European child incentive programs

[JP226]

So lately, i've been going through policy and evaluating it economically. One of the things i came through are child incentive programs in many european countries. CAn I ask why this is a good thing? I already know why it's bad, too many babies and poor immigration control always causes problems, so why are european countries like france and their child incentives, pursuing it?

[Garbarsardar]

I'm not quite sure to what kinds of programs you are refering to...Maybe they just try to slow down the ageing trend of the population

[Søren]

So lately, i've been going through policy and evaluating it economically. One of the things i came through are child incentive programs in many european countries. CAn I ask why this is a good thing? I already know why it's bad, too many babies and poor immigration control always causes problems, so why are european countries like france and their child incentives, pursuing it?

Because many countries are faced with the possiblility of a higher annual death rate than birthrate. (note possibly)

Or more to the point, an overall population increase considerably lower than that which is taking place in other countries.

It's not a matter of "too many babies", there is very little chance of a 'too great' population growth in most western European countries.

[Carsomyr]

Haven't heard of them. Some links describing these programs with more depth, maybe?

[PacSubCom]

We don't need no Nazi "child incentive programs". All we need is total gender equality!

Oh yeah.

[wilpuri]

We don't need no Nazi "child incentive programs". All we need is total gender equality!

Oh yeah.

Please tell me you were just being sarcastic.

[JP226]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4856992.stm

here's a link to the french program from the BBC.

[Clibby]

Why, because the birthrate:deathrate ratio of countries like Germany, France and Italy is less than 2, therefore they are not replenishing their populations. Also FYI if the birthrate within the native french does not increase, within 50 years France will be the first Muslim country in Europe. I'm not 100% sure on where I heard this but my bio professor told us this as we were discussing logrithmic trends in populations due to the birthrate:deathrate ratio of muslims in France.

[JP226]

Why, because the birthrate:deathrate ratio of countries like Germany, France and Italy is less than 2, therefore they are not replenishing their populations. Also FYI if the birthrate within the native french does not increase, within 50 years France will be the first Muslim country in Europe. I'm not 100% sure on where I heard this but my bio professor told us this as we were discussing logrithmic trends in populations.

First off, i completely understand preserving your culture, but that comes from strict immigration controls and assimilation. In economics we have soemthing called a solow model. What that basically says is that economic growth is equated to a growth in productivity, ie deregulation. COmponents of that can be increased savings in the short run and increased capital or goods to make goods in the long. What the model also shows is that population growth decreases capital, productivity per capita and consumption per capita. Population growth may not necessarily lead to an economic slowdown, it can keep in mind, but more to the point is that it leads to a decrease in the standard of lving. WHy pursue dangerous policies?

[Tiwaz]

First off, i completely understand preserving your culture, but that comes from strict immigration controls and assimilation.

Not necessarily possible in societies with existing strict cultural society. In USA... Perhaps. In Europe... No way. To put it simply, you cannot effectively assimilate people of equally strong but very different cultures. It simply tends to be impossible. Like it or not, only direct bloodline (in rough generalisation) of natives carries on the local culture.

Man from Marocco/Brazil/India/Whatever cannot be assimilated as a finn into finnish society. Not until several generations of interbreeding have taken place. (difficult to achieve since people like to live with their kind)

[Aristophanes]

First off, i completely understand preserving your culture, but that comes from strict immigration controls and assimilation. In economics we have soemthing called a solow model. What that basically says is that economic growth is equated to a growth in productivity, ie deregulation. COmponents of that can be increased savings in the short run and increased capital or goods to make goods in the long. What the model also shows is that population growth decreases capital, productivity per capita and consumption per capita. Population growth may not necessarily lead to an economic slowdown, it can keep in mind, but more to the point is that it leads to a decrease in the standard of lving. WHy pursue dangerous policies?

Explain how population growth 'decreases' capital, productivity per capita or consumption per capita. Do you mean in relative terms or do you mean in aggregate?

The United States and Canada have both had significant population growth over the last 50 years, but productivity per capita, GDP per capita and consumption per capita have all increased at a faster pace than population growth.

Increasing population in a free society is a good thing because it increases the most important forms of capital available: human capital and intellectual capital.

[Erik]

The problem isn't just decreasing populations, the problem is a sharp decrease of the workworce caused by the "baby boom" and the resulting uneven population buildup.

Today 3 out of 4 people in my country are at an age where they are able to work.
Over the next few years this number wil decrease to just 2 out of 3.
This means the working people wil have to spend a much larger part of their income on the non-working part.

Child incentive programs are a way to even out the population buildup a bit.

[JP226]

This means the working people wil have to spend a much larger part of their income on the non-working part

that's under the assumption of lack of capital investment, which especially for europe, is not the case.

[Erik]

that's under the assumption of lack of capital investment, which especially for europe, is not the case.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but if you mean the older generation has their own retirement covered you are wrong.
Europes retirement plans rely for a large part on younger generations.
And with less young people around each of them has to pay more to maintain their retired parents, and I don't think their income wil grow enough to compensate for this loss.

[Clibby]

that's under the assumption of lack of capital investment, which especially for europe, is not the case.

but without a workforce there is no way to supply that capital. he reality is that in order to have prosperity there will need to be those who are not so well off. We need to replenish our populations, otherwise we will get to a point were we cannot sustain ourselves and therefore suffer aq major economic crash. You also need to have a workforce that is capable of supporting those who cannot work anymore or all those social programs that Europe and America love will no longer ba able to be sustained.

[RusskiSoldat]

For some reason the well off have much less children than the bad off.
Survival instinct kicks in for the latter, I guess.
And we need a program like this in Russia.
We are dying out.

[vopohame]

Capital can slow down the problem however in europe they will soon be facing the reality that pensions will not be as lucrative as they once were. Its a simply law of supply and demand more money is going out then coming in. Capital is not a magical infinite source, it too taps out or is forced to draw from investments such as new business and tech development. An Ideal economic model is population at near or slightly above replacement rate. Then there is enough younger workers to replace the positions that are left and these new workers are not overstressed by taxation then causing their standard of living to decline. Generation X is the first generation in a couple of centuries where the quality of life expectation is not as high as it was for post world war 2 babies this is nearly universal for all industrialized nations.

[JP226]

For some reason the well off have much less children than the bad off.
Survival instinct kicks in for the latter, I guess.
And we need a program like this in Russia.
We are dying out.

it's because the worse off view children as an investment, ie malthusiabn . When you really don't own the factors of production you tend to have children because the more kids, the less you work. THe well off realize the more kids, less i'm paid, the less land i have and the less consumption i have.

Generation X is the first generation in a couple of centuries where the quality of life expectation is not as high as it was for post world war 2 babies this is nearly universal for all industrialized nations.

and that's because there are that many more of generation x versus the baby boom. it fits the solow graph perfectly.

[Erik]

Ehhhh.. what's "Generation X"???

edit:

Gen·er·a·tion X Audio pronunciation of "Generation X" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-rshn)
n.

The generation following the post-World War II baby boom, especially people born in the United States and Canada from the early 1960s to the late 1970s.

No, JP, Europe has far less "generation X" people than "baby boom" people, that's the problem they tried to solve.

Here is how it looks for Belgium, but al Western European countries are basically the same:

Notice the large population aged between 40 and 59 years.
They wil start to get retired during the next few decades, and there are very few young people at the bottom to replace them.

[JP226]

Notice the large population aged between 40 and 59 years.
They wil start to get retired during the next few decades, and there are very few young people at the bottom to replace them.

and that is what i claim as good, a decrease in population is what you want.