It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Germanys low birthrate vs immigration

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
link to German birth and abortion statistics

So the reason Germany needed so many migrants was because of their low birthrate, so we are told.
If you look at the statistics, from 2000 to the present, there would have been almost 2 Million more German babies had there been no abortions during that period.

My Question. Is why doesn't Europe just craft better social policies to encourage more births from their own citizens rather than an untried experiment of migration of people from vastly different countries and cultures?

Forgive me for not quoting the article, it's mainly stats that wouldn't copy well.




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Perhaps decriminalize aphrodisiacs.




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Do you have an example of such a social policy that would be successful?

Also you give data for Germany. Please adjust your original post to either ask questions about Gemnay’s social policy or include data on the whole of Europe.

ETA. Only Germany or all of Europe.

edit on 10-7-2018 by Lurker69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lurker69
a reply to: pavil

Do you have an example of such a social policy that would be successful?

Also you give data for Germany. Please adjust your original post to either ask questions about Gemnay’s social policy or include data on the whole of Europe.

ETA. Only Germany or all of Europe.


I just came across the data, plz point to all Europe data. It was Germany's main idea with the Immigration, that's why I worded the question that way.

I do believe Germany of some other European Country has tried to use social policy to increase indigenous birthrate via benefits per child ect. To me that seems the far easier way to try to keep your population up vs unproven additions of migrants. Just being honest.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Better social policies? Face it, most young (educated) adults today do not want kids. Those that do want kids only want one or two.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: pavil

Better social policies? Face it, most young (educated) adults today do not want kids. Those that do want kids only want one or two.



Too low of a birthrate is a problem in the West. Isnt that the reason for the migration to Europe? That's what governments and media say.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

The data in your link is not very accurate, as it includes statistics from various countries. Your own link says that:


-Parenthetical figures are estimates, some of which are derived from reported data.
-Abortion ratios, percentages, and rates may be based on a mix of data from different sources and thus may not represent a consistent time series.


Banning abortions wouldn't make the numbers lower, in fact it is the opposite, abortion rates lower when it becomes legal (I can link evidence if you want).

There have been studies trying to link abortions and population control and their conclusion:


Thus, abortion is necessary but not sufficient to cause low growth rates.

With the exception of a few countries with aging populations and very high contraceptive prevalence rates, developed countries need to maintain abortion rates in the range of 201-500/1000 if they are to maintain growth rates at levels below 1%.

An even greater reliance on abortion--over 500/1000 live births--is required in developing countries to reduce population growth.

Role of abortin in control of global population growth


The above study was done in 1986 but as it's all about percentages of births/deaths it's still valid today.

Germany's abortion rate in 2010 was 6.1/1000 which is far lower than the 201-500/1000 needed to control its population -( LINK )-

So no, abortion has not made a difference in Germany's (and other nations) lower birth rates.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

The data is from German sources and can even be broken down by region. link

In all the data about Germany, it's the one statistic that bucks the trend. Its economy is strong, its cities are regularly cited as among the best in the world to live in – but Germany is a shrinking country. It has the lowest birthrate, just 1.36 children per woman, in Europe, and one of the lowest in the world.



Demographics and family policy experts are divided over the reasons for the apparent reluctance to have children, as well as the ways to tackle the situation. What they generally agree on is that Germany's demographic future looks gloomy. With many more Germans dying than being born for 40 years, the obvious results will be a shrinking workforce, lower growth and a struggle to pay for a rapidly ageing population. Britain's population is forecast to exceed that of Germany by 2040.

edit on 11-7-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
link to German birth and abortion statistics

So the reason Germany needed so many migrants was because of their low birthrate, so we are told.
If you look at the statistics, from 2000 to the present, there would have been almost 2 Million more German babies had there been no abortions during that period.

My Question. Is why doesn't Europe just craft better social policies to encourage more births from their own citizens rather than an untried experiment of migration of people from vastly different countries and cultures?

Forgive me for not quoting the article, it's mainly stats that wouldn't copy well.


It happens mainly because everyone wants a short commute and live close to work. My home city used to have everyone living with the green belt boundary. There were enough apartments and houses for every young couple to rent an apartment and then buy a house, in both cases close to work or on a bus route. The property market was in a stable state.
Doctors and directors got homes with a few extra bedrooms and rooms for studies or dining rooms.

But then they had an economic boom. More singles moved into the area. There's a rental property shortage. The "quick fix" is to convert family homes into "luxury apartments". Those large Victorian townhouses were turned into individual flats; one, two or three depending on size. Bungalows were converted into bungalettes or essentially chalets.

Five or six years down the line as couples hook up, there's a new problem ... there's not enough family homes, there are more couples chasing fewer properties and prices are rising rapidly. Now singles have to make a choice; do they:

(1) move out of town, take a longer commute from a bedroom community, OR
(2) do they hang on to their property, put off having a family, wait for prices to rise a bit more, then buy a house?

What happens next is that the speculators buy the remaining family homes and apartments then rent them out as buy-to-let rooms. The property market becomes even tighter. If (2) is chosen then they run the risk of never starting a family or even just having a smaller family; just one or two children instead of three or four.

The choice is then only to move out, but then the traffic gets worse. So now the choice is between a smaller house close to town, a smaller family and a short commute, or a large home further out and a longer commute. We actually end up with people living somewhere like the Isle of Wight, commuting to and from London on Sunday evenings/Friday evenings and renting a bedsit - taking up two properties.

Nobody wants to find a true solution to this problem because the property market is the main driver of the modern economy. Many immigrant families have their entire income dependent on being buy-to-let landlords. It was the only way that the wealth could be spread around.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The reason for mass immigration in the West is to balkanize the nations, making it much more difficult for the people to unite and fight a criminal government. "Divide and conquer" being the oldest rule in the political book.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
My Question. Is why doesn't Europe just craft better social policies to encourage more births from their own citizens rather than an untried experiment of migration of people from vastly different countries and cultures?

"Untried experiment"? Multi-culturalism experiments have existed in the world since antiquity.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil From what I can make out Germans have been having a breeding problem for at leat hundred years matbe more. The population has always been trimmed down by wars and emigration but there has always been a massive migration of people into Germany since the 1800s. About 1/3 of the current population are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Poland, Russia, Romania, Czech etc who had toleave their ancestral homes in all over eastern Europe because they spoke the German tongue. This carried on until the early 1990's when the last German speakers left the post USSR states for Germany but now that dries up so they look around, no post Empire ex colonies really overseas like France and Britain have had to make up the numbers so it's all Syrians these days encouraged to make up the numbers.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
how about making life in the west a little easier so people can afford to have babies



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Good link but still: legal abortion is not why Germany's birth rate is and has been declining.





originally posted by: Krazysh0t

"Untried experiment"? Multi-culturalism experiments have existed in the world since antiquity.


Exactly! Here is a little example that we were discussing a few days ago on ATS, the Chinese mummies whose DNA show they were incredibly mixes/multicultural: ATS THREAD.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Anti-immigration people always try to pretend like they are front line warriors in some new and exciting fight against outsiders, but the reality of it is that mass movements of people can be traced back across many different cultures, countries, and originally empires. All the rhetoric and fears they use to justify their position have all been rehashed many times before.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The availability of contraception easily as a lot of the US hates anything like that, also the reason population shrinks is that people expected to not have all their kids survive so the heir and a spare mentality but if the medical system can keep no.1 safe then why have more and the general costs such as sorting out child care etc.

Theres a lot more knowledge of genetic problems etc as well and thus you can probably be told you have a very high chance of passing on some sort of problem so it may be better not to have kids and remove your chance of passing something down the line.

Given i'm in my mid 40's and couldn't give a crap about kids and have held a baby once in my life (just for a photo when I was 14-15) I think theres f-all chance of me now becoming a daddy and the gaffer has a high chance of passing on serious problems so we're a match made in heaven as we aint taking up slots in schools/maternity units and all that crap for someone else.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

What a fantastic question.

Immigration does more than boost population...it creates a new labor class.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join