View Single Post
Old 01-10-11, 04:35 AM   #10
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 42,707
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse View Post
Man, what a debate.

As if homosexuals suddenly start becoming straight just so that they can marry. And as if straight couples only have children because they can marry. There is an ever growing trend, at least in Germany, for people to stay single anyways, "marriage" certainly did not much to change that.

You want more children? Provide day long day care and enable mothers a better reentry into work afterwards. And get the upper classes to get more children instead of complaining all day for the lower classes to have them.
But that is the problem, and it is not just a fincial one. The Elterngeld raised by van der Leyen saw no raise in births, but a further decline, and Gunnar Heihnsohn, professor erimitus, shows by his statistic research on demographics and immigration that there is a growing of the social lower class and a decline in the upper and academic class, for example I referenced him here. As von der Leyen has learned, couples do not get babies becasue the state pays them a bitmore money - at least in the upper class they still get babies becasue of love, and because they want babies - not necessarily the money.

Question is, why those families who could afford to have more children, don'T have them to maintain the size of that social group, not to mention to increase it. And why those not being able to afford it, have so many children.

There is also an other trend, that you correctly pointed out, and that is that more and more kids get raised by just the mother (for the most) or the father. Obviously the parents got a baby unprepared I (no excuse for that, sorry), or at a stage of their relatioinship where they still could not be sure whether they would last with each other, or split again. To much bed-adventures going on too easily, and everybody jumps into the bed with everybody else too fast.

But it is also both a cause and a consequence of the further erosion of the institution of an intact family.

We do not need babies per se in Germany. We need more babies fro t he highly educated socail classes, and we need less babies from the less educated social classes. Only then there will be a future population that even can hjpope to have a slim chance to shoulder the tax burdens of the near futurte that are needed to maintain even basic, minimal sociual security. Having babies and more babies that will not contribute to the tax income once they have grown up, but that will cost the state becasue they will not make it in a job with solid payment because due to their social class they had no chance to raise to higher education (there is a strong link between social class and future job perspectives, and some other factors), will make things worth for all of us. So we do not need an undiscrimionatory increase in our population again to counter overaging, not by a baby-.boom and not by immigration. We need babies from the "right" social backgrounds. Every mother getting a baby while being young, maybe without job or in a low-payed job, and husband left her, costs us money, and easily more money than the baby will give back to the state once it has grown up, in taxes.

This is - beside the immense interest service of the state for its existing debts, and possibly in the near future the Euro collapse - the one thing that ruins Germany's finances more than anything else, and leading the nation to the brink of collapse.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote