On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:47:36AM +0100, B. L. Krieger wrote: > i guess you are right here. france for instance made a deliberate choice > after the second world war to recruit women to the labout force, whereas > germany decided for an immigration policy. however whether there is a > correlation is not too sure imho. the uk has reproduction rate comparable > to france without an expensive childcare policy.
Notice that France largely profits from high birth rate in the black immigrants demographics. I don't think this is sustainable, and has its own share of problems (France has a bad immigrant integration track record; admittedly, they have a much higher influx from Algiers &Co than Germany has). > >while these solutions are expensive, often for the taxpayer, the > >alternative, of a greying society supported by a shrinking working-age > >population, is much more expensive. > > maybe reproduction is overrated? immigration would be by far cheaper and > more sustainable on a global scale. Immigration is completely unsustainable. The developing countries will be much harder hit by the birth rate reduction, because they'll be experiencing the same effects as the old west at least one order of magnitude quicker. Very rapid changes in birth rate will create a hugely displaced demographics, with much more severe problems than the old west is currently facing. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
