11.29.07
Posted in Irish Politics at 9:16 pm by Sarah
This is a piece John Bruton wrote for a newsletter he sends out weekly. Some interesting comments on demography in the EU vs the US.
DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY : Looking over the Horizon
Questions I am often asked here in the United States include
- “Why are Europeans having fewer children?”
- “What does that mean for the future of European civilization?
- “Will persistent low birth rates eventually mean that Europe’s public finances will be overwhelmed by an elderly pensioner population depending on a diminishing working age population?”
These are questions that Europeans themselves are thinking about. And it is with a concern that is not confined to Europe. 44 % of the world’s population now live in countries where birth rates are below replacement level.
The United States is a special case. Between 2000 and 2025, the median age in the United States is projected to rise by three years. In the same period, the median age in the EU 15 (the 15 pre-2004 EU members) is expected to increase by seven years!
The European Commission has estimated that, by 2050, if present birth rate trends continue (and that is, of course, not inevitable), the number of highly productive young adults (25 to 39 years) would fall by 25 %, while in contrast the number of frail elderly (over 80) would increase by 171 %.
Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has estimated that by 2025, whereas the number of military-age men in the U.S. will rise by 23 %, it will decline by 23 % in the EU, and decline by nearly 50 % in the Russian Federation. Thanks to the one child policy, similar trends are already evident in China. There are now 28 million fewer people aged between 18 and 23 in China than there were in 1990.
Birth rates have been falling for a long time, but not at the same speed. Generally it seems that birth rates has fallen fastest recently in countries which started with a relatively high rate. From 1990 to 2005, the birth rate has dropped by 10 per 1000 in Tunisia, by more than 3 per thousand in Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland, but by only 0.6 per thousand in Ireland, 0.7 in Greece, 0.7 in Japan, and 1.6 in France. In the same period, the U.S. birth rate dropped by 2.5 per thousand.
Last year the European Commission published a Communication (SEC(2006)1245) dealing with this subject. It said an opinion poll had shown that, on average, Europeans would like to have about 2.3 children, but, on average, they were only having 1.5. So what are the obstacles preventing Europeans having the number of children they would really like to have?
The European Commission paper is right to say that “the desire to have a child (or not) is a private matter”, but it is also right when it says that “public policies have to develop action lines that offer a better environment for young parents, which reconcile professional, private and family life”.
How do public policies affect the decision to start a family?
First, one of the reasons for delaying the decision to have a child is the fact that young people in Europe are acquiring financial autonomy at a later age than in the past. Time spent in education is getting longer and longer. Employers are artificially demanding higher and higher levels of qualification for jobs, in order to reduce the number of people they need to interview. So, to please employers, some young people may stay too long in college. Of course, there is also pressure to get more training because of reduced employment in sectors that do not require significant training.
Secondly, people’s expectations of the size of house they would need to start a family have increased (by about 40% in size by one estimate). The cost of a house relative to average income has also gone up in many countries. The present downward movement in house prices may help young people in those countries to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder.
Thirdly, increased “flexibility” in the labour market may not help. Those with insecure job prospects are less likely to want to start a family. But the success of “flexicurity” in some smaller EU economies suggests that it is possible to combine flexible markets with economic security.
Fourthly, the long-term cost of a decision to have a child is also a big issue. This goes far beyond the cost of childcare during infancy. One American estimate I saw said that the life time cost to parents of having a child (excluding the cost of college) comes to $ 200,000. That cost falls exclusively on the parents of the child although, when the child grows up and goes to work, the taxes and pension contributions the adult child pays will be used to pay for the pensions and healthcare of all retired people, including those who incurred no child rearing costs. As economists might put it, parents who have children are producing a public good, at a large private cost.
Fifthly, instability of marriages also impacts on the decision people make to have a child. If the prevailing norms in society point towards unstable marriages, couples may not feel they have enough long-term emotional and financial security to start a family.
Sixthly, if they do have a child, and then either the mother or father opts out of paid work (part time, temporarily or full time) to look after the child at home, this will result not only in a lower family income, but also in a lower eventual family pension entitlement on retirement.
All these are hard questions of economic and social equity.
Low birth rates, and the factors that cause them, feed directly into the debate about immigration. There is a lot of misplaced alarm about immigration in Western societies.
The truth is that the present high levels of immigration to both the EU and the US are probably a temporary phenomenon. Birth rates are falling so fast in many of the countries from which our immigrants come that, in a few years, these countries will have no more people to spare.
Between 1980 and 1999 births per woman dropped by 2.6 in the Middle East/North Africa and by 1.5 in Latin America and the Caribbean. Labour will eventually become scarce in those countries and in the developed world.
Wage rates there, and here, will therefore tend to rise.
The present era, in which the relative share of wealth going to owners of capital has risen and the share going to wages has fallen because labour is so plentiful, will then be over. The pressure will be in the other direction. We will return to the conditions which existed in the Post-War era, when employers had to offer all sorts of inducements (like free health insurance!) to get people to work for them.
While all that probably won’t happen for another fifteen years, it does suggest that European Governments are right to try to raise the retirement age now. But raising the pension age on its own is not enough.
Older workers need retraining if they are to extend their working lives : retraining not only in new skills, but also in their perceptions of what they themselves are capable of.
Who is to provide this training? There is a strong argument for saying that Governments are more likely to be able to take the broader interest of society on a matter like this into account, especially as the newly retrained older person may eventually find himself/herself working for a different employer.
Permalink
11.28.07
Posted in Irish Politics at 6:54 pm by Sarah
We still keep an eye on the cuz’s progress in Heuston. Looks like some progress at last. Hopefully a quick trial and a sentence in the UK…
PO’Neill comments..
Update: Yup, the plea was entered and sentencing in February. The deal included a 37 month sentence. Time off for good behaviour maybe. The sentence is starting yet the end is now in sight and bitter taste left in everyone’s mouth about the Brits toadying up to the US. btw, has the US ever signed the extradition agreement?
Permalink
Posted in Domestic/Relationships, International Politics at 2:12 pm by Sarah
Ok, this is just so funny. I turned back on the News At One hoping Bev was gone, to hear the report on proceedings at the Mahon Tribunal. So previously Tom Gilmartin gave evidence that rival developer Owen O’Callaghan told him he gave Mr Reynolds £150,000 in his house at around 3am after a dinner in Cork in March 1994. He said he was told Mr Reynolds was tired because he had to picked up by helicopter the next morning to be brought to the US for St Patrick’s Day. He was told by other sources that Mr Reynolds collected $1m in New York, Boston and Chicago that year following the Northern Ireland peace deal. But he was told only $70,000 made it to the party and that “$900,000 must have fallen off the plane and floated down towards the Cayman Islands”
Now when I heard that I thought, ah yeah, Gilmartin spinning ludricous tales again..
But TODAY! TODAY!
the pilot of the government jet gave evidence that
“Later that day Mr Reynolds, his wife and a number of civil servants were flown by Government jet to New York, the plane stopped over in Boston before picking up the party and flying them to Washington and Chicago.
On the return journey there was an unscheduled six-hour stop at Freetown* in the Bahamas at the request of Mr Reynolds. Mr James said no reason was recorded for the stop over.
I laughed out loud, which when you’re on your own in the kitchen is a weird thing to do.
I dunno, every time I soften up and assume there’s nothing in it, they drop something else on you. It’s bizarre.
Update: oh rats, Martin Mansergh, official apologist for three FF Taoisigh has spoiled all the fun by intervening with the facts. In a statement just issued
“Some of the evidence given to the Mahon Tribunal today by the distinguished Head of the Air Corps Brigadier General James (if accurately reported on the RTÉ lunchtime news) must be based on faulty recollection. Even a senior officer of the Air Corps would not necessarily always be aware of the detailed purposes of an official visit or discussions that took place during one.
I was a member of the Taoiseach’s delegation to the United States, as a Special Advisor on Northern Ireland. At the end of the visit on 19 March, which included functions in a number of cities as well as St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington, the Taoiseach flew from Hartford, Connecticut to the Bahamas for the first official visit from Ireland, which was neither ‘informal’ nor ‘unscheduled’, and which lasted three days from Saturday till Monday inclusive.
He was greeted with full military honours, including a multi-gun army salute, by the Prime Minister of the Bahamas at the airport. Later that Saturday afternoon, officials from both Governments, including myself, sat down to explore a number of areas of cooperation. That evening, Tony O’Reilly, Chairman of Independent Newspapers, hosted a dinner for Albert Reynolds and his delegation, which was attended by half the cabinet of the Bahamas, at his home at Lyford Quay.
On Monday 21 March 1994, there were resumed talks chaired by Taoiseach and Prime Minister, and a number of visits made to small enterprises and to the principal harbour on another island in the Bahamas. The whole emphasis of the visit was on economic development and mutual cooperation. The visit was referred to in the press at the time. For example, an article in the Cork Examiner of 21 March 1994 by Liam O’Neill reported:
‘Taoiseach Albert Reynolds left the United States on Saturday for the Bahamas after a very successful seven-day visit, the highlight of which was a White House meeting with President Clinton on St. Patrick’s Day. He will spend three days in the Bahamas on an official visit before returning to Dublin on Tuesday. His last engagement in the United States was at the John F. Kennedy Trust dinner in Hartford, Connecticut, on Friday night.’ ”
Though you have to wonder, what mutual benefit is there in economic development in the Bahamas? and the cosiness of dinners with Tony. Let’s get a report on the matters that required co-operation. Of course, with that heavy schedule I’m SURE Albert had no time to nip to the bank…..Grumble grumble….
*yes, a misreport, that should’ve been Freeport.
Further update! HOLD PRESS – Apparently Manzer has been vague….Mr Reynolds was indeed met with full military honours but NOT in Freeport where the 6 hour stopover took place. So they went to Freeport, and took off again and landed somewhere else officially – perhaps Nassau, the capital???
Wonderful. Could be something in this yet.
MORE UPDATES! Nothing daunted – your intrepid investigative blogger phoned the office of the Deputy from Tipperary (south?) Fair dues, the man phoned back. My specific question was : did the plane touch down in Freeport first and then go on to Nassau for the official welcome? He was extremely charming and went into great detail but the bottom line – he couldn’t say specifically. They did go to different islands so there was some flying around but he couldn’t say precisely. He was also careful to say that he based his statement on the report he heard on the News at One – not on what the pilot’s actual evidence was. So, our bottom line? We need to see the Tribunal transcript and the flight plan. The pilot could still be absolutely correct. The plane may have been scheduled to go to Nassau but they diverted to Freeport first.
And finally! Yes, the 9pm confirms it…the scheduled flight was to Nassau but there was an unscheduled stop at Freeport….Great stuff. What WAS he doing there?
Permalink
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 11:38 am by Sarah
She had the nerve to ask for a bi-partisan approach. How about starting us off with a partisan approach? Her junior minister Jimmy Devins sat beside her and contributed to the debate in this profound fashion…
Joan Burton: “The worry used to be that staff in hospitals were not washing their hands. Now we see the Minister washing her hands and refusing to take responsibility for the crisis.”
Deputy Jimmy Devins: “That is ridiculous.”
Yes Jimmy. How about, its ridiculous that the Minister for Health stands up and in all seriousness asks for opposition support for her policies when her own junior minister doesn’t support them.
Jeeeez.
And if I hear one more time about her “spirited” performance I’ll crack. She nearly burst into tears. Again. Is that what she does at the consultant contract negotiations? If you don’t sign I’ll cry? It’s not working Minister. Try another strategy….
Permalink
Posted in Feminism, Sunday Times Columns at 11:24 am by Sarah
No, I AM cranky.
At first I thought the reaction to my mass column was simple concern for my lack of faith but slowly it has become apparent that I am being judged – yesterday I got a letter telling me I was a smart arse. Others closer to home are definitely not impressed. It’s like I said, instead of declaring a lack of faith in God and the fallacy of original sin, that I’m running off to India with my lover and the family can look after themselves until I’ve found myself…oh and I’m selling the house to fund my tour and they can go live with grandparents.
ALL I said was I don’t believe this stuff but for the sake of peace I’ll go along with it as far as the children are concerned. So, you don’t have me but you have my money and you can have the kids. But that wasn’t enough. If the judgment doesn’t stop, I’ll start getting more militant. What happened to the narrative that god-fearing catholics were being oppressed by the secular media? I’M the only one getting a hard time. Well I’m definitely not going back. I’m “out” now so it would be an insult to show up again. HE can bring them in future….
Permalink
11.27.07
Posted in Feminism at 8:52 pm by Sarah
The IT tells me that
“EU to publish list of payments to each farmer”
“The amounts paid annually in EU subsidies to each of Ireland’s 130,000 farmers is to become public knowledge from 2008.
The Council of Farm Ministers meeting in Brussels yesterday agreed in principle to the annual publication of the money paid to farmers. This will mean that for the first time the European taxpayer will be able to check what each individual farmer is receiving annually. Irish farmers will receive €1.6 billion in subsidies this year from Brussels and up to now it was very difficult to access this information.”
Oooh how mean! That’ll be fodder for a right old gossiping session over who’s getting how much.
We publish public salaries, but do we publish lists of payments to social welfare recipients? You know, transparency and all that? If there’s a logic that says that all public money has to be publicly accounted for well then, let’s see published lists for what everyone in receipt of public money gets. I wouldn’t mind seeing if so-and-so down the road is on family income support and for how much. Hmmmmm rent allowances, disability pay, who’s paying what rent in council housing. Could be great gas!
But the following line says:
“In Ireland the Department of Agriculture has to have the consent of each recipient before it can publish data which has to be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”
Eh, so that means, the list won’t be printed here or is that describing the existing situation?
The rest of the article, as far as I can tell, fails utterly to clear up my confusion, unless I’m completely thick. Which isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility….but still…I can’t figure out if our data protection laws have just been over-ridden….
“Following yesterday’s decision, the matter goes back to the European Commission which will now draw up detailed rules on how and where the information will be made available.
EU sources said last night there would be no lower limit on the amounts to be published and it was likely the list of 130,000 farmers’ names would be placed on a website.
The site will also carry details of other payments made from the Common Agricultural Policy (Cap)budget including export subsidies and development grants to meat plants.”
So is it or is it not going to be published in Ireland without farmers’ consent? I can’t see any of them giving it, can you?
Permalink
11.23.07
Posted in Feminism at 10:14 am by Sarah
The regional papers have a standard form known as the “local news” where local correspondents send in details of recent and upcoming events. They are usually perfunctory affairs; local sporting successes, reports of small fundraisers or church notices. The Kilnaleck News in the Anglo-Celt breaks the mould and we regularly find ourselves reading it aloud to the general hilarity of the family, greatly enhanced by the fact that the Kilnaleck Correspondent is my uncle, Peter Brady. We have referred before to some of his work but a fortnight ago he excelled himself when he warmed with considerable enthusiasm to his frequent theme of rural alienation from the urban establishment. (sadly the print version was littered with typos which we have no doubt were not his doing). We love how clauses and commentary on matters completely outside the matter at hand are drawn in to build his argument….
Commenting on an outstanding performance by Daniel O’Donnell at the Crover House Hotel he remarks
“The occasion was a charity event in aid of the Church of Ireland Community in Ballymachugh which has undertaken a renovation and refurbishment of the former national school and teacher`s residence beside St. Paul`s Church. As such, it was a perfect ecumenical occasion in that it afforded one community an opportunity to assist another in a worthwhile project and assist they did in no uncertain terms.
Of course a night like this is nothing new all over South Cavan and it prompts the reflection that those from the national media and academia who lecture rural people incessantly about their perceived backwardness and conservatism might do well to study the vision and intellectual mindset of rural communities who have set aside rancours of the past and now look to the future in peace, confidence and harmony.”
He goes on to comment on “The poor learner driver”
“There was consternation among local provisional drivers and malicious mirth among local philosophical societies [we suspect this maybe a reference to the clientele of his bar on a Sunday night 
] at the establishment`s triple choice order to relevant drivers at the end of last week : “get a fully qualified accompanying driver; get a full licence or get off the road by Tuesday morning”. As far as mirth goes it equalled that with which greeted the introduction of the order which banned the sale of packets of ten cigarettes which had the ludicrous aim of limiting smoking among young people.
According to one local and usually reliable source, [em, that wouldn't be one Peter Brady Esq? 
]senior officials listened carefully to what was being said at Masses and G.A.A. matches on Saturday evening and accordingly the Minister Noel Dempsey went to RTE on Sunday to announce a coluteas [we have no idea what this is, some Irish slang? a Latin word the victim of a typo?] Then surprise, surprise, on Monday an official of the Road Safety Authority arrives at RTE to say that the solution just wouldn’t work. Why did he not tell the Minister?”
More in Anglo-Celt…
Permalink
11.21.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:30 pm by Sarah
Don’t those fools gettit?
To get good service you have to have volume. The “genuinely upset” protestors are genuinely stupid if they refuse to accept the fact that going to Galway could save their lives.
Of course, depsite the fact that its GOVERNMENT POLICY the Junior Minister at the Department of HEALTH!!!!!!!!!!! is against closing Sligo.
WHY WHY does Ahern blame everyone else for blocking health reforms and then allow his own minister at HEALTH to publicly protest about the policy?
Oh, because there are more votes in it that way…
Of course the same fools who are protesting will vote for Devins next time out.
I’m not turning on the radio tomorrow. I can’t listen to the morons anymore. I’m going to Liffey Valley and shop. As moronic as that is, its better than putting up with idiots who complain about a policy which will save their lives and vote for other idiots who pretend they are not in government.
Permalink
11.20.07
Posted in Domestic/Relationships at 1:36 pm by Sarah
Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear, she has dropped them in the shit hasn’t she? Fianna Fail must be thrilled at the opportunity to beat RTE over the head with this stick. If she’d never claimed there was a recording, it would be ok. For some reason, there is still no question that the Taoiseach should actually ASK his cabinet members if they are the politician. And now she’s in a Catch 22. The only real way she can prove she’s right is by telling us who she’s talking about – or at least tell a lot of people in RTE who must now enquire into the programme. But by telling them she’s revealing her source. And don’t journos prefer to go to jail than do that?
Funny though the way the focus is on the politician and not the pilot and the nurse…
Permalink
11.19.07
Posted in Sunday Times Columns at 2:39 pm by Sarah
Note: This expands last week’s post. I should stress btw, that I have the highest regard for the local priest. I’m not sure I’ll be able to show my face out for a while. M is deeply concerned about my lack of faith and malign influence on the children. I said “ok so, YOU bring the child to mass”. I’ll see what happens. My uncle called in this morning. He is most concerned. I said, look whatever about intelligent design I just don’t believe in original sin. He said he didn’t either but that wasn’t the point. It was more about commitment regardless of the flaws. Oh dear…
I wouldn’t call myself an a la carte Catholic, so much as an a la carte atheist. I have confidently declared my non-belief in God and rationally argued against the nonsense of scripture, the fiction of original sin and the immorality of persuading children to reflect upon sin and guilt. But then I ruined everything by showing up at mass last week. As I was warmly welcomed by neighbours I felt that the Puritan custom of forcing adulterers to wear a scarlet “A” on their clothes should be adapted so that I could wear a prominent “H” for hypocrite. Oh well, I don’t believe in hell either, but if it does exist I think it’s safe to assume I’m heading straight for it.
So what induced me to show up and automatically recite prayers in which I declare beliefs I don’t possess? Well, as the saying goes, sin begets sin. The elder of my boys protests vigorously when I leave the house for a social occasion. As soon as he sees the nice clothes going on, he starts to kick up. One night, lacking the sense of entitlement to an evening out, my carefully rationalised liberal opinions were thrown aside in a moment of panic and the social conditioning conquered all before it. I clutched the flag of religious observance to my bosom and insisted I was going to Mass : a claim I continued to make with increasing regularity and self-righteousness. As far as he’s concerned I’m practically a daily communicant. It was a nonsensical lie principally because he had no idea what Mass is.
With a deep sense of suspicion and sly questioning of his older cousins he discovered that children can go to Mass. Exposed, I retaliated by declaring that boys could only go when they turned four. Sadly, I didn’t think the fib through properly and when the landmark birthday occurred this month, he triumphantly reminded me of his entitlement.
Well what can you do? The child had to be brought. In a fit of post de facto rationalisation I decided that since he’ll be attending the local Catholic national primary school he’d have to go Mass sometime. I might as well break him in now so I’m not mortified by his religious ignorance as the years progress. I know I’d end up buckling to the First Communion pressure, so he might as well get in on the act early. Anyway, being required to have manners and sit still during Mass might be useful training.
I decided to take him to our 7pm no-frills vigil mass. Though Catholicism is often maligned for its elaborate rituals, the popularity of a mass is often directly related to the speed with which it’s conducted. I reckoned this 35 minute version wouldn’t test his patience too hard and had the added thrill of allowing him outside the house when it’s dark. I was conscious that some adults attend these masses with the express purpose of avoiding other people’s annoying children but I decided to be No-nonsense Mother for the duration.
We went off very cheerfully on this great adventure and I was looking forward to half an hour of not being required to talk or work.
I take fits of attempting daily meditation but find that I miss the compulsion to be in a particular spot at a particular time. The Muslim tradition of designated prayer times is a good system, though the schedule a little rigorous. Lacking the necessary self-discipline, I generally lapse and ponder the benefits of daily mass. When I’m old and no one has a use for me, mass might the only excuse left to get out of bed every day.
The only hitch was the first reading, one I’d never heard before despite the fact that as a teenager I was a regular reader at Mass. It was from the Second Book of Maccabees and tells the story of seven brothers who are arrested by the evil king as they refuse to eat flesh of the swine. One by one and before their mother, they have their tongues cut out and are tortured to death. The king is extremely impressed with the manner in which they welcome pain and death confidently declaring that they will soon be keeping company with the Lord himself while eternal damnation awaits their executioner.
In these days of the Terror, on which we are supposedly fighting a war, I was a little confused as to what the message was supposed to be. There was no mention of virgins and they didn’t take anyone else with them but the title “The glorious martyrdom of the seven brethren and their mother” seemed a little inappropriate for the times. Leaving aside the fact that most members of the congregation are regular consumers of pork, I presumed we were on the side of the brothers.
As the story unfolded I cast a downward glance at my son who was completely oblivious to the words. I suppose once you’ve seen Power Rangers, a bit of biblical torture is small game. And frankly, my sudden concern for his sensibilities was a tad naïve given that Catholicism is entirely based on the torture, death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus. But usually you just get that bit on Good Friday.
Nevertheless the reading seemed to leave a little room for interpretation on how we should view the modern day martyr and I wondered how the priest might address it in his sermon. Wisely, he simply ignored it and confined himself to extolling the virtues of friendship. It was probably the right thing to do but my curiosity got the better of me and I checked the original biblical version when I got home.
That was a mistake. I can see why the Catholics resisted for so long the right of its members to read the bible for themselves and in their own language. The torture is recounted in great detail with limb chopping, scalping and in a neat irony, the brothers were fried like bacon in a giant pan. Heady stuff and rightly censored.
I discovered that the Church of Ireland goes one better. Rather than creating a sanitised version of the story for its congregation, it simply declared the Maccabees apocrypha :false or spurious scripture. I heartily agreed with this policy and indeed wondered briefly if there’s still time for me to become a lapsed Protestant rather than a lapsed Catholic.
My son, who behaved very well, got up the next day and declared that Mass was “brilliant” which means I may have to go again and brace myself for further disturbing readings. Blogger Fiche Focal suggested that the priest might precede such readings in future with a disclaimer; “May contain scenes of a violent and cruel nature. May portray nudity and sex scenes. God is prone to acts of cruelty and random violence. Any similarities to persons living or dead are coincidental and unintentional.” If not for the child’s sake, then surely for mine.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »