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".
 
Feminism is a feature of enlightenment ideas and capitalism, not a bug. Not an aberration. Wollstonecraft was a contemporary to Thomas Paine. They hung out.

Seriously, on a long enough timeline, feminism is the obvious conclusion.

Hell, they're in Norway, poverty is not an issue.

Ding, ding.

It's way less economics than it is ideology.
 
Guys, wish me luck. I'm going in.
Feminism is a feature of enlightenment ideas and capitalism, not a bug. Not an aberration. Wollstonecraft was a contemporary to Thomas Paine. They hung out.

Seriously, on a long enough timeline, feminism is the obvious conclusion.
WTF, I hate capitalism and enlightment now.
 
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 have kids because they want kids, not because they want to be friends with a couple young adults in 20 years. They want input into creating a new person.

There are many causes to the population crisis - I want to highlight this post because even I, a third-world pro-family radfem, feel the Western cultural disdain for realistic motherhood:
There is a very common trend in this current wave of feminism to demonize motherhood and pregnancy in general. I speak a lot to younger women in their late teens - early twenties with all these really dumb and horrifying ideas about pregnancy and children. I can only imagine it's shitty teen vogue-esque magazines and bad tumblr facts scaring them into believing, frankly, kind of sexist and false things about mothering and the whole concept of pregnancy. I really really try to explain to them that it's really not that bad and correct some falsehoods but I feel like it's falling on deaf ears.

Feminism is cancer. I can't think of a single thing it's done in the last 10 years that's been any sort of net gain for women.
(also lol it'll be 100 years next year, because the only net gain for women feminism achieved is women's suffrage)
- but no solution.

The choke point is the number of invested caregivers. Migrant births outnumber native births because migrants are culturally not invested in their children, and, to drop kayfabe for a moment, this is why they don't make good citizens.

But it runs deeper. Again and again we're hearing from the left that people shouldn't be judged on their worth (I don't mean net worth but the desire and ability to contribute to society), that everyone is equally "valid", and the "progressive" policy stack is built on that, while, deep down, people know it's false. Low-expectation children grow up to be passive consumers who think wanting something better for their own hypothetical children is anathema. And if so, why have any?

So, to turn back the tide, this is what you'd need:
1. A massive sustained propaganda effort.
2. A radical overhaul of education, basically homeschooling + daycare, dedicated case workers for children of shitty parents. Continuing education on homeschooling and resources for parents.
3. An end to capital flight, then a labor reform: log scale incomes, fewer work hours.
4. Close the borders to sausage migration.
5. Large-scale aspirational projects.
6. Delicious carrots and pointy sticks so the rest of the world maintains economic ties with you.
(While we're at that, get rid of forced fatherhood and extended maternity leaves.)

If it were a game of Civ, Norway, Japan, and the rapist monarchies of the Gulf meet the prerequisites. Politically, of course, they're fucked as much as the rest of the world.

This is how I will build my family. Note how unsustainable the plan is on a large scale, with all the benefit-grifting and tax-dodging.
"Light! Dark! Light! Dark! Come on, you can teach that to a kindergartener!"
-- my physics professor, on Fresnel zones

Starting conditions: female, over 30, with a full-time software engineering job. I live in Russia. Both parents are alive, below the new retirement age, unemployed and unemployable in the current economy, with manageable chronic illnesses.
* Spawn a kid (preferably using the state AI program, pay out of pocket if the queue is long), offload him or her onto my parents, resume work straight away. (They're "retired" and unlikely to find work, they want grandchildren and are willing to help out.) Stock up on children's books. Teach reading asap.
* Spawn another kid to get maternity credit, offload him or her onto my parents.
* Start working remotely 50% of the time (I expect it to become a standard industry practice for tax-dodging reasons)
* At 3, start teaching math, pop science and freehand writing as motor ability develops.
*At 4-5, try music and martial arts (paid classes).
* At 6, enroll them in a decent public school and claim homeschooling money. Put homeschooling money into a savings account to spend on tutors/coaches. If at any point a kid displays talent in a weirdass discipline or craft, hire a tutor. Start programming (python, pygame or equivalents), athletics (running, cycling), and proper English.
* At 9, start physics and applied higher math (derivatives, integrals, combinatorics, probability, graph theory). Shop around for science competition coaches.
* At 10, computer science (quicksort and shit), linear algebra, and statistics.
* At 12, depending on the state of higher education, either pass the general ed finals (bye homeschooling money) and apply to a local university, or power through a language course and apply abroad later, when the kid is legally allowed to live on their own in a foreign country.
* At 18-21, win Paris-Brest-Paris.

inb4 comments:

> :powerlevel:
This is why that smiley isn't available anymore.

> Why not adopt?
Healthy infants are expensive, and my parents won't help with the intergenerational equivalent of "my wife's boyfriend".

> its unfair! your robing them of a childhood!!11!
Tell that to Wendylou Napoles.

> You're not qualified to teach children.
I am in fact qualified to teach general ed (except bonus languages) and applied statistics.

> "proper English" at 6?
I speak English, my parents don't. If two languages are taught simultaneously, the kids might end up speaking some unholy sped pidgin.

> Why not do the general ed exam earlier?
A) to get more homeschooling payments
B) the older the kid, the less time s/he needs to waste on otherwise useless prep
C) can't speed up social skills acquisition for higher ed
D) all of the above

> It's commendable of you to sacrifice yadda yadda blah blah
I won't be sacrificing anything, this is how I want to live.

> Be my mail order bride and let's make some ubermenschen together!
PM me.
 
An end to capital flight

I like your ideas and it reminds me of new zealand's "it's national night" commercial that was aimed at getting people fucking and breeding.

But this point I quoted might as well have been "end crime". How would you prevent capital flight? How would you release the pressures and fight the propaganda that are put on any western nation that tries to control its borders?
 
I don’t know why the very same people who claim that humans are nothing more than animals are surprised at what appears to be the natural ebb and flow of population booms and busts.

The only reason that this is an issue is that our entire welfare entitlement scheme is essentially a pyramid scheme.

Has the baby products industry been seeing huge losses as of late? There’s where the real answer lies.

Personally, I think the dearth of children from productive members of society might actually force our governments to overhaul not only their entitlement schemes but also finally begin enacting real reform to push ghetto sprogs into being employable, at the least.

For a long time now certain political factions have been happy to allow segments of our society to fester and they utilize welfare as the means to keep them in their pockets.

With a shrinking tax base this might finally change.


I welcome this.

And I think there’s a huge amount of hyprocrisy in tut tutting people for not farting out kids.
Especially, here on kiwifarms.
Wanting to center your life around pleasure is a valid choice.

And dry washing your hands in anticipation of someone else’s lonely, childless, demise is bizarre.


On a related note, does anyone here actually believe that when they’re old farts they’re going to see any of the money they put into social security?

Save, invest, buy some cheap real estate!
 
People have kids because they want kids, not because they want to be friends with a couple young adults in 20 years. They want input into creating a new person.

There are many causes to the population crisis - I want to highlight this post because even I, a third-world pro-family radfem, feel the Western cultural disdain for realistic motherhood:

(also lol it'll be 100 years next year, because the only net gain for women feminism achieved is women's suffrage)
- but no solution.

The choke point is the number of invested caregivers. Migrant births outnumber native births because migrants are culturally not invested in their children, and, to drop kayfabe for a moment, this is why they don't make good citizens.

But it runs deeper. Again and again we're hearing from the left that people shouldn't be judged on their worth (I don't mean net worth but the desire and ability to contribute to society), that everyone is equally "valid", and the "progressive" policy stack is built on that, while, deep down, people know it's false. Low-expectation children grow up to be passive consumers who think wanting something better for their own hypothetical children is anathema. And if so, why have any?

So, to turn back the tide, this is what you'd need:
1. A massive sustained propaganda effort.
2. A radical overhaul of education, basically homeschooling + daycare, dedicated case workers for children of shitty parents. Continuing education on homeschooling and resources for parents.
3. An end to capital flight, then a labor reform: log scale incomes, fewer work hours.
4. Close the borders to sausage migration.
5. Large-scale aspirational projects.
6. Delicious carrots and pointy sticks so the rest of the world maintains economic ties with you.
(While we're at that, get rid of forced fatherhood and extended maternity leaves.)

If it were a game of Civ, Norway, Japan, and the rapist monarchies of the Gulf meet the prerequisites. Politically, of course, they're fucked as much as the rest of the world.

[/SPOILER]


I can attest to the lack of investment some migrants and immigrants can have regarding their children.

Everyone shrieks about the dreamers and how we should kick them out but they’re here because their parents have a psychotic disregard for their well being.

Who the hell else thinks, unless you come from Sudan, that illegally squatting in a foreign country is a good thing for a 4 year old? These kids grow up with no means to attend college, attain employment, fulfillment or even leave the country to see the world.

They literally live here in a weird gilded prison.

Some of these people didn’t even know they were illegal until it came time for college applications and they found out they didn’t have a social security number...
 
Whether it's social security in the US, or the precious nordic model in northern Europe, the answer is the same: a generation of entitled old people who are terrified that a lack of schmucks to fleece for their tax-funded pyramid scheme will end their cozy retirement before death does. Of course birth rates are falling among the class of people who are unfairly expected to shoulder the bulk of the tax burden, and who tend to get called racists if they complain. You can't plan for a family if the welfare model you're paying an arm and a leg into obviously won't exist in twenty years no matter how often they swear to you it'll last a thousand. Scandinavia is having trouble convincing young people to sire the next generation? Gee I thought that was what you were importing so many thousands of taxpaying migrant families for. Oh wait, it's not families but mostly young men, and they aren't paying taxes but mostly collecting welfare because they aren't working, because your own elderly people weren't a heavy enough burden on your minuscule middle class so you wanted to provide them more of a challenge. Good job.

I am liking the usual feminism sperging though. Guys I hate feminists the same as you when they are calling me a born rapist and demanding I apologize for having a penis, so I don't want to sound too cynical, but some of you seem to think society fell apart because we allowed women to go to college and divorce bad partners and that's a little autistic. If women really should have their place in society totally limited then I would welcome you to immigrate to the sharia states where that dastardly feminism never destroyed the obviously good gender roles, except they're smarter than Scandinavia and probably won't let you.

As for overpopulation, it's really not as big of a deal as some think. Population rates worldwide are mostly stabilizing, and our ability to feed our current numbers is hampered mostly by awful bureaucratic legislation and idiotic social engineering programs, not by our ability to grow food. @Cosmos if you think overpopulation is an issue you should take it up with Nigeria and Pakistan, which are by far the two most sharply growing countries, each expected to surpass half a billion in the next 30 years. Stabilization, on the other hand, would be a good thing.
 
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.

Well there's really not a lot of reasons to have lots of kids in developed countries. We don't need junior to drop out of the fourth grade to go work at the factory with the rest of the clan. Most people aren't living on family farms.

Maybe a lot of women just don't really want kids? In the past it was different. Motherhood was the expected outcome for women. But there are so many better opportunities now. Motherhood is not for everyone. Hell, maybe it turns out that it's just not for a lot more women than we thought.
 
That's why 10% of women are on anti-depressants.

They're happy until 35, then the gloom begins. Earlier or later depending on lucky genetics.
What happens at 35, apart from speeding up the fertility decline? Or is that what you're referring to?
 
maybe they realize that their chance is gone or about to be gone forever?
It hurts like hell when you lose something and you only realize how much you cared for the thing, only after it's all said and done.
Better to regret not having a kid than to regret having one imo. By not having one you’ve only potentially hurt yourself and your partner, and if you want to bad enough you can adopt (insert cuck joke here). If you have a kid and realize you don’t really give a shit about it that could cause some issues.
 
I am liking the usual feminism sperging though. Guys I hate feminists the same as you when they are calling me a born rapist and demanding I apologize for having a penis, so I don't want to sound too cynical, but some of you seem to think society fell apart because we allowed women to go to college and divorce bad partners and that's a little autistic. If women really should have their place in society totally limited then I would welcome you to immigrate to the sharia states where that dastardly feminism never destroyed the obviously good gender roles, except they're smarter than Scandinavia and probably won't let you.

The issue isn't that women were empowered. The issue is that women were empowered in a way that forced us to embrace a dual income model.

The family is being destroyed by social and economic factors and the only thing keeping the USA's population balanced is religious fundies and hispanics having lots of kids through the power of sheer traditional.

There needs to be legal reforms so that wives don't have an anvil or the heads of their husbands. There needs a cultural shift towards glorifying one parent working and the other caregiving or at the very minimum two parents working part time. There needs to be economic changes to make labor valuable to make this all possible.

Finally, I have no idea how to fix this but we gotta do something about the social autism of men and materialism of women. This whole problem is best embodied by Twitch Thots and their hoards of fans who thirst for female attention. We used to get by on men just buying women shit but we can't really go back to that.
 
we-need-an-army-of-super-virile-men-scoring-around-the-clock-ill-do-my-part.jpg
 
Couldn't the problem be a combination of feminism AND socialism? The Nordic countries rate pretty high of both of those so this theory isn't too far off. Though I think it has more to do with socialism than feminism and there are good reasons not to jump into motherhood almost straight out of high school that has nothing to do with feminism itself(unfortunately marrying your first love/high school bf/gf isn't that great of an option since most teenagers don't think long term in terms of relationships).
As an economy improves, birth rates decline. This is seen everywhere. People have fewer children and put more resources into them. Some argue TFRs curves are j-shaped, so birth rates will eventually increase, but this is not proved (and probably wrong). Social factors also help to keep people from having babies, but the economy is the main driver. Feminism only exists because women are no longer reliant upon a spouse to support them.
 
Better to regret not having a kid than to regret having one imo. By not having one you’ve only potentially hurt yourself and your partner, and if you want to bad enough you can adopt (insert cuck joke here). If you have a kid and realize you don’t really give a shit about it that could cause some issues.

well, you go tell this to a woman whose eggs have just dried out and who desperately wanted to have children but, couldnt either get knocked up because of fertility issues or couldnt find a suitable partner and let's see what her answer is.
it's all about perspective.
 
well, you go tell this to a woman whose eggs have just dried out and who desperately wanted to have children but, couldnt either get knocked up because of fertility issues or couldnt find a suitable partner and let's see what her answer is.
it's all about perspective.
I was talking more about people who genuinely weren’t sure if they wanted kids or not, shoulda made that clearer
 
Every western government needs expanding populations to perpetuate their unlimited growth economic models. It doesn't matter if they're social-democracies or "capitalist" Republics. The only difference in them are the social classes they intend to replicate to keep the ponzi scheme running.

Zero population growth means sustainable use of natural resources and affordable real estate for future generations. Mass overpopulation (ie India and Sub-Saharan Africa) leads to huge piles of dikshit in the streets.
 
Well considering that social engineering is cancer and every attempt to try to "correct" this "problem" has done absolutely nothing but ill for the average citizen of other non-Nordic European countries (Germany, France, U.K.), maybe the best solution is to do nothing at all.

Especially considering that this cannot be the first time a population has ever naturally declined in history.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo