Writing in the New York Times, Arthur Brooks notes the demographic challenges of Europe but realizes he can't skip over France's healthy population dynamics so comes up with a wheeze to dodge that one --
There are some exceptions. France has risen to exactly two children per woman in 2012, from 1.95 in 1980, an increase largely attributed to a system of government payments to parents, not a change in the culture of family life. Is there anything more dystopian than the notion that population decline can be slowed only when states bribe their citizens to reproduce?
Er, wouldn't it be more dystopian to be in a society where more and more of the money is directed to a tiny share of the population who in turn want more and more wealth for their own children?
There are some exceptions. France has risen to exactly two children per woman in 2012, from 1.95 in 1980, an increase largely attributed to a system of government payments to parents, not a change in the culture of family life. Is there anything more dystopian than the notion that population decline can be slowed only when states bribe their citizens to reproduce?
Er, wouldn't it be more dystopian to be in a society where more and more of the money is directed to a tiny share of the population who in turn want more and more wealth for their own children?