Bernhard, on a light note upon being told of the Austrian right wing politician Haider, whose slogan was Kinder nicht Inder referring to the need for Kids not Indians, I responded that on the contrary it should be Inder then definitely Kinder! I was joking...immigration from INdia with a large population may not adversely affected the country of origin but immigration from a country like Ethiopia with a smaller population might be bad for them. Venezuela is a really good example-huge brain drain of professionals and in a country of only 20 million that is a problem. Their birth rate is average but then again it is the poor who have more children.
Eugen's point about how people in IT are going to manage to keep their jobs and finance their dreams is interesting. Is the scale of the dream something to consider? 08 Aug 2007 09:47:36 +0100, B. L. Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Aug 7 2007, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > >note that the highest birthrates in europe are in societies where > >opportunities for women have been matched by their social treatment, > >such as scandinavia and to some extent france (where state or employer > >childcare is of a relatively high standard). in some of these countries, > >native population birthrates are at almost replacement levels. (though > >births - and upbringing of children - are often outside marriage). > > 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. > > >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. > > --bernhard > >
