UN Babies wanted: Nordic countries crying for kids

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html
Oslo (AFP) - "Norway needs more children! I don't think I need to tell anyone how this is done," Norway's prime minister said cheekily, but she was raising a real concern.

Too few babies are being born in the Nordic region.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."

In Norway, Finland and Iceland, birth rates dropped to historic lows in 2017, with 1.49 to 1.71 children born per woman. Just a few years earlier, their birth rates hovered close to the 2.1 level required for their populations to remain stable.

"In all of the Nordic countries, birth rates started dropping in the years after the 2008 financial crisis," University of Oslo sociologist Trude Lappegard told AFP.

"The crisis is over now but it's still falling."

From Copenhagen to the North Cape, from Helsinki to Reykjavik, demographics across the Nordics reveal two things: there are fewer large families, and women are waiting longer before having their first child.

There's no single explanation, but financial uncertainty and a sharp rise in housing costs are seen as likely factors.

In the long term, this means there will be fewer people of working age to pay taxes that fund the generous state welfare systems.

These systems pay for, among other things, lengthy parental leaves, which in Sweden can last up to 480 days.

- Paying for pregnancies -

Experts present differing diagnoses and prescriptions to remedy the situation.

In Norway, one economist concerned about the effect the slowing demographics will have on economic growth has suggested giving women 500,000 kroner (50,000 euros, $58,550) in pension savings for each child born.

Another has suggested that, on the contrary, women in Norway who reach the age of 50 without having had a child should be paid one million kroner, since children also cost society a lot.

Finnish municipalities have already decided to loosen their purse strings to encourage locals to get busy under the covers.

The town of Miehikkala, home to 2,000 people, is offering 10,000 euros for each baby born and raised in the municipality.

"The number of childless individuals is growing rapidly, and the number of women having three or more children is going down. This kind of fall is unheard of in modern times in Finland," said Anna Rotkirch, a family sociologist at the umbrella organisation Finnish Family Federation.

In Denmark, Copenhagen has meanwhile turned its attention to men, who are in less of a hurry to become parents than women, with a campaign aimed at raising awareness about how sperm quality declines with age.

- Immigration boost -

The Nordic region already boasts a wealth of family-friendly initiatives, such as flexible working hours, a vast network of affordable daycares and generous parental leave systems.

But when all that is still not enough to encourage people to have more children, immigration can be a lifeline -- or a threat, depending on the point of view.

Sweden may have a falling birth rate, but it still comes in second in the EU behind France with 1.85 children born per woman in 2016.

That is largely due to Sweden's decades-long history of immigration: immigrant women tend to have more children than the average Swede.

With 2.6 children per woman in recent years, the town of Aneby in southern Sweden has one of the highest rates in the country, a phenomenon attributed to the fact that it opened its doors to immigrants two decades ago.

"Aneby welcomed around 225 Eritreans in the early 1990s and just after that (it took in) refugees from the Balkans. 1994 was a demographic record for the town," local official Ola Gustafsson told AFP.

But population growth among minorities has also fuelled fears.

A former justice minister in Norway, Per-Willy Amundsen of the populist far-right, made headlines when he called for family allowances to be reduced after a third child.

His stated goal was to stop Somalis who, he said, had a higher "birth production" rate than "ethnic Norwegians".
 
It doesn't matter how you look at it, the welfare model for the elderly is unsustainable. It will always eventually topple. The only reason it's ever proposed is because it sounds like a great deal for the people currently alive and nets you easy votes. You'll be gone by the time it goes to shit so you're off the hook. Couple this with the fact that the more people are in the workforce, the cheaper the labor gets. Then you throw in growing education for women which essentially doubles the workforce and it becomes even cheaper, which makes for a shit economy to be raising a family in unless you get into the really rare well-paying jobs instead of doing the basic infrastructure that the majority of people are still needed for but are still paid jack shit to do. If you want everyone to start breeding, pay the garbage man a better salary instead of hiring more government officials. After that all you gotta do is somehow erase a spouse's inhibitions to date someone who has to sort trash, and good luck with that because that ain't fucking happening after you spent the last two decades telling everyone they're gonna grow up to be astronauts and marry someone rich and beautiful because everyone was born equal and destined for great things despite it being impossible in every sense of the word.

Realistic expectations and responsibility are great things to teach the next generation early but they don't get you as many votes as promises of cotton candy ass lifestyles just falling into your lap, so here we are. Great job. Go make your own fucking babies, Mrs Prime Minister. Chop chop, there's a good girl.
 
In Norway, Finland and Iceland, birth rates dropped to historic lows in 2017, with 1.49 to 1.71 children born per woman. Just a few years earlier, their birth rates hovered close to the 2.1 level required for their populations to remain stable.

Is Sweden not here because of how increasingly vibrant it is?
 
  • DRINK!
  • Agree
Reactions: Koby_Fish and Safir
Sweden may have a falling birth rate, but it still comes in second in the EU behind France with 1.85 children born per woman in 2016.

That is largely due to Sweden's decades-long history of immigration: immigrant women tend to have more children than the average Swede.

With 2.6 children per woman in recent years, the town of Aneby in southern Sweden has one of the highest rates in the country, a phenomenon attributed to the fact that it opened its doors to immigrants two decades ago.
And three decades ago, we had a pretty good birth rate despite not having that many immigrants (it peaked with 2.13 children/woman in 1990, then it started going down due to the 1990-1994 financial crisis)... but that was mainly because the economy was doing well. Now the government is boosting the birth rate with a shitty immigration policy which, amongst other things, has had a negative impact on the economy. Thanks Reinfeldt and Löfven?
 
There are too many people on this planet, anyway. Every country should be focused on having lower birth rates (at or lower than the replacement rate). The explosive population growth we’ve been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution can’t go on unchecked forever.
The only demographic that parrots the "over population" meme is the one with the lowest birth rates and is the smallest overall. I suspect it's either self loathing or some kind of crypto-racism.

But no worry, I'm sure China and India will practice sustainable policies tempered with an international regard for human rights. :)
 
The only demographic that parrots the "over population" meme is the one with the lowest birth rates and is the smallest overall. I suspect it's either self loathing or some kind of crypto-racism.

But no worry, I'm sure China and India will practice sustainable policies tempered with an international regard for human rights. :)
Quality over quantity.
 
As crude as offering monetary compensation for babies may seem, it's probably one of the better options for increasing birth rates.

Australia tried it for a while but all it really did was increase the birth rate in families already dependent on government benefits.

The trend towards lower than replacement birthrates is driven by multiple factors, not the least of which is people settling down and starting families at a later age. A lot of people in their early 30s have already established a nice lifestyle for themselves and they're not willing to sacrifice huge parts of it to have a large family - so they have one or two children if they have any. Again, it's lower income families which tend to start their families during the "hungry" years of their adulthood.

We still provide a lot of support for working families, but over time it's been scaled back because middle class welfare is expensive.
 
There are too many people on this planet, anyway. Every country should be focused on having lower birth rates (at or lower than the replacement rate). The explosive population growth we’ve been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution can’t go on unchecked forever.
I had a really spergy and kinda stupid response but honestly my opinion kind of lies with the idea that that cant happen without a genuine "matriarchy" replacing "the patriarchy". People are going to rate me stupid shit but honestly men are born more often at a higher rate specifically because they were meant to be disposable, not everyone's gonna pass on, not every woman is going to want kids, mostly it was for wars, nobody expected drones, they expected death and shit; capitalism cant really cope with something like that along with the idea that it's going to grow forever and everyone can eventually become rich, without the sort of hybrid of capitalism and communism where you tax the rich to give to the poor. Society will always be stratified; the rich cant STAY rich if the middle class can rise up, and shit like that. But everybody wants to be rich and successful.

Im kind of a half taoist. Life is always algebraic in a way. Always an experiment.
 
Last edited:
Is Sweden not here because of how increasingly vibrant it is?

Lower down:
Sweden may have a falling birth rate, but it still comes in second in the EU behind France with 1.85 children born per woman in 2016.

That is largely due to Sweden's decades-long history of immigration: immigrant women tend to have more children than the average Swede.

So yes. Totally worth all the rioting and gang violence, too, I bet.
 
Bear in mind, having a lot of children before and during the early stages of the industrial age ensured a familial workforce for rural families. As society became more industrialized and urbanized, fewer children were needed to help maintain subsistence holdings and family farms. This isn't the result of purely "Feminism gone rogue", this is the result of progress. With the advancement of technology comes more financial inputs necessary to ensure your child can actually be productive, and survive, in the current age. With this also comes a need for fewer specialized labor inputs as we don't need 10 kids to operate one massive spinning machine in a factory.

The Feminist messaging is clever but it's not the root cause. The reason for producing large families has significantly dropped while the costs associated with it have skyrocketed. It's, legit, no different than families where a daughter is more expensive than a son, only in this case, that child is going to cost a fortune regardless of sex.

As crude as offering monetary compensation for babies may seem, it's probably one of the better options for increasing birth rates.
It’s also just a matter of lacking time as well as money. It’s extremely common for both parties in a marriage to be working full time nowadays, part of it being because of the rise in the cost of living, and with that comes less free time. Babies and children are also a full time job, and if you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck you aren’t going to get a nanny, so it’s no surprise that people decide not to have kids.
 
It’s also just a matter of lacking time as well as money. It’s extremely common for both parties in a marriage to be working full time nowadays, part of it being because of the rise in the cost of living, and with that comes less free time. Babies and children are also a full time job, and if you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck you aren’t going to get a nanny, so it’s no surprise that people decide not to have kids.
Wouldn't it be easier to live in multi generational households?
have the grandma and older siblings take care of the grandkids while both parents work
 
Wouldn't it be easier to live in multi generational households?
have the grandma and older siblings take care of the grandkids while both parents work
This is how it is done in third world countries where people are desperately poor.

Most people in first world countries, by virtue of living in first world economies, do not want to live like that. I certainly would never want to live with my parents today, or god forbid parents and grandparents, just to be able to raise babies. There are massive compromises in privacy, lifestyle, and values that come with multiple generations of adults living in the same household raising the same kids, compromises that shouldn't be necessary in a country with an advanced economy.

The problem, of course, is that between higher costs, multiple jobs, and lack of free time, we are sliding backwards into those third world economies where the parents have to work their fingers to the bone while their family raises their kids just to afford a tiny crappy house, just with more debt and better infrastructure (for now).
 
Japan is in way worse shape than a lot of places in Europe are, and they're still sexist as fuck. See also: Italy. And they're sexist AND Catholic.

The problem is that having kids gets in the way of hedonism, and developed society offers an entire lifetime of hedonism. Young women and young men basically say the same thing: they'd rather buy fun stuff, they'd rather sleep, they'd rather have the novelty of travel, they don't want to be monogamous, they don't want to give up their video game time or me time, they don't want to be "tied down" to one place, relationship, or identity.

Money is sort of the only thing that might overcome that. If your life is doled out in time, and time is attached a monetary unit amount, you are supposed to get the best bang for you buck in terms of life. They aren't thinking about life the way people used to think about it--that there is childhood time, then growing up time, then old age. They are thinking about life in terms of "best use" of incremental units. And the best use is the highest "instant reward" use. That use of time that involves the least amount of struggle, and the most amount of pleasure.
 
Last edited:
This is how it is done in third world countries where people are desperately poor.

Most people in first world countries, by virtue of living in first world economies, do not want to live like that. I certainly would never want to live with my parents today, or god forbid parents and grandparents, just to be able to raise babies.
Also might be a space issue too. If you live in a city, chances are you’re going to live in an apartment complex where space is limited. So even if having 3 generations all living in the same apartment would solve the problem of time, it comes at the cost of having up to 7 people crammed up in one 2 bedroom, 1 bath space. Also sounds like a good way to cause family murder-suicides to skyrocket.

That used to be why several decades ago it wasn’t too uncommon for entire extended families to rent out entire apartment complexes where one family’s full grown children moving out would juar entail them signing a lease for a space one floor over, but that’s not really a feasible option anymore.
 
Wouldn't it be easier to live in multi generational households?
have the grandma and older siblings take care of the grandkids while both parents work
Probably, though from what I understand multi-generation households was also something that started falling out of style during the Industrial Age.
This is how it is done in third world countries where people are desperately poor.

Most people in first world countries, by virtue of living in first world economies, do not want to live like that. I certainly would never want to live with my parents today, or god forbid parents and grandparents, just to be able to raise babies. There are massive compromises in privacy, lifestyle, and values that come with multiple generations of adults living in the same household raising the same kids, compromises that shouldn't be necessary in a country with an advanced economy.

The problem, of course, is that between higher costs, multiple jobs, and lack of free time, we are sliding backwards into those third world economies where the parents have to work their fingers to the bone while their family raises their kids just to afford a tiny crappy house, just with more debt and better infrastructure (for now).

Nordic youth leaves their home very young compared to rest of Europe. Even when the average age is rising they're still leaving very early.

https://www.thelocal.se/20150624/why-are-young-swedes-leaving-home-later

Enough people even consider it an embarrassment to be living with your parents in your twenties, no matter the financial situation. Being independent is a big deal to them.
 
Back