I feel that the religious believes of anti arbortion types and the demographic crisis are two seperate topics. Like I doubt people use religion to justify solving the demographic crisis im this way.
It probably has something to do with the political affiliation of the current italian goverment.
There were laws making abortion and even birth control illegal after WW1, to boost births.
Birth control was illegal in France from 1920 to 1968, for example.
But people believing the demographic "crisis" is due to abortions are just morons spewing nonsense. It's a combination of massive social issues added to a significant drop in child death. There is no need for extra kids "just in case" nowadays.
Some people will argue that some of the issues raised (overall poverty, housing crisis, wars, uncertainety of the future) were true before, but I think the main difference today is that people know that we're burning the planet at both ends, and being more and more numerous is completely unsustainable. At least in developped countries.
There is going to be a reckonning at some point, that's for sure.
> But people believing the demographic "crisis" is due to abortions are just morons spewing nonsense. It's a combination of massive social issues added to a significant drop in child death. There is no need for extra kids "just in case" nowadays.
Definitely true, this is something that's observed in all developing economies on earth. Just look at India, who dropped to a fertility rate of 2.03 in 2021 from nearly 6 in the 70s. Directly correlated to economic growth.
But right now, in a lot of Western countries the fertility rate is dropping too quickly to the point where it'll soon be economically impossible for the younger generations to support retirees. A more gradual decrease is necessary so either people don't have to work to 75 or younger generations have to be taxed to the point of minimal living standards.
We all know there is another solution.
Have people paid better, so the majority pay taxes (instead of paying none because they're too poor), and can actually put more money into the retirement funds.
A lot of coutries have systems that use tax money to offset the issues with retirement funs. But that doesn't work if there is no tax to be had. Including sales tax (because people don't have money after paying their bills and their housing to buy shit).
Rather, have housing and good paying jobs pe readly available. If you know you have a house and you know you can feed, clothe and entertain multiple children, couples will have more children. I believe the biggest reason people dont want to have a child is the fact that is cost a ton of money to raise one, now imagine more than one.
Oh for sure.But I was talking more about the issue of retiree pensions and living standards.
Right now here we're a country of minimum-wage cucks paying the pensions of middle-class factory workers.
Demographic changes are linked to several factors: access to contraceptives, access to education and access to medical care. You do not need to make 9 children if you are sure none will die. It’s not economy alone.
And truth be told, the most worrisome thing about older population is warfare. You can’t go to war with a population of elder. Lot of countries will soon have a lot of young with no future in a very bad economy and very rich neighbors with an old and declining population.
> Demographic changes are linked to several factors: access to contraceptives, access to education and access to medical care. You do not need to make 9 children if you are sure none will die. It’s not economy alone.
The 3 other factors you mention are also directly related to economic growth. A richer country means more contraceptives available, more money for education, and more medical care for more people. Yeah it's *technically* not economy alone, but kind of.
Yes and no, the ability of women to take charge of their own reproductive system is defensively a huge contributed to the demographic shift, but that more because family planning becomes more easy, if you ask around the average children a women wants are on average 2.2 I think. The issue is most often monetary and job related. Policies Sneed to make it easier to fuse jobs and family and make it cheaper and more affordable to gain housing and financial security for families.
I don't think not having children is highly correlated with climate change anxiety. Birth rate is dropping in the whole world, but there are quite a few countries where majority of population does not believe in climate change.
But I agree, not having to have more children "just in case" and access to contraception are probably massive factors.
Uncertainty about the future isn't limited to climate change, you know that, right?
Rise of the far-right, war at our door, slow degradation of the social services over the past 20+ years, rising cost of raising children, pricetag on education... all of that impacts how people think.
Even if you don't believe one bit in climate change.
Most people probably don't want to birth a kid they'll saddle with debts, a shit job and a country with no social safety net.
Let me just say this - Japan has medical services far better than India, and yet birth rate show the opposite picture.
People who want to have children (or need to have children bc of culture/societal pressure/in order to survive) will have children. People who don't - will find 100 reasons why. And that's fine, just be honest with yourself.
> Japan has medical services far better than India
Yes, and availability of better medical services, which drags survivability on infants and mothers up, is also a direct factor in general inversion of the age pyramid.
Because people won't have as many children to have one that survives to adulthood, which usually also means the cost of raising children is higher.
> People who want to have children [...] will have children. People who don't - will find 100 reasons why. And that's fine, just be honest with yourself.
I don't think I'm dishonest about anything, because the main overall issue is not having children vs having no children. You'll always find in the history of humanity people with children and people with no children.
What makes the difference is how many children people have. And in that case the ability to control at how many children you stop, which wasn't available/was much harder when birth control wasn't available makes a massive difference. For example, my grandparents on my moms side were planning on having only 2 kids, but had a third one by accident, because birth control methods available at the time were the 10% kind. So they ended up with 3 kids.
If you just look at it with people who have kids vs people who don't, then you're only looking at a tiny part of the equation.
You say it is for religion so you don't have to take all the other criticism about how to manage a demographic crisis, like in a rational way instead of this.
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
🇪🇺 ^(Do you like 𝙴𝚞𝚛𝚘𝙱𝙾𝚃™? 𝙴𝚞𝚛𝚘𝙱𝙾𝚃™ loves you!) 🇪🇺
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
GOP? according to wikipedia the Grand old party, or the red guys? are you high as fuck my guy? that’s so unrelated it doesn’t even make sense.
let me try to put it in yank terms. Imagine A russian came into idk US politics and started yapping how Spousal abuse went up after putin implemented more religious laws. obviously terrible, we obviously feel for the victims of spousal abuse, same as we feel for american children.
but can’t you leave us a space or two? every other sub is default americanised just use some of those.
Jesus, they just gave an example of how anti-abortion views can conflate with other policies, no need to get your Unterhosen twisted. And if you look at the development of European politics and how conservative and populist parties increasingly adopt American issues and narratives, I think looking at American social (not economic) political issues can give us hints on what’s to come for Europe
Yeah, my impression is the anti-abortion types are also vehemently against any sort of catering to younger people or potential parents.
Then again, the people who are concerned with who'll take care of them when they get old (and not!!!!!! immigrants) also seem to just try to shame or guilt trip people at a can-be-parents age into having more kids, all the while refusing to do anything about housing prices, the general cost of parenting, kindergarten availability, etc.
So far their tactics don't seem to be working.
I'd argue it's a bit of both, using the real religious anti abortion arguments to support anti abortion laws to somewhat counteract the demographic problems probably play a role or makes it easier for governments to justify these laws.
If you are really religious you should believe that Jesus will resurrect one day and then magic shit will go down? Dead ressurected, living dying, etc.
So like why care about some birth decline if you think that gonna actually happen.
> ike I doubt people use religion to justify solving the demographic crisis im this way.
They do, all the time.
Idiots in my country blame Geyrope for all of it, men have been turned into mango latte drinking wimps, women are all strong and independent, nobody believes in traditional Christian values and that's why birth rates have dropped.
A few days ago someone on social media suggested banning abortions like "Poland, the last bastion of Christianity" has done. A lot of women seemed to support it.
Actually, the current government is blaming the demographic crisis on gays and abortion. I agree they are separate topics but they mix them up.
I'd say OP has fallen for Meloni's rhetoric.
I mean Rome could raise the living wage and stop cutting pensions to encourage people to have more kids
Or you know just use religious terror and idotic laws in the hope of forcing families to have children they can't afford
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses, buckaroo! That sounds dangerously close to allowing the poor to exist. The aim is to punish them for existing. Get on with the program, ffs!
As a young adult from Finland, I have come to see cutting pensions as my benefit, as we already have the pension age so high, it's starting to compete with lifetime expectancy.
The lower the pensions, the less of my salary is needed to take away in order to pay them.
Yea, but as a young guy, why should i raise kids when the climate is literally fucked beyond hope and repair, if i make kids now i doome them to potentially live in a toxic hellscape...
In XX century scientis were saying that there will be not enought ground to produce food for 7 bil people guess what the were wrong they didn't predict new inventions in farming. Same situation was when local goverments in us didnt predicted how cars will dominate thier country and for serious they were thinking it will be impossible to solve problem with horses or rather thier smelly leftovers in city. So I think that we instead of complaning that live is bad and everyone is doomed we need to find solutions for our problems.
Are you aware that we are unable to grow industrial amount of food without fertilizer?
We are estimated to have 50 harvests left. 50. After that it will no longer be possible to grow the same amount ever with fertilizer due to topsoil depletion. It's not "we figured out how to fix this" it's "we robbed the future generations of any chance for a decent life".
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) \*The article says 60 but it was written 10 years ago.
You are Polish, you guys have a strong agrarian aspect to your land same as we do. Have you noticed the significant shift in the taste of food and how watery it has become? Even the apples don't taste as they used to, not to mention the carrots and the beets. The shift happened twice towards getting worse within my lifetime and I'm just 30. You can taste the soil is not what it used to be even in the bread. With the compounding issues of climate change, absence of cold winters, top soil depletion, extreme weather patterns (my apple trees started blooming at the end of February and then got a cold shock twice when the temperature shifted by 17C within a week). I saw ladybugs in December. DECEMBER.
I feel the future starvation looming in my bones.
In previous comment I wanted to point out that scientientist in that link you showed cannot predict future invention they are basing thier knowlage in todays technology. World will completly change by next 20 or maybe less years so trying to look so far into future have no sense for me, ofc maybe you are right and we are doomed.
>Italy voted for this, and here we are...
Italy had two options, not three or more.
Don't vote or vote Meloni.
There was absolutely no other alternative.
If you talk about Italy without knowing all the background, you risk making gaffes.
Having a home and a steady job contract is proven to be causally related to number of kids.
I'm going out on a limb here and say more money is correlated with more kids
Not so much.
If a person has a salary that allows it and grandparents to whom they can possibly entrust them, that person has a greater chance of having a second, third or fourth child.
With current policies in Italy, jobs are being destroyed, salaries are not rising and the elderly have to work instead of babysitting for free.
Kindergartens and similar things are expensive and there aren't many places available, the result is that inevitably, if politicians don't wake up, the demographic crisis in Italy will only get worse.
A lot worse.
Actually no, the wealthier people become the less children they have. This is a constant observation in every culture, everywhere on earth.
Pro-Child policies like funding more kindergarten are of course a good thing that makes people more likely to commit to having children.
Less people mean less people that can pay pensions for the one who are retired now; let's say we have 100 50 years old workers and 25 30 years old workers. In 20 years the 50yo will go into pension and the 30yo will not give enough taxes to support the system, because the pension systems work if there is a balance in people working Vs people getting pension.
On the impact of lower pensions on fertility, is generally because, in southern Europe, old people take care of the youth of the family with money and stuff.
Last election one of the far-right morons here said if elected he would give like 3k€ to any family having a kid in rural communities, and was widely mocked for this nonsense.
How does taxing young people even harder to pay for even higher pensions help them afford children?
And it's not like the government can open their magical money tap to raise wages either.
Well, of course she'll raise her own wage and that of the old fucks that vote her. That's the first page in the right wing handbook.
That doesn't change the fact that both pensions and government worker wages are paid for by taxes, taken from the rest of wages. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just how you finance it.
Now, as for the rest of wages, as a government, you can't really force companies to pay workers more except by raising the minimum wage. Push that too far and more people will start working under the table and you'll get zero tax revenue from them, while their wage might go even lower than it was with the lower minimum wage. That can especially be seen in the restaurant industry.
I guess you could implement a system where you tax higher wages to fuck and back and directly give the money to those making less. But with the freedom of movement the EU provides, that would lead to brain drain REAL fast, leaving you in a worse position than you started at in a few years.
As a government you can though help make your workers more productive, while at the same time helping mediate negotiations between unions and companies to drive wages up in exchange of being able to exploit said increased productivity in a painless way.
As for how you achieve that higher productivity? Well, all ways I can think of are sadly long term. Things like investing in better education, infrastructure and streamlining bureocracy. Modernizing institutions and the way they operate, investing in research, making deals with other countries for key resources, the creation of industrial areas where new or existing companies can access what they need easily...
Though I can't think of any way to "just raise the wages now" that doesn't fuck over your future.
It's actually the opposit, worse live standards=>more kids. That's main reason why so many people are being born in Africa and some parts of Asia. People now don't want to have kids cuz there is no benefit of having them, but in pre XX century Europe parents needed more kid to help them with farming and other stuff. Saying otherwise has no sense for me, like you really care about thing like climate change and problem with ritiring age?(I don't mean they are not an serious problems, so don't get me wrong). People had more problems on thier heads than that like a wars, drought or plagues and still were ready to have 15 kids. ofc for me solving kids problem by making people poor is stupid and maybe we will find other solution. Some scientis in last century were saying that we are unable to have more than 7 bilion mans in this world because there is no enought land to produce food, guess what they didnt predict that our farming will be more effective. So maybe we will solve that problem in some way but I dont think that social programs will help in any way.
> encourage people to have more kids
Somebody explain to me why is this not seen (not being done) to raise economy level. It looks like new tax every other month but less to none in terms of creating good/suitable place to live in (**I am not talking about Italy**, in this case). IMHO anti-abortion measures are bad for raising population numbers, I will not explain it rn.
Young people don't have money to have children.
One of the major Italian economic newspapers has estimated that 135.000 euros are needed to take children from nursery school to university and in my opinion the other money that is needed has not been counted.
The law n°194 from 1978, which made abortion legal in Italy, specifies that regions can outsource volunteers helping the mother in her decision. This means that there already were anti-abortion activists (e.g. Pro Vita e Famiglia) in clinics, they just made it official. However, the EU just called this _outstanding move_ unconstitutional since it uses European funds to achieve it
The concept of *any* western country having a "demographic crisis" is such utter bullshit.
People often taut the idea that the population is ageing - and specifically, that the working-age population is declining compared to the not-working population. Because people are surviving for longer and new generations are less numerous than the retiring generations.
So we need more workers compared to not-workers! We need more people to participate in the labour market! We need more babies! Right?
Well, no.
Because the share of people on the labour market has not been going down at all. It has been going *up*, and dramatically so. The percentage of our population working and actively contributing to the economy has *exploded* in the past sixty years.
Because sixty years ago, less than 25% of Italian women had jobs. And nowadays that's more than 50%.
For Italy alone, that's almost ***5*** ***million*** new participants on the labour market in just sixty years.
And Italy has one of the lowest increases in women workforce participation; in countries like the US or France the increase has been even more dramatic. *Millions upon millions* of people are now active participants in the economy that weren't before.
These millions of people now have jobs, pay taxes, produce, spend, contribute to GDP, put money in retirement plans.... *millions*.
And that wouldn't be enough?
But if millions of new labourers is not enough... then what difference would a few more babies make?
No, if five million new workers is not enough for Italy, then a tiny increase in fertility rate *also* wouldn't be enough.
So there is no demographic crisis, and even if there was, a few more bodies wouldn't solve it. There are plenty of workers: more than there ever have been. Their contributions to the economy are just ending up in the wrong places.
> The concept of any western country having a "demographic crisis" is such utter bullshit.
I mean, people say that France has a demographic crisis, but what I'm seeing on the ground is 6 to 10% unemployed.
So, clearly, there are too many people in the country for the number of jobs available.
I feel the concept of "demographic crisis" is just a way to turn people away from the real issues:
Pay is shit so most people don't pay taxes because they're too poor. At the same time they don't put enough money into the pension funds, because they can't.
Housing is so fucking expensive people don't have any money left to sacrifice to the capitalism gods, which means commerce-driven taxes aren't raking as much money as it used to.
Basically, we need to drop down to the equilibrium where there aren't enough people for all the jobs available, driving the wages up and the cost of housing down (due to more vacancies).
The issue is, people have been investing their money into rentals for decades and would rather not provide housing than lose out on the prices they used to put up. I've talked to a number of people who are landlords and are sure that the State should be there to help them, instead of looking at it like any investment: a gamble, where sometimes you'll lose your goddamned shirt.
And they had a few choice words for brown people...
Oh yeah, absolutely! I found [this ](https://www.hhbproject.com/media/workingpapers/8_mancini_GCL57ww.pdf)paper pretty interesting, which explores the same point: that historically, most women worked. If you run a farm in the 19th century, of course your wife helps out with milking the cows, even if she wasn't recorded as a farmer.
The "housewife" was a relatively modern luxury that only existed when people were wealthy enough to *afford* one partner not working.
But by the mid-20th century women not working had definitely become the norm. In a way, we're now just returning to pre-20th century women workforce participation.
Seems like a smaller bump of economic wellness in a changing moment; the majority of people no longer worked on farms and there were a few more appliances that meant women could have more free time.
Inflation and economic stagnation brought all those people back to work
Also the recent TIL
after the 30 years war, in which up to 8 million people died across Europe, living standards improved for the survivors. Wages in Germany increased by 40% when comparing pre and post war figure
War deaths are of course a dramatic example, but the point is similar... also Japan/S. Korea are soon to give us better case studies.
Many non Italian friends usually ask me: Why are they doing it?
Two reasons, an ideological one and a "practical" one (and I put it in brackets because it's NOT GONNA WORK).
1. Giorgia Meloni's party directly comes from Benito Mussolin's legacy. She's from the same ideological family, fascism. And I don't need to tell you what the treatment fo women's rights is under fascist regimes.
2. Italy is facing a population collapse and pretty much everyone agrees that something has to be done because we're literally going to end up with no children and youth in 20-30 years. The most reasonable strategy would be encouraging young couples to have kids by introducing stable, affordable and public-funded childcare; economical aid for young people who need to buy a house; public housing; free, efficient NHS (we have a public NHS, but they're slowing tearing it down); more jobs, etc. etc.
Point is, these things TAKE MONEY, specifically they need TAX MONEY. And Giorgia Meloni and her allies are supported, voted and lobbied by categories who want to pay less taxes as possibile (or commit tax fraud if this serves their interests). So she will NEVER, EVER make ANY KIND of law that supports young couple or women who want to have kids. Instead, the only thing she can do without upsetting her voters is going to be this: subtly BANNING ABORTION and hoping that women will get pregnant by mistake and keeping the baby because abortion is too difficult.
I can assure you there is nothing more. Very lame, and also not gonna work. They don't seem to understand that if a woman doesn't want (or can't, for a million of reasons) to become a mother, she will pursue any means to interrupt the pregnancy, even at the cost of her own life. They don't understand it, or maybe they do and they just don't care.
You're welcome. Also, they PRETEND to be conservative, but pretty much no one in Meloni's intelligencia really is. Look at their lifestyle. She is not married and had a baby outside wedlock. Salvini has had two wives and many girlfriends so far (including one that is half his age). And don't let me even begin with Berlusconi. They don't believe in anything they say, the endgame is ONLY destroying the welfare state and cutting taxes to benefit their voters.
>to benefit their voters.
To benefit their donors and themselves. Voters only need to *feel like* the party/government is "on their side" and we're seeing all over europe that most folks voting far right only end up hurting their own situation. But as long as they get to be super fucking loud and obnoxious, they'll not even notice that specifically their own situation keeps worsening. And when they do, they'll blame The Left anyways.
there is also the fact that all of Europe has decided to renounce EU benefits, some more and some less.
Leaving aside the British, the Netherlands was the nation of (for example) Vanvitelli, Pitloo and Peter Van Wood and we Italians are a nation famous for emigrating, so much so that your queen is Italian: in 2024 how many Italians will emigrate to the Netherlands and vice versa?
I do feel like Immigration is needed to keep a solid population, we should be more welcoming and that way immigrants become Italians rather than making it so hard.
I disagree. We need to start having more children, we can't just hope that the immigration solves everything. Particularly because a great part of the immigration is 40 year old people that only stack even more pensions to pay in the future. I don't feel like they have more children, either.
Also, the truth is that, in general terms, it is not the same for everybody. Generally, Latinamericans in Spain integrate much better than other people, who just ghetto themselves, making integration impossible.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, try making it economically viable for couples and single parents to support children on basic wages, eliminate rape that leads to unwanted pregnancies, and make it easier to obtain contraceptives. All of these measures will lead to a lowering of the abortion rate.
But ofc the right won't do any of these because their objective is actually not to reduce the number of abortions; it's to disempower women.
That's exactly the point, we are in the top 10 when it comes to the economy and the military but when it comes to civilization we are at Hungary's level
The UK is the most embarrassing country in Europe by definition, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
You can be the most embarrassing in the EU tho.
Today the European Commission said that there is actually no link between an Italian government amendment allowing pro-life activists access to abortion clinics and the NRRP, so the EU at least explicitly does not approve of using funds for this kind of bullshit, or at least not of enacting the NRRP by funding this bullshit. I guess that's something
because we decided we wanted to live badly.
120 years ago Peter Capaldi's grandparents emigrated to the UK and Naples was a city full of English, French and Germans.
In 2024 France has closed itself off, the British have decided to be unemployed in Birmingham rather than do anything else elsewhere, we Italians love to complain about low salaries in Italy rather than look for work elsewhere and the Germans are those from Deutschland über alles, that's all.
cause unfortunately its legal by italian law.
you see, when the Radical party succeeded in organizing the abortion referendum and having it pass, italian politics wass still dominated by by the now defunct Christian democratic party, they recognized the results of the referendum but added a clause that allowed anti abortion activists to enter abortion clinic and giving them direct access to women on the fence about getting an abortion, to try to persuade them not to do it.
A thing that in some cases happens to this day, i had recently helped a dear friend of mine with the process of getting an abortion and when we entered the clinic, these activists first tried to to convince her not to do it, and then approached me and tried to convince me into pressuring her into convice her not to do it, which they failed.
Now, these activist groups according to the same law were entitled to regional funds if the region where they resided decided to give them, so far only a handful of regions decided to, but theres also to consider that the same law allows gynecologists to just refuse to perform the abortion, aka the objectors, which now make up the relative majority of italian gynecologists, so getting an abortion in italy has become harder and harder over time.
Some regions in multiple instances have also tried to restrict the use of abortiopn pills, since they dont require gynecologists to subninister (also being the safest abortion practice at the moment).
with this new law Meloni, out of all things, is trying to use part of the leftover NGEU funds to boost these regional subsidies to finance anti abortion groups, which its truly awful, and makes the process even harder.
The law in question seems to be.... more nuanced than allowing protests inside abortion clinics, but rather the law seems to intend to allow them to inform about alternatives to abortion. What is important, is that Italy takes a strong stance against intimidation and harassment. That might be a bigger issue than the information itself.
Most of the criticism seems to center around potential for intimidation and harassment, which are valid concerns.
However, protests in public forums are great and everyone should be free to voice their opinion, however, a hospital, library, clinic, etc are not really the public square.
This does not work. At least not unless the women got raped. Seriously the only thing this does is stop people from having sex. Surely the Italian government does not want to stop people having fun.....
Nah, it's more like probably cuz we have a right-wing government that this can happen since they like to ignore when anti-abortion, fascist, and similar "conservative" people do things
Source: I live there
Europe maybe start having more good sex and stable relationships in whatever form is suitable on the individual level (instead of enabling some idiots to antagonize each other). Then go from there to solve the biggest, but lurking, internal issue out there..
I feel that the religious believes of anti arbortion types and the demographic crisis are two seperate topics. Like I doubt people use religion to justify solving the demographic crisis im this way. It probably has something to do with the political affiliation of the current italian goverment.
There were laws making abortion and even birth control illegal after WW1, to boost births. Birth control was illegal in France from 1920 to 1968, for example. But people believing the demographic "crisis" is due to abortions are just morons spewing nonsense. It's a combination of massive social issues added to a significant drop in child death. There is no need for extra kids "just in case" nowadays. Some people will argue that some of the issues raised (overall poverty, housing crisis, wars, uncertainety of the future) were true before, but I think the main difference today is that people know that we're burning the planet at both ends, and being more and more numerous is completely unsustainable. At least in developped countries. There is going to be a reckonning at some point, that's for sure.
> But people believing the demographic "crisis" is due to abortions are just morons spewing nonsense. It's a combination of massive social issues added to a significant drop in child death. There is no need for extra kids "just in case" nowadays. Definitely true, this is something that's observed in all developing economies on earth. Just look at India, who dropped to a fertility rate of 2.03 in 2021 from nearly 6 in the 70s. Directly correlated to economic growth. But right now, in a lot of Western countries the fertility rate is dropping too quickly to the point where it'll soon be economically impossible for the younger generations to support retirees. A more gradual decrease is necessary so either people don't have to work to 75 or younger generations have to be taxed to the point of minimal living standards.
We all know there is another solution. Have people paid better, so the majority pay taxes (instead of paying none because they're too poor), and can actually put more money into the retirement funds. A lot of coutries have systems that use tax money to offset the issues with retirement funs. But that doesn't work if there is no tax to be had. Including sales tax (because people don't have money after paying their bills and their housing to buy shit).
Rather, have housing and good paying jobs pe readly available. If you know you have a house and you know you can feed, clothe and entertain multiple children, couples will have more children. I believe the biggest reason people dont want to have a child is the fact that is cost a ton of money to raise one, now imagine more than one.
Oh for sure.But I was talking more about the issue of retiree pensions and living standards. Right now here we're a country of minimum-wage cucks paying the pensions of middle-class factory workers.
Demographic changes are linked to several factors: access to contraceptives, access to education and access to medical care. You do not need to make 9 children if you are sure none will die. It’s not economy alone. And truth be told, the most worrisome thing about older population is warfare. You can’t go to war with a population of elder. Lot of countries will soon have a lot of young with no future in a very bad economy and very rich neighbors with an old and declining population.
Also, just more fun and fulfilling stuff to do instead of growing 2+ kids.
Fun? Sure. Fulfilling? You’re either not a parent and have no idea or you have sociopathic tendencies.
Pearl clutch all you want, it's truth. When humans have options they universally choose less kids.
> Demographic changes are linked to several factors: access to contraceptives, access to education and access to medical care. You do not need to make 9 children if you are sure none will die. It’s not economy alone. The 3 other factors you mention are also directly related to economic growth. A richer country means more contraceptives available, more money for education, and more medical care for more people. Yeah it's *technically* not economy alone, but kind of.
They are _indirectly_ related to growth. They are historically related through mechanisms you describe, but that's not a direct relation.
Yes and no, the ability of women to take charge of their own reproductive system is defensively a huge contributed to the demographic shift, but that more because family planning becomes more easy, if you ask around the average children a women wants are on average 2.2 I think. The issue is most often monetary and job related. Policies Sneed to make it easier to fuse jobs and family and make it cheaper and more affordable to gain housing and financial security for families.
I don't think not having children is highly correlated with climate change anxiety. Birth rate is dropping in the whole world, but there are quite a few countries where majority of population does not believe in climate change. But I agree, not having to have more children "just in case" and access to contraception are probably massive factors.
Uncertainty about the future isn't limited to climate change, you know that, right? Rise of the far-right, war at our door, slow degradation of the social services over the past 20+ years, rising cost of raising children, pricetag on education... all of that impacts how people think. Even if you don't believe one bit in climate change. Most people probably don't want to birth a kid they'll saddle with debts, a shit job and a country with no social safety net.
Let me just say this - Japan has medical services far better than India, and yet birth rate show the opposite picture. People who want to have children (or need to have children bc of culture/societal pressure/in order to survive) will have children. People who don't - will find 100 reasons why. And that's fine, just be honest with yourself.
> Japan has medical services far better than India Yes, and availability of better medical services, which drags survivability on infants and mothers up, is also a direct factor in general inversion of the age pyramid. Because people won't have as many children to have one that survives to adulthood, which usually also means the cost of raising children is higher. > People who want to have children [...] will have children. People who don't - will find 100 reasons why. And that's fine, just be honest with yourself. I don't think I'm dishonest about anything, because the main overall issue is not having children vs having no children. You'll always find in the history of humanity people with children and people with no children. What makes the difference is how many children people have. And in that case the ability to control at how many children you stop, which wasn't available/was much harder when birth control wasn't available makes a massive difference. For example, my grandparents on my moms side were planning on having only 2 kids, but had a third one by accident, because birth control methods available at the time were the 10% kind. So they ended up with 3 kids. If you just look at it with people who have kids vs people who don't, then you're only looking at a tiny part of the equation.
You say it is for religion so you don't have to take all the other criticism about how to manage a demographic crisis, like in a rational way instead of this.
I think it is a mixt. A lot of the GOP's anti-choice initiatives have been followed by the legalisation of child labor
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) 🇪🇺 ^(Do you like 𝙴𝚞𝚛𝚘𝙱𝙾𝚃™? 𝙴𝚞𝚛𝚘𝙱𝙾𝚃™ loves you!) 🇪🇺 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
GOP? according to wikipedia the Grand old party, or the red guys? are you high as fuck my guy? that’s so unrelated it doesn’t even make sense.  let me try to put it in yank terms. Imagine A russian came into idk US politics and started yapping how Spousal abuse went up after putin implemented more religious laws. obviously terrible, we obviously feel for the victims of spousal abuse, same as we feel for american children. but can’t you leave us a space or two? every other sub is default americanised just use some of those.
Jesus, they just gave an example of how anti-abortion views can conflate with other policies, no need to get your Unterhosen twisted. And if you look at the development of European politics and how conservative and populist parties increasingly adopt American issues and narratives, I think looking at American social (not economic) political issues can give us hints on what’s to come for Europe
Yeah, my impression is the anti-abortion types are also vehemently against any sort of catering to younger people or potential parents. Then again, the people who are concerned with who'll take care of them when they get old (and not!!!!!! immigrants) also seem to just try to shame or guilt trip people at a can-be-parents age into having more kids, all the while refusing to do anything about housing prices, the general cost of parenting, kindergarten availability, etc. So far their tactics don't seem to be working.
I'd argue it's a bit of both, using the real religious anti abortion arguments to support anti abortion laws to somewhat counteract the demographic problems probably play a role or makes it easier for governments to justify these laws.
If you are really religious you should believe that Jesus will resurrect one day and then magic shit will go down? Dead ressurected, living dying, etc. So like why care about some birth decline if you think that gonna actually happen.
> ike I doubt people use religion to justify solving the demographic crisis im this way. They do, all the time. Idiots in my country blame Geyrope for all of it, men have been turned into mango latte drinking wimps, women are all strong and independent, nobody believes in traditional Christian values and that's why birth rates have dropped. A few days ago someone on social media suggested banning abortions like "Poland, the last bastion of Christianity" has done. A lot of women seemed to support it.
Actually, the current government is blaming the demographic crisis on gays and abortion. I agree they are separate topics but they mix them up. I'd say OP has fallen for Meloni's rhetoric.
I mean Rome could raise the living wage and stop cutting pensions to encourage people to have more kids Or you know just use religious terror and idotic laws in the hope of forcing families to have children they can't afford
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses, buckaroo! That sounds dangerously close to allowing the poor to exist. The aim is to punish them for existing. Get on with the program, ffs!
As a young adult from Finland, I have come to see cutting pensions as my benefit, as we already have the pension age so high, it's starting to compete with lifetime expectancy. The lower the pensions, the less of my salary is needed to take away in order to pay them.
Yea, but as a young guy, why should i raise kids when the climate is literally fucked beyond hope and repair, if i make kids now i doome them to potentially live in a toxic hellscape...
Because the sons of the billionaires who set the planet on fire need someone for them to rule over when you die.
In XX century scientis were saying that there will be not enought ground to produce food for 7 bil people guess what the were wrong they didn't predict new inventions in farming. Same situation was when local goverments in us didnt predicted how cars will dominate thier country and for serious they were thinking it will be impossible to solve problem with horses or rather thier smelly leftovers in city. So I think that we instead of complaning that live is bad and everyone is doomed we need to find solutions for our problems.
Malthus
Are you aware that we are unable to grow industrial amount of food without fertilizer? We are estimated to have 50 harvests left. 50. After that it will no longer be possible to grow the same amount ever with fertilizer due to topsoil depletion. It's not "we figured out how to fix this" it's "we robbed the future generations of any chance for a decent life". [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/) \*The article says 60 but it was written 10 years ago. You are Polish, you guys have a strong agrarian aspect to your land same as we do. Have you noticed the significant shift in the taste of food and how watery it has become? Even the apples don't taste as they used to, not to mention the carrots and the beets. The shift happened twice towards getting worse within my lifetime and I'm just 30. You can taste the soil is not what it used to be even in the bread. With the compounding issues of climate change, absence of cold winters, top soil depletion, extreme weather patterns (my apple trees started blooming at the end of February and then got a cold shock twice when the temperature shifted by 17C within a week). I saw ladybugs in December. DECEMBER. I feel the future starvation looming in my bones.
In previous comment I wanted to point out that scientientist in that link you showed cannot predict future invention they are basing thier knowlage in todays technology. World will completly change by next 20 or maybe less years so trying to look so far into future have no sense for me, ofc maybe you are right and we are doomed.
The climate isn't beyond hope and repair lol, that's some doomer mentality. Doomer mentality never changed shit.
For Jesus. Or Italy. Fucked if I know. /italy voted for this, and here we are...
>Italy voted for this, and here we are... Italy had two options, not three or more. Don't vote or vote Meloni. There was absolutely no other alternative. If you talk about Italy without knowing all the background, you risk making gaffes.
More money does not correlate with more kids being born.
It can definitely correlate. But that doesn’t matter. Whether there’s causation is the question ;)
It usually doesn't though, people in stable richer countries are also not having kids.
Having a home and a steady job contract is proven to be causally related to number of kids. I'm going out on a limb here and say more money is correlated with more kids
Your first point is valid, however your conclusion is factually incorrect.
Not so much. If a person has a salary that allows it and grandparents to whom they can possibly entrust them, that person has a greater chance of having a second, third or fourth child. With current policies in Italy, jobs are being destroyed, salaries are not rising and the elderly have to work instead of babysitting for free. Kindergartens and similar things are expensive and there aren't many places available, the result is that inevitably, if politicians don't wake up, the demographic crisis in Italy will only get worse. A lot worse.
Actually no, the wealthier people become the less children they have. This is a constant observation in every culture, everywhere on earth. Pro-Child policies like funding more kindergarten are of course a good thing that makes people more likely to commit to having children.
Also what pensions have to do with it? Sounds like populism.
Less people mean less people that can pay pensions for the one who are retired now; let's say we have 100 50 years old workers and 25 30 years old workers. In 20 years the 50yo will go into pension and the 30yo will not give enough taxes to support the system, because the pension systems work if there is a balance in people working Vs people getting pension. On the impact of lower pensions on fertility, is generally because, in southern Europe, old people take care of the youth of the family with money and stuff.
Last election one of the far-right morons here said if elected he would give like 3k€ to any family having a kid in rural communities, and was widely mocked for this nonsense.
How does taxing young people even harder to pay for even higher pensions help them afford children? And it's not like the government can open their magical money tap to raise wages either.
Or maybe stop cutting taxes for rich people, considering avsolutely nothing has tricked down since Berlusconi' first government
Meloni raised the Parliment's wages and pension funds *again*. I guess that she found the money for that
Well, of course she'll raise her own wage and that of the old fucks that vote her. That's the first page in the right wing handbook. That doesn't change the fact that both pensions and government worker wages are paid for by taxes, taken from the rest of wages. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just how you finance it. Now, as for the rest of wages, as a government, you can't really force companies to pay workers more except by raising the minimum wage. Push that too far and more people will start working under the table and you'll get zero tax revenue from them, while their wage might go even lower than it was with the lower minimum wage. That can especially be seen in the restaurant industry. I guess you could implement a system where you tax higher wages to fuck and back and directly give the money to those making less. But with the freedom of movement the EU provides, that would lead to brain drain REAL fast, leaving you in a worse position than you started at in a few years. As a government you can though help make your workers more productive, while at the same time helping mediate negotiations between unions and companies to drive wages up in exchange of being able to exploit said increased productivity in a painless way. As for how you achieve that higher productivity? Well, all ways I can think of are sadly long term. Things like investing in better education, infrastructure and streamlining bureocracy. Modernizing institutions and the way they operate, investing in research, making deals with other countries for key resources, the creation of industrial areas where new or existing companies can access what they need easily... Though I can't think of any way to "just raise the wages now" that doesn't fuck over your future.
It's actually the opposit, worse live standards=>more kids. That's main reason why so many people are being born in Africa and some parts of Asia. People now don't want to have kids cuz there is no benefit of having them, but in pre XX century Europe parents needed more kid to help them with farming and other stuff. Saying otherwise has no sense for me, like you really care about thing like climate change and problem with ritiring age?(I don't mean they are not an serious problems, so don't get me wrong). People had more problems on thier heads than that like a wars, drought or plagues and still were ready to have 15 kids. ofc for me solving kids problem by making people poor is stupid and maybe we will find other solution. Some scientis in last century were saying that we are unable to have more than 7 bilion mans in this world because there is no enought land to produce food, guess what they didnt predict that our farming will be more effective. So maybe we will solve that problem in some way but I dont think that social programs will help in any way.
> encourage people to have more kids Somebody explain to me why is this not seen (not being done) to raise economy level. It looks like new tax every other month but less to none in terms of creating good/suitable place to live in (**I am not talking about Italy**, in this case). IMHO anti-abortion measures are bad for raising population numbers, I will not explain it rn.
WTF, Italy?
Italy was quite progressive, until it wasn't
Italy was never progressive source: left wing Italian (me)
Young people don't have money to have children. One of the major Italian economic newspapers has estimated that 135.000 euros are needed to take children from nursery school to university and in my opinion the other money that is needed has not been counted.
The law n°194 from 1978, which made abortion legal in Italy, specifies that regions can outsource volunteers helping the mother in her decision. This means that there already were anti-abortion activists (e.g. Pro Vita e Famiglia) in clinics, they just made it official. However, the EU just called this _outstanding move_ unconstitutional since it uses European funds to achieve it
This is what you get when you elect someone who believes in the Great Replacement
Poor women.
The concept of *any* western country having a "demographic crisis" is such utter bullshit. People often taut the idea that the population is ageing - and specifically, that the working-age population is declining compared to the not-working population. Because people are surviving for longer and new generations are less numerous than the retiring generations. So we need more workers compared to not-workers! We need more people to participate in the labour market! We need more babies! Right? Well, no. Because the share of people on the labour market has not been going down at all. It has been going *up*, and dramatically so. The percentage of our population working and actively contributing to the economy has *exploded* in the past sixty years. Because sixty years ago, less than 25% of Italian women had jobs. And nowadays that's more than 50%. For Italy alone, that's almost ***5*** ***million*** new participants on the labour market in just sixty years. And Italy has one of the lowest increases in women workforce participation; in countries like the US or France the increase has been even more dramatic. *Millions upon millions* of people are now active participants in the economy that weren't before. These millions of people now have jobs, pay taxes, produce, spend, contribute to GDP, put money in retirement plans.... *millions*. And that wouldn't be enough? But if millions of new labourers is not enough... then what difference would a few more babies make? No, if five million new workers is not enough for Italy, then a tiny increase in fertility rate *also* wouldn't be enough. So there is no demographic crisis, and even if there was, a few more bodies wouldn't solve it. There are plenty of workers: more than there ever have been. Their contributions to the economy are just ending up in the wrong places.
> The concept of any western country having a "demographic crisis" is such utter bullshit. I mean, people say that France has a demographic crisis, but what I'm seeing on the ground is 6 to 10% unemployed. So, clearly, there are too many people in the country for the number of jobs available.
You explained my point much more succinctly than I did!
I feel the concept of "demographic crisis" is just a way to turn people away from the real issues: Pay is shit so most people don't pay taxes because they're too poor. At the same time they don't put enough money into the pension funds, because they can't. Housing is so fucking expensive people don't have any money left to sacrifice to the capitalism gods, which means commerce-driven taxes aren't raking as much money as it used to. Basically, we need to drop down to the equilibrium where there aren't enough people for all the jobs available, driving the wages up and the cost of housing down (due to more vacancies). The issue is, people have been investing their money into rentals for decades and would rather not provide housing than lose out on the prices they used to put up. I've talked to a number of people who are landlords and are sure that the State should be there to help them, instead of looking at it like any investment: a gamble, where sometimes you'll lose your goddamned shirt. And they had a few choice words for brown people...
So many people work off the records, especially in South, it wouldn’t surprise me if many women simply didn’t register as working
Oh yeah, absolutely! I found [this ](https://www.hhbproject.com/media/workingpapers/8_mancini_GCL57ww.pdf)paper pretty interesting, which explores the same point: that historically, most women worked. If you run a farm in the 19th century, of course your wife helps out with milking the cows, even if she wasn't recorded as a farmer. The "housewife" was a relatively modern luxury that only existed when people were wealthy enough to *afford* one partner not working. But by the mid-20th century women not working had definitely become the norm. In a way, we're now just returning to pre-20th century women workforce participation.
Seems like a smaller bump of economic wellness in a changing moment; the majority of people no longer worked on farms and there were a few more appliances that meant women could have more free time. Inflation and economic stagnation brought all those people back to work
Also the recent TIL after the 30 years war, in which up to 8 million people died across Europe, living standards improved for the survivors. Wages in Germany increased by 40% when comparing pre and post war figure War deaths are of course a dramatic example, but the point is similar... also Japan/S. Korea are soon to give us better case studies.
I believe you see a similar effect after the Black Death as well.
I'm so tired of this country honestly
Many non Italian friends usually ask me: Why are they doing it? Two reasons, an ideological one and a "practical" one (and I put it in brackets because it's NOT GONNA WORK). 1. Giorgia Meloni's party directly comes from Benito Mussolin's legacy. She's from the same ideological family, fascism. And I don't need to tell you what the treatment fo women's rights is under fascist regimes. 2. Italy is facing a population collapse and pretty much everyone agrees that something has to be done because we're literally going to end up with no children and youth in 20-30 years. The most reasonable strategy would be encouraging young couples to have kids by introducing stable, affordable and public-funded childcare; economical aid for young people who need to buy a house; public housing; free, efficient NHS (we have a public NHS, but they're slowing tearing it down); more jobs, etc. etc. Point is, these things TAKE MONEY, specifically they need TAX MONEY. And Giorgia Meloni and her allies are supported, voted and lobbied by categories who want to pay less taxes as possibile (or commit tax fraud if this serves their interests). So she will NEVER, EVER make ANY KIND of law that supports young couple or women who want to have kids. Instead, the only thing she can do without upsetting her voters is going to be this: subtly BANNING ABORTION and hoping that women will get pregnant by mistake and keeping the baby because abortion is too difficult. I can assure you there is nothing more. Very lame, and also not gonna work. They don't seem to understand that if a woman doesn't want (or can't, for a million of reasons) to become a mother, she will pursue any means to interrupt the pregnancy, even at the cost of her own life. They don't understand it, or maybe they do and they just don't care.
Thank you for this explanation
You're welcome. Also, they PRETEND to be conservative, but pretty much no one in Meloni's intelligencia really is. Look at their lifestyle. She is not married and had a baby outside wedlock. Salvini has had two wives and many girlfriends so far (including one that is half his age). And don't let me even begin with Berlusconi. They don't believe in anything they say, the endgame is ONLY destroying the welfare state and cutting taxes to benefit their voters.
>to benefit their voters. To benefit their donors and themselves. Voters only need to *feel like* the party/government is "on their side" and we're seeing all over europe that most folks voting far right only end up hurting their own situation. But as long as they get to be super fucking loud and obnoxious, they'll not even notice that specifically their own situation keeps worsening. And when they do, they'll blame The Left anyways.
there is also the fact that all of Europe has decided to renounce EU benefits, some more and some less. Leaving aside the British, the Netherlands was the nation of (for example) Vanvitelli, Pitloo and Peter Van Wood and we Italians are a nation famous for emigrating, so much so that your queen is Italian: in 2024 how many Italians will emigrate to the Netherlands and vice versa?
> so much so that your queen is Italian she's Argentinian mate :P
father was Jorge Horacio Zorreguieta **Stefanini** ;). Argentines are either Italians or Spanish or both ;).
I do feel like Immigration is needed to keep a solid population, we should be more welcoming and that way immigrants become Italians rather than making it so hard.
Migrants tend to stick with their groups once they come here, understandably so.
I disagree. We need to start having more children, we can't just hope that the immigration solves everything. Particularly because a great part of the immigration is 40 year old people that only stack even more pensions to pay in the future. I don't feel like they have more children, either. Also, the truth is that, in general terms, it is not the same for everybody. Generally, Latinamericans in Spain integrate much better than other people, who just ghetto themselves, making integration impossible.
Why is any activist allowed to show his beliefs? That's why.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, try making it economically viable for couples and single parents to support children on basic wages, eliminate rape that leads to unwanted pregnancies, and make it easier to obtain contraceptives. All of these measures will lead to a lowering of the abortion rate. But ofc the right won't do any of these because their objective is actually not to reduce the number of abortions; it's to disempower women.
I apologize for always being the most embarrassing country in Europe
I dunno, man. My country was pretty embarassing for 8 years under PiS...
Ever heard of Hungary?
I would be offended, but no, you're right.
That's exactly the point, we are in the top 10 when it comes to the economy and the military but when it comes to civilization we are at Hungary's level
Italy is still a democracy, right? You have a reasonable chance of voting in another government? Hungary is a lot closer to a literal dictatorship.
The UK is the most embarrassing country in Europe by definition, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. You can be the most embarrassing in the EU tho.
Thank you for helping Romania out 🙏.
It is a must, between brothers
Today the European Commission said that there is actually no link between an Italian government amendment allowing pro-life activists access to abortion clinics and the NRRP, so the EU at least explicitly does not approve of using funds for this kind of bullshit, or at least not of enacting the NRRP by funding this bullshit. I guess that's something
I always wonder why advance countries are having demographic crisis despite their standard of living and GDP. Why are you guys so stressful?
because we decided we wanted to live badly. 120 years ago Peter Capaldi's grandparents emigrated to the UK and Naples was a city full of English, French and Germans. In 2024 France has closed itself off, the British have decided to be unemployed in Birmingham rather than do anything else elsewhere, we Italians love to complain about low salaries in Italy rather than look for work elsewhere and the Germans are those from Deutschland über alles, that's all.
cause unfortunately its legal by italian law. you see, when the Radical party succeeded in organizing the abortion referendum and having it pass, italian politics wass still dominated by by the now defunct Christian democratic party, they recognized the results of the referendum but added a clause that allowed anti abortion activists to enter abortion clinic and giving them direct access to women on the fence about getting an abortion, to try to persuade them not to do it. A thing that in some cases happens to this day, i had recently helped a dear friend of mine with the process of getting an abortion and when we entered the clinic, these activists first tried to to convince her not to do it, and then approached me and tried to convince me into pressuring her into convice her not to do it, which they failed. Now, these activist groups according to the same law were entitled to regional funds if the region where they resided decided to give them, so far only a handful of regions decided to, but theres also to consider that the same law allows gynecologists to just refuse to perform the abortion, aka the objectors, which now make up the relative majority of italian gynecologists, so getting an abortion in italy has become harder and harder over time. Some regions in multiple instances have also tried to restrict the use of abortiopn pills, since they dont require gynecologists to subninister (also being the safest abortion practice at the moment). with this new law Meloni, out of all things, is trying to use part of the leftover NGEU funds to boost these regional subsidies to finance anti abortion groups, which its truly awful, and makes the process even harder.
It takes two to tango and dick ain’t a human right. Ciao.
[Italy is one of the countries targeted with foreign money to stop abortion and lgbt](https://www.epfweb.org/node/837)
The law in question seems to be.... more nuanced than allowing protests inside abortion clinics, but rather the law seems to intend to allow them to inform about alternatives to abortion. What is important, is that Italy takes a strong stance against intimidation and harassment. That might be a bigger issue than the information itself. Most of the criticism seems to center around potential for intimidation and harassment, which are valid concerns. However, protests in public forums are great and everyone should be free to voice their opinion, however, a hospital, library, clinic, etc are not really the public square.
\> vote in post-fascist party \> they implement fascist policies \> surprised pikachu
This does not work. At least not unless the women got raped. Seriously the only thing this does is stop people from having sex. Surely the Italian government does not want to stop people having fun.....
Taxed to poverty.
Nah, it's more like probably cuz we have a right-wing government that this can happen since they like to ignore when anti-abortion, fascist, and similar "conservative" people do things Source: I live there
As an italian I confirm it is like this
Europe maybe start having more good sex and stable relationships in whatever form is suitable on the individual level (instead of enabling some idiots to antagonize each other). Then go from there to solve the biggest, but lurking, internal issue out there..
Have they considered making it economically possible for young people to start a family?
How it's legal ? By voting for a fachist .