Finland increases birthrates thanks to welfare state policies
In the welfare state, everything that is good is thanks to the welfare state policies - everything that is bad abroad could be fixed with some welfare state policies. Here’s an example…
The number of children that Finnish women have during their fertile years has remained fairly constant for a long time: an average of 1.9 babies per mother by the age of 35.
The situation in Finland is different from that in Italy, Spain, and Greece, where the average number of children per woman is significantly lower. This can be attributed to the difficulties that women in those countries have in dealing with both work and a family.
The birthrate is also low in many former socialist countries.
See… Italy, Spain, Greece, who traditionally have larger families, are having less children because they don’t have the same welfare state policies as Finland. No mention of increased contraceptive usage in traditionally religious countries. No mention of increased women’s rights which empowers women to have more control over their own bodies. No no no, it’s just the lack of welfare state policies which is causing this. And how would that explain the United States’ birthrates which is roughly 50% higher than Finland, the U.S. isn’t exactly a bastion for welfare statism.
Increased contraceptive usage and increased women’s rights may be factors attributing to the decrease of the average number of children per woman in Italy, Spain, and Greece, but it’s hardly a reason for why the number is lower in those countries than it is in Finland. You see, we have quite a bit of contraceptive usage here in Finalnd as well, and I’d say the women have even more rights in Finland than they do in Italy, Spain, and Greece.
Comment by Sigma — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
The birth rates in the four countries mentioned above are nearly identical, ranging between 9.5-10.5 per 1000 as of 2003. The U.S. was 14.x and worldwide it was around 20.
Traditionally religious countries (Finland not being one), especially Catholic ones, weren’t big on the whole contraceptive thing. Daddy comes home drunk and horny = junior pops out in 9 months. That kind of attitude has changed thank God, and I’d reckon the women’s rights movement had a lot to do with that. The politicians in Finland need to stop enjoying the smell of their own farts if they think a few little bullshit changes in daycare policy is going to equate to an increase in child birth. I do however believe the economy and employment levels are a major factor in child birth.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
One thing that the US and Finland have in common is that they both have low population densities and owning single family homes is possible in both.
And both have a surprisingly traditional outlook toward family—even Finland despite its current government’s efforts to change the ‘traditional’ nature of it.
But make no mistake about it; it’s very possible to have children in central Europe, just like here in Finland. Incomes and prices probably make it even more possible.
If anything, young people are taking a more live-for-yourself approach. Those countries are also more urban, so that definitely fits the self-oriented lifestyle better.
All things considered though, I’d say it’s a good thing they aren’t having any more children. Central European countries are bursting at the seams. For example, imagine fitting one-third of the United States into an area smaller than California. That’s Germany.
Finland and the US still have room to expand, and their respective populations seem to react accordingly.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
I hate to do this as an America-bashing, but could the education in child-control be a factor? I believe that in America the current trend is “child-free life thru no-sex before marriage”. I know that in Finland you can get free condoms at most public gatherings as promotional items.. I cant imagine this being so in America.
But this is a difficult topic. You can get to the same end-conclusion by several different ways. Wellfare-state might really be why Finland is where it is, as far as this topic is concerned.
The same solutions might have different end results at different places in the world.
I could not think this being shown in USA, or even in Finland..
Comment by iJusten — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Justen–
I’ve seen similar videos in central European countries—at prime after-school viewing times for kids, in fact. Never in the US though. However, that one was quite… well, nevermind. Words kind of escape me
Anyway, everybody in the western world knows about birth control. I don’t think birth rates are determined by accidental births or lack thereof.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
Birth rates are going down everywhere. Even in Mexico, they are not anymore having 7-9 babies, more like 2-3 per family. The US is going to face the even worse shit with baby boomers than Europe, mainly because of runaway health care and retirement costs. Here is the current US situation.
“How Big is Our Growing Fiscal Burden?”
Per person: $156,000
Per full-time worker: $375,000
Per household: $411,000
Median household income: $44,389
The “Status Quoâ€Âis Not an Option:
We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as:
- Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
- Raising federal taxes to 2 times today’s level
Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the double digit range every year for the next 75 years.
- During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent per year.
- As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough choices will be required.
By:
David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
August 21, 2006
Source:
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061078cg.pdf
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
Anyway, everybody in the western world knows about birth control.
Except American teenagers, and their parents.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
the U.S. isn’t exactly a bastion for welfare statism.
It is, whenever libertarians are discussing its problems.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Here is what the article really says:
“Experts say that it is difficult to give any specific reasons for this miniature baby boom. One basic rule has been that numerically small generations give birth to small generations.”
Only then the article mentions the self-evident fact that economial considerations play a part as well.
Comment by tomia — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
“And how would that explain the United States’ birthrates which is roughly 50% higher than Finland”
And how would you explain birthrates in Africa and some other developing countries, which are conciderably higher than in Finland?
No comparision here between United States and developing countries (I think)
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 28th, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t think it’s anywhere near the full picture, but I do think that the generous parental leave policies do help the birth rate as it makes it more economically viable for parents to have children.
I recently read a report in Dagens Nyheter comparing Norway and Sweden’s birth rates and child paternity leave policies. Although by international standards both countries have very good policies in this matter, Norway’s is more generous. And indeed, Norway does have a higher birth rate, and one that has increased since the introduction of a more generous parental leave and support. Although, of course, the Norwegian economy is also booming (due to their oil), so this must also be taken into consideration.
However, personally, as much as the economical feasibility of having children that a generous paternity leave offers, I aslo think that the knowledge that one’s job is secure if one should have children is also important. More and more today, people are career orientated, women no less than men. So, jobs have become important to people. Therefore, the knowledge one’s job is secure should one have a baby and need to take time off is doubtless aslo of importance.
Comment by JG — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 1:25 am
“I don’t think it’s anywhere near the full picture, but I do think that the generous parental leave policies do help the birth rate as it makes it more economically viable for parents to have children.”
Paternal leave helps the birthrate? What?
I could see maternal leave influencing things, but I don’t see paternal leave influencing anything.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 2:22 am
Birth rates will go down when Iran has its first Nuke and uses it.
But just to help (You can thank me later):
“The king of the DIY nuclear survival books is Cresson Kearny’s Nuclear War Survival Skills. On Amazon, but NOT copyrighted (intentionally) and available for download legally. For obvious reasons, I’d rather have a bound copy around than one on my hard- drive.
The book is full of exact instructions on how to build a fallout shelter, how to store food, how to build your own geiger counter from a coffee can ( really ) and it has all been tested by the Oak Ridge lab. They even had some families test it out. Very readable and very useful.”
But then again, you guys rule the world, so do something so I don’t have to test this book out.
Comment by winter — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 6:59 am
Phil and Winter, please, check your math and facts, otherwise your credibility dwindles to zero. You are talking about births/population that depends on the age distribution.
The US fertility rate is 2.1 births/woman, in Finland the long term average is about 1.8, while the central European rates are around 1.5. So the US rate is 17% and 40% higher than in Finland and Central Europe, respectively.
Comment by Oregon — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 8:23 am
It is, whenever libertarians are discussing its problems.
Comment by Phil — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:43 am
but I do think that the generous parental leave policies do help the birth rate as it makes it more economically viable for parents to have children.
Does it really though? A woman is out of work for 3 years, only part of which does she get most of her salary. And that’s assuming she’s employed, only 2/3rd of Finns of age are employed. The state takes a huge chunk of your salary, then gives you a bit of back when you have a baby, there’s nothing “generous” about that.
Comment by Phil — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:46 am
only 2/3rd of Finns of age are employed
“Only”, hah!
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:49 am
The US fertility rate is 2.1 births/woman, in Finland the long term average is about 1.8, while the central European rates are around 1.5. So the US rate is 17% and 40% higher than in Finland and Central Europe, respectively.
This is from Wikipedia
Birth rates in 2006 -
Spain - 10.06
Greece - 9.68
Italy - 8.72
Finland - 10.45
U.S. - 14.14
Fertility rates in 2006 -
Spain - 1.28
Greece - 1.34
Italy - 1.28
Finland - 1.73
U.S. - 2.09
The TFR [total fertility rate] is therefore a measure of the fertility of an imaginary woman who passes through her reproductive life and is subject to all the age-specific fertility rates for ages 15-49 that were recorded for a given population in a given year.
Would actual birth rates be more accurate?
Comment by Phil — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Your perception of young Spaniards, Italians, Greek, etc. is a bit outdated. Don’t know how they are as second or third-generation US imigrants, but my experience is in Europe they are not stuck in the 50s any more. Instead they don’t care much about religion any more and life very “modern” lives like northern Europeans. One exception is that they like to stay at home longer than northern Europeans how typically move out early if the housing prices allow it. Young women from those countries also want to earn their own money to support their independence. Unfortuntely it is true that families in these countries are not supported well. In the club-med countries the politishens who are old and traditional take it for granted that young couples have familes and that women can manage a job and children. But that is not true. So many decide to not have children at all because it would mean the loss of one income as there are not enough daycare places available. In former soviet countries there is simply not the money available to have daycare places available.
Comment by alexbafana — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 10:00 am
From “THE FERTILITY OF AMERICAN WOMEN IN 2004″:
“Among the racial and ethnic groups studied (non-Hispanic White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic), Hispanic women (any race) were the only ones reaching the end of their childbearing years with more births than the number required for natural replacement  2.3 births by age 40 to 44.3. Black and non-Hispanic White women were below the replacement level, averaging about 1.8 to 1.9 births by that age….
During the year prior to the 2004 survey, 794,000 foreign-born women gave birth, resulting in a fertility rate of 84 births per 1,000
women. The fertility rate for native women was lower, at 57 births per 1,000 women.”
So when comparing white women, there is little difference between US and Finland. As in the US, our immigrants have also higher fertility rates.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 10:25 am
slightly off top
“But hang on a minute, that’s not quite what is being shown. In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It’s not worth quibbling over 1% so let’s take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don’t you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely … nothing.”
from http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082806E
Comment by Alex — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Alex: That income distribution does not tell the whole story. US infant mortality is higher than in Cuba, much higher than here in EU and about 50 million Americans have no health insurance (=meaning no “KELA” type of card like in Finland). They go to hospital only when they cannot handle it anymore and are usually in much worse state. American hospitals do more those very costly last-minute ER operations than anybody else in the world.
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Phil - “The state takes a huge chunk of your salary, then gives you a bit of back when you have a baby, there’s nothing “generous†about that.”
Indeed. The very, very LAST reason I can think of for deciding that, wow, 10 months of ‘roids, bloating, sweating, having to wee every five minutes and being stuck with a screaming baby and insomnia for up to a year, is the thought that you’ll get a whopping 70% of your pay for up to one year, depending on the employer as I’m told, something like 100eur per month per kid and free rides on the bus. Oh, and while they are required to save a spot for you in the company, there’s no guarantee it will be the same job that you left or that you will have any shred of career options once you return. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nicer than the three weeks you might get in the states, but it’s no great answer for pushing out the tots either, as in the end, the career destruction remains about the same for women on either side. Maybe the state put fertility drugs in the water?
And it’s truly amazing how knowledgeable tim73 is about the state of health care in america. He must be reading wikipedia again. The US does have some health care for the poor and it’s about on par with the public system here that it serves a purpose for basic care. It’s convenient, too, to pull out the fertility/birth rate by race when it suits your troll, but then leave the infant mortality as a lump sum when that, too, is much lower for whites. Also, you probably wouldn’t want to mention the recent legislation in MA where the state has ruled that all residents are required to have medical insurance and it will subsidize plans for those who cannot afford it. I suspect that if it succeeds, it will become a model for the rest of the US states to try to implement. I doubt the Finnish health system would scale from 5 million to 300+ million.
When I went in for my 2nd ultrasound, I got some basic tech who wasn’t altogether with it…so we scheduled a private appointment and the difference, aside from the 140eur pricetag, was rather impressive. I got a real doctor, one who knew what he was doing. He identified something the size of a small orange that he gawped at and couldn’t believe the public health care didn’t see it or advise me of the potential problems that it could cause. The ultrasound was also modern and state of the art. I actually had the public doctor tell me that when she had her kids that the docs would stick tubes up to the womans bump to hear the heartbeat instead of using the ‘fancy new’ doppler things they use now. There is a huge difference between the public and private medical services in Finland. Why pay twice? At least in the US, the employer and group plans pay much of the cost where here, you are mostly on your own if you want decent care.
Comment by hfb — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Hmm, now that we are here, what about that maternity box, Phil?? Anyway, Finnish system is simply good, one of the best in the world, if not the best. Far from perfect of course, and steadily getting worse, Americanized, if you will but still excellent. Of course in the US the social mobility is far lower than here and there is a permanent minority living in almost 3rd world conditions - I guess it would be only fair to take them off from all statistics as they don’t count anyway in the US society. What was the voting percentage again? 48%-50%? And how many tens of thousands of lobbyists on the K Street channelling support and the millions needed in election campaigns? (I believe the figure is now 30 000 - doubled during the Bush administration, you get what you pay for.)
Comment by mjr — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
#24
“…minority living in almost 3rd world conditions - I guess it would be only fair to take them off from all statistics as they don’t count anyway in the US society.”
To really be fair though, the US takes-in a huge number of immigrants from 3rd World countries. It’s hard to compare with Finland unless that number is taken into account. And then, there’s the seemingly ever present problem with blacks. There’s long history behind that. Not real easy to solve. To make matters worse, each minority group entering the US seems to trump the blacks right from the start.
Just imagine Finland with such a problem; we can’t even deal with the small amount of non-natives we’ve got, let alone a colossal number of immigrants like in the US. Perhaps we can look best to the Dutch for success in that arena.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Well, I think that at least the more right wing of us know that the problem with blacks, is, hmm, “genetic”. They might be more suitable for slavery actually… I don’t understand why it should only be unfair to compare Finland and the US when the situation is better in Finland (as it is in most cases). It is hard to compare very objectively two very different countries, societies and cultures but that doesn’t seem to stop Phil - or that horrid Finnpundit and his sidekick, the brainless little winter.
Comment by mjr — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
“it’s about on par with the public system here that it serves a purpose for basic care. It’s convenient, too, to pull out the fertility/birth rate by race when it suits your troll, but then leave the infant mortality as a lump sum when that, too, is much lower for whites.”
Whites only society? You seem to be kind of hidden rascist, gated community soccer mom type. Maybe this real world is a little bit too much for you
Drunks and all…unsupervised! 
Fertility rates can vary without racisms but infant mortality differences between races are one sure sign of racist society. First generation immigrants everywhere almost always have more children than natives nowadays. Black and Hispanic babies are not taken care as good as White ones in the America? Why?
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
#2 Phil
“…especially Catholic ones, weren’t big on the whole contraceptive thing. Daddy comes home drunk and horny = junior pops out in 9 months.”
Pushing your stereotypes kind of hard, aren’t you Phil?
Regarding birthrates, I think the US has been 2.1 (gradual, but sustainable growth) for sometime now. Did you catch the article from Brooks about the “fertility gap” liberals face?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
Amuzing, but I wouldn’t take it to heart.
BTW- Spent the weekend visiting friends in Tampere. Couldn’t get over the good weather and really nice people there. Looking forward seeing more of Finland in the future.
Comment by Buckeye Abroad — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
tim73 - you are an unclever troll, but to the very last line….lots of things can cause the death of a child between the ages of 0-4. No, just like in Finland, folks without health coverage get the public health care if they can’t afford private care or don’t have a job with health insurance.
Perhaps I’ll dig up the stats for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in Finland/Nordic area.
Comment by hfb — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Yeah, I kind of wonder about America’s infant mortality statistic. Generally, people in ghettos and perhaps many recent 3rd World immigrants don’t understand modern child care—or otherwise stated, the type of child care that is responsible for good health among European-American whites.
For example, but not related to children specifically, a 3rd World first aid treatment might be to give a motorcycle accident victim a few drinks of hard liquor from a flask. And that’s after you’ve walked him around for a bit, broken bones and all. I saw that happen in eastern Europe a few years ago.
They actually had good doctors in eastern Europe, but obviously general knowledge among the population can vary quite widely. I think varying levels of general knowledge among these–especially recent–underclass groups in the US is a big factor in the infant mortality stats. Much more than availability of medical care.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
Yep, those brown and black people have hard time in understanding modern medicine - probably have some sorts of witchdoctors to attend to their needs. So, it would only be fair to strike them from all the US national statistics, and only measure, well, say the upper and upper middle class WASPs and maybe then you would get some results that would actually be superior to Scandinavia…
Comment by mjr — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
“Black and Hispanic babies are not taken care as good as White ones in the America?’ is like asking:
Why do Asians out perform Blacks in most California schools and are the main reason for discrimination against Asians in higher Education.
Comment by winter — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
winter, I think it must be the RACE thingy again. What else could be the explanation? Should we enforce eugenics to protect the white and Asian population from contamination?
Comment by mjr — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
If anything, aside from lacking knowledge about infant care—like nutrition and when to see a doctor etc.—poor people in States have trouble accessing medical care. That’s because their cars are sitting on concrete blocks because they’re too poor to afford parts—or gas for that matter.
And since urban planning in the States hasn’t evolved much past the orignial buggy tracks that existed 150-years-ago, there’s no easy public transit for getting to the doctor’s office. So, it’s probably easier not to go unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Those things aren’t the medical system’s fault though. And I’m not saying it doesn’t need some improvement—and I’m also not saying it doesn’t skimp on care with non-insured customers (I’ve read many news reports that it does)—but the medical system isn’t the only problem. There are perhaps other things in the States that need fixing just as much as—if not more than—the medical system.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
“”I hate to do this as an America-bashing, but could the education in child-control be a factor? I believe that in America the current trend is “child-free life thru no-sex before marriageâ€Â. I know that in Finland you can get free condoms at most public gatherings as promotional items.. I cant imagine this being so in America.”
Sex education and birth control exist here. Schools hand out condoms. TV tells kids to use birth control etc. The traditional/conservative and sometimes religous leanings tend to mean fewer abortions and more willingness to give up whatever lifestyle or goals to start a family.
I’d be more alarmed that finland has less than 2 children per mother. You need something like 2.2 or so to sustain the current population.
Comment by Sam — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
That’s ok Sam; as far as I’m concerned, we don’t need any more people because we’ve got plenty of reindeer—the kind that ‘winter’ likes so much.
But you’re right about America knowing about birth control. Anyone remember former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders advocating mutual masterbation?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Sam:
I’d be more alarmed that finland has less than 2 children per mother. You need something like 2.2 or so to sustain the current population.
Why sustaining an overpopulation is a necessity escapes me. One could say that Finland at 17 people per sqm is not overpopulated at least when you compare it with, say, the Netherlands at 395 or even the US at 31, but humans are not exactly in danger of extinction. I for one would be quite happy to see Finland’s population being sustained partly by immigration. If anything, the example of countries like Germany is positive in that it proves that controlled, voluntary population reduction is possible.
Kristian:
But you’re right about America knowing about birth control. Anyone remember former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders advocating mutual masterbation?
The most effective methods of birth control: a pea held between the knees and a glass of water - not after, but instead.
I suppose, though, that the inventor of the pea method has never been to a dog park.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
“there’s no easy public transit for getting to the doctor’s office. ”
have you ever been to USA? We have so many free rides to an Medical office, even out here in the sticks of Maryland, getting to an office is not an excuse.
Heck in the last major city I was in, they came to your door for free. They just wanted 24hrs notice to line the cars up.
Comment by winter — Tue, Aug 29th, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
our perception of young Spaniards, Italians, Greek, etc. is a bit outdated. Don’t know how they are as second or third-generation US imigrants, but my experience is in Europe they are not stuck in the 50s any more. Instead they don’t care much about religion any more and life very “modern†lives like northern Europeans.
Exactly, that’s my whole point, they’ve changed, it’s not the 50’s anymore, and I’d think that women’s rights has a lot to do with that - but the article would like you to believe the welfare state has everything to do with it.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 9:02 am
Women’s right to what, Phil? To not only take care of the baby now but also have a job and pay the bills too? The state offers guys the same parental leave as the mother but the few guys who take that option are statitically insignificant.
Babies are the new accessory…seems like quite a few women are having kids all over the world, not just in Finland.
Comment by hfb — Wed, Aug 30th, 2006 @ 9:11 am