ENCOURAGING BARBADIAN WOMEN to have more children to correct the disparity between young and old has surfaced again.
Re-population of countries is necessary, but the way the subject is being discussed – paying for children and importing women of childbearing age – seems almost like human trafficking. And ask Adrian Green: money isn’t the only thing necessary to raise a child. Furthermore, with the increasing incidence of child abuse, is it wise to force this issue?
The Family Planning Association can’t be blamed for the present lack of young people. I doubt the association ever advised against having children, but encouraged planning, rather than having children without being able to support them.
World statistics suggest that lower birth rates occur in more developed countries, supposedly due to better education. Developed country status is always touted as one of our goals so the lower birth rate seems in-keeping with that.
Apparently, our major concern is to ensure there are enough National Insurance Scheme (NIS) contributions to support pensions for the growing number of elderly. Increasing the birth rate won’t necessarily accomplish this. It isn’t enough to create more young people; they have to work and pay NIS. And we know there’s a growing “block culture” where both young men and women seem to prefer to lime and become involved in crime rather than be gainfully employed.
The increased emphasis on entrepreneurship will probably result in more people working under the radar, making no NIS contributions and paying no income tax. Not all entrepreneurs like being regulated. So increased numbers won’t necessarily mean increased contributions.
I’m yet to see two people of the same sex produce a baby so the growing acceptance of same sex relationships as normal must result in a decreased birth rate.
But there are valid arguments against “paying for babies” that everyone, except the “baby boom promoters” seem aware of. That is, those who can’t afford will likely be those having more children, putting further burden on the welfare system.
You hear about a woman “finding herself with 12 children”. Did she wake up and find them beside her? It’s evident that despite all the information available, there are still some who don’t understand or don’t care. Then there are the increasing number of teenage pregnancies. Wouldn’t “baby incentives” exacerbate this?
Another good point made is that protected sex has been advocated to reduce the incidence of AIDS. Since protected sex won’t produce children, this change of direction could lead to a reversal of the gains made in the HIV and AIDS campaign.
But have we looked at reasons other than reduced birth rate which may have caused this concern about NIS contributions? Like young people exterminating themselves via gunplay. Apart from the deaths caused, the growing crime rate is taking many younger people out of the workforce to jail where they must still be supported.
Do youngsters studying abroad still have the desire to return to Barbados, or have they become disenchanted and prefer to seek their fortunes elsewhere? We brag of our large diaspora population. Can we attract some of these ? Of course there would have to be adequate employment/investment opportunities and the necessary infrastructural support.
Many people in their 60s and 70s are capable of working and giving of their experience and expertise. Couldn’t they receive pensions but continue to work (maybe part time) and pay more realistic NIS contributions on these salaries?
Then we must protect the NIS Funds. They must be invested wisely, and lending to government must be controlled. In fact we should see an annual published statement on the condition of the fund. And of course we must collect all outstanding NIS contributions owed by companies and individuals.
The promotion of registered retirement plans where people invest in their own future without relying totally on NIS makes sense. Was it wise to remove the tax incentive for this?
Coming back to the imbalance between the young and old demographic, things have a way of balancing themselves. The numbers of elderly will likely diminish due to stress and increased NCDs caused by unhealthy lifestyles.
I doubt we’ll see many more centenarians after this present crop. If we observe the published obituaries, many born in the 1940s and later seem to be dying in their 60s and early 70s, and those born later seem to be dying even younger.
• Dr Frances Chandler is a former Independent senator. Email: [email protected]
