Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s population growth

[FaujHistorian]

Finland should be alarmed that 70% of its population growth came from immigrants. They need to take whatever means are necessary to reverse this trend & meet their population requirements indigenously. From a general perspective there are a number of causes that could lead to a reduction in fertility rates. Traditionally, men worked & women were responsible for raising children, but with a greater number of women entering the workforce, having children could be detrimental to their careers in spite of the incentives many companies offer today. Let's not forget about the high divorce rates in some countries that are again disadvantageous to the raising of kids. Children require a stable home & family life for healthy development, which implies the presence & good influence of both the mother & the father. The lack of either could hamper their development, & nannies or other child care services are by no means a good replacement for the biological parents. Economic factors undoubtedly play a role too, but government incentives such as housing loans, affordable education, health care, et cetera could counter some of them provided governments are able to afford these incentives. The age at which people settle down to raise a family is important as well.

Historically, women were married off at a young age increasing the duration of time available to them for having kids. Female fertility from what I know is generally at its peak during the 20s after which it begins to decline. Besides, it becomes difficult to raise kids at an advanced age seeing as they require far more than simply feeding & bathing. Physical activities such as sports for instance improves the bond between a child & his father, but an older age or leading an unhealthy lifestyle could prevent fathers from socializing with their offspring in this manner. These aren't the only factors influencing fertility rates of course, but they are important & as always every society is going to have to study their own problems for themselves. Societies that give importance to traditional gender roles will avoid many if not all of these issues as do most patriarchal societies where fathers are responsible for guarding & providing for their families. That's not to say that women shouldn't work & only focus on raising kids, but it's important to realize that in the case of women, sacrificing career for a couple of years to raise a family should by no means be viewed as a setback or failure. All in all, both men & women have a role to play in the development of their nations & of course its survival.

interesting comments.

Pl note that population increase is much more complex than what the governments can or cannot do.

Making babies is a thing between A man and A woman who do "things" on a lot of written but mostly unwritten rules.


The unwritten rules are the beaach as they are hardly understood.
But the "things" the man and woman do results in making a baby.


Any time government tries to play get into the bedroom and specially in the bed, it messes up. (See what happens in China's one child policy that now they have to reverse it). Same thing happens when governments want to increase the birth rate.

So please no suggestions regarding governments role in making babies.


Thank you

Thus governments

It isn't about Muslims , try to get out of that thing , it isn't preferable or relevant everywhere .

Secur bhai

There was ONE sentence in my post about religion

and it was referring to posts #3,4,7,9.

hope it clarifies things.

peace


p.s. I have not been to Finland, but other Europeand countries like France do show ghetto mentality among immigrants who are mostly from African Maghrib region.

 

[Dubious]

How Fertility Rates Can Bounce Back (STUDY)

By: By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer
Published: 01/28/2014 07:02 PM EST on LiveScience

Almost the world over, women are having fewer children than ever before. But new research suggests fertility rates can — and perhaps will — bounce back.

The reason is an oft-overlooked correlation in fertility research that suggests people who come from large families tend to have large families of their own. Over time, these people may come to dominate the population, reversing the trend of having only one or two children, researchers report today (Jan. 28) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Predicting the future of fertility is tough, said lead researcher Martin Kolk, a doctoral student in demography at Stockholm University.

"What we do know," Kolk told LiveScience, "is that ignoring this role of fertility correlations across the generations, that is probably wrong." [Crowded Planet: 7 (Billion) Population Milestones]

Fewer babies

Approximately 11 billion people will walk the planet by 2100, a population likely to tax Earth's water supply, waste-management and food resources. Nevertheless, the trend of declining fertility has its own set of problems: With more older people needing medical care and fewer younger people working to support the aging population, governments struggle to pay for their citizens' needs.

This population contraction has led to baby boosterism in some countries. In Japan, women have a fertility rate of 1.39 — the number of children expected per woman in childbearing years, according to 2010 data from the World Bank. There, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has promised reforms to make child care cheaper and to promote flexible work hours for women. France, the country with the second-highest fertility rate (2.03 in 2011) in Europe behind Ireland, has fought to keep birthrates high with government grants to mothers and paid maternity leave, among other policies.

The United States had a fertility rate of 1.88 in 2012, below the replacement rate of 2.1, meaning more people are dying than are being born, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Immigration keeps the population growing slightly.) Fertility is dropping even in less-developed countries. The only exception to the global trend is in sub-Saharan Africa, where birthrates are still high.

Another baby boom?
Before the advent of reliable contraception and relaxed social roles for women, pretty much everyone had lots of children. For the last two generations or so, children have been a choice, and families can grow according to their preferences. (Economics explain some, but not all, of people's family size choices, research finds.) [The History and Future of Birth Control: 12 Tales]

As a result, a new correlation has emerged: People from small families tend to have only a few kids, and people from large families tend have large broods. Kolk and his colleagues wanted to know what effect this correlation would have on the fertility rate in the long term.

The researchers built a mathematical model much like the ones used by biologists to study evolution over time. First, they set up the model so that children inherited either high or low fertility preferences from their parents. The environment was set up so that people could generally achieve their choices.

The result of this model showed, within three generations, a group of people who preferred to have lots of children and did so and a group of people who preferred to have few children and did so. Because those who preferred to have lots of kids passed on their preferences to more people than those who preferred to have a few, big families dominated and the population began to grow.

This model could be accurate if the cultural change that produced small families is a one-time thing, Kolk said. But it's also possible that cultural change is continuous. New leisure activities, new career opportunities and increasing diversity of choice could lead to more and more people choosing fewer children, even if their parents had many kids.

Predicting fertility's future
To model that possibility, the researchers altered their first model to include random "mutations" — the possibility that some kids would buck their parents' preferences. They found that in this model, there was a similar initial drop in fertility, but with only a small rebound compared with the first scenario.

It's impossible to say which of the two scenarios will occur, Kolk said. And the model doesn't take into account factors like the planet reaching its carrying capacity, after which populations have to stop growing. Still, he said, the idea that fertility will stay low forever is not a given. The process of recovery is slow in the models, taking five to six generations, but it could occur.

"Maybe in some ways, it's good to reassure people that think that childbearing would become very, very low," Kolk said. "If childbearing would became very low, like in Germany or Japan, maybe something like we described could increase fertility, even though it could take a long time."


How Fertility Rates Can Bounce Back (STUDY)

Secur bhai

There was ONE sentence in my post about religion

and it was referring to posts #3,4,7,9.

hope it clarifies things.

peace


p.s. I have not been to Finland, but other Europe and countries like France do show ghetto mentality among immigrants who are mostly from African Maghrib region.

hahahaha


I just noticed this thread.

Wow. At first just saw the sidebar snippet that

--- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s.................


So I was thinking

What could it be

what could it be

Oh God please make it industrial strength, economic improvement, education, enlightenment, art, literature, philosophy


like

----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s industrial strength,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s economic improvement,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s education,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s enlightenment,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s art,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s literature,
----- Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s philosophy

but sadly sadly sadly sadly sadly I was in for a surprise.

None of that

It was just the good ole forking, yeah live in ghetto, make babies. more babies babies babies babies

That's it, nothing else, nada, zilch, shunni

Immigrants bring 70% of Finland’s population growth

Then I read the rest of the thread is focused on Muslims

Oh Khuda-aya, could we ever get away from reinforcing stereotypes?

Must we post such sad and idiotic articles

must we?

 

[Dubious]

A recent United Nations fertility report collates some interesting statistics about the fertility of the world as a whole. Put simply, – and no surprises here – it finds that the developed world is not reproducing at the rate necessary to ensure the replacement of generations.

Further compounding this problem, a mentality of low fertility may well be passed onto our fewer and fewer children as has happened in China as a result of the one child policy. No wonder another key finding of the UN report is that there are an ever increasing number of governments who are worried about fertility rates. The report states that:

Fertility has declined worldwide to unprecedented levels since the 1970s. Total fertility fell in all but six of the 186 countries or areas for which data are available for all three periods considered in the analysis. In the most recent period covered, 80 countries or areas had a total fertility below 2.1 children per woman, the level required to ensure the replacement of generations in low mortality populations.

As would be expected, fertility is particularly and quite shockingly low in the developed world:

By 2000-2011, no European or North American countries had total fertility above 2.2 children per woman and only four (France, Iceland, Ireland and the United States of America) had levels above 2.0 children per woman. Total fertility was below 1.4 children per woman in about half of the developed countries.

Levels of childlessness (i.e. women who choose, or are unable, to have children at all) are highest in prosperous nations who one would think would be able to afford children. America’s childless rate is among the highest in the world (19%), despite the average age of first birth being 25 (fairly average). It seems that childlessness is becoming a common life choice. Singapore tops the list, with a childless rate of 23%, followed by Austria, the U.K., Finland, Bahrain, and Canada.

Among other cultural factors, studies have shown that as more women enter the workforce at high levels childless rates go up because some women feel that they will gain more emotional satisfaction from maintaining their careers. The cost of raising a family also has an effect, as does the social acceptability of not having children. However, this report makes it very clear that motherhood is also a very necessary and highly valued choice, which society must continue to support and value.

- See more at: More governments are worried about fertility rates

 

[Audio]

all that needs to be done is study, get a good job and viola you can support a family!

In this sentence lies the crux of the problem. It is missing one condition present in young people's minds and that is enjoying life or better put it, enjoying the fruits brought about with their labor through school and early work years.
It comes after your "needs to be done is study" or is mostly intertwined with it, but it continues well into "get a good job".
Also, young women, fresh out of college, with that posh new white collar job, are scared to go on maternity leave out of fear of loosing their job, so often social security/stability takes precedence over biological clock.
Though with that said, by the time they are 27+, the clock gets louder.

 

[Dubious]

Stockholm's Singles Syndrome

Why the unmarried and childless are singing the welfare state blues.

• BY ALICIA P.Q. WITTMEYE
  

From afar, the Nordic countries look like the promised land -- except for the long winters, of course. Bestowed with wealth, good schools, universal health care, and long life spans, it's no wonder that Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden regularly top lists of the "world's happiest countries."

But life in the herring collective may not be all that it seems -- not if you're young and single, anyway. New research from sociologists Hiroshi Ono and Kristen Schultz Lee argues that the picture of glowing Scandinavian satisfaction obscures a more nuanced reality: a set of subtle trade-offs in these welfare states that favor families over the single and childless. The Nordic model, the authors argue, not only redistributes wealth -- it also redistributes happiness.

The study's authors looked at 2002 data from 29 countries, collected by the International Social Survey Program, in which respondents reported their demographic characteristics as well as their levels of happiness. Unsurprisingly, the happiness gap between rich and poor is smaller in countries that spend heavily on welfare programs. But Ono and Lee also found that the happiness gap between married and unmarried people is larger in countries with high public-welfare spending. Being single in, say, Sweden is more of a downer; while women with children, in particular, see a significant happiness boost. The authors argue that this is because states spend lavishly on pro-family policies like generous parental leave and subsidized, high-quality day care, while single people (who also pay high taxes) receive the least in return.

It could be that states with pro-family policies might have extra-strong societal attachments to the idea of family. So those people who haven't yet formed families of their own could be unhappy for reasons other than paying taxes through the nose. Yet the research is a reminder that it's worth digging a little deeper into a country's aggregate happiness. With every policy, there are winners and losers -- even in a welfare state nirvana.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

True...But it is also true that the "modern new generation" is not much into expanding their family from more than 1-2 children! I dont get this, esp since schooling is free, your wife gets $$ if she doesnt work and is a stay at home mom, health care is relatively good, all that needs to be done is study, get a good job and viola you can support a family!

I think that the required birth rate for a people to survive is 2.1 children per woman. Last I heard, Greece met this rate in the past, but that changed due to their economic crisis & resulting austerity measures. There are other factors to consider such as those I mentioned in my previous post, this includes the divorce rates, the age at which people settle down, culture, the number of women entering the workforce, etc. That's probably the reason why government incentives aren't bringing about the desired result. It's most likely a combination of various causes proving to be harmful in conjunction.

Another thing for which I am looking for data is the infertility rate! I keep getting something related to reindeer's fertility

Lol! Search for human fertility or infertility rates then.

I am going to put in a few articles on some countries to help understand whats going on...

No problem, but I think we have already covered a number of important points in this thread. At this point, research specific to Finland or individual countries would be more helpful in examining their societal & cultural issues leading to a decline in birth rates.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

interesting comments.

Pl note that population increase is much more complex than what the governments can or cannot do.

Making babies is a thing between A man and A woman who do "things" on a lot of written but mostly unwritten rules.

The unwritten rules are the beaach as they are hardly understood.
But the "things" the man and woman do results in making a baby.

Any time government tries to play get into the bedroom and specially in the bed, it messes up. (See what happens in China's one child policy that now they have to reverse it). Same thing happens when governments want to increase the birth rate.

So please no suggestions regarding governments role in making babies.

Thank you

Thus governments

Ah, countries or governments have one primary objective which often gets overlooked in some nations, & that is to ensure their own nations & people prosper. This includes dealing with societal ills that may have negative repercussions on their people. Examples of those ills could be the crime rate, illiteracy, lack of entrepreneurship, & even the cause of a declining birth rate. Governments have every right to help out their citizens if there is any issue whatsoever barring them from having children & leading rich fulfilling lives. China's one child policy was in my opinion an unnatural attempt at modifying society because children happen to benefit from having brothers & sisters to interact with. Increasing fertility rates isn't unnatural & there shouldn't be any negative repercussions for it as long as policy makers ensure the provision of facilities to meet population growth. It's far better than importing millions of immigrants & destroying your own cultures, values, etc.

 

[Dubious]

In this sentence lies the crux of the problem. It is missing one condition present in young people's minds and that is enjoying life or better put it, enjoying the fruits brought about with their labor through school and early work years.

I agree but how much can one want to "enjoy" that they only think of settling down in their late 30s to late 40s? I mean in early 30s sense of responsibility knocks on your senses...To have a family is just not in the culture or is not in fashion to go chasing kids!

It comes after your "needs to be done is study" or is mostly intertwined with it, but it continues well into "get a good job".
Also, young women, fresh out of college, with that posh new white collar job, are scared to go on maternity leave out of fear of loosing their job, so often social security/stability takes precedence over biological clock.
Though with that said, by the time they are 27+, the clock gets louder.

Well, in these articles they are well talking about the Nordic areas where social security is very secure special packages which allow women to take extended maternity leave! Heck I remember some Post Doc who was supposed to train me took extended paternity leave in UK...no questions asked!

Plus staying at home also you get some incentives as a housewife..I know a number of well educated housewives who prefer family over their job...It is truly a preference and as studies show, many repeat what their background was...people from large families want large families and people from small families prefer small families!

Another issue (the other article that I posted) shows about infertility so what you said about 27+ is also true!

 

[Audio]

To have a family is just not in the culture or is not in fashion to go chasing kids!

It's not so simple. It's a combination of several factors that aren't so easily dismissed as changing a trend/fashion.

Well, in these articles they are well talking about the Nordic areas where social security is very secure special packages which allow women to take extended maternity leave! Heck I remember some Post Doc who was supposed to train me took extended paternity leave in UK...no questions asked!

Depends on who you work for. Small and medium privately owned businesses (the backbone of every healthy economy) tend to not look so caringly at this issue as state owned institutions.

Plus staying at home also you get some incentives as a housewife..I know a number of well educated housewives who prefer family over their job...It is truly a preference and as studies show, many repeat what their background was...people from large families want large families and people from small families prefer small families!

Yes, you do get maternity leave paid. Still this isn't as secure as having a good, well paying job for which you've fought numerous competition and did several trials to win it.

 

[madooxno9]

I beg your pardon...Not everything around the world revolves around Indians! So please come out of your shallowness and keep to the thread which is about Finland and its population, population trends in Europe (as this thread is in the Europe section) incentives given to aid families grow and so on...!

Thank you!

Why don't you keep your tone low and stop telling others what to post and what not . Are you running this forum ?

Now go and call mods and cry again.

Kya hua bhai?? sab khairiyat?? As a Indian i was interested in knowing about Indians is it wrong

Bhai , I have no clue about recent figures but my estimate is 1300 + in total in Finland.

Last i checked was 1200.

 

[Dubious]

Why don't you keep your tone low and stop telling others what to post and what not . Are you running this forum ?

Now go and call mods and cry again.

Did I use caps? Did I tell him what to post? I said stick to the thread which mind you is a rule in the forum...And isnt it the job of the moderators to moderate where someone is derailing?

This was a real low esp since I already answered him when he asked again!

plus, if he was curious, i think a few key strokes on google could have solved it!

 

[madooxno9]

Did I use caps? Did I tell him what to post? I said stick to the thread which mind you is a rule in the forum...And isnt it the job of the moderators to moderate where someone is derailing?

This was a real low esp since I already answered him when he asked again!

plus, if he was curious, i think a few key strokes on google could have solved it!

Oh please cut the Cra* . If everyone will use Google then there would be no need of forum.

He was merely curious and was asking a normal question.

now again stop telling people in every other thread what they should do.

 

[livingdead]

I dont think its a good idea to encourage people to have more children, even 1.5 fertility rate is not that bad.
We have too many people in the world and its going to increase due to unprecedented advancement in healthcare, and the fact that we are not killing each other in large enough number.

The only way is to let the population decline slowly. Countries with aging population should get used to working longer (till 70s may be) as they will live longer. They should also invest more on automation that will increase productivity.

 

[Infoman]

Sounds like Finland is committing national suicide.

 

[vostok]

Sounds like Finland is committing national suicide.

endogenous psychosis