France plans to pay cash for more babies (The Guardian)

[Up2Late]

(I wonder if Germany will try this, they have a birthrate of something like 1.2 or 1.4?)

France plans to pay cash for more babies

· Mothers may get €1,000 a month to have third child
· High birthrate fails to stop population shrinking

Jon Henley in Paris
Thursday September 22, 2005
The Guardian

Middle-class mothers in France could be paid up to €1,000 (£675) a month - almost the minimum wage - to stop work for a year and have a third child under a government scheme to boost the birthrate, already among the highest in Europe. Despite female employment statistics that are the envy of the continent, the government remains worried about the reluctance of better-educated women to have babies. A plan to be unveiled by the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, today is expected to double an existing cash incentive for big families.

In a Europe facing serious demographic decline, France's buoyant birthrate of 1.9 children a woman is well above the average of 1.4 and surpassed only by Ireland. France can also boast one of the EU's highest rates of female employment: 81% of women between 25 and 49 are in work, including 75% of those with two children (and 51% of those with more than two).

But a recent report by Hubert Brin, the head of the National Union of Family Associations, warned that even France's high birthrate would not prevent the population shrinking. One of the problems is that middle-class and professional women are postponing the age at which they start a family (the 2004 average was 29.6), and spacing out their pregnancies (now nearly four years between the first and second child). As a result, fewer women will have more than two children.

The government hopes to reverse the downtrend by raising an existing €512 monthly grant, the allowance paid to mothers (or, in theory but rarely in practice, fathers) who put their jobs on hold to raise a second or third child. The grant will be available only for a third baby, and limited to one year. But it will be tied to the parent's salary, with an expected ceiling of €1,000. The French minimum wage is €1,200 a month.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1575401,00.html?gusrc=rss>
(more at link above)

[sonicx]

1. they tried this in other countries

barely had an effect.

[MisterP]

2. have more sex or the "fundamentalist" "Caliphate" wins!

[YOY]

3. The reason why my wife and I can't have kids is because we can't afford it

I doubt Shrubco would try anything pro-natal other than an attept to cancel Roe Vs. Wade.

[Up2Late]

4. I know what you mean, one of the main reasons I rarely dated was...

...because I knew that if I did, I would most likely end up wanting to get married and having Kids, which I knew, as a person who was barely getting by on my own, I definitely wouldn't be able to support kids. Saving for Collage, forget about it.

So here I am, 41 and still single. (and currently unemployed BTW)

[cornermouse]

5. Paid to get pregnant and have another baby?

No way.

[Up2Late]

6. Yes way, but the catch is they (and several other EU countries too)...

...want French or German or whatever babies so that their native populations don't die off.

Maybe the "Blue State" Governments should do that too.:think:

[cornermouse]

24. Let me put it this way...

When pigs fly.

[superconnected]

26. well the reds certianly are

[hogwyld]

7. Outrageous!

With global population quickly outpacing the earth's ability to support them, to subsidize large families is irresponsible. We need to halve the world's population to allow our planet to begin the healing process. Otherwise, she may just say screw it, you're on your own.

[Xithras]

11. To be fair, the French (and other European cultures) are facing extinction

Unless their birthrate climbs back up to replacement level, the culture that we see as "French" will cease to exist in a few generations. The country will still be there and there will still be people in it, but the French culture, the culmination of 3000 years of history, will have been replaced by the cultures of its immigrants (who, for the most part, are holding on to their own traditions). The French language itself is in danger of being erased in a few generations, as native French speakers will become a minority in their own country.

No racism, just math. And you don't have to be anti-immigration to realize that the destruction of the French culture would be a tragedy for the entire world.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Every culture is based on the assimilation of one culture into another.

This is some faux, artifical attempt at "culture". No matter what France may like to believe, the culture has not remained static in those 3000 years.

This is no better than white americans worrying about the "depurification" of their race.

[Xithras]

22. Err...forget the political correctness for a moment.

You don't think that it will be a tragedy when the European cultures die? At their present birthrate, white European culture won't exist in a couple centuries. You don't have to be a racist to have a problem with that...I'd still be complaining if the Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, or Arabs were facing the same fate. Our world is a mix of cultures and races, and when a major home of several cultures, and the cradle of those races, ceases to exist, a very important part of the human experience will be lost to history forever.

To put a slightly different spin on this: From a genetic standpoint, human "races" are really no different from dog breeds or regional variations within a single species. Losing those races, breeds, or variations is a tragedy that results in an overall reduction in genetic diversity among the species.

White people will no doubt continue to exist for millenia within their own closed groups the same way the Jews did after the diaspora, but European culture will die, and will be replaced by the cultures of its immigrants. I realize that all cultures eventually end anyway (one day the United States will be nothing more than a paragraph in an old history book), but we certainly don't need to help it along. ALL cultures deserve to be preserved.

[rayofreason]

42. All cultures?

I disagree that all cultures need to be preserved because not all cultures are equivalent. A homophobic culture that treats women as chattel, has a violent, familial, strongman political culture, but considers itself to be the ultimate revelation would not be something I would want to preserve, nor would it do well in the modern world. In fact, it hasn't. Similarly, subcultures that have pernicious features are not worthy of active preservation. Consider the mysogenism ghetto gangsta rap culture, or the racism of white supremacists. Should these things be in danger of dying out, I would not shed a tear. Nor do I much mind that much of the violent classical Roman culture, such as the games, is no longer with us. On the other hand, preserving French culture and language is a worthy goal (in my estimation).

[wuushew]

34. The population could dive tens of millions and still be viable

The Gauls certainly had a vibrant civilization which spanned the entire land of modern France during Roman times. I have no problem with a NPG or ZPG future.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

[Xithras]

40. I have no problem with NPG either, but that's not what's happening here.

The population of France is still increasing, even while the population of Native French goes down. The population of the US is increasing, even while the population of native born Americans is flat. In that kind of situation, we're not talking about ZPG or NPG, we're talking about replacing one population group with another, which doesn't impact global population growth in the slightest.

In all likelyhood, the French are looking at a future similar to that of the Chaldeans or Assyrians in Iraq (there are other examples around the world, but these pop to mind first). At one time, the Chaldeans and Assyrians WERE Iraq, and their culture was synonymous with that part of the world. Nearly 1500 years ago the Arabs began moving in, and today those two communities are considered tiny minorities within their own ancestral nation. They still exist and have a proud heritage that stretches back before the days of Babylon, but as a functional culture they're little more than a relic. They only continue to exist today because of strict (and some would say racist) cultural rules that prohibit them from marrying outside of their own race (they can do it, but they can kiss off ever speaking to their families or anyone in their communities again).

[Gregorian]

13. Thank you. Six billion really is enough already.

But most people find it so offensive to bring it up.

And most people don't realize that right now, the way we are living, we would need THREE EARTHS in order to provide an uninterrupted supply of what we need and want.

And then there's the subjective side of it. I really am unhappy with this many people. It's not something anyone can argue about. I don't like having to fight for what used to be easy. Things are much more difficult in every way because so many people feel they can excercise their god given right to breed, without infringement. Even though that right infringes on those people like us, who would like a better world.

It takes bravery to post these thoughts. The majority of people find these fighting words. Good grief.

[hogwyld]

16. It takes bravery

To challenge the status quo and enact change. But change is coming, whether we enact it, or it is enacted upon us. We can either be proactive and reduce our demands on the planet, or the planet will just say enough, and reduce the population through her own painful ways. I appreciate your viewpoint and hope others come around before it's too late.

[Mairead]

17. You got the tense wrong: it's already overflowed Earth's carrying cap'y

by a factor of Lots. Most multi-factoral estimates say Earth can sustainably support maybe 500M people at our consumption level. Or maybe 2G people at a 'dignified subsistence' level.

[enigma000]

20. It's called revenge of the cradle

Societies whose citizens procreate, continue. Societies with citizens that are unconcerned with procreating, face extinction.

Of course, when the Islamic Republic of France implements Sharia Law circa 2050, I'm sure many of the non-Muslims will immigrate here. Think of it as international white-flight. ;)

[Flagg]

21. " when the Islamic Republic of France implements Sharia Law circa 2050"

huh?

:wtf:

[superconnected]

28. I think I read that once when I clicked on Freerepublic to see what it was

hmmm.

[enigma000]

33. Sharia Law? You'll have to google that

I'm just saying that the population of France is now (according to PBS) 7.4% Muslim and increasing. Sooner or later, they will want a society more respectful of their values.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/france/info.html

The number of Muslims in France exceeds six millions, representing 10% of the population and possessing 1.8 million votes. Muslims in France come from 53 countries and speak 21 languages. Algerians represent a great majority of Muslims in France.

Some studies and estimates point out that the number of Muslims in France will be more than threefold by 2020. Their numbers will reach 20 millions due to the high fertility rate, the high birth rate, continuous immigration into France and adoption by large numbers of French people of Islam

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-03/29/article07.shtml

[Flagg]

46. Thanx for the laugh

You don't really believe that crap, do you ?

[Flagg]

48. I know what sharia law means.

But what does it have to do with France ?

Where does this idea that French muslims are extremists who want to overthrow the Republic and replace it with Sharia Law come from ?

That's insane.

Besides most French citizens of North African origin are secular.

[rayofreason]

44. 1/2?

Why 1/2? Which 1/2? Why stop there? Do I hear 3/2?

And why do you think that we have ever been anything except on our own? The history of life on this planet has shown that well enough, and we are no different. At least until now. For the first time in the history of life a species has evolved that can 1) control its own evolution and that of other species, and 2) purposefully take life off the surface of the planet, rendering that life invulnerable to cosmic catastrophe as experienced by the dinosaurs at Chicxulub. But we are still on our own.

[Larkspur]

8. This bribe would not work on me. I knew at age 10 that I didn't want kids

and definitely did not want to undergo pregnancy. Ewww!

I'm cheerfully child-free and glad to voluntarily help decrease human population to help our planet.

[Kailassa]

10. yes please

If you're into decreasing the human population I'm sure we could all offer sugestions as to where to start ...

Oh drat, they don't qualify as human, do they. :(

[Larkspur]

31. Being child-free is a VOLUNTARY means to reduce human overpopulation

That is a very humane way.

[SoCalDem]

9. Um..what happens if the baby lives longer than a year?

The parents now have day care responsibilities for 3 children instead of 2, and the cost of raising that child for a long time..

Of course with free health care and schooling, and unemployment compensation/pensions guaranteed, it is a bit easier there...

I wonder if they've thought of just handing out tax-cuts.. That seems to be working here

:sarcasm:

[Mairead]

15. bing-o!

The same question immediately occurred to me.

I guess they must think women are stupid.

[Sandpiper]

12. Let's say what they really want: More White Babies

They're worried about getting crowded out by dark-skinned immigrants.

[Mairead]

14. I suspect it's simpler and more complicated than that:

The elites want more cheap-but-French-socialised-and-educated labor. People who feel a chauvinistic commitment to la vie Française and will thus stick around and play wage-slave.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. Yes.

Culture is not static. France, in its long history, has conquered, been conquered, assimilated and been assimilated. They wouldn't even speak "French" if that wasn't true. Culture grows and changes. It's a breathing organism. You can't stop time because you are afraid of what is around the corner.

[Maple]

23. Canada has long had this

We call it the 'baby bonus'.

It's fallen by the wayside in recent years, because what people once saw as a benefit, they often now view as some kind of plot, as you can see on this thread.

It's pretty much worthless these days, but it would also be hard to get rid of since everyone is used to it.

[Zynx]

25. The decline in the birth rate to below two per woman was inevitable.

It was inevitable because of the very nature of western materialism that people would realize they would be better off financially without children and thus Western Europe and to some extent certain segments of the US population are seeing what will eventually lead to a collapse in population. This is potentially very devastating for the economic well being of the world. It is difficult to have strong economic growth without population growth.

[superconnected]

30. Yes, but very little supports women having children now in the US.

Many many women- like my self, don't have children because they knew it would put them on welfare. I've always worked - in the computer industry, and now in my late 30's, I still cannot afford a child.

It's not that I got used to having nice things, I've always just barely made it. I believe many women are in my shoes.

Then there are the women who didn't care they couldn't afford it and got called welfare queens. Oh and those women who relied on men, most of which ended up poorer than breaking even after the divorce.

I don't think it's our greedy culture, but the greed at the top keeping the working poor, poor.

Or I guess you can blame men. I certianly never trusted one enough to marry to support me so I could have kids. Still don't. My nieces found out too slowly that wasn't viable. Now both are single mothers in their lateteens and early twenties. They'll likely be poorer than working poor for a long long time. It's not fun having a baby when you can't afford diapers or rent. The cost Childcare while working is even a middle class nightmare.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Collapse?

Show me a single projection that talks about a collapse in world population from a low birth rate. They all predict further growth in world population for the next century.

Why do we need permanent strong economic growth? It means using up the finite resources quicker. Fewer people mean less strain on the world.

I'm surprised you think western materialism is a problem, and yet advocate 'strong economic growth'.

[hogwyld]

35. Well...

We can either start depopulating the planet, or the planet is going to be uninhabitable. Our resources are gone, air is polluted, water is toxic, fish almost gone. We use petroleum based fertilizers to feed the teeming billions. What happens when there is no oil to make fertilizer, or move the food to market for that matter? It will get real ugly in a hurry.

[wuushew]

38. Ammonia can obtained from electrolyzed hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen

I have no idea of the energy costs of using non-natural gas processes to make fertilizer, but no doubt it is greater than the $100 per ton of conventional ammonia.



All major nitrogen (N) fertilizer sources begin with the fixation of non-plant available atmospheric N2 molecules into anhydrous ammonia molecules (NH3). Our atmosphere is approximately 78% N2. The process of converting N2 to NH3 is referred to as the Haber-Bosch process after the chemists who discovered and commercialized this reaction. The production of NH3 involves

Air (N2) + Natural Gas (CH4) = Anhydrous ammonia (NH3)

Anhydrous ammonia contains 82% N and is a gas that is handled as a liquid under pressure, similar to propane. Anhydrous ammonia is widely used in the Corn Belt and Great Plains for direct application to crops, but is not widely used in Virginia, although there is some use on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Since air is still free, the major cost of manufacturing anhydrous ammonia is associated with the cost of natural gas. As natural gas prices have risen in the U.S., the cost of producing anhydrous ammonia has increased to the point that much U.S. production capacity has been closed. This is because the value of natural gas is greater for other uses, i.e. home heating and electrical power generation, than for N fertilizer production.

Ammonium nitrate (34% N) is manufactured by first transforming ammonia (NH3) to nitric acid (HN03) with oxygen from the atmosphere. The nitric acid is then reacted with additional ammonia to form ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). The ammonium nitrate produced in this process can be dried and granulated to form 34% N ammonium nitrate fertilizer, or dissolved in water with urea to make UAN solution.


http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/cses/2005-02/fertilizer.html

[hogwyld]

39. Thanks!

For clarifying the production of Fertilizer for me.:)

[Zynx]

36. I was refering exclusively to Western countries.

The issue is that countries with low population growth do not grow very much economically either and without strong economic growth, capitalism itself does not function particularly well. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but without robust returns on investment, capitalism doesn't work.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Ah, I had mistook your "economic well being of the world"

to mean that you were talking about a collapse of the whole world's population.

Nevertheless, I believe that immigration into the west from developing countries will stop any potential 'collapse' of population in the west. And I don't think this will destroy the culture of any of the western countries. The dominant culture remains so even with immigration that eventually outnumbers the original ruling culture - the USA being a prime example. It's still a fundamentally Anglo-Saxon country, although the number of British immigrants to it over the years has been far less than others.

This immigration will also ease overcrowding problems in the cities of developing countries.

[Sandpiper]

49. Birthrates have been declining, but we're well above replacement levels

And are adding about 74 million people to the planet every year.

Even with a continuing decline in birthrates factored in, most demographers project that we'll have added another 3 billion people by 2050.

Like you said, advocating "permanent strong economic growth" is both irresponsible and unsustainable. The earth does not have infinite resources.

[Xithras]

37. Economic growth isn't neccesary. Economic stability is.

Our current economies are dependent on population growth simply because it's always been there, but there's nothing in the economics textbooks that requires a lack of growth to undermine a nations well being. A flat economy, marked by a stable population and flat incomes (no inflation), should be just as beneficial to the per capita incomes of a nations citizens as a growing economy.

Interestingly, a declining population could also be a serious boon to the economic well being of a country. Labor shortages lead to increased wages as workers become scarce and more valuable to the market. Shortages also spur innovation and economic expansion as employers automate low wage jobs that can no longer be filled, leading to an increase in overall productivity.

In other words, population growth isn't a required factor for a good economy. Market economics can adapt to NEARLY any population situation and benefit workers, so long as competent leaders are in charge to ensure that citizen, and not corporate, well being is put at the forefront.

Interestingly, there's only one market situation that's universally bad for workers...unchecked population growth. As the number of available workers increases, the market value of their labor goes down. This is why some of us here oppose unlimited immigration.

[eridani]

51. That means we will have to stop having economic growth, then.

We need to be figuring out how to have reasonably comfortable lives with far less throughput of energy and raw materials.

[Megahurtz]

27. No Thanks. n/t

[superconnected]

29. I wonder how many islamic women will take them up on this.

you go girls!

Or was France only hoping for white kids?

[termo]

43. whoever wants to

The law doesn't speak about origin, religion, etc...

It is just a law allowing parents to spend time with there children and allow them to make a break during there working life...

I don't think a person who doesn't want child (or more children) will have one more just because of this law... but there is plenty of people that don't have enough money and hesitate to have an extra child, then it can help them.

Such kind of law alredy exist in few others EU contries.

[Flagg]

47. Islamic women ?

This law applies to all French citizens regardless of their origins.

There are a lot of clichés about French muslims on this thread.

[Dave Reynolds]

45. I can sell them myself,

I do not even use diapers, and can move furniture too.

[area51]

50. French cos.:

Have I got a deal for you. Worried about not having enough people? Hire me, I'll come to your country, learn your language & be an asset to your employed population. Surely you have enough jobs to go around, b/c we certainly don't have enough jobs in this country to encourage the birth rate.

[Maple]

52. The Earth is NOT overpopulated

Goodness I wish this 60's crap would disappear.

It's like people's minds got frozen in amber after reading one book...a discredited book I might add.

We could actually support 15 billion agriculturally, even using old-fashioned methods, and in any case most countries are dropping in population and others soon will.