As Fertility Rates Decline, Childless Economist Calls for More Hedonism
Plus Statistics Norway claims that children = future taxpayers don't really matter in terms of the welfare state's long-term viability
Somehow, the issue of low fertility isn’t going away from Norwegian media.
Hence, reference is made to this posting from a week ago:
It contains links to further content on the subject matter.
Therefore, here’s another piece on this one; translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.
‘We simply have no desire to have children’
‘Lower fertility rates don't have to be a problem, especially if more people are voluntarily childless’, says chief economist Marius Gonsholt Hov [this is also the caption of the picture above].
By Ole Andreas Laache Klevan, NRK, 25 March 2024 [source]
At cafe Fuglen in Gamlebyen [Old Town] in Oslo, Marius Gonsholt Hov, chief economist at Handelsbanken, tells why he and his wife have chosen not to have children. Earlier this month, he explained to his followers on X that he and his wife do not ‘bother’ having children.
A lot of 'good' comments here. As usual, we talk about topics such as feminism, a bit about globalists, and of course also vaccines. Can answer briefly on behalf of me and my wife: because we don't bother, we're not interested, it couldn't happen to us. Suck it up.
Could it be because it has become too expensive to live? That people are too busy working for a living and their own career, and that bearing the costs of a child is too much of a burden on their own finances?
‘We are happy with the lifestyle we have. We like that freedom and flexibility. We like being able to go out to restaurants and eat and drink when it suits us. We also have no desire for anything else’, says Hov [good for you; I’d say—let’s revisit this in about 1-2 decades, shall we?].
This month it became known that the fertility figures in Norway have decreased. In Norway, we are now at a historically low 1.40 children per woman.
But this does not always have to be interpreted as something negative, Hov believes [it’s called ‘faith’ if there’s no scientific evidence; like, you know, efficacy of the modRNA injections]. Especially if several are like him and his wife, that is, voluntarily childless.
‘I think there are three reasons why people don't have children’, says Hov and continues:
One is fertility challenges [i.e., people are quite old when they get their first child; here in Norway, it’s around 31-32], the other is that you don’t have as many children as you would like for other reasons, i.e., there may be financial reasons. It is a bad for both groups, and the state should make arrangements for them so that they can have the children they want [errrr, nope, I’m all for keeping ‘the state’ out of people’s bedrooms].
Then you have the third category where me and my wife are. And it is that we do not have children because we simply have no desire to have children [well, good for you; in evolutionary terms, you’re a failure as your genes stop with you].
In addition, Hov believes that having children does not necessarily contribute to the public purse [let’s call this ‘short-termism’ for lack of a better word]. Here he is supported by a social economist.
Children Costs the Public More Money
No, it is the case that having more children will not, with the current system, make it easier to finance the welfare state, if there is a lasting increase in fertility [notice the sleight of hand here? We’ve been talking about low fertility, but the social economist is talking about financing the welfare state].
At Statistics Norway, Erling Holmøy has researched how changes in fertility affect the public purse. In 2019, he and two colleagues delivered the findings following an assignment from the Ministry for Children and Gender Equality:
‘Because it is the case that the sum of the public expenditure that a person contributes to during a lifetime is significantly greater, also for Norwegian-born [that seems to be dependent on income levels, eh? Why not break it down into further, granular brackets?], than the tax income to which that person contributes [well, I consider taxation a necessary evil, and excessive taxation theft]’, says Holmøy and continues:
In addition, we get an effect from the oil revenues being shared among several people [remember: the oil fund is huge—currently, it exceeds US$ 1.6 trillion, which is to say it exceeds, by approx. US$ 350 billion, the wealth of the world’s ten richest people]. It is important if there are many. The oil fund is completely independent of the size of the population, so if we are going to get more people, then there are more people who will share in the given cake [Norway’s population is approx. 5.5m people, this is a highly disingenuous statement in my view].
Holmøy believes that a permanent increase in fertility results in fewer working people compared to young and old for five to six decades. Thereafter, this ratio changes little.
Holmøy is nevertheless concerned that there are many benefits to having children:
I personally think it's sad if many people don't want children. Children create a living society. But as long as people ask me if it is the case that it will be easier for the public to finance the welfare state, my answer is clear that they have not calculated properly here. We have done that [but we won’t share that here, even though we mentioned it; I’ll have more to say on this in the bottom lines].
Social Pressures
Back to Gonsholt Hov. He believes there is also social pressure around having children.
But I probably think that the pressure is stronger against women at the same time. At least that's how I experience the situation for my wife. That she probably has to defend that point of view a little more clearly than I do [apparently questions as to why that might be have eluded Mr. Gonsvolt Hov so far].
Bottom Lines
What a tone-deaf ‘economist’. Sure, Mr. Gonsvolt Hov might hold a degree in economics (most likely an MBA, for this is the most prominent degree in Norway), but this is both ludicrous and cringe-worthy at the same time.
To be frank, he looks virtually identical to so many do-gooders I’ve encountered over the years talking about ‘freedom’—meant is: ‘carelessness’—and, in their (apparently) late 30s, continue to dress like as if they are still around 20.
Call me a cynic, but the worst aspect is—those who remain voluntarily childless around 40 behave, in many ways, like retirees: they travel, go out, drink a bit too much (most likely), and engage in activities that no-one who has parental responsibilities would be able to do before, well, retirement.
In other words: people like Mr. Gonsvolt Hov and his (sic) wife jump directly from the behaviours of young adults to that of people whose kids moved out. In other words, they miss out on all the learning about oneself, appreciation, and affection that grows if one has children.
Not to put too much of a rosy taint on parenthood, but being a mother or a father also tells you a lot about yourself and, ultimately, about what it means to human. You miss out on that one at your own peril.
As regards the disservice such pieces to, well, it’s gigantic. As we’ve discussed earlier, the chief problem for ‘the welfare state’—and a sizeable share of so-called ‘humanitarian’ treaties, conventions, and legislation—isn’t childlessness per se (although it plays a huge role). It’s mass immigration of people who don’t contribute as much to the shared future as others:
I’m sure that Statistics Norway has data of comparable granularity and quality; that person from SSB alluded to this, but he didn’t explain nothing. If you wonder why that might be, click on that link and find out.
I call BS on many levels, if ‘only’ for a simple reason that has nothing to do with faith, religion, or what I consider ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about parenthood:
Biologically and evolutionarily, if you don’t procreate voluntarily, you’re a dead-end.
Socially and societally, those who don’t contribute to the future existence of ‘their’ (sic) society are a drain in purely return-on-investment terms: at some point, everyone requires elder care, and if it’s ‘the state’ that does it, it does so with taxpayer money of one’s children. You don’t have kids, it’s effectively anti-social behaviour.
I have no idea why anyone would glorify this, but apparently, we live in an upside-down world where right is wrong, good is bad, and war is peace.
What a weird time.
Norway is only wealthy because of oil. If the Climate Catastrophists have their way, Norway in a few years will soon find itself the target of their war on fossil fuels, and the fund will rapidly dry up. (not to mention that the fossil fuels will begin to run out. Blowing up Nordstream helped Norway short term, but the long term end is the same). That means taxes would have to be raised to support the elderly, which will make it even harder for the dwindling younger folks to afford children. This downward spiral will very rapidly bankrupt the country. Some other countries will be facing the same thing. There are only two solutions: reduce costs, or increase the population. Reducing Social Insurance and Health Insurance will be tried. Canada is already trying to reduce costs by "offing the elderly". Others may try incentives to have and raise children, which probably won't be too successful given the present attitudes of "it's all about me". Unregulated immigration is another path some countries are taking, but that means the extinction of your language, culture, and beliefs - which will very likely cause an extremely violent reaction, civil wars, and social upheaval. Of course, starting a nuclear war with Russia will mean a lot of Europe becomes a radioactive wasteland and enters a new darker age than the old Dark Ages.
The "economic" argument (children are too expensive) is a slap in the face of Mr. Hov's parents, his grandparents, all his ancestors, and 99.999% of people who ever lived.