means that if you're unemployed and unemployable, living on social welfare or if you earn millions every year you still get the same amount, about 1000 Swedish krona a month (= US $ 140/ $ 1700/year). Mean income in Sweden in 2003 was $ 30 000. Is that what you mean by baby bonus? Just so that I understand what we're talking about here

Do you get that amount only during one year, or longer? In Serbia couples receive baby bonus only during one year, and depending on what child you got(first, second, third...), the amount is between 400 - 900 euros, but keep in mind that the average monthly salary here is  240 euros.

. It's not financial issues that keep the birth rates low - the explanation must be found elsewhere. Personally I belive it's largely due to the self-realisation trend.

Well if this is true, than the governments should apply a different strategy when trying to put the birth rates up, because baby bonuses or attempting to solve the financial issues is what they mostly do.

 

[Genghis Khan]

@ Anomica: I'm sorry if I misuderstood the Swedish, or should I say Nordic, model.  I was interpreting the articles provided and perhaps I failed in that department.  Thank you for a more detailed clarification, at any rate.

In Canada, criticisms about the baby bonus (money for having kids, essentially), which is not the same thing as publicly funded day-care, are many:
- People have kids for the money.
- Money is spent on "other" stuff, not kids.  Use your imagination for "other" because pretty much anything has been mentioned.
- Kids will have kids.
- It will increase single-parenthood.
- It is an unnecessary distribution of money.
- People who cannot have children are penalized unnecessarily and cruelly.
- Some people have to take care of their elderly parents instead.
- Career people are penalized.
- Liberated women are penalized.
- Plus many more that I cannot think of right now.


Overall viewpoints on this "issue" (that I haven't yet stated):
- Who is to say that European (white) populations are not meant to shrink naturally over time?  Population levels fluctuate.  They always have and always will over time.
- I doubt that European culture will disappear.  People are just paranoid and full of hysteria when noticeable changes like this occur -- and people in general hate change.  By the way, can anybody define what is "European-ness" outside of the obvious physical characteristics?  I'm not trying to turn this ugly; I simply have not felt European (except during Euro Cups  ) in such a long time and I'd like to hear from many Europeans here.
- I have not seen any articles on the economic impact this population decrease will have, except for that of the future elderly -- like me. 
- Maybe we can add a poll on this thread or another one where we "vote" or express our opinions on this subject.  Just a thought.

 

[Urizen]

What is Europeanness? Being the cradle of civilisations, rich culture, history, many national identitys living together on such a small place.

But Genghis have you heard?

Maiden will be playing in Belgrade on march 14th. 

I'm here dialing the phones and waking those who go to sleep earlier(it's only quarter to twelve anyway).

 

[Genghis Khan]

March?  Too bad.  If it was in August, I could have made it.

Europe will still be the cradle of civilization for Europeans.  I doubt that Japanese, Arabs, Native Americans, and all non-Europeans will feel the same way about Europe. 

History will not be lost.  Culture will not be lost, only less people will identify with it.  I would argue that this may only increase appreciation for each culture's uniqueness. 

You are not speaking of an actual "plague", I hope!  Shrinking populations does not mean extinction.

 

[Urizen]

Well, the term "the white plague" was not coined by me of course. And the plague, the black plague didn't meant extinction either, if I'm not mistaken.

But the economic problems will be considerable, especially the support of the elderly population. And also the lack of working force. But on the other hand this could root out unemployment. I'm not sure. Have you checked Perun's links ?

 

[Onhell]

You are wrong, it's not racism, it is being concerned for the future of one's people. This is a problem among white population in Europe, but I also mentioned Japan- because I care about them too. If the population decrease was the case among black people or Hispanics and was serious I would have mentioned them also.

That's called racism...

 

[Urizen]

I think it is showing concern for  this wonderful world and all the variety of nations, peoples, cultures...

Racism is expressing views of superiority of one nation over another. You, on the other hand, don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Onhell]

No need to get so hostile, you obviously don't know what racism is. Being concerned for people with low melonin (sp?) while millions of Africans die do to starvation, AIDS and other deceases instead of simply CHOOSING not to have children like in these post-industrial nations IS racist. Please explain to me, how is it being concerned for ONE group of people (whites) also being concerned for the human race? Singling out one group of people and SPECIFICALLY because of their racial/ethnic background IS racist. So forgive me, but I'm afraid you are the one speaking out of your ass.

 

[Urizen]

Listen kid, you obviously haven't read my posts, which you quoted. I'm not concerned for only whites, I already said I'm concerned with the Japanese low birth rate too, and I also said that if that was the case among for example blacks, hispanics... I would be concerned about them also. The fact is, this problem strikes white people mostly, that's why we're talking about white people in this thread, mostly.

What does millions of Africans dying from AIDS has to do with this thread- I'm sorry because of that, but if you wish to talk about it then start a thread. Me starting a thread about a problem concerning mainly white people is not racist, because I'm not saying 'Listen this is the biggest problem in the world'. I just said, this is a problem, tell me what you think about it. I never stated that compared to other problems this is the most important one. I'm not singling one group because of their race, I'm singling a group(and not only one) because of their specifical problem. I hope that made things clearer for you.

But I've noticed that you like using the word racism a lot, and that you are trying to accuse me of being a racist. You have too much anger, hate and aggression in you, I suggest you try to let some steam out playing sports, it will be good for you, because forums are places for adult conversations and polite discussions, but you are constantly bumping this thread going "Aaah, racism, racism", and being very rude which shows how immature you are. Just remember to get some of your energy out before coming to this forum, it'll make you more reasonable I think.

Speaking out of my ass am I? Good, because it shows that my ass alone is much smarter than whatever you're speaking out from.

 

[Anonymous]

Urizen, you should show some more patience. There obviously is a misunderstanding between you and Onhell, but that is no reason to become offensive.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

And the same goes for Onhell. Polite disagreement and lively discussion is fine. Telling someone that they're "speaking out of his ass" is not - that's just rude. Please keep this discussion civil.

 

[Onhell]

Point taken, all three.

Let me state my point again.

You (Urizen) Say that low birth rates among whites in Europe and the U.S and among Japanese is a problem. I say it is not a problem, because the reason for low birth rates is not due to poor health in any way (not an epidemic, no killer virus, or men and women with low fertility). The reason the natality rates have droped for the group of people and countries you mentioned is do to economic, technological and educational progress.

Japan, for example is an incredibly sexist society which while allowing women to enter the workforce (grudgingly) they have horrible benefits were they to get pregnant. Similar to the U.S they have very little family leave (if any) and a single, childless, woman has better career oportunities than a married, parent or single parent, thus many couples and women choose not to have children.

In the West sadly, whether you agree with it or not, it IS about racism. I did not mean to imply that you yourself were racist, but just like in Japan, it is about opportunity and accesibility to resources and in th U.S and Mexico (along with other latin american countries) minorities have been denied "basic" opportunites like education and decent work. Just with education people don't know about contraception or family planning. Only 33% of people in the U.S attend college, just walking through my campus it is fairly obvious the overwhelming majority is white. I'm taking African American studies this semester... not a single black student and in my Ethnic relations class blacks and hispanics still make the minority of students in it. Minorities have been purposefully kept down from the freedoms and rights everybody is supposed to have.

What I'm trying to say, because of the big difference in standard of livng, educational attainment, etc. whites CHOOSE to not have many if any children. Thus their numbers are not being reduced because of some Holocaust, plague or eugenics, it is a conscious choice given their social position and standard of living afforded to them because of their countries wealth and race.

THAT'S where I see the problem and that's why, as you have noticed I like the word, "racism" so much. You pointed out that Japan's numbers are shrinking... I'm assuming it is ALL of the Japanese population, yet in western Europe and the U.S it is only "whites." That is a problem in the sense that ALL ethnic groups in first world nations should be going through the same process, but it is not so.

 

[Urizen]

Perun, do note that I've already explained to Onhell the first time he mentioned racism:

I'm not concerned for only whites, I already said I'm concerned with the Japanese low birth rate too, and I also said that if that was the case among for example blacks, hispanics... I would be concerned about them also. The fact is, this problem strikes white people mostly, that's why we're talking about white people in this thread, mostly.

And still he simply said, again, 'that's called racism', without explanation.

I want you and SMX to read all of my posts in this thread, or at least the last one, and see for yourselves is there any racism in them.

Onhell why haven't you posted this earlier instead of just going(I'm badly repeating myself, I know) 'It's racism', leaving me to wonder what the hell you meant?

As I said earlier in one of my posts, it doesn't matter whether do you or someone else sees it as a problem- that is your opinion(subjective), the fact is it is a problem because countries that are experiencing loss in population see it as a big problem. The governments of these countries(Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Russia, Serbia, Sweden...), are seeing it as a problem and the steps they are making to improve the birth rates in their countries proves this. I already mentioned the economical problems that are increasing every year as populations are shrinking. Soon it may become very difficult for the working population to support the elderly, the retired.

I'm not sure what do you mean when you say 'in the west it's about racism'.

The economical imbalance between minorities(and I must say that Hispanics and Blacks could not really be considered minorities in the U.S. Is it not true that they make considerable part of the population?) and the majority, and how the minorities are as you say 'kept down from the freedoms and rights',  I don't see how is relevant to this post. Are you trying to imply that shrinking of the white population would improve the standings of the minorities, therefore making this shrinking not a bad thing?

When you say that 33prc. of the people in the States are attending college, do you mean one third of the entire population? If this is so, from my point of view, it is hard for me to understand why is this a small percentage(unless you have colleges for plumbers, bakers, construction workers...). Not everyone is good enough, in terms of knowledge, intelligence, dedication, to attend college. In Serbia for example, many students go to college and then drag it on and on for almost a decade, or dropping out because they saw it's not for them.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

Great.  An otherwise perfectly interesting thread devolves into (apparently mistaken) accusations of racism. 

 

[Genghis Khan]

Great.  An otherwise perfectly interesting thread devolves into (apparently mistaken) accusations of racism. 

I know. 

So much for my warning:

A WARNING: I'm hoping this thread will not turn into something racial and bigoted.  I have seen websites devoted to this "shrinking white population" and burgeoning "Muslim/African/Asian population" that are entirely based around a racist worldview.  I know the members of this board are intelligent and accepting human beings, but every once in a while we receive a new member that is... you know what I mean.

Having read many of Onhell's posts since my serious posting started in September, I know he is a guy that takes social justice passionately.  His two main points are, if I may summarize, that have not been read unfortunately:
- Western society is still sexist (and so is Japan).  This is (at least partially) the reason for descreasing populations of whites in the west and Japan.  (I'm unsure if the latter is true).  Does anyone have a link?
- Non-white populations in the west are less educated, hence more kids, and enduring racism is (at least partially) responsible for this.

Urizen from what I can tell is passionate about the roots of European civilizations.  I am still unsure what his personal feelings are on this population decrease trend.

I don't think either guy intended to insult the other.  To repeat what SMX and Perun said: Let's answer each others points truthfully but politely. 

 

[Anomica]

Do you get that amount only during one year, or longer? In Serbia couples receive baby bonus only during one year, and depending on what child you got(first, second, third...), the amount is between 400 - 900 euros, but keep in mind that the average monthly salary here is  240 euros.

You get that amount once a month until the children are 16 (18 if they continue in school - "prolonged baby bonus"). Very generous, in order to give all children a minimum financial security. The problem is that many people earn so much that they can save this money, almost a month's salary every year which makes for a good start once the child has grown up and wants to buy a car, or a flat or something. Jealous, me? Of course

 

[Urizen]

Genghis you finally have a decent avatar to go with your nickname.

[quote author=Genghis Khan link=topic=14902.msg155544#msg155544 date=116898936
Urizen from what I can tell is passionate about the roots of European civilizations.  I am still unsure what his personal feelings are on this population decrease trend.
[/quote]

This is true, I guess. I'm worried about this trend, and one of the reasons why is because no one seems to know when it's gonna stop.

This is one of my main points:

As I said earlier in one of my posts, it doesn't matter whether do you or someone else sees it as a problem- that is your opinion(subjective), the fact is it is a problem because countries that are experiencing loss in population see it as a big problem. The governments of these countries(Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Russia, Serbia, Sweden...), are seeing it as a problem and the steps they are making to improve the birth rates in their countries proves this. I already mentioned the economical problems that are increasing every year as populations are shrinking. Soon it may become very difficult for the working population to support the elderly, the retired.

You get that amount once a month until the children are 16 (18 if they continue in school - "prolonged baby bonus"). Very generous, in order to give all children a minimum financial security. The problem is that many people earn so much that they can save this money, almost a month's salary every year which makes for a good start once the child has grown up and wants to buy a car, or a flat or something. Jealous, me? Of course

I knew you have it good in Sweden, but I didn't knew it was this good.

 

[IronDuke]

We could examine this from an evolutionary perspective:
It could be that people in developed countries (i.e. White countries plus Japan) are having fewer children in order to take car eof them better. A couple in the West and Japan can have one baby and be reasonably sure that their genes will be passed on with little to no chance of that baby dying. Therefore, they can devote much greater resources to that single kid (or perhaps even two kids), ensuring that it has a much, much greater quality of life.

Couples in less developed countries, on the other hand, have adopted a reproductive strategy which is a little different. Because babies are more likely to die there, they feel that they need to have many of them. Therefore, they can devote fewer resources and less energy to each individual offspring, but with so many of them the chances are that at least one will surrvive into adulthood.

When people from third-world countries move to the first world, it takes a few generations for them to be fully integrated into the adoptive society, ergo they maintain their third-world reproductive strategy. Human beings are, after all, just another critter which operates under the same evolutionary rules as all critters. We may build up powerful social structures because we're smarter than most animals, but in the end we're just hairless chimpanzees.