luxembourg. so you agree wealth/having money means less children.? as i said when you have something you dont want to lose it .
No I'm not saying that about Luxembourg at all, it is the complete opposite in some ways. The point is people on benefits in Luxembourg, especially the young, can see there is potentially a well paying job out there for them. They are not rich, they are still on benefits at this point. So they are not going to risk that future potential by risking having kids. They get a job and have kids. They then get on the merry go around of mortgage payments, bills etc and have the number of kids they can afford.
Here in the UK it is a different situation for the young employed. They dont see a potentially well paying on the job on the horizon so having kids is not seen anywhere as near financially risky. This translates in to less care about contraception, which in turn means more kids. Those having babies to get houses are just a small sub set of this much larger group.
italy. your reason for italy is just an opinion . just as me saying being a catholic country is imo something to do with less children being born there.
Why would a deeply catholic country have less kids? I would expect it to be the complete opposite and have large families. Christianity and family planning are not usually a good mix - the Vatican is very against contraception. So I have no idea why you think family sizes would go down. Ireland is also a very Christian country and is one of the handful of countries in the EU that has a higher birth rate than ours.
Your second post only goes to prove that being a Christian country had zero effect on the birth rate during and after the war. Again we are not comparing like with like there as there were lots of other reasons for for having babies about.
First of all there was the WW2 baby boom. After WW2 most countries in the western world saw a big baby boom that lasted for several years. People simply didnt risk bringing babies in to the world during the war, when the war was over people basically went for it. The need/want for having babies when your body clock is ticking simply takes over the economic restrictions. The same happened here in the UK, the US and many other Western countries.
So what are these many other things?
BTW - The split between those who have full citizenship and those that don't is irrelevant in the way I broke the numbers down as I included both in my calculations. 25% of the births were by mothers who were born abroad. If I could separate the two it would only serve to show that the number of births by British parents was even higher.
The fact that an exploding population drags down GDP per capita is a fact not accusation. The formula is simple. Its the GDP divided by the population. The bigger the population the less GDP there is to go around.
Because our birth rate and our immigration are out of control, that is the problem we are left with. The trend is to blame nothing but immigrants but the truth is there are elements of the British population at fault as well.
