Comments

What did you think of the trend noted in the article towards working mothers there having more children than stay-at-home mothers?

high fertility was associated with high female labor-force participation . . . and the lowest fertility levels in Europe since the mid-1990s are often found in countries with the lowest female labor-force participation.

The author puts the blame on nations that haven't provided government support for working mothers, whatever form that may be. The article should be broadened to note the changed face of society in the US, where whites will soon be in the minority. Their birth rate has dropped, but not for many or most of the minority groups. In Israel the Arab birth rate far exceeds that of the Jewish Israelis, and some people worry that the Jews may become a minority in a Jewish nation. In Europe, the white population is shrinking, but not the Arab, Muslim peoples who have moved in. Same countries but different views of raising children.

Like many other things..."flavor of the month" effect. Social engineering is right up there with categorizing food choices, etc. etc. One month eggs are bad, next they're good. One month butter is out and margarine is in, then it's back to butter. One day you must drink at least 8 glasses of water, next we discover that's too much! For years we have been predicting overpopulation, perhaps to achieve a certain goal, without doing the homework and now reality is beginning to set in. How about some plain common sense brought to bear to many of these issues?

It is all about what you value. Another child or an extra vacation?
I had five children and so far have six grandchildren. We really like ourselves.
If you believe your children are eternal and shiny cars end up in the trash heep the choice is obvious.
Raising children is the most important thing you'll ever do.

I have a doctorate by the way.

Would suggest that there may be a greater correlation between the birth-rates and secure social security of the aged than for working mothers. Large families also provide a superannuation system where there is non in place by the state.

It is not that long ago when large families in Australia were the norm. There was also a higher death rate in small children, and a lower life expectancy for those over 60 than today. This has probably skewed the population so that there is now a lower proportion in the active reproductive age group than before.

"Whiteness" is a social construct that's always been flexible. Some non-Protestant people of European descent use to not be really considered "white," now they are. Nobody has ancestors from Whiteland, who came to America to be White-Americans. Whiteness was anointed upon some, but not others, upon arrival.

And take the case of Hispanics in the Southwest. When citizenship was conferred upon them in the late 1840s by treaty with Mexico, they became officially "white" because at that time, only "white" people could be citizens...but not always treated as "white," however.

Th US isn't all that family friendly, if it ever was, for poorer people. No mandatory paid maternity leave by employers, no universal health care, no mandatory health care or other benefits by employers, no mandatory paid holidays, leave or vacation time by employers for all employees regardless of time worked status, no mandatory child care facilities by employers, no nothing, really, except usually inadequate minimum wage, safety regulations and some tax deductions and credits which they may not qualify for, if they know how to get them. Our government isn't for "We the People", but more for the "We who got ours, but not you" people. But then, it was founded for freedom for some, but not for others, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised at that development. Freedoms that have been expanded greatly since the country was founded, though it took a Civil War and several intensive civil rights movements for that.

Some well off women I know who could have stayed home full time if they wished, all their lives for that matter, stayed home full time for a couple of years after their child was born, then worked part time while the kids were in elementary school to keep their skills and networking current while being home when the kids got out of school. They could have afforded nannies, but preferred not to, though they have part time cleaning people. They generally went back to full time when the youngest child hit middle school. However, one works part time and does charity work part time. They deliberately spaced their inevitable two children close together to facilitate that strategy. I don't know any stay at home dads. .

Some women I know, while their children were in elementary school, took part time college courses to complete graduate degrees, or to enhance their credentials and networking, and/or just for fun. Today, online credit courses are available. My brother got his third college degree online, a "hobby" second BA degree, which also compliments his career as well.

Women working outside of the home are now a fact of life, and they are just as good at passing on morals and traditions as stay-at-home parents. I believe the high cost of living in general in Europe is to blame for the low birth rate. It's a knee-jerk reaction, although a common one unfortunately, to automatically blame women for society's problems. Europe, though, does need to seriously look at the problem of the low birth rates or more and more of its workers are going to come from Muslim countries.

A recent New York Times Magazine article says that the European low birth rates are caused by occupational inflexibility, "traditional" gender roles and lack of government support.

Scandinavian Dads are fairly egalitarian in parental and housekeeping gender roles. They have comprehensive government support as well...and also the highest birth rates in Europe...though not quite high enough to sustain the population. Perhaps they need to work a bit on that occupational flexibility thing then.

The US has little government support beyond some modest tax credits, but high occupational flexibility, and American Dads are more and more egalitarian around the house, as well. Dads are now expected to to change diapers, burp and bathe infants, anyway, as needed. However, if we should have a long period of economic distress, which would limit occupational flexibility, one can predict, from that article, that our birth rate will also go below sustainability.

The low birth rate countries are both inflexible and not all that supportive, with low occupational flexibility, "traditional" father roles, and indifferent government support. Some governments seem to be rethinking things, however.

Some developing nations, with low occupational flexibility, "traditional" gender roles and low government support seem to also be heading in the same direction as low birth rate European countries. One can predict that Islamic citizens will eventually, perhaps, go with the status quo on birth rates.

I grew up in the rural Great Plains, in an area that has been depopulating since the end of World War One, so I can sort of personally feel the European dilemma. I don't live there anymore myself. However, I haven't lived in Europe since the middle Seventies, so I can't personally know how things are going now. Most every married couple I knew back then had two children, but apparently don't have four grand children now.

My wife and I visited Germany in 1986. At the time, I understood the birthrate to be 1.2 and, though the population total maintained about 65 million, it did so because of immigration from Turkey. The fear then was that, at the present rate, Germany would eventually not be populated by Germans at all. The sad truth is that too many Christians have fallen for the "overpopulation" lie over the decades and have opted for small families to "spare the planet." What better gift could a Christian couple give than godly offspring who demonstrate Christlikeness to a perishing world!