Talk about birth rate hike justfear tactics

THE EDITOR: Gregory Wight in his July 16 letter, headed “Not the best time for more babies,” admits that he is an amateur social scientist, as am I, and perhaps some of his concerns are well founded, but I have some qualms.

First, he has not taken into account that birth rates vary wildly between countries, and TT’s circumstances are quite different. Sweeping generalisations make for poor decisions.

Secondly, on one hand he mentions 300,000-400,000 who are unable to feed their families, with more unemployment on the horizon. That is roughly more than a quarter of the country's entire population? What percentage falls within the age range of workers? And does such a large figure represent those currently unemployed? It is a figure that he has conjured up out of thin air. This is nothing more than scaremongering.

Why does he totally ignore the effects of a declining birth rate on a population? Probably because it undermines his arguments.

A recent BBC article points out some of them: the economic burden on fewer people to take care of an aging population in the form of taxes for social services and healthcare will be astounding because of the inverse population structure (large elderly population and small younger population) implied by declining birth rates. With more money spent on the elderly, it could mean lower standards of living for everyone. Future populations may be unable to retire. Who will take care of the needs of the future elderly population without younger people to do so?

As economist Donald Boudreaux of George Mason University in the US once said, "Everybody comes into the world with one mouth and two hands. It's generally true that most people produce more than they consume."

ISIDORE M GABRIEL

Maraval