Germany combats its declining birthrate

[JPriller]

... by incentivizing. A story in the Christian Science Monitor explains a new law going into effect Jan 1 2007, which increases child-leave pay to encourage more professionals to have children:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1229/p04s01-woeu.html
BERLIN – Nine months into their pregnancies, most expecting mothers probably don't want to wait one day longer to deliver. But for Claudia Wilken, that extra day could mean an extra €11,900 ($15,000). This is the "parents' money" she and her husband would be entitled to over the next 14 months under a new German law, which goes into effect in 2007.

"It is going to make a huge difference to us, if our baby is born after Jan. 1," says the 27-year-old from Neu-Brandenburg in eastern Germany. For some parents, up to $33,000 is at stake, depending on their previous salaries, to which the new benefit is linked.

The provision is the latest in a series of measures the German government has recently put in place in a bid to encourage more professionals to have children. While it's too soon to gauge the effect of such legislation on the country's steadily declining birth rate - already Europe's lowest - critics say much remains to be done to help working parents.
I can't wait to hear what aindik thinks of it. :)

[betamax]

With an unemployment rate of 11.7%, do they really need more people?

[pseudonym]

With an unemployment rate of 11.7%, do they really need more people?
Well, you could make the case that more people equals more jobs, right? The more people you have, the more goods and services you need.

[TCRR]

Well, you could make the case that more people equals more jobs, right? The more people you have, the more goods and services you need.

I love a good pyramid scheme.

[JohnJr]

AFAIK, populations are declining in lots of areas of the world, due to famine, disease, or "civilization."

The Mexicans really are going to win.

:)

-John

[pseudonym]

AFAIK, populations are declining in lots of areas of the world, due to famine, disease, or "civilization."

The Mexicans really are going to win.

AFAIK, the only populations that are declining are in affluent, 1st world countries (like, well, Germany), which has nothing to do with famine or disease. It might have something to do with "civilization", whatever the hell that means. Not having kids is in some ways a luxury only the rich can afford.

Nothing spawns population growth like poverty, paradoxically. The combination of limited knowledge of and limited access to birth control, and the need to have as many children as possible to rely on in old age when child mortality is high seems to result in mamy, many kids.

And as far as the Mexicans winning, relax. A few generations from now we'll all have interbred enough for ethnic distinctions to be meaningless. :)

[JohnJr]

Africa is all messed up with Aids. Add that to your continents.

-John

[pseudonym]

Africa is all messed up with Aids. Add that to your continents.

-John
Despite that, the population is growing rapidly in Africa.

[aindik]

... by incentivizing. A story in the Christian Science Monitor explains a new law going into effect Jan 1 2007, which increases child-leave pay to encourage more professionals to have children:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1229/p04s01-woeu.html
I can't wait to hear what aindik thinks of it. :)

It's a terrible idea. But you knew that.

People should have children or not have children based on whatever circumstances are present in their life, and their own preference. Paying people to create children (so the children can be around to prop up the welfare state when the parents' generation retires, one can only assume), is not consistent with liberty or limited government.

This $15k they're giving parents to have children was taken out of the pocket of someone else. What that person could have done with the money, and what effect it would have had on the German economy, we'll never know. Also, encouraging people to raise children instead of working doesn't sound like a net positive on the German economy either. You never know what that now-working-less person would have contributed to the economy (and to himself).

What I don't get is why they keyed it to the calendar year. These people were obviously pregnant before it was passed, so the "incentive" effect of the money is nil. The money isn't "incentivizing" them to have children - they were going to have children anyway. The law should have been that any child born 41 weeks after its passage, or later, will be subject to the subsidy payments.

It makes me smile a little bit that the Germans are now paying Jews to have babies. But only a little. :)

On another note, there are reports here in the United States of people attempting to induce labor before the new year so they can claim the various child tax credits and deductions for 2006.

[JohnJr]

On another note, there are reports here in the United States of people attempting to induce labor before the new year so they can claim the various child tax credits and deductions for 2006.
But Sugar, I am only 10 weeks!

-John