The weather was great today, with it sunny and sitting around 16C (60F), which gave us a chance to continue cleaning up the garden in preparation for full spring and summer. We have a lot to do and pretty much everything we are doing is "interim work", because we don't have the money to do it properly yet. We are going to have to get someone in to give us some ballpark quotes though, so we know what to expect. It might be a few years til we can afford it though, so we can't just let it run wild until then.
There is a lot of work to do.
Which leads onto this funny juxtaposition I saw in the Finnish news (English side) yesterday. Kela is the government social security service, and the ex leader has floated the idea that the child income benefit should be means tested, which would break a very long tradition of supporting children. It isn't much (95€) a month, but most people I know put it away for their child for when they turn 18.
Not that it helps the birth rate.
Statistics Finland said the country's fertility rate last year was 1.32 children per woman, the lowest figure recorded since 1776. In comparison, around a decade ago, in 2010, the Finnish fertility rate was 1.87.
That is amazing.
After being relatively flat since 1980, the drop off from 2010 is quite incredible. And while it is easy to attribute this to the global financial crises, I don't think that is the reason. More likely in my opinion, is that culture has changed in the way we form relationships and especially, how we commit to each other. Due to our increasing disconnection and time spent alone in front of screens, we are of course less likely to meet and form the bonds where we are willing to have children.
On top of this, I think that the internet itself plays a massive role in restricting birth rates, because we have become more isolated from each other. And even when we are in relationships, we don't want to lose our freedoms, with "being free" having the time and money to spend being entertained.
Looking at the Birthrate by country is quite telling.
For instance, Finland has a birth rate of 10.7 per 1000, whilst Niger has 43.6 per 1000.
The population of Finland is 5.5M, the population of Niger is 25M. This means around 58,500 children are born in Finland yearly, compared to 1.01M in Niger, a ratio of 1:18.5 all told. Quite a difference.
With the global population aging rapidly, there is going to very likely be a need for a redistribution of the workforce, just to cope with the elderly, not to mention all the other jobs that will need to be done. And looking at the spread of birth rates, they are likely going to come from Africa, which is going to be interesting, considering the state of culture at the moment and nationalist parties getting so much support. Most developed countries know they have an issue, most are doing very little about it.
Maybe this is a good thing, as the general though is we are overpopulated anyway, but what does the near-term future look like when there aren't enough people in the workforce and far too many elderly? It doesn't sound like recipe for quality aged care, nor does it sound like it is great for those having to work, as they are going to have to work later into their lives, as well as pay more in tax to cover the shortfall.
The economy is incredibly unbalanced currently, with the growing wealth gap playing a big part in creating these conditions. People just can't afford to have children anymore, so they don't, instead choosing to spend their income on entertainment activities. This means that the masses are spending more on things that drive the wealth gap to widen further, but aren't investing into kids or ownership, so there is not only an inadequate workforce, but the masses have little investments, again driving the value to the pointy end to widen that gap even further.
Poor are having less kids than ever, rich more than ever
And it makes sense, because the rich are able to pay for childcare (which has increased in price a hell of a lot) and still go to work, whilst poorer people will have to choose between children and work, with having children being expensive, and not going to work having a massive impact on financial life.
After all, as the rich get richer, they are going to want to have people to hand it down to, and with the change in wealth, there is plenty to go around in those upper income brackets to several children. This keeps wealth in the family, so to speak. And, because of the way things work, the more wealth consolidates, the harder it is for anyone to become wealthy, who isn't born into wealth. There are many reasons for this, from education to cronyism, but this is the way it works.
Success becomes a 0.1 percenter circle jerk.
"Luckily", it is unsustainable and eventually, things will get so bad that they collapse and we move from civil unrest to civil war. It sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it? but, this is what tends to happen with centralization, because throughout history, it has never worked. Eventually, all centralized powers collapse and are replaced for a time, until they centralize again, before they collapse again.
It is cyclical stupidity.
And human nature.
We keep doing what we know and we have mechanisms in us to tribalize and maximize ourselves, even if it leads us to collapse. We are the stupidest smart animals there are!
But as long as we are entertained...
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
