Lathany

I think these are unlikely to be the deciding factors in an overwhelming proportion of cases though.

Why not? Because most of the factors you mention above are not new. They've all always been at least as bad, with the possible exception of cost, and the odd case of the affect on your career - which is less bad now than ever before, but which matters to more women than ever before. Case in point - you have 2 children despite being acutely aware of these problems. So clearly they failed as a deterrent for you ;-)

So I think it's the effect on the career that David Willets has to look at - the rest of your factors are things that huge numbers of women in previous generations have put up with, and that I'd guess women are going to put up with again if that's what it takes to have babies. It's the effects on the woman's career that now affect a much greater proportion of decisions, and which therefore are going to be the point at which changes will make a difference.

That's not to say that the other things you mention aren't Bad, just that they're Bad Things that don't need to be changed if all you're interested in is persuading more couples to have more babies.

From:

triskellian

Even though they're not new factors, the influence they have is increasing. We have more choice about suffering that bad stuff than any generation ever has - our contraception is better (more reliable and greater choice) and the choice to have no children is less stigmatised. It's easy to have no kids.

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

Because most of the factors you mention above are not new

Although you need to adjust for the same factors having different impact in a changed environment.

For example, in the 1950s most couples would not have ever perceived the dire sexism displayed by some of the hospital staff. And where careers are concerned, it used to be the norm to run a family on one salary whereas now that's a rather less viable thing to do (because, for example, you're competing on house buying power with people who have far higher total income).

From:

you have 2 children despite being acutely aware of these problems

Not entirely true. The pregnancy police and 1950s attitudes of the nurses were a big shock.

Most of the others as well, were worse than I expected (eg. I knew breast feeding was favoured, but it's another thing to hit the situation yourself).

The one that hasn't caused surprised is the cost.

From:

thegreenman.livejournal.com

...and the fact that some people should really not be parents.

Go and look round a shopping center or "family friendly pub" any weekend for ample evidence of the problem.

From:

The thing about the hospital was that it had an affluent catchment area. The staff were used to couples with two cars - so that the woman could drive in each morning. We lived on the very edge of the catchment area (in fact, Feltham has since been assigned to a different hospital) and I didn't have my own car.

Hence a two hour journey each way consisting of either three buses or two buses and a mile-and-a-half walk (which I preferred). Usually I would go in early afternoon and

bateleur would collect me in the evening. This was not acceptable to the hospital who wanted me there in the mornings. (And - a side rant - given they also wanted parents in the evening, they really should have had restaurant/cafe facilities open past 4:30pm, Winchester was a million times better).

It was mostly caused by the chronic NHS under-staffing - they wanted mothers in Special Care as much as possible to deal with the low level duties (feeding, nappy changing, bathing). And yet another whinge of mine is I would have been happier had they said it outright, instead of making a lot of sh*t statements about how the twins needed it to be me (they didn't).

From:

smiorgan.livejournal.com

The lack of allowance made by most workplaces for flexible working hours and the like

Our workplace is instigating such a policy to help out families (first I'd heard about it today - we'll probably hear more about it on Friday).

The boss' opinion is that it is kind of discriminating against people who have busy lives (for example, you own a horse that needs taking care of) but don't have kids. I'd not even thought about that until he mentioned it, because I think it's perfectly reasonable to support the members of your race who are working to ensure the race's survival...

Interesting that I get two sides of the same argument, unsolicited from independent sources, in the space of a couple of hours :/

From:

They've all always been at least as bad

In absolute terms, yes. In comparison with how society has developed (equal opps, etc), I would say not.

just that they're Bad Things that don't need to be changed if all you're interested in is persuading more couples to have more babies

Maybe the real answer is to stop prospective parents from talking to (or watching programmes of) people who have actually been through it. Then they can't give them the complete picture to put them off !

More seriously, don't forget I'm unwilling to do it again. A country full of only children (with the occasional set of twins or triplets) isn't going to raise the birth rate by that much.

From:

but I'm already noticing with wedding organisation that everyone has an opinion they want to share

;-)

You wait until you reach the bit where someone explains that you can't have a wedding cake decorated in that colour 'cos it will clash with your dress/bouquet/mother's hat/etc.

From:

The boss' opinion is that it is kind of discriminating against people who have busy lives (for example, you own a horse that needs taking care of) but don't have kids.

Not sure I understand. Does he mean that childless people would be expected to automatically cover times that mums and dads can't make ?

There was a "school holidays" row at work based on something similar. One of the Ops staff insisted that parents should get first dibs on the school holidays, because that was the only time they could get away. One sun-loving twenty year old disagreed. She won (in my opinion, rightly), but you can see both sides.

From:

triskellian

Well, as long as they only say I 'can't' do things I want to do, and only say I 'must' do things I don't want to do, I'll be fine - I enjoy telling people that I don't share their assumptions and priorities.

It's when they start telling me I 'must' do something I want to do that I tie myself in knots ;-)

From:

triskellian

I think your boss has a point. My workplace is pretty good at family-friendly policies, but they try to extend it to more general 'work-life balance' things, which is why I get the flexibility to study.

In fact, the people in my office are a perfect example: two of us are studying; one has a baby; one has two young children (one of whom has learning disabilities); one has two young children and an elderly mother to care for; one works compressed hours (full time in four days) to have longer weekends with her husband, who's retired.

We're almost a text book, and 'family-friendly' policies would only catch half of us.

From:

triskellian

(Sorry for writing so many comments, btw ;-)

I was told off by a child-enabled colleague for referring to people without children as 'childless' - apparently the term is hurtful to those who might want children, and insulting to those who don't, and the 'correct' term is 'childfree'...

From:

smiorgan.livejournal.com

Yes, the boss does have a good point.

I think that instigating a system where parents get privileges over non-parents just because they have chosen to have kids isn't right - it could be open to abuse - but to baulk at such privileges because you aren't treated equally when your needs are frivilous is using political correctness for very selfish ends. The problem is that if we don't complain now and the privileges for parents becomes entrenched then the flexibility afforded to parents may never be given to non-parents; but if we do complain then parents may lose out on that advantage because it's not possible to treat everyone equally.

Flexitime at our company is more a matter for the line manager than a case of site-wide policy (that was taken away from us). Fortunately we've had a good line manager - but it might not always be like that. But it's depressing to think that we'd need rules for parents just to get around inflexible line managers...

From:

OK. I've now got it. Instead of implementing flexi for everyone, it's being implemented for families only.

Yes, your boss has a point.

From:

triskellian

Bad managers are the reason flexibility should be open to those without children as well - if you make a rule that parents should be allowed flexibility, crap managers who have previously allowed everyone some flexibility will start denying it to those without children. It's apparently one of the reasons our flex policies are applied to everyone (although that's everyone within a department; some departments don't have them at all).

From:

if we do complain then parents may lose out on that advantage because it's not possible to treat everyone equally.

The further problem is that because your employer presumably would prefer not to extend the privilege to everyone even if it is possible, it is not in their best interest to make an honest effort to evaluate how it would affect the company.

From:

My opposition is derived from global concerns, rather than personal ones (of which I have no experience):

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores immigration. The US, for example, would have serious problems if it weren't for immigrants. Insofar as some homogenous societies have welcomed foreign labour (such as Switzerland), they are finding it very difficult to open up citizenship.

Frankly, Europe's aging-to-birthing challenge would be far less of a problem, statistically-speaking, if these societies were more open to immigration, and opened opportunities for long-time worker/residents to become full citizens (and therefore become fully entangled and invested in that nation's future).

No one in Europe wants to hear it, especially given the problems they're already having with Russian, Croatians, and the like - but eventually, Africans will be Europe's population future. Assuming, of course, relatively full integration of other migrant populations and they adopt low-child-birth habits in a generation or two.

From:

For Britain specifically, while the UK does have the one of the best migrant population diversity and retention, even 'integration' for Europe ... there remains an education gap which impacts opportunity and keeping one's domestic population (regardless of origin) relevant to a changing economy.

I think the Netherlands and Norway & Sweden offer up some interesting models to the challenge of immigrant integration.

From:

Africans will be Europe's population future

What a depressing future. I'd like to believe that, at some future point, Africa will become a thriving continent of nations. Then, far from losing its young intelligent workforce to Europe, a two-way flow of migration will occur.

From:

Yes, depressing, but sadly Africa is such an opportune land for extraction of resources - be it diamond, oil, chocolate, tobacco, or human. Any investment that flows back has been mostly of the sort to maintain that extraction.

Even in those countries with decent civil societies and fairly good representative government, like South Africa or the Ivory Coast (historically) - this form of economics prevails. Africa can move past that, but given the interests involved, I see something like the Canadian-US economic relationship much more likely.

Irrespective of any feedback loop, Europe's needs will demand a stable population of Africans living and working Europe. I *hope* there is full integration, and am heartened by interracial marriages in places like the Czech Republic, Germany, and Switzerland - but fear a Japanese solution could be in the cards (wherein generations of ethnic Chinese who have been born and live/work in Japan - who have never received full Japanese citizenship - as pure a racism as it comes)...especially in France.

From:

secretrebel.livejournal.com

That sounds like an ass-backwards sort of political correctness. Wouldn't someone desperate for kids and unable to have them be even *more* offended by a term that implied this state of affairs was liberating?

From:

Maybe it's supposed to be like the difference between "carefree" and "careless" ;-)

From:

triskellian

Twice in one week? Are you OK?
;-)

But, yeah, it's crazy. And presumably the majority of people who don't have children either definitely don't want them, or don't want them now, so 'childless' is a perfectly sensible term.

And, y'know, someone who's not in group x telling a member of group x that the way they describe 'membership of group x' is offensive is kinda rude. God, that was a horrible sentence ;-)

From:

decent civil societies and fairly good representative government, like South Africa or the Ivory Coast

Would that be the same Ivory Coast in which, according to some estimates, 90% of cocoa plantations use "indentured servitude", or as we'd term it if we weren't pedantic to a fault, "slave labour"?

Anyhow, I don't see there necessarily being a conflict between Africa having a prosperous economy of its own, and also having a net export of economic migrants and a net emigration. Unfortunately the best current example I can come up with is China, with a net emigration of .23 per 1000 per year.

Currently, the most prosperous countries are all net importers of people, but that's to be expected because of the reasons people migrate and the destinations they choose. As long as Europe isn't actively setting out to implement an African brain drain, then *if* the problem of African poverty can be solved, I don't see why it can't be done in a way which supports economic migration. Stealing all their nurses is a problem - stealing large numbers of literate office workers needn't be provided that literacy isn't a rare skill.

It's also worth bearing in mind that one of the biggest economic benefits which the new Eastern European member states are getting is the ability to sell their labour throughout the EU. I don't think we can say that African nations wouldn't benefit from similar arrangements.

From:

The operative words would be fairly good ... there are by all means terrible labour practices, but there was representative politics at the village level - and corruption was less than Nigeria, say. Too bad the tribal divisions have become so extreme, and to the present conflict we now witness.

re: net emigration - in theory no, but in practice, one has to acknowledge at least 2 major factors: the needs of the host economy and what incentives they may offer to resident labourers (if one assuming an integrationist policy in future); and AIDS wiping out opportunity back 'home.'

re: European labour policy - honestly, I think it'll have to be more than a 'brain drain' - it'll be skilled and unskilled labourers as well. You're thinking nurses and office workers, I'm thinking plumbers, carpenters, farm labourers, construction workers - the real meat and grist of migrant labour.

Since 'economic growth' is so intimately tied to population in these analyses - then wholesale migration, adaptation and integration will be required, eventually. Only then will migrants be fully 'upgraded' to domestic consumers in one's market economy. If they go home and bring investment and improvements back there - all the better.

re: Africans selling labour - precisely!

I do worry about some of the current arrangements though, as far as commodities are concerned - namely the EU-Botswana pact on cattle. The EU and Botswanan ranchers are certainly getting a good deal out of it, but the Botswanan land is being badly degraded. There's insufficient environmental controls/regulations on Botswanan production.

And, as you rightfully point out, the dire social situation concerning chocolate.

From:

A good example country would be the Philippines - their the primary labour source for domestics, nurses, and some teachers from the Middle East through wealthier eastern and northern Asia.

'Remittances' (iirc) are a major part of Philippine budgets.

From:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jtsm/jtsm030923_1_n.shtml

It's so disappointing that 'independence' has done little to disassemble the colonial economic ties.

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

A good example of what though ?

What I see there is the Phillipines doing badly because their good people leave and the UK doing badly because we're failing to pay our own population enough to fill our own jobs.

That's not a template for the future - it's an embarassing testament to 30+ years of bad policy.

From:

Example of a successful muddle...

After having virtually every viable commodity stripped by the Spanish, it was a very poor prize for the Americans. The result being the best resource the Philippines had was people.

Prostitution was one avenue, but certainly didn't mesh well with either the Catholic or Muslim values of the largest population groups there...and was too dependent on US soldiers anyway.

So, through education & certified programs, the Philippines has been able to capitalise on its one sole real resource - its people. A very rough ride to be sure, but gives one model of development from a post-resource exhaustion start-point.

Consider the alternatives: fishing is dying; timber, sugar, tea, and coffee are flat (or on the decline due to the Vietnamese entrance to coffee). Besides its geostrategic position and subsequent importance, the Philippines could be any other ignored backwater by the powers-that-be.

The money earned by overseas labourers secures the position of families back in the Philippines, and enriches those communities. And more to their current economic woes - better to have real money coming in from abroad, then to perpetuate the horrible debt they're growing.

Moreover, strategically, whilst this does make the Philippines more dependent on general economic climate (especially where domestic labour is considered luxurious), it's a highly mobile and exchangable service that can be applied most anywhere, depending on entrance restrictions and certification requirements. Higher responsiveness, than say, fishing or farming.

----

Fundamentally, there are 6 billion+ people on this planet, we don't need more people to fill existing vacancies, we need to bring the other 4-5 billion 'up to spec' for those vacancies.

Label me a left-wing development economist, but if that can be achieved, you'll have skilled, educated, workers with money to buy things - seems like a winning solution to me.

----

Specific to Germany, however, it is interesting to note what a horrific problem western Germans are having with eastern German labour - specifically a very different work ethic; and a universal problem of getting Germans to leave their 'homes' for work opportunities within their own nation.

Britons are much more mobile, by comparison.

From:

Imho - this is less of an issue for 'grunt' white labour work - and is much more of a prevalent problem at the highest-educated end, and of the highest-consumption end.

In the former, I mean engineers, IT, biochemists, and physicists ... highly skilled labour.

In the later, I mean people raised to a certain standard of living who expect that continued within a certain range. Please don't misunderstand me in thinking I mean UK-born nurses are selfish (for example), they are quite right to demand better than they are receiving. They should get that - but there is the added dimension of labour competition from people used to far worse.

...

I found it interesting that in Basle, none of the grocery cashiers were Swiss - the position simply doesn't pay well enough for a Swiss to do that job, and live in Switzerland. As a result, mostly French labourers from Alsace commute in to do the work...also they do better by CHF than Euros for similar work.

Initially, this is the sort of job category I talk about when it comes to an African future for Europe...with the niche exceptions of brain drain, of course. Already, we see Turks filling just this sort of construction and 'grunt' work role in Germany.

---

Anyway, gotta run, more to think and write later.

From:

Fundamentally, there are 6 billion+ people on this planet, we don't need more people to fill existing vacancies, we need to bring the other 4-5 billion 'up to spec' for those vacancies.

Furthermore, if those people are going to bring themselves up to spec, we and they between us need to find a way to create an additional 4-5 billion high-spec vacancies. The whole world can't have an economy like that of the US and Europe, because our economies in their current state rely on the existence of a steep wealth disparity globally.

Importing what you call 'grunt' labour, into jobs which Europeans don't want to pay other Europeans to do, only works while Africa (or the Philipines, or Turkey) are significantly poorer. That's a medium-term solution. The long-term aim should be more-or-less-unrestricted trade in labour/services at all calibres.

At this point Europe will attract immigrants not because Africa is dirt-poor and war-torn as at present, but for similar reasons to those that mean London attracts commuters, namely that capital tends to clump but does not exclusively reside in those clumps. Or else it won't attract economic immigrants because it isn't all that important any more, and it turns into a Florida-style retirement village. Whichever...

From:

I found it interesting that in Basle, none of the grocery cashiers were Swiss - the position simply doesn't pay well enough for a Swiss to do that job, and live in Switzerland.

I met a guy from Basle not long ago, and one of the things he said is that he and a lot of others in Basle do serious grocery shopping in France anyway. So the cashiers could probably save the commute...

From:

Well, the free-marketers argue that the new high-spec vacancies will appear 'naturally' as a result of growing employment and knock-on consumer demand. There is something to that, but the challenge will be getting that job-growth in fast enough, as well as securing a diverse spectrum of jobs (not just all 'high-end spec') for more people.

However, this system doesn't exist in a vacuum, and as you rightly point out, there is a serious environmental hazard associated with this. To that end, 3rd World/LDC intransigence on environmental regulation and enforcement - AND 1st World/DC unwillingness to share technologies freely is unconscionable, imo.

The recent Cancun talks were a failure, but I think it is important and good to see LDCs organising effectively. Now to extend the organisation beyond the comittee, and to the fields, factories, and labourers.

re: grunt labour - yes, that is an interim solution that I propose ... but honestly, one has to accept two basic facts: there will always be wealth disparity, the challenge is to distribute that disparity more evenly; also, we can only imagine what sort of job categories there'll be at that long-term point ... so planning is a bit useless. Instead, we can assume certain 'grunt' jobs that will always exist, and perhaps even grow with the 'post-industrial service economy' ... shopkeepers, barbers, and the like. To that end, a proactive step would be an effort to secure a tax structure that keeps that-scale entrepreneurship open and viable.

Remember that the end-challenge is keeping economies growing, without growing surplus population. Classic 'sustainable development' talk.

In a funny way, a lot of these growth analyses and policies (German already has incentives for families) is precisely like an industry tariff or other protection. Borderless labour would mean far greater market efficiency.

Maybe we'll meet the day when the very idea of 'Europe' will be as obsolete as 'Africa,' 'America,' and 'Asia.' What an idea, if impossible for the foreseeable future. :-)

From:

Well, frankly, a lot of that border trade is precisely because there is a border - with currency and tax differences.

Nearby Germans and French, for example, flood in to buy cheaper Swiss fuel.

When the Czech Republic went capitalist, border trade grew massively ... but largely to the detriment of border communities who benefited greatly from the trickle of trade before. Bordering Bavarian towns have barely changed in 15 years, whilst Czech towns and cities boomed through pent-up demand (in the southern areas anyway; old heavy-industry planned cities up north are still in dire shape, with 20% unemployment common).

From an efficiency standpoint - there would be greater benefit without this sort of unnecessary trade - on both market and environmental grounds. Not that people on the borders will be terribly pleased.

---

To your suggestion that all Baselers shop in France ... even it were feasible (and I suppose the Swiss could buy many more cars), there would still be a remainder network in place in the cities - but at far greater cost. Nah, the existing solution is probably the efficient one. And if it seems like I'm talking out of both sides of my face, I am. ;-)

----

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131444.stm

Also,

lathany, thanks for letting me hijack your LJ like this ... I'll see whether I can move this on to my own LJ.

cheers!

From:

giantbedsprings.livejournal.com

I believe there is also a lack of midwives in this country.

From:

A country full of only children (with the occasional set of twins or triplets) isn't going to raise the birth rate by that much.

I don't know...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html

Vietnam has been in population recovery since losing an entire generation of people in the 1960s-70s. Now, nearly a third of the entire population is under age 14. I don't know that they're feeling pressure from overpopulation yet, but there are now more fertile couples than there's been in decades.

From:

Paid family leave can be taken out of sick leave, and there are generous maternity packets - not for father, yet, though.

I don't know exact specifics, but paid leave is typically in the span of multiple months.

The California and San Francisco city policies are even more generous than the federal government's.

Not exactly Sweden, ok, but better than most of the US.

From: