AHC/WI: France adopts natalist policies after Franco-Prussian War

Well we can say for Czechoslovakia it more or less worked. Population in 1921 was 14.8 mil. After WWII when some 380K were killed and 3 million Germans expelled and Ruthenian was annexed by USSR first census was held only in 1950. Results was 12.31 million. In 1992 when Czechoslovaks decided to split the country population was 15.7 million.

Sharp decline in population in both countries - Czech Republic as well as Slovakia came in 90-ties.

Before 1990 population of Czech Republic and Slovak republic was rising much sharply then population of Austria. After 1990 Austria kept its climb (possible due to immigration too) while Czech and Slovak numbers dropped. Possibly due to emmigration too.
Growth from 12,3 to 15,7 millions between 1950 and 1992 is not impressive if compared to other Warsaw Pact countries. At the same period population of Poland grew from 25 to 38 millions.
 
Bad@logic said:Riight. Because young people--who by the mathematics of human longevity will always be a greater share of the population than the elderly in the long term--will stand for that ever heard of ageing of People with reversed population piramids
 
Growth from 12,3 to 15,7 millions between 1950 and 1992 is not impressive if compared to other Warsaw Pact countries. At the same period population of Poland grew from 25 to 38 millions.
Well we did what we could but Czech lands were slower. :D

Popilation of Slovakia went from app. 3.3 million in 30-ties to 5.3. That’s bigger growth rate then in Poland!

Anyway overall Czechoslovak growth rate was bigger then for example Austrian in same period of time. Consider also between 1969 and 1989 population loss some 250K due to emmigration.
 
Well we can say for Czechoslovakia it more or less worked. Population in 1921 was 14.8 mil. After WWII when some 380K were killed and 3 million Germans expelled and Ruthenian was annexed by USSR first census was held only in 1950. Results was 12.31 million. In 1992 when Czechoslovaks decided to split the country population was 15.7 million.

Sharp decline in population in both countries - Czech Republic as well as Slovakia came in 90-ties.

Before 1990 population of Czech Republic and Slovak republic was rising much sharply then population of Austria. After 1990 Austria kept its climb (possible due to immigration too) while Czech and Slovak numbers dropped. Possibly due to emmigration too.

But was this an increase in fertility rate or simply perpetuation of previously high fertility?
 
Policies to raise birth rates generally work poorly even if well funded. These policies work worse than policies to lower birth rates. If you are trying to persuade me not to have a kid, I gain the state incentive plus the avoid cost of the kid. If you want me to have a kid, you have to pay me the cost of the kid before I have an incentive.

So to use modern USA terms, I might well be looking for 250K to 500K of lifetime incentives before I flipped from "I don't want any kids". On the other hand, 50K so I could go to a more elite college might look like a monsterously large payment for sterilization.

Studies across Europe suggest that families ideally want more children than they have. It is not simply that they don't want them.

There are various reasons why they aren't having more. Sometimes it is a matter of money but it can also be that the workplace is not encouraging of parenthood (in Germany for example, women have traditionally been pressured to choose between being a worker and mother) or that there are not enough day care options available, or just that the couple waited a long time to have children and now are not very fertile. Countries that have a traditional attitude toward parenting (the father works, the mother stays home) often have very low birth rates nowadays, Japan and the Mediterranean countries being other examples. Societies have to change their overall attitude to child raising to make it easier, not only giving cash payments.
 
But was this an increase in fertility rate or simply perpetuation of previously high fertility?
Numbers of kids in families was declining anyway, especially with industrialization in Slovakia and population moving to towns. I can just say on history of mine and my wife’s family. I guess they were trying not to drop it more.
 
Riight. Because young people--who by the mathematics of human longevity will always be a greater share of the population than the elderly in the long term--will stand for that. Not to mention it's horribly unfair for people unable to give birth, and possibly illegal in many such countries under constitutional law.

It's how this sort of thing worked from basically the dawn of human history down to the 1880s or '90s. If it's expected that people will help to care for their elderly parents, most will do so, both because that's what society demands and because they can expect that their own children will care for them down the line.
 
It's how this sort of thing worked from basically the dawn of human history down to the 1880s or '90s. If it's expected that people will help to care for their elderly parents, most will do so, both because that's what society demands and because they can expect that their own children will care for them down the line.

Is "worked" the appropriate term? Life expectancy was much shorter then and most people lived difficult lives in general.

People now not only live much longer than they used to, but they also can control their fertility to a much higher degree than before. This is a completely different era. Even if abolishing benefits for the elderly would cause young couples to procreate (a questionable assumption), the elderly (a huge and powerful voting bloc in every developed country) would vote that politician out of office very quickly.
 
Last edited:
Top