08.08.07
Even the celtic tiger needs cubs
Unedited version…
“Teenagers, Immigrants, Career Women”, the government cries “Lend us your wombs”. My occasional fits of broodiness have taken on a patriotic air. The third child is no longer the indulgence of a psychotically hormonal woman but the duty of a loyal citizen. If not me, then who else will produce the taxpayers of the future?
The CSO figures issued last week showed that Ireland’s fertility rate rose last year, with the average woman now having 1.9 children in her lifetime. Some quibbled with the details: the mothers are too young, too old, too single or too foreign. What does it all mean?
“Give me a one-handed economist” said President Truman. On the one hand we accept that economic and baby booms go hand in hand. On the other, rich nations have fewer children than poor ones. On the third hand, economists Davids Bloom and Canning told the ESRI recently that Ireland’s birth rate fall in the 1980’s wasn’t a result of hard times, but one of the causes of the Celtic Tiger. Thanks to Charlie Haughey’s Irish Solution to an Irish Problem, condoms freed us from child rearing and we worked our way out of nappies and into economic success.
Still, the consensus emerges that babies are a Good Thing. In European terms Ireland’s fertility rate is impressive, but we haven’t reached the magic 2.1 replacement rate. Economists have long fretted over the EU’s low rate of reproduction where countries like Germany manage an abysmal 1.3 children per woman. The state needs its citizens to turn a profit by working hard, dying young and creating just the right number of worker bees. The doomsday scenario is a population without sufficient workers to fund the pensions and health care of the old who refuse to die. Of course, too many children creates another set of dependents so just a few more or 0.2 per woman would do nicely thanks.
But how does one persuade women to acquiesce to the motherland’s need for motherhood? A quick peak at fertility rates and family policies in other European countries reveal some interesting trends. Fertility doesn’t just follow economic cycles but also political ones.
Eastern European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland have the lowest fertility rates in Europe most likely due to the social and economic uncertainty of post-communist realities. The birth rate came down with the Berlin Wall. The Economist’s Adrian Johnson has noted that the same thing happened in Spain where staunch Catholicism was supported by military dictatorship. Once it collapsed, so did the fertility rate. Other countries like Greece and Italy with turbulent political histories also have disastrously low fertility even if they’re famous for their adoration of children.
Who would have thought that the most common complaint about Ireland’s political system : “sure they’re all the same” has turned out to be rather an advantage. It doesn’t really matter whose in power : the common goals of the various parties since the foundation of the state has provided the stability to maintain the birth rate at a decent rate even if the economy is taking a battering. So while high property prices in other countries force people to defer having children, we’re happy to take out the mortgage, buy an overpriced nest for baby-making because we’re pretty sure that the sun will come out tomorrow.
What other factors do people take into account when considering a pregnancy? In the birth rate league, France and Sweden are good, Germany is bad. All three have high tax, high welfare systems and Germany actually spends almost 50% more of its GDP on family friendly policies than most other rich European countries. If Germany is spending more money on families why can’t they get the results?
The big news is that countries with higher fertility rates show trends which directly challenge our traditional perceptions of good motherhood – they have lots of working and single mothers. Although we casually assume them bad for society, it turns out they are good for the economy. In Ireland one third of births are outside marriage. In Sweden it’s over 50% while those barren countries like Greece have very few extra marital births. So no more looking down on single mothers : they’re not welfare spongers : they’re your future.
But it’s the working mothers who are key.
France and Sweden have long term stable policies around paid maternity leave and jobs being guaranteed on return. Their crèches are subsidised and there is universal free child care from the age of three. French mothers don’t guilt trip themselves about going to work and it’s automatically assumed that they will work and have children. Working hours in France are flexible and adults are encouraged to return to the educational system at any time for re-training. Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Sweden are renowned for their sexual equality.
In contrast, Germany doesn’t get the same value for its family support policies because social attitudes and organisation are totally different. They’ve relied on a system of cash benefits to families but these don’t work in the face of a society which works against motherhood. There are subsidised crèches and kindergartens but they, along with the schools, all close at lunchtime. Mothers who work are known as Rabenmütter or raven-mothers, birds who abandon their chicks early in life.
The result is that German women’s participation in the labour force collapses after they become mothers. The family unfriendly schools don’t help but neither does their fascist history which politicised the role of women. Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development told the Financial Times last week that “We always had a polarisation between conservatives who think a woman’s place is at home and leftwingers who look down on child-bearing. Germany has realised that making it easier for a woman to combine work and family is the key to higher birth rates”.
Dusseldorf has invested heavily in kindergartens and new schools and showed a 15% increase in births in the first quarter of this year. What does this mean for us? Apparently that our current government’s policy of using the children’s allowance to fund childcare should be changed. I supported that policy since cash payments for all children provides choice whilst avoiding the political warfare that would ensue if working mothers were favoured through public policy over stay at home mothers. I also assumed that the social cost of working mothers was such that stay at home mothers deserved to be funded on an equal basis.
That may be true, but if the government wants to keep the birth rate up, then it seems they need to keep women working. That is better achieved through more crèches, subsidised childcare, and family friendly working hours. I don’t know what effect that has on society, but a rich one has got to be better than a poor one. So working mothers can dump the guilt because even the Celtic Tiger has to have cubs.
leon said,
August 8, 2007 at 3:40 pm
This reminds me of Andrew Maxwells gag on the panel sometime ago about how we should approve of slags as if it weren’t for them there would be no kids to pay our pensions.
It would be nice if all works were paid equitably and fairly for their endeavours, and if all workers were supported to achiece their potential and foster the development of their children into wholesome members of society. But we and our government favours angloamerican models over Scandnavian ones so this ain’t goin to happen. The individual over the common good, perhaps thats why we put up with the farmers and Berties hypocrisy.
Anonymous said,
August 8, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Way to try and make yourself feel better. Let’s pump out babies and give them to someone else to care for. That makes for really well balanced adults later on. Give me a break. Fact is it’s unfashionable to be a SAHM regardless of the fact (proven over and over again by studies worldwide) that children with a stay at home parent turn out much more stable. Sure some women have to work, and that’s fine. But do you really think so many would be working if they could actually live in an affordable house? I’m sick of hearing working women trying to justify their decision with politics or semantics. If it’s the right decision then why do you have to justify it and make SAHMs look like uneducated fools? If it’s the right decision then it shouldn’t matter what anyone thinks and there shouldn’t be any guilt. Working versus staying at home should not be a matter of whats good for society, it should be a matter of whats good for the children. Ultimately the government should care about the children and facilitate people who make the decision to do whats best for them. SAHMs should have the same tax credit as working mothers among other things. Just because a woman chooses to stay home does not necessarily mean she can afford to do it. She makes that tough decision because it’s better for her children. The SAHMs of today are often educated to a third level or beyond and deserve some respect. Generally I really like your columns, but this one is way off base and barely even touches the surface of an age old debate. It’s got a Marxist undertones focusing on what’s good for the state.
Sarah said,
August 8, 2007 at 8:48 pm
oh dear. Well first thing you need to remember is that I do stay at home. When I had my first baby I never went back to work and was happy to stay at home because I do think its better for baby and to be quite honest, I would have been miserable being parted from them. My long term plan was to work out a career that would earn me some money while enabling me to stay at home and I am extremely lucky that I got the column after baby no. 2 and could do this. Now my children are in part time day-care (3 days a week) and it is brilliant for them. They get to socialise and learn social norms about sharing and playing which they just wouldn’t get at home. Its also brilliant for me because I’d be in an asylum at this stage if I had the two of them all the time.
AND as I’ve said, I do support the Children’s Allowance policy because of the reasons I’ve mentioned in the article.
HOWEVER, the point I am making is this: countries with high birth rates have high levels of mother participation in the workplace and high levels of extra marital births. That is simply a fact and not me saying that I think there SHOULD be lots of working mothers etc. These are the countries where apparently women see that they have support and can work and therefore, with the financial and psychological independence that that brings – they have MORE children. Knowing that they can work means they don’t defer having babies until its too late. As a country we can decide that we either want
a) to reach the replacement rate
or
b) have SAHM because that’s “good for society” (apparently although I am not assuming this to be true)
If we decide its a) then we have to support WM’s better. If its b) then continue giving cash to mothers. Its up to the government and ergo, the people to decide and remember, Ireland’s birth rate IS good and we DO have high mother participation in the work place and high single motherhood rates so it would appear that people have already decided and would just appreciate infrastructural back up in order to reduce the level of pain involved in this decision.
The only other thing I would say is this: the only studies I am aware of are the ones being run in America where children in different day-care scenarios are being assessed over the long term. They observed the children from birth and the children are now 9 I think. The results of the 7 year old tests were published last year. As far as I can remember the day-care children, after a lot of defiancy around age 4, have evened out and are just fine now. The bottom line of the studies was that children in part time day care fare best. The worst off were children staying at home full time with a depressed mother – and trust me- staying at home full time minding small children 7 days a week would effect the mental health of plenty of women.
I think most women would like part time work once the children are out of the baby phase.
So what is way off base? The data is completely backed up. Just because you don’t like the implication of the conclusions doesn’t mean that its wrong.
Trust me, I was surprised. If women wanted to stay at home then they’d buy smaller cheaper houses and give up the day job. They’re not. They LIKE working. Or they hate working but want the nice house. Can’t blame me for that.
Sarah said,
August 8, 2007 at 8:57 pm
you know, I just re-read my column. Anonymous clearly picked out a few sentences and went straight into rant mode. I completely acknowledged all the alleged “benefits” to society of SAHM and pointed out that that is the norm in Germany. All I did was point out that that means women have less children. The WOMEN themselves decided that if they can’t work and have children then they don’t have children. I or the “state” didn’t decide anything.
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 9:28 pm
what on earth is a SAHM i didnt read the other posts.
LoL honest I dont get it
Joseph said,
August 8, 2007 at 9:51 pm
A womans best place is in the home and being a mother to her children- (for a few years anyway) networking with lots of other mothers in the same situation. Thereby avoiding the going nuts problem and alowing kids to mix with other kids.In other words COMMUNITY.
Creches are a really awful concept for the most part. Subcontracting out parenting and privatising parenthood.
People should not have kids if they dont want to make the changes and sacrifces needed. Maybe still do some part time work too if time/chance allows.
Ideally we need the women to have lots [as many as they wish] as early as possible after their college early marriage years and then when the kids are of an old enough age the women can go back into the work force on a more fulltime basis.
That would solve all the problems alluded to. But wouold require that we value and appreciate certasin things differently than we currently do
Why can we value mothehood the same way we might value someone successful in business? I admire and respect so much women who have embraced motherhood proudly and all the unquie and hard skills they master over years of expereince.
I think John Lennon perhaps said it best when he said the following:
=========================================
Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is…think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it…do something about it
We make her paint her face and dance
If she won’t be slave, we say that she don’t love us
If she’s real, we say she’s trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she is above us
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t belive me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Ah yeah…better screem about it
We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother then
We tell her home is the only place she would be
Then we complain that she’s too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t belive me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yeah (think about it)
We insult her everyday on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she’s young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb
Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is
If you don’t belive me take a look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yes she is…if you belive me, you better screem about it.
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
==========================================
OF COURSE THS CAN BE INTERPETED MANY WAYS! lol
I think the feminazis made the mistake of trying to make women like men! or equal to men!
Well there mot like or equal
THEY ARE DIFFERENT and for the most better better creatures and human beings than men! which is why they need to be cherished and indeed afforded some special privilages within a society because f their unquie nature. The MAMMY is the ultimate boss! And so it should be!
eoin said,
August 8, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“countries with high birth rates have high levels of mother participation in the workplace and high levels of extra marital births. That is simply a fact and not me saying that I think there SHOULD be lots of working mothers”
Bang on Sarah. The facts are there and no amount of huffing and puffing about feminazis will change them. Unless we enable women to work AND have children we’ll end up peering up from the bottom of the same well as Germany, Poland, Italy etc.
At the moment the saving graces that mask abject policy failure are our favorable demographics (the Pope’s Children) and a decade of uninterrupted economic expansion. Once the child-bearing population peaks and the good times finally come to a end we can look forward to a future where each year will bring ever more over-entitled pensioners and fewer and harder squeezed taxpayers.
volperosso said,
August 8, 2007 at 11:21 pm
The thing is, we don’t actually know what things will be like in 40 years time or whatever. When I was leaving primary school in the 1980’s my teacher was telling us how computers were going to make people obsolete in the workplace and how economists were predicting that the challenge facing us in the future would be how to cope with all that spare time. Ha! Now I’m told I may have to work until I’m 75 to keep the economy going. In my experience, economists have enough trouble predicting what will take place next week, never mind in a generation or two from now.
So I think the whole debate about the distant future is a bit academic. Will we not all be on a post-apocolyptic post-polar-ice-cap-melting 40-square-mile desert island by then anyhow?
Mind you, thinking back – this challenge regarding leisure time being proferred to me by my primary-school teacher who finished work at 3pm every day and didn’t work during July and August is beginning to make the prediction look doubly ironic now!
Mark-Alan Whittle said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:02 am
Here in Canada the big issue is unpaid care-giving and the recognizing of it as another choice for parents to make.
We have a Universal Childcare Allowance that can enable many parents to provide more care-giving at home, like stay-at-home Mothers already do but are not compensated by the federal government.
My wife Laurie and I work as a team and provide Respite Day-care services for disabled kids through Community Living Hamilton.
We have a waiting list for good reason.
When I pull up in the custom made Braun disability Limo their eyes bug out with glee, the wife and I treat our charges like Kings and Queens as we consider them special children of a merciful God and give them their due.
And their long-suffering parents take comfort in the fact that I and my wife Laurie-Elizabeth have ten years of experience under our belts care-giving disabled kids to ensure the parents we serve have nothing to worry about and can get on with a well deserved rest for themselves to recharge their batteries.
Claire said,
August 9, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Nobody has even mentioned the possibility of women sharing the ’stay at home’ responsibilities/joys/ exasperations with men. There are SAHD’s out there too- I should know, I’m married to one.
CG said,
August 9, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Good point Claire! And this was a great article Sarah – the Economist has a cover story on the same topic although they unfortunately weren’t able to go without a reference to women in their twenties preferring handbags to children (the inference being, they’re silly superficial cows).
A List of Stuff I Meant to Blog About said,
August 14, 2007 at 4:15 pm
[...] wrote a great column on birth rates in developed nations and the difficult choices that women face around work and [...]
Anonymous said,
August 16, 2007 at 2:47 am
Give me a break – working moms do not ruin kids. From personal experience (I work with children), the ones who go to daycare are more polite and smarter, the ones spoiled by SAHMs are brats. I was raised by a working mom and I had a great childhood, far better than most of my friends. I think I’ve also gotten farther in life than most of my friends because this independence gave me an edge my cloistered peers didn’t have. It doesn’t mean some women can’t stay at home, *if* that’s what they want and they’re not forced to do it by their husbands or mother-in-laws.
A lot of the mommy issues stem from racism – it’s obvious people want white women to reproduce and they do not want their countries to open up the country to more immigration.
joseph said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:04 am
“I think I’ve also gotten farther in life than most of my friends because ”
NUFF SAID! speaks volumes about you.
“A lot of the mommy issues stem from racism – it’s obvious people want white women to reproduce and they do not want their countries to open up the country to more immigration.”
Now that is some mighty weird and warped view!
Annabel said,
August 16, 2007 at 6:31 am
I think the whole SAHM or working mums debate is getting us away from the real crux of the issue. Who cares if you go back to work or stay at home? I don’t believe that government has the answer to the fertility issue (they only want you to think they do, for votes), as in ‘if only the government would pay for my childcare/creche all the problems would go away’.
If our taxes weren’t so high, families would actually have a real choice about what they want to do – have one person work or not.
Here in Canada, I know many families with kids who either the mother or father would like to stay home while the children are in the pre-school years, but feel there is no way they can afford to.
Instead, they feel that they both must work. Why? Could it be because for the average family, Canadian taxes take 44.9% per cent of your income. So if you and your partner are making about $60, that’s $25k in total taxes, leaving you with $35k to cover everything else, like rent or mortgage, food, bills, and support your children.
You may have heard something about Mark Steyn’s book America Alone. It’s got a lot of interesting statistics about birth rates around the world and demographics. It’s quite eye-opening.
leon said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:39 am
I kind of think that the SAHM versus working mum (WM) is a kind of class thing,
most graduate WM (GWM) who use non-family childcare
most SAHM are working class
then there is the minority graduate SAHM (GSAHM)
Most GWM justify their time away from their kids by the fact that they are providing through increased financial means better surroundings, educational opportunities, etc for their kids. It would appear that these mothers place more intensity on the quality of the time they spend with their kids, and most of the kids unsupervised play would be in private gardens or playgrounds, these kids would learn to read and write earlier and have better nutrition than their working class SAHM equivalents
working class SAHM justify the reduce finances they have to pay for food, clothing, education, etc for their kids by the fact that they get to spend more time with their parent. But it would appear that the kids of working class SAHM watch more TV, learn to read and write later, have poor nutrition, spend more time in unsupervised play in unsafe areas (on the street, building sites, car parks, etc)
GSAHM justify their limitation of financial means through intense quality time with their kids, this may be highly desireable, if the poor socialisation of kids can be avoided, hot housing, and most importantly the mothers becoming utterly sanctimonous (see India Knight Sunday Times for example) and believing that SAHM is the only way when the educational and social issues attritubal to some kids raised by their working class equivalents are totally ignored.
There is nothing wrong with good external childcare, just as there is nothing wrong with quality SAHM care. The problems are poor external childcare and poor SAHM childcare. Providing good quality childcare in which ever form is appropriate to each family should be the aim of the state, and the sanctimonous preachings of some middle class SAHM would be best ignored (although there seems to be a preponderance of these in the media)
Deborah said,
August 20, 2007 at 10:09 am
I’ve been reading this with interest, but have been reluctant to comment. The last comment really irks me though. A CLASS thing? Hardly! There are over half a million stay at home parents in Ireland, but unfortunately the CSO doesn’t give us class status (or age, as that would be interesting too!) I’d be really interested in knowing though, as it seems the middle to upper classes would be the more likely to stay home due to financial stability.
I’m a SAHM, and don’t particularly want to be, yet I don’t want to go back to the rat race either. I am a CPA and have a masters degree in finance and I’m not in the minority. Every single mother in the mother and toddler group I attend has a degree, some like me, more than one.
I can’t necessarily afford to stay home and I don’t necessarily think it’s the best for my kids. In fact my older daughter, who was in daycare from 6 weeks old (gotta love American maternity leave) is much more intelligent, outgoing and social than the younger, who has always had me at home here in Ireland.
Life would be a lot more luxurious if I were working, we could buy a house and get another car, but that would mean a theoretical 1.5 hour each way commute to Dublin, the only place close, that someone with my qualifications could get a job. That would mean leaving before the kids wake and getting back just before they go to sleep. Sure, I’d have weekends, but my husband often works weekends, so then I’d never see him. It would be pointless. Is an extra car and house really worth that? I don’t think so, but it seems many do and that’s their prerogative.
I think age is a significant factor too. I grew up with working mother. We were expats all over the world because of her job, often meaning Dad was at home with us. She had us in her early twenties and went on to have a fantastic career. We were in school after all. We did just fine! These days that doesn’t happen. People wait until their mid to late thirties to have children, presumably because they have a financially better standing. I’m 27. Married for five years with two children, born in wedlock. In Ireland, that is odd, bizarre even. Most people my age are still single and partying away their salaries. Which is fine, in fact, sometimes I’m jealous!
But the other mothers I encounter at various social events are all late thirties to early forties. When my parents have our kids, people assume they are their parents, late childbirth is so normal these days. When I went to my ante-natal appointments the other mothers were either teenagers or mid to late thirties. It was very strange, compared to my experience in the states where nearly everyone in the office was around my age and usually married to boot.
I have to wonder if this age thing is affecting the birth rate??? Fertility starts to decline in the late twenties (thank God says I) yet people legitimately expect to have children in their mid to late thirties. Sure, it happens, but for many it’s a terrible struggle resulting in huge bills for IVF and the like. Couldn’t this have an impact?
As far as the SAHM vs WAM thing, it’s an endless debate. I’ve done both, and as much as leaving a tiny baby in someone else’s hands all day long wrenches the heart, staying home is not the cup of tea I thought it would be. I honestly thought I’d be at home drinking cappuccinos and watching Oprah! If only! Some people love it. I’m not one of them, but I don’t love work or the consequences involved in returning to it any better. I miss the adult social interaction, but not the deadlines, audits, paperwork, huge inbox, incompetent employees… the list is endless! Both working and stay at home mothers have their challenges and toils whether it be guilt, loneliness, or housework! Instead of constantly arguing the points wouldn’t it be better if we just supported each other and looked at the important issue – the children! We can learn so much from each other if we’d only open ourselves to it!
Sorry for the epistle Sarah!
leon said,
August 30, 2007 at 8:57 am
Deborah,
Unlike the states most working mothers (unless they are particular driven) stay at home with their new baby for the first 6 months, most irish creches wouldn’t take babies younger than 3 months, so atleast this allows some bonding.
But really, the SAHM vs WM, is a class thing, particularly where the child care is provided outside of the family. Most of the non-graduate working mums I know have childcare provided by family, whereas every GWM I know use paid childcare.
There is clearly a huge nutritional and educational gulf between the children of GWM and working class SAHM, perhaps the children of these SAHM would have a better start in life if they were placed in good creches/motesorri.
But of course there is the Irish myth that Ireland is a classless society, when it proably resembles more closely the structure (super rich upper middle class, large proportion of relatively poor workers) of the late 19 century more than any other western country, ok the finacial tide has risen everyones boat, but now we have the biggest inequality in wealth distribution in the OECD, thanks socialist Bertie.