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".
 
Everyone wants to point at feminism, but I don't know why considering I know just as many men, maybe slightly more, who do the whole "OMG I HATE CHILDREN BABIES ARE GROSS KIDS ARE ANNOYING TEENAGERS ARE STUPID I'M NEVER HAVING KIDS" song and dance. Honestly I think that's the real source of this issue. It's not even money or both parents working full time, it's just that a large population of Millennials have no tolerance for things they find annoying and hate children. While Millennials are on the extreme end of this, I don't think it's unique. In the past you had no choice, sex eventually lead to babies, and society told you to shut up and take care of those babies even if you didn't want to. Birth control and the current culture got rid of both of those things, so of course birth rates are plummeting.
 
Everyone wants to point at feminism, but I don't know why considering I know just as many men, maybe slightly more, who do the whole "OMG I HATE CHILDREN BABIES ARE GROSS KIDS ARE ANNOYING TEENAGERS ARE STUPID I'M NEVER HAVING KIDS" song and dance. Honestly I think that's the real source of this issue. It's not even money or both parents working full time, it's just that a large population of Millennials have no tolerance for things they find annoying and hate children. While Millennials are on the extreme end of this, I don't think it's unique. In the past you had no choice, sex eventually lead to babies, and society told you to shut up and take care of those babies even if you didn't want to. Birth control and the current culture got rid of both of those things, so of course birth rate are plummeting.

To be honest, I think it's far healthier for people who don't really want kids to not have them than for them to have them out of some sense of obligation to either family or "the economy".
 
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 amount, and you are supposed to get the best bang for you buck in terms of life, then they aren't thinking about life the way people used to think about it--that there is grown up time. They are thinking about life in terms of "best use" of incremental units. And the best use is the highest instant reward use.

it's a mix of that and people that want to have children, not having enough money to start a family.
It's a really fucked up situation. and then these countries are supposed to take 3rd world immigrants that are goona go on welfare.
In the end, it's Always the common man that gets screwed.
 
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

People are having children later in life than ever before, and the previous generation isn't always still around when someone is having their first child in their mid/late thirties.
 
Everyone wants to point at feminism, but I don't know why considering I know just as many men, maybe slightly more, who do the whole "OMG I HATE CHILDREN BABIES ARE GROSS KIDS ARE ANNOYING TEENAGERS ARE STUPID I'M NEVER HAVING KIDS" song and dance. Honestly I think that's the real source of this issue. It's not even money or both parents working full time, it's just that a large population of Millennials have no tolerance for things they find annoying and hate children. While Millennials are on the extreme end of this, I don't think it's unique. In the past you had no choice, sex eventually lead to babies, and society told you to shut up and take care of those babies even if you didn't want to. Birth control and the current culture got rid of both of those things, so of course birth rates are plummeting.
It really depends. While I’m sure there’s a lot of millennials out there not having kids because #childfree (which honestly is for the best, kids don’t need to have asshole parents like that) but the millennials who you see having kids are the ones who either made bank early on, are absolute dumb fucks, or both, and the millennials who don’t are typically the ones who don’t because after rent and bills they have like $40 leftover from their paycheck.

Birth rates tend to tank in times of economic hardship, regardless of the generation.
 
people that want to have children, not having enough money to start a family

I don't know about Norway, but the people I know of that "can't afford" to have kids? Always seem to have more money than the people I know with kids already.

There are fairly revealing reddit threads, where someone, usually a guy, will complain that he cannot afford kids, and then he details things, and generally, what he means is that he can't afford to have kids and live like a single dude in his up and coming neighborhood. He'd have to live somewhere cheaper, and he doesn't want to. He'd have to stop a hobby, or give up something he doesn't want to give up.

For real, broke bitches have babies all the time.
 
To be honest, I think it's far healthier for people who don't really want kids to not have them than for them to have them out of some sense of obligation to either family or "the economy".

In general I agree. Yes, people who really hate babies and children and having a family so much they become abusive or leave or murder them or whatever should not be having kids. But I feel like it's gone too far in the other direction and it's ridiculous that people don't have kids because the kid might touch their TV screen and leave fingers prints and that would *gasp* annoy them.

It really depends. While I’m sure there’s a lot of millennials out there not having kids because #childfree (which honestly is for the best, kids don’t need to have asshole parents like that) but the millennials who you see having kids are the ones who were either made bank early on, absolute dumb fucks, or both, and the millennials who don’t are typically the ones who don’t because after rent and bills they have like $40 leftover from their paycheck.

Birth rates tend to tank in times of economic hardship, regardless of the generation.

If this were the case, why isn't anywhere- America or Europe- seeing any improvement, even as the economy has gotten better? Why are wealthy white Americans the ones with the most money and the lowest birth rates? Hell, why is there such a discrepancy between middle class whites and middle class blacks and hispanics? I'm not saying money doesn't have any impact, it does, but I don't think the data shows that economics are what is driving this. It's not 2010 anymore.
 
I don't know about Norway, but the people I know of that "can't afford" to have kids? Always seem to have more money than the people I know with kids already.

There are fairly revealing reddit threads, where someone, usually a guy, will complain that he cannot afford kids, and then he details things, and generally, what he means is that he can't afford to have kids and live like a single dude in his up and coming neighborhood. He'd have to live somewhere cheaper, and he doesn't want to. He'd have to stop a hobby, or give up something he doesn't want to give up.

For real, broke bitches have babies all the time.

then those are part of the hedonistic ones. They cant renounce to their lifestyle so they make up the money excuse.

and broke bitches shouldnt have kids honestly. That just speaks volumes about their lack of judment, when somebody pops out a couple of kids, when they already can barely make it to the end of the month with their paychecks.
 
If this were the case, why isn't anywhere- America or Europe- seeing any improvement, even as the economy has gotten better? Why are wealthy white Americans the ones with the most money and the lowest birth rates? Hell, why is there such a discrepancy between middle class whites and middle class blacks and hispanics? I'm not saying money doesn't have any impact, it does, but I don't think the data shows that economics are what is driving this. It's not 2010 anymore.
I think this a bit of misinterpretation of the stats, the “economy” as a nebulous entity doing better doesn’t necessarily translate to the middle class as a whole doing better. It’s more that there’s more people in the work force with the same shit pay.
 
And how productive of citizens do ghetto babies turn out to be again?

I think that the nation's boring suburbs are full of nice families that would describe themselves as strapped for cash--they have to rent, or they don't have much in savings. They drive 10, 15 year old cars. They never take vacations. They expect their kids to take out student loans. If only the upper middle class produces "productive" citizens, then oh well. We are all ghetto babies, I guess.
 
I think this a bit of misinterpretation of the stats, the “economy” as a nebulous entity doing better doesn’t necessarily translate to the middle class as a whole doing better. It’s more that there’s more people in the work force with the same shit pay.

Fair enough. If nothing else, time will tell.
 
I’m a millennial and most of the excuses peddled by millennials really don’t hold up under any scrutiny. Last decade’s recession was treated as a permission slip to just delay adulthood for the foreseeable future.

I don’t really care if these adult babies have children, I’m just tired of the bullshit excuses millennials trot out. I’m hoping the zoomers turn out better.
Why does anyone need an excuse not to have kids? Why isn't choosing to spend your time and money in other ways a valid decision?
 
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

Yes and not. Th is is common in Latin America and it's not always the best solution. The grandparent, often the grandmother, takes care of the kids but it's not involved in their lives. Say, she makes the food, cleans the house, etc, but the kids are emotionally on their own. I have a kid in school age and most parent meetings are empty because the parents are never there (the grandparents feel this is not their place): they always have to work. Even parents whose kids are in trouble and are called to school don't go and never find out their children are in gangs or taking drugs. I've actually seen this and it's sad because children often feel their parents don't care. And yes, this is a problem that educators are noticing and don't really now how to solve.

The only solution, if you ask me, it's that one of the parents has to stay home and don't work. Or both parents need to be independent and having a business they can handle. Or handle it together.
 
I don't know about Norway, but the people I know of that "can't afford" to have kids? Always seem to have more money than the people I know with kids already.

There are fairly revealing reddit threads, where someone, usually a guy, will complain that he cannot afford kids, and then he details things, and generally, what he means is that he can't afford to have kids and live like a single dude in his up and coming neighborhood. He'd have to live somewhere cheaper, and he doesn't want to. He'd have to stop a hobby, or give up something he doesn't want to give up.

For real, broke bitches have babies all the time.

I think it used to be that an average working Joe had enough money to support both a family and a hobby on the side. But as the cost of living has gone up, and the average income stagnated, people are finding that with only one of those being affordable, it's the child-rearing that loses out because that's work. True, it may be gratifying in the long run, but, when placed against instant gratification from a hobby, that you can indulge in completely on your schedule, whenever you feel like it, and if you mess up/lose interest, you can just shitcan it, walk away, and nobody gets feelings hurt?

Seen in that light, the "choice" for many is obvious. Call it hedonism if you like, but I'd rather a person who is selfish be that way alone, and not burden a child with a half-hearted parent who really, deep down inside, does not care and only gave birth for the sake of just looking the part of "normal" for nosy neighbors and moral police.

No wonder kids seem like a poor investment. Until people have the means to support both again, kids are never going to look as appealing to people who aren't totally devoted to the notion of fostering the next generation, no matter how many "Tisk tisks" they get from society's ruling class.

That said. If you don't want kids, you don't want kids, you don't NEED a reason other than that. You don't owe anyone your ovaries/gonads, for business OR pleasure. You don't owe Incels a pity-fucking and you don't owe your society a token citizen to take your place when you die.
 
Última edición:
^One of them could just work part time if they're really strapped for cash and the stay-at-home parent feels restless at home.
What I've seen many couples do is that often the father works full time while the mother stays home but starts a small business like selling desserts, candies, clothes, or something like that. It doesn't make a lot of money, but enough to help the household and get some cash that doesn't make you fully dependent on your husband.
 
Yes and not. Th is is common in Latin America and it's not always the best solution. The grandparent, often the grandmother, takes care of the kids but it's not involved in their lives. Say, she makes the food, cleans the house, etc, but the kids are emotionally on their own. I have a kid in school age and most parent meetings are empty because the parents are never there (the grandparents feel this is not their place): they always have to work. Even parents whose kids are in trouble and are called to school don't go and never find out their children are in gangs or taking drugs. I've actually seen this and it's sad because children often feel their parents don't care. And yes, this is a problem that educators are noticing and don't really now how to solve.

The only solution, if you ask me, it's that one of the parents has to stay home and don't work. Or both parents need to be independent and having a business they can handle. Or handle it together.
While I get what you’re saying, I don’t think households going back to a one breadwinner/one homemaker formula is really feasible. Boomers could do that because the average working man’s dollar went a lot further than it does now, and if you have the misfortune of living in an area where the “cheapest” living space is $2500 a month for something the size of a walk-in closet, you absolutely need to have at least two people working full time, and moving isn’t always an option.

It sounds like the problem there is a mix of apathy on top of the lack of time. Time’s absolutely important - both for physically spending time with family and the time to build up the energy to spend time with family (think about how many parents you’ve seen/met who won’t even talk to anyone after work until they’ve had an hour or two to themselves first) and I can’t say I blame anyone who weighs their work time, hourly pay, bills, and free time and decide they aren’t in a position to throw kids into the mix, time also means nothing is they won’t put any of it towards interacting with their offspring. “If I leave you it doesn’t mean I love you any less” and all that. The kids don’t think their parents care because they probably genuinely don’t. Which is definitely a sad situation to be in.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo