France & Germany fertility rates compared

[flash110]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

Seriously, why do we have to fill every nook and cranny of a country with people?

If Cologne and Dusseldorf had 4m people that would not be necesary but anyway the fact that there are not beautiful places doesn´t have to do with dense population and doesn´t mean there must be less for it to be beautiful, the Netherlands has a bigger population density than Germany and it has higher fertility rates. There are many reasons why Germany or any west european country shouldn´t have less people, i´m not talking about increasing population but at least keeping it. Lower population means more contribution to social systems and thus less incomes for workers and less economic/social prosperity.

[Spocket]

Sorry, just had to get in on this.

Simply put, the world isn't over-populated (as has been pointed out) as a whole. It simply depends on where one lives. My city for example is considered something of an isolated outpost because the next nearest city of equal or greater size is about a thousand kilometers away. And in all that distance is kilometer after kilometer of food waiting to be harvested and sent to some distant market in Europe or Asia.

This of course brings up the question "Why are people starving then ?" The simple answer is that it's because they can't afford to feed themselves. Of course , when said like that it sounds cavalier and insensitive but the truth is that it has to be this way. If they want the food (and we'd love to give it to them) they need to pay for it. Why ? Simple economics.

We can't simply give away all the food necessary to sustain a third world country , nevermind the whole third world. One way or another this would bring about the collapse the world's agricultural economy. Whether it means having our governments buy the food at market prices (impossible for any sanely led government ) , artificially buoying the price of the food (this is never a good idea and it's been proven time and again with command economies) or simply sending excess food at no cost (that's not true anyway since it costs money to move and distribute the food) to nations in need.

It's basically a matter of supply and demand. The supply is there, the demand is there but if there is no cold hard cash in the mix then nobody gets paid. If farmers can't make money then they stop farming. It's that simple. Since the world depends on farmers making money and we depend on them to feed us , we can't give away too much food. Sound selfish ? Only until one realizes that if it wasn't this way we'd all be starving and be worse off. It was this same economic model that brought us out of the stone age and gave rise to the world we live in today. People who think it was better before have not read their history. There was never a time when a greater percentage of the population of the world was living more comfortably even if that comfort doesn't encompass the entire world yet. Giving away too much food disrupts the economics of the whole scheme and if left unchecked would bankrupt the same people who want to help those who need the help. If that happened , nobody wins but we all lose.

Now, as for rising or falling populations :

It's not the first time that populations have risen and fallen over a period of decades. In fact, both France and Germany have experienced this many times in their histories. Chances are that within a few decades at most , the populations will begin to rise again through natural increase alone. Something always comes along to stimulate the birth rate but since these are trends , it's difficult to foresee what that might be. Governments have never been very good at convincing people to either have or not have children. China is a pretty good modern example of governmental ineffectiveness in this department. It was and is money that makes all the difference. With cash comes education and the more educated a person is the less likely they are usually to want children. The greater the education , the more money becomes available to an individual or population. So the cycle is self-perpetuating in that sense.

On the other hand, the current trend appears to indicate a psychological shift in spite of the money or education. People who are childless are lamenting their decision from years ago and when possible are either having children before it's too late or spreading the word that they wish they'd had families. Either way, it's likely that within a couple of decades, birth rates in developed nations will rise. As for how much they'll rise , it's impossible to say. And that of course depends on the trend holding in the first place. Right now , it's not particularly discernible but the anectdotal evidence suggests it's existence.

[New Brisavoine]

Here is the total number of births in the biggest EU countries in the 7 years from 2000 (included) to 2006 (included). FIgures are official from the national statistical offices.

Total births 2000-2006:

France   5,638,727
Germany  4,991,586
UK       4,899,840
Italy    3,837,318
Spain    3,066,803
Poland   2,546,148

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

It's impossible to find the fertility rates of Belgium unfortunately, but from what I understand they are in between the high fertility rates of France and the low fertility rates of Germany.

A right to the point answer about Belgium.
There is a wide variety in fertility but more people are born lately alltough some areas do have a huge decline in population while others rise fast.

btw : what happened with "Brisavoine" ?

[New Brisavoine]

He got heightened. Like Axa. Lol.

[jef]

In Belgium fertility rates also vary a lot between ethnic groups, but I presume the same story holds in France, etc.
Welcome New Brisavoine!

[The Dear Leader]

I preferred Classic Brisavoine.

[New Brisavoine]

The new population figures for France and Germany have been released.

French report:

2007 demographic results : births still quite numerous
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_age.htm

German report:

2007: Population decline expected
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/port...nderPrint.psml

Here are a few findings from the reports.

Population on January 1, 2008:
- Germany: 82,210,000
- France: 64,473,140

In 2007 there were slightly more German births than in 2006 (but no World Cup baby boom as some had anticipated), and slightly less French births than in 2006 (but still quite a lot compared to the average of the past 30 years).

Live births in 2007:
- Germany: between 680,000 and 690,000
- France: 816,500

As a consequence the gap between German and French births was slightly smaller than in 2006, but nonetheless still quite significant.

French births minus German births:
- 2006: 157,564
- 2007: between 126,500 and 136,500

Finally, net migration in 2007 has increased a bit in Germany but is still quite low; in France it has decreased a bit (Sarkozy's tough enforcement of immigration policies must have something to do with it).

Net migration in 2007:
- Germany: between +35,000 and +45,000
- France: +71,000

[Grumpy]

Is there a difference in Germany between the Länder of the former BRD and DDR in fertility rates ?

[Nexus6]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Is there a difference in Germany between the Länder of the former BRD and DDR in fertility rates ?

At the first page of this thread you find an illustration. There is a difference but it is not massive.

[Nexus6]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

I'm happy about this. Germany's way too crowded anyway. A nation of our size (geographically) should only be home to about 50 million people. The less, the merrier.

Well, I agree that population growth is no worthwhile goal in itself. Most important is the quality of the children in terms of health, intelligence and education because that will largely determine their productivity later in life and their ability to uphold the living standard for the whole country.

In case of Germany though the people who are dying are largely from the middle class whereas more and more children are born into the lower class (currently already 40% nationwide). We therefore have a combination of two of the worst possible factors in Germany, low birthrate plus decreasing quality of children. The fertility rate of a middle class woman is 1.1 in Germany. For a lower class woman the fertility rate is 1.9. A perfect storm. Sad thing is that this development will also lead to an increase of the fertility rate in the future as the lower class will increase in proportion. If you look at the big cities, you can see that future of Germany. In Berlin 74% of all newborns come from lower class households and in Hamburg 68%. Within 1-2 generation we will therefore have French style fertility rates in Germany, simply because the middle class has died out. And by that time politicians will probably applaud themselves for having stopped the demographic decline. Sick.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

I'm happy about this. Germany's way too crowded anyway. A nation of our size (geographically) should only be home to about 50 million people. The less, the merrier.

The last time there was progressive population loss, they called it the Dark Ages. Think about that. In the history of the world, population decline has ALWAYS been met with terrible consequences.

[Lee]

I predict that Spain's population boom will come to an abrupt end, as immigrants will no longer be attracted to this low producvity/construction bust economy. Immigrants from South America are already moving back home. The fertility rate in Spain is very low, and there is no way from preventing population decline, assuming immigration slows.

And unlike Germany, Spanish workers are not very competitive, and has lost what little manufacturing base it had, due to declining productivity, and lack of reform during the boom years. It does have a strong financial industry, but this is a small part of GDP anyway.

[Swede]

^There is a way to prevent population decline: have more babies! I know, simplistic thing to say, but still very true. The trick is getting a society where it is a good thing for the prospective parents to have kids (and more than one). How? I have no ready solution, but free/cheap daycare for the kids is a must if both parents are to be part of the workforce. Affordable/free healthcare is also a big thing. If having a kid will make you poor, you're less likely to have kids.

Nexus6 - If you haven't already, see the movie Idiocracy. It describes that problem well, and in a really funny way.

[Lee]

Actually Swede, the countries w/ the highest fertility rates are some very poor countries.

[Swede]

Very true, but the fertility rate all over the world has dropped by plenty over the last 100 years. The traditionally "poor" countries aren't growing like they used to. Also, countries are moving out of that group, Sweden was pretty much a shitty place to live 150 years ago for most people and 50 years ago we were one of the top places to be. Many countries are doing that leap now.

Anyway, my suggestions were in the context of a rich country and to a lesser degree a middle-income country.

[The Dear Leader]

Originally Posted by Lee

The last time there was progressive population loss, they called it the Dark Ages. Think about that. In the history of the world, population decline has ALWAYS been met with terrible consequences.

Why did we have a population decline though? Did the decline lead to terrible consequences or did some disastrous event lead to a decline? The answer to that question is pretty important.

I do agree though that a decline will lead to some serious problems for our welfare state. I guess we'll just have to find a solution for that.

[GENIUS LOCI]

Originally Posted by Swede

^There is a way to prevent population decline: have more babies! I know, simplistic thing to say, but still very true. The trick is getting a society where it is a good thing for the prospective parents to have kids (and more than one). How? I have no ready solution, but free/cheap daycare for the kids is a must if both parents are to be part of the workforce. Affordable/free healthcare is also a big thing. If having a kid will make you poor, you're less likely to have kids.

You're right: not a case IMO that in France there is a high fertility rate. There is a strong policy to support families, with tax relieves for each son

[GENIUS LOCI]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

Why did we have a population decline though? Did the decline lead to terrible consequences or did some disastrous event lead to a decline? The answer to that question is pretty important.

It doesn't matter... as you said somewhere else in 2012 the world will end

[Lee]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

Why did we have a population decline though? Did the decline lead to terrible consequences or did some disastrous event lead to a decline? The answer to that question is pretty important.

I do agree though that a decline will lead to some serious problems for our welfare state. I guess we'll just have to find a solution for that.

Population decline was due to war, famine, and the black plague, which naturally destroyed the feudal economies. This lead to even less people, which meant less total wealth. It did recover only after feudalism was killed with the introduction of capitalism.