The Instigator
Milukas
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
JoeBob
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The eastern European demographic problem . The government should give more aid to big families .

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 4646
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

Milukas

Pro

Most of eastern European countries have a decreasing population and aging population .I think that countries which have a decreasing population should give demographics as high priority as economic growth .

If their are less births today that means that in 25 years their will be a decline in working age population . It will hurt the economy and led to political problems .First their will be less workers and then less tax money to give to elderly people .

Statistics :

Lithuania birth rate 9.1 per 1000 people

Poland birth rate 9.5 per 1000 people

And both have a birth rate lower 2.0 births per women and a declining population . ( wikipedia )

So the government should give bigger tax breaks or more money to parents which have children .
JoeBob

Con

I will argue that tax breaks or financial incentives will fail to encourage families to have more children.

This sort of scheme is already being tried in Italy, but it has not succeeded in motivating couples to have more children than they previously wanted. It has only spurred couples who already wanted children to have them sooner so as to get the money.

The real demographic problem is much broader than finances, although money is a factor. As long as it is expensive to (1) have a child, (2) own a home, (3) provide child care, and (4) provide health care for a family, then families will have fewer children. However, a much more powerful factor is one of personal choice. Many individuals delay living on their own, or getting married, or having children because they want to indulge in a youthful lifestyle for as long as possible. They live at home for convenience, invest in cars and video games instead of homes and retirement, and view institutions such as marriage as "old fashioned" or "religious."

Thus, they do not see marriage as desirable or necessary, or a prerequisite to having children. In America, there is a growing divide between traditional, religious people who marry earlier and have more children and modern, secular people who marry later and have fewer children. Europe is far more secular than America, and suffering far greater childlessness. It is reasonable to think the same causes apply to Eastern Europe as America.

This indicates that if you wish to motivate citizens to reproduce more, you need to somehow promote more traditional family values to make marriage and children more attractive than a swinging single lifestyle. Money is an insufficient motivator.
Debate Round No. 1
Milukas

Pro

Money is an important factor .

Let's look at France in the year 1994 it's fertility rate was 1.66 , but in 2007 it's fertility rate increased to 1.95 for metropolitan France .Because it increased it's aid to big families ( kindergarten , free public transport) and more flexible labour market.

And now let's see Germany it's fertility rate didn't really change from 1.3
Even if it had the same number of immigrants .

We can not say that Germans have usually more small families , because before in 19 century their population nearly tripled from 21 millions to 56 millions when French population only increased by a third 30 millions to 40 millions.

But the difference is that France gave aid and Germany didn't give aid to big families ,also if you look who is more religious you will see that France has 44% of non believers and Germany had only 25% of non believers .
( wikipedia )
So if you give aid you can increase the fertility by even 0.6 which can mean an increasing or decreasing population .

Yes religion plays a major role , but still government can play a big role in
fertility rate as we have seen the German - French model .(Both don't have a lot of traditional families and still France has a bigger fertility rate )
JoeBob

Con

Again, I stated that financial considerations are relevant. However, your initial statement was that government should provide tax breaks and money for families with children. I have already shown from the recent example in Italy that simply throwing money at people does not change their decisions about having children. There are other things government must do.

In France, the government's programs to help families are brilliantly complex. They include day care centers, maternity leave, transportation discounts, job protection, free preschool, more vacation leave, summer camps, educational opportunities, and other social services. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

This proves that the only way to encourage family growth is by re-orienting society to value families by offering a full spectrum of aid that supports parents and children.

Simple tax schemes or financial payouts are not sufficient.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JoeBob 8 years ago
JoeBob
Millions?? Then I hope you enjoy farming and carpentry, because with so few people around everyone is going to have to spend a lot more time working at the survival/agricultural level than at the industrial/information level. No thanks!
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I remember Japan offered Japanese women $5K USD per year for each additional child.
The women in the article said "Not nearly enough"!

Personally, I think we should be pleased to have decreasing populations.
It's better for the World's ecosystems, and sustainability in general.
I"d be much happier with a world population in millions rather than billions.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I have to go with con. I think he made a good point that changing social values to include a committed, family oriented, value system would do more to encourage growth rates to increase than economic incentives. Further, TRUST ME, child care is a HUGE factor in determining to have larger families. I just had to stop a job once I found out that the cost of child care would be greater than the pay I received. I'll just sit tight like every other teacher does and wait for school to start up again :D
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by stephylewis 8 years ago
stephylewis
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lhs0921 8 years ago
lhs0921
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Milukas 8 years ago
Milukas
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JoeBob 8 years ago
JoeBob
MilukasJoeBobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03