In the case of population planning, we have started off in the 1960s and 1970s as one of controlling population growth to the current issue of a predicted population decline. Is this a case of administrative over sight or a symptom of the government's Planned Parenthood Department pursuing their mandate blindly without due consideration for the changing environmental landscape that they operate in.
The original mandate was clearly population control in the face of a possible population explosion problem. The stop at two irregardless of the gender was promoted everywhere and policies were put in place to discourage 3rd or subsequent child in the form of dis-incentives ranging from tax rebates, school admission etc. This was wildly successful for a couple of reasons swinging us to the other end of the spectrum. Firstly, credit must be due to the government for the campaign and policies. Secondly, the result could also be due to a stark change in the attitudes of the population towards pro-creation. Thirdly, the cost of raising children has gone up geometrically compared to the overall rise (or fall) in income levels. Fourthly, on the economic front, the job market has taken a very stark change. The high economic growth years of 1980s with almost full employment has taken sharp turn to slower economic growth and rising unemployment which could be partially structural. Job security becomes an issue for many as the market turns from generally from an employee's market to one where employer's is spoilt for choice. Keeping a job and finding one when one become unemployed became a pre-occupation for many. Coupled with a lack of a formidable social safety net in our meteoritic society could have affected the pro-creation choices for some of us as commitment to a child is a long term one of about 20 years.
How do we turn the pro-creation tide? This is by no means a simple task. Firstly, it is a very personal choice that is outside the purview of the government. Secondly, demographically, the time effectiveness is quite long as it takes about 18 years from gestation to economic productivity. Thirdly, with an aging population, the number of couple is also dwindling thereby compounding the issue further.
In my personal opinion, a basic change in the social safety net is necessary and most probably the most effective. I am not advocating a movement towards a social welfare state of affairs. I am in favor of one that is tailored to cover the young and consider it as a form of democraticism that provides our future generation a more equal opportunity in terms of access to education, career choices and their successful outcome in life that can quite independent of their parents' stature in society.
lkypeter@gmail.com Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014