For Keynesians and social democrats, this is a terrible problem. The entire economic model of a welfare state is based on the number of active contributors (economic agents engaging in profitable activity that is paid to the state) not falling below a ratio of at least 3 to 1 to economic dependents (that being persons who are net takers from the state unable to work for any reason). A reduction in the number of contributors can only lead to a cataclysmic destruction of this system: either a reneging of promises to pensioners and a reduction in their living standards (which, in countries like the UK and US, is less than half of the income of a minimum wage worker) or the raising of the retirement age. Conservative predictions for persons born today are a state pension age of about 70-72 years of age in the UK. In Japan, the situation has reached a point of desperation where the retirement age in theory should be above the life expectancy.
For nationalists, this is a cataclysmic and chronic decline of a people. We're used to hearing of history 1000 years ago and how the English fought the French, but one millenia from now, some nations won't exist. Japan is one example - Japanese people will be fully extinct within the 3rd millenium. That's a nation twice the size of Britain being reduced to an ethnic population that is identical to Christmas Island natives. A place in history.
So while population controllers are actively campaigning to reduce family sizes, governments around the world are ignoring their pleas in a desperate attempt to raise birth rates. However, most of these ideas simply don't work. Government policies range from tax incentives to a full-blown ass-handing involving year long parental leaves and cash benefits that could be mistaken for winning the lottery. But .. they don't work. The general thinking for the last 10 or so years is that the deficit in birth rates can be almost entirely blamed on the very expensive cost of bringing up children. But that type of thinking is being quickly eradicated as it has resulted in nothing short of a gigantic waste of money that failed to reach its intentions.
Take Finland. Mothers can take 16 weeks of parental leave after a baby is born. After this, one parent can stay at home until the child's third year of age with a home care allowance. A further time-splitting is offered to both parents between home and work until the child reaches second grade. Clothes intended for children and food for children is VAT free. There are no tuition fees in Finland for Finnish people, in fact if you're from a low income family they will pay for you to go. Then there's a catchy 1300 euro yearly benefit for the child. What's not to like? Well, apparently everything.
So when Finland, ranked 1st in the world for Best Place to Raise a Child 2017 and one of the cheapest (relative) places to do so, struggles to raise birth rates above famine levels 150 years ago and isn't anywhere close to replacement level, what gives? Finland will lose 700 000 people by 2050, that's the entirety of Helsinki (and more) wiped out. The Pripyat of tomorrow.
Other countries have different solutions to raising their population levels to have more contributors, and the answer is simple. If you can't get babies, get adults, and especially get adults from cultures which have many babies, and the problem has disappeared by itself. Except you're not really yourself anymore, and your people don't have a shared history 500 years down the line. Sweden has taken this route, and so has Norway. Norway in 1960 had a population of 3.51m to Finland's 4.43m. Today, they're 5.3m and 5.5m respectively. A huge gap closure.
Luxembourg faced the same fate, their population exploded from 380k in 1990 to 600k today. But less than half of Luxembourgians were born in the country they now live in. So is it really Luxembourg anymore? You decide.
Few if any projects have actually raised the birth rates: common quotations both come from Russia. Firstly there was the Soviet program to tax childless men. It worked a wonder, birth rates exploded as men didn't want to pay extortionate taxes (above their already extortionate taxes) for not having a child. But it also produced the largest orphan population on the planet. Not the best option. Then we have another experience of Russia, this time under Putin. Russia now pays women to leave the workforce, and also encourages religion as part of public policy, especially natalist doctrine. September 12th is also Procreation Day in Russia, a national holiday where few go to work, and any couple who has a child on June 12th, 9 months later, wins prizes from the government, including cars, cash ($11k) and refrigerators.
Has it worked? Well, of course correlation =/= causation, but fertility rates are growing the most in Russia, at a time when they're falling unanimously in Europe. For example, in Poland and Germany, the total population for both countries is below their 1990 population. That's despite the fact that the former has sent thousands of emigrants to the latter. In Ukraine, over 6 million people have been lost in the same period. That's equivalent to a certain famous event.
There's also other arguments. We have the societal agreement in Japan - low birth rates are caused by too much time spent at work, and not enough being able to be dedicated to children. Is it true? Well, there's some correlation between fertility rates and yearly working hours, but not really as it's scattered all over the place. Then there's the argument of marriages beginning too late with the average age of marriage now hitting above 30.
So, what would you do if you were in power? (The first poll is on causes, the second poll next week is for what you would do)
In my opinion, a mixture of the above policies is needed, but I think we must explore either the working time argument or the women in work argument in order to raise birth rates, which I consider a necessity.
