Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32929962

by ethana • 11 years ago

91 136 11 years ago

bbc.com

kiba• 11 years ago

When population growth rate is negative, it makes immortality all the easier to contemplate.

zodiakzz• 11 years ago

Explain?

resonation4• 11 years ago

Space filler operations stuck in infinite loops trigger out of memory crashes.

everly2• 11 years ago

I think he/she might have meant that immortality isn't really sustainable because of overpopulation concerns unless population growth rate is negative.

philwelch• 11 years ago

You are not ready for immortality.

jtzhou• 11 years ago

It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years).

When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.

zxyzzxxx3• 11 years ago

Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.

xienze4• 11 years ago

Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term

It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

thanksgiving4• 11 years ago

I would still get in a world of trouble if I said human children are an inferior good.

kqr2• 11 years ago

There's a good TED talk which illustrates the correlation between a country's wealth and birth rate:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_y...

ticksoft• 11 years ago

Having children (and being married) is a tool for survival in harsh environments. Conversely, it can be seen as a trap/burden from a legal and financial perspective in a 'developed' country.

znpy• 11 years ago

That is a very interesting observation.

Edit: In the land I come from (south Italy) it was fairly common up to 50s and 60s for a couple to raise many children, as many as 7 or eight.

The reason is dead simple: being the economy largely based on agriculture and being schools not very common, more children meant more helping hands.

That need has basically disappeared.

mikeash• 11 years ago

If your goal is to live in comfort after you're too old to work, then having lots of children is often the best way to accomplish that in a crappy country. Odds are good at least one of them will survive and do well enough to support you when you're old.

In a nicer place with better finance and social security systems, you can pull it off without having a lot of children.

Xixi3• 11 years ago

A little known facet of German society is that it is (or rather was) extremely hostile to mothers working. Even if a German couple wanted to have children (desirability), the sacrifices were sometimes too great. Especially as raising a family on one salary is becoming harder and harder, if not outright impossible.

Japan had -and still have- a very similar issue.

crdoconnor• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure that it's determined by optimism about the future. Germans think that the next generation will have it about the same or even slightly worse than them.

The Greatest Generation were absolutely positive that the future was going to be very bright once they returned home from the war, hence the baby boom and baby boomers.

Once you account for access to contraceptives, etc. (i.e. once childbearing becomes a choice), I think this is largely what determines the birthrate, which is why most efforts to 'engineer' a higher birthrate have been so futile.

legulere• 11 years ago

Actually Germany still has rising population through (mostly inner-EU) migration.

lern_too_spel• 11 years ago

Birth rate is rarely the correct metric because it is affected by longevity. The metric most people are interested in is fertility rate, where Germany still has a long way to go to pass Singapore. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

alkonaut5• 11 years ago

This. Birth rate has a lot of uncontrollable factors like demographics. A slump in people in ages 20-40 will inevitably leas to falling birth rate at the same fertility. And that will repeat in 20-40 years.

The factor to focus on is the fertility and the fraction of working adults. Germany has a very traditional view of the labour market and women often have to stop working for years when having children. This means that a large group of women don't work, or (equally bad for the economy), a large group of women chose not to have kids.

The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation.

tokenadult• 11 years ago

The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation.

This is an interesting comment to me, because I'm trying to think of example country pairs in which a country with subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, and individual taxation has a higher fertility rate than an otherwise similar country that lacks those things. The United States continues to have a higher fertility rate than many countries in Europe that have more subsidized childcare and longer mandated parental leave than the United States, for example, so I'm not sure that these public policy factors outdo the effect of other cultural and economic factors in either raising or lowering the country-wide fertility rate.

dheera2• 11 years ago

Not to mention that in these highly-developed countries with solid education systems and modern career opportunities, the value-creating power of an individual is several times higher than that of an average individual in a developing country.

The fertility rate among founders in Silicon Valley is probably even lower, but that group of people is creating an immense amount of value for society in return for not creating as many kids.

sanoli• 11 years ago

They're creating stuff that's valuable to society. I don't see though how they're so much greater than other people who create value, like medical researchers, biotech researchers, engineers, artists, etc.

bluedevil2k• 11 years ago

I'm not sure creating yet another social media photo sharing disappearing anonymous comment app is more valuable, to society or the individual, than children.

junto• 11 years ago

Bingo. Came here to say this too. Germany has a very large aging population. In 15 years time a large percentage of these will have died (baby boomers). Germany has some interested ng regional issues too. Many old DDR states have lost much of their younger generation. These states are filled with people in their late 50's and older.

pvaldes3• 11 years ago

Is a normal consequence on the poverty fuelled by the policies of those last years, probably. You can not expect that people think too much about having babies whereas struggling to live on microjobs. No real jobs, lots of cats and dogs. No real new babies.

k__2• 11 years ago

But aren't the poorest those who get most of the children?

ajmurmann2• 11 years ago

Yes, typically they are, even in Germany. That being said, very rich people who don't have to compromise and have others raise their children also tend to have more than average children I believe.

jarek-foksa2• 11 years ago

Are they worried about being killed by famine (after having eaten their own cats and dogs), war or pandemic soon? If not, then they are not "struggling to live", which in turn means there is no need to reproduce that much.

From the biological perspective, excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

pvaldes3• 11 years ago

Probably not but I can't see why "to be killed by famine" is a relevant point here (A lot of alive germans had experienced the fear to be killed by famine in their past, that's for sure, as many other people that was children in the wars and postwars).

Today 7 millions of germans live with minijobs and for most of them is its only source of income. I don't really see those people reproducting like bunnies, but well... I can be wrong. Is a different kind of poverty, not the classic one.

Excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species

I guess that you don't encourage the reproduction of this people?. Again, this is not the point here. We are trying to understant why germans have a low natality, not if this is convenient or not for the rest of the planet.

mg1982• 11 years ago

It's difficult not to see to the word 'slumped' as an editorial judgement, and I find it quite strange. The world is grotesquely overpopulated and at some point it needs to stop.

pekk• 11 years ago

There are, for example, economic ramifications of an unusually aged populace which cause modern societies like Japan's to see it as a problem.

joshuapants4• 11 years ago

The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.

arjn2• 11 years ago

You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number.

If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in.

bitwize2• 11 years ago

Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support the earth's population, which means the earth cannot support all of us without starting to deplete resources. So yes, the planet IS overpopulated.

makeitsuckless• 11 years ago

The world is overpopulated unless you consider humans the only relevant lifeforms on earth.

Rondom• 11 years ago

There are people who argue that this is not the case. https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

https://youtu.be/eA5BM7CE5-8

Xixi3• 11 years ago

Note that Japan fertility rate is not the worst out there: for instance Hong Kong (1.1), Singapore (1.2) and South Korea (1.2) are all bellow Japan (1.4).

resonation4• 11 years ago

So you're drawing distinguishment between birth rate and fertility rate?

Xixi3• 11 years ago

Birth rate and fertility rate are not the same, so of course I distinguish. Though to be fair I think the correct term is total fertility rate, as sometimes fertility rate is defined as birth rate.

Birth rate (technically, births/population rate) is the total number of live births per 1,000 of a population in a year. It is abysmal in Japan because the population is very old, so not many people are in age of making children.

Total fertility rate represents the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates. This rate is going up as Japan is slowly making it easier for couples to have children: more day-care facilities, and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work.

mafribe5• 11 years ago

Taiwan is estimated to have had a fertility rate of 1.1 in 2014, and that's up from 0.89 in 2010.

ajmurmann2• 11 years ago

As a German who lives in the US since 8 years I am not surprised by this at all. By the time you finish university in Germany you are about 25 years old. They introduced the Bachelor/Master system, but at least when I studied, getting a Bachelor was more of a way to drop out gracefully. In addition there was a culture that expected you to stay at home until your child is at least 1 year old. Therefore there was very little support to take care of very young children. For well educated couples this leaves an extremely small window in which you can have children. That doesn't even account yet for people with other goals. Having a child means having time to try to bootstrap a startup parallel to your day job or doing extensive travel becomes extremely hard if not downright impossible. An additional factor is that most Germans aren't religious and even the ones who are are only on paper, but don't actually care very much. Religion often times plays a large role in people's desire to have children. That rarely happens in Germany.

josteink2• 11 years ago

For the female part of a couple stability is important, and owning your own house/apartment plays a big role there.

I've heard that getting into the house ownership market in Germany is extremely hard, with high requirements set on your own savings to be granted a loan, meaning most people don't until they are well into their 30s and maybe even their 40s.

To me that certainly also sound like a contributing factor. Any comments or perspective on that?

justincormack3• 11 years ago

Most people rent, home ownership is 43%, so no I dont think people consider they need to own a home before having children. There is a stable long term rental market.

thoa• 11 years ago

I don't think owning a house/apartment in Germany is important for most couple (to decide to have a baby).

It is normal here (for my parents/grandparents/friends) to live in a rented flat and perhaps move sometime on to a own house/apartment.

mafribe5• 11 years ago

I don't think home ownership is an issue. Lifelong renting is the norm, costs of renting homes are low, quality of rental property is high and relevant legislation is tenant-friendly.

rbehrends• 11 years ago

It's unlikely that this is a major contributing factor. German laws are extremely tenant-friendly, there is no social stigma associated with renting, and renting vs. owning is often a lifestyle choice rather than one explained by income (according to a recent study, a great many Germans could afford a home of their own, but choose to rent, anyway). Keep in mind that even Angela Merkel is among those who rent, even though between her income and that of her husband (who is a tenured professor), they could easily afford a pretty nice home.

The low birthrate is primarily driven by college-educated women having few or no children (over 30% of all German women who were born between 1964 and 1968 and had a college degree did not have any children). It has historically been difficult to be a working mother in Germany; it was both more challenging (school being out at lunchtime) and society frowned upon you being a working mother.

This has slowly been changing; reunification happened and East German women weren't having any of this nonsense; politicians realized that the net effect was that the fertility rate dropped; and the abortion debate and a subsequent judgement by the Constitutional Court forced legislation that made having children easier. As a result, it is now a whole lot easier to be a parent (single or married, male or female) than it used to be.

This did at least stabilize the fertility rate, which had been dropping before. While nominally, Germany's fertility rate is 1.4, this does not account for the fact that the great majority of German children are being born after their mothers reach the age of thirty; current estimates set the actual fertility rate -- i.e. the average number of children a woman has over her lifetime -- at 1.6. More importantly, this number did stabilize in the aughts and has actually been increasing since then for college-educated women.

microtonal2• 11 years ago

Therefore there was very little support to take care of very young children. For well educated couples this leaves an extremely small window in which you can have children.

Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months (which is pretty normal in The Netherlands and probably most other Western countries). This creates the perception of having to choose between a career and children (in some fields, leaving for a few years is a high-impact career choice). Luckily, things seem to be changing slowly:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/law-goes-into-ef...

There are tax incentives to have children (e.g. we wouldn't lose much income if my wife decided to stop working), unfortunately it seems that the conservative government (CDU/CSU) does not seem to be realize that most modern people don't want to live the 'man works, wife stays home with the children until they are 18'-lifestyle.

Another problem is that employers are not very flexible towards reducing the work week. Fortunately, our employer was flexible, allowing my wife to work four days. But I hear that it's hard in general for e.g. husband & wife to both work four days.

tormeh• 11 years ago

Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months

Doesn't the baby need milk in that period? Sounds like opposite of how it should be.

lorenzhs• 11 years ago

On the aspect of religion, this varies strongly by region. In the "neue Bundesländer" (former GDR), people are generally a lot less religious due to the GDR actively discouraging religion. Meanwhile, Bavaria is very catholic (and quite conservative). It would be interesting to see if/how religion and birth rate correlate in Germany.

anouk_anca• 11 years ago

There is also a big economic disparity between the former GDR and Bavaria, so I'm not sure how valid a comparison just based on religion could be.

arjn2• 11 years ago

I'm skeptical of the Hans Rosling talk that many people will bring up. For one, there is no indication that the poorer countries with higher birthrates will be educated in time. Secondly, just because we can calculate the world can support more people doesn't mean that's a good thing to have. We're already losing our flora and fauna at an alarming rate. This is going to get worse with a higher population.

I think sometimes people are blinded by TED talks and fail to question them.

adevine2• 11 years ago

I'm not so sure I understand the point of view that labor shortages will be such a bad thing for the economy. If you are a worker, "high labor costs" is a very GOOD thing. For decades we've seen the value of labor fall behind the value of capital, and a more constrained labor supply might help change this.

tiatia4• 11 years ago

Labor costs and salaries are declining at a staggering pace. Workers get squeezed between declining wages, asset price inflation (Germany has one of the lowest house ownership rates) and taxation. The the same time, hordes of young, male, aggressive and uneducated immigrants who believe that they have a superior religion, flood Germany. Run as long as you can.

lizarazucharlie2• 11 years ago

Uneducated you say, strange, I live and work in Germany as a software engineer in an IT company with 25 others immigrants, there isn't a SINGLE german there...

alkonaut5• 11 years ago

As long as it isn't global it will just mean that German industry will have to move production elsewhere and/or it will be cost effective to employ ever more expensive robots to do the work.

minot• 11 years ago

it will be cost effective to employ ever more expensive robots to do the work

That sounds like a wonderful thing. It means that the work gets done and we free up the workforce for other things. :3

adevine2• 11 years ago

But it's already true that German workers are much more expensive than most other countries, yet Germany still has very low unemployment.

Yes, a constrained labor supply will be problematic for everyone who is NOT a worker (most importantly, a large elderly population), but if you are a worker, it's almost always a good thing.

sudeepj2• 11 years ago

I am from India, which is second most populated country in the world. A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid. The sheer pace with which life moves has increased compared to one generation back. Couples (especially when both are working) simply do not have money, energy & time.

India is not a developed country and still in last decade or so the birth rate is stabilising, but not decreasing.

thanksgiving4• 11 years ago

According to Google, total fertility rate is at 2.50 as of 2012. This is good news.

Apparently,according to The Hindu at least two populous states - UP and Bihar - have tfr above 3. Is this a matter of concern in terms of politics and public policy?

sudeepj2• 11 years ago

It is definitely a concern. Based on my experiences of meeting people from those states, things have start to change. But its slow.

theandrewbailey• 11 years ago

A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid.

So the birth rate is decreasing.

sitkack• 11 years ago

We all need birth rate below the replacement rate as well as an increase in the quality of the citizen (good education, safe environment, stimulating activities).

blux• 11 years ago

A diminishing population only has negative consequences for an economy in the short term, right? In the end, less people means less money needs to be made to sustain a certain standard of living.

jacquesm• 11 years ago

It has a huge impact on long term quality of infrastructure and an immediate impact on social security (pensions especially).

Infrastructure needs a certain population density in order to be maintained and since countries usually do not give up territory when their population drops the number of people available as a tax bas dictates that if the quantities of infrastructure remain the same that the quality should decrease.

Canada would be lot more efficient for instance if it moved all of its population to the west coast but of course that's not an option for many practical reasons.

jotm2• 11 years ago

It's not diminishing for Germany thanks to immigration...

philippnagel• 11 years ago

Well, time to automate everything then.

ExpiredLink• 11 years ago

That's the price of Germany's success. Force women into wage-slavery, increase immigration from all over the world. Brave new economic world.

jotm2• 11 years ago

Can I just say that it is not a problem for Germany because they figured out they need to let immigrants in, unlike Japan. Germany has a very high number of immigrants, including (actually, mostly!) young adults who are eager to work.

By all means, the country is more than safe in this regard, in stark contrast to Japan, which is trying to turn to robots for future workers (which is fine for the rest of the world, imo).

alkonaut5• 11 years ago

Yes, Japan has managed to brew the deadly mix of aging population, extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility, and an extremely low acceptance of immigration. it feels almost dystopian to think about the demographics in a few decades: elderly and robots will far outnumber the rest.

mikekchar2• 11 years ago

I read posts like yours and it really saddens me. It's hard for me to respond without sounding insulting or condescending, but you are wrong on pretty much every word you write. Unfortunately, you are probably the victim of biased writing about Japan.

For just one example, go here: http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/travel_and_visa/t...

Scroll down to the section about getting a working visa. Have a look at what is required to get such a visa and compare it to your own country. (Hint: you need a university degree and a job offer -- after that you're pretty much golden). In contrast I can't even take my Japanese wife home to Canada without paying $1500 and waiting 12-18 months to get health insurance and working privileges. I've lived in Canada, the US, the UK and Japan and Japan is by far the country with the laxest immigration policy.

If you were to research the topic, you would discover that the low fertility rate is mostly due to the fact that the average age of marriage is 29.7. The average age of a first child is 30.3. Women in Japan live with their parents until they get married for the most part. Usually they work so they are both rich and free and not particularly interested in getting married (or having children).

Have a look at this graph of the average age of women having their first child in the UK: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/20/article-2051374-0E... (source is the Daily Mail... sorry, but I'm sure you can find a similar graph from a reputable source if your are bothered to look harder than me).

The west is catching on to a good thing and following Japan's lead. Just like Japan, as women take less traditional roles in society the fertility rates drop. It is practically the opposite of "extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility".

I'm sure you've read plenty of pieces in the BBC or the Japan Times talking about how backward it is here. I'm sure you've heard many people talk about xenophobia in Japan because the immigrant population is very small. But in reality, like all stereotypes it is a small seed of truth covered up by a mountain of BS.

It is true that the population is aging here. What young people there are seem to be flooding to big cities too, leaving a pretty big gap in the agricultural industry. There are definitely going to be problems. I often wonder if Japan will keep its position in the G8 (currently 3rd largest economy by GDP). I'm not sure that it matters all that much, though.

Japan will be fine even if it is not a world economic super power. Life here is extremely good -- even for an immigrant like me. I don't think it will change that much.

neokya• 11 years ago

This. Almost half a million people immigrated to Germany in 2013 (net immigration) https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Populat...

xaver• 11 years ago

How does that make it not a problem for Germany? Are you talking about Germany the landmass? Germany the state? Germany the nation or the ethnicity?

Cause, I mean, sure its no problem for the landmass or the state. For the nation/ethnicity though, it means extinction.

thanksgiving4• 11 years ago

Nations are not ethnicity. Did you mean culture?

jokoon• 11 years ago

isn't this why germany allows more immigration ?

gahahaha• 11 years ago

No - that has probably more to do with guilt after WWII than the low birth rate. A low birth rate (within limits) is obviously a good thing - the world is over populated as it is.

Zigurd2• 11 years ago

Germany and Japan are densely populated. Except for the economic dislocations of population decline, nothing bad will happen to German or Japanese culture or society if their populations have peaked and are declining.

China is also nearing zero population growth. That's when things will really start to change.

On top of that, the consequences of missing population stability projections on the high side are much worse than missing them on the low side.

gizi• 11 years ago

And more women were needed in the workforce to avoid economic problems. Maybe there is a link between lots of women in the workforce and the low birth rate? Maybe if they stopped micromanaging these problems, they would spontaneously solve themselves? They always did.

known• 11 years ago

RACIALLY THE MOST TOLERANT COUNTRIES have the least birth rate;

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth...

Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

Related Stories