Question:
Spanish immigration and the housing boom?
Answer:
Very interesting stuff from Fistful of Euros
http://fistfulofeuros.net/archives/002335.php
"The issue is Spain's housing boom, and the role of immigration in fuelling
it. Two facts above all others stand out: Spain is currently 'enjoying' the
longest and deepest housing boom (in the current round) among all the world'
s developed economies [...], and Spain is also enjoying rates sustained of
immigration which - at around 2% of the population per annum, may well be
the most intense ever experienced in a developed economy...
But there are reasons to think that this boost to Spanish fertility may be
temporary. As Roig and Castro Martin point out, there are two main issues.
In the first place the operation of what is known as adaptation behaviour,
as migrant women steadily 'adapt' to the fertility bavaviour of their
adoptive country:
"Some authors suggest that the first generation of certain immigrant groups
tend to maintain the reproductive norms and patterns of the country of
origin (Abbasi-Shavazi and McDonald, 2002). A considerable number of studies
support the adaptation hypothesis, which predicts that immigrants gradually
adjust their reproductive behaviour to that of the host country (Andersson,
2004)".
The second issue is the decline in fertility which is already well advanced
in the 'sending' countries (ie female migrants may well soon be coming from
countries which already have below replacement fertility themselves: this is
already true of the Central and Eastern European 'transition' countries):
"With regard to the foreseen future, according to United Nations
projections, the fertility in the five countries examined - Morocco,
Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and the Dominican Republic - will range from 2.22 to
2.36 in 2015-2020 (United Nations, forthcoming). Thus, in the next decade,
immigrants not only will depart from a country with an average fertility
close to replacement, but if educational selection continues at play, they
will have lower fertility than the national average.""
There is no decline in fertility: there is a decline in births due to
abortion. RH
But due more to many/most womens'* decisions to a) delay starting a
family and b) have fewer children.
*excluding amongst the chav population, where they breed early and
often.
I believe you and the OP are using different definitions.
AIUI, when talking about 'fertility' in the context of the OP it doesn't
mean the ability to conceive, but rather the average number of (live) births
per woman.
In England and Wales there is a decline in births due to legal abortions,
because year on year (since 1994) the number of legal abortions has
increased (apart from 1999, when there was a small decrease). But the
number of births per woman has nevertheless been increasing since 2000/2001.
Women are generally choosing to have fewer children later in life. That is
the reason for the general decline in fertility, the average number of
births per woman.
Nope. Stop the abortions and the "fertility" problem vanishes. Rh
Just the sort of people you will be screaming to protect you in years to
come when the racial wars begin. "If there is hope it lies with the
proles" (Winston Smith 1984). RH
ISTM abortions have little or nothing to do with it.
Mr Hutcheon's claim - the decline in fertility (the number of births per
woman) is decreasing because women are choosing to have fewer children later
in life - is supported by the literature.
I challenge you to provide evidence that backs up your claim.
Don't be silly. Both my father and mother came from 'large' families
(six children in my mother's case, five in my father's case). They had
four children; one of my sisters had three, the rest of us two. Of our
children (the eldest of whom is 31) none have had children. There have
to the best of my knowledge been no abortions, simply a delay in having
children and/or a decision to have fewer.
Huh? If they're immigrants, it's hardly Spanish fertility.
It's not the reason, it's the problem (if it is a problem). It would be
better to ask why they're choosing to have fewer children.
Work, independence, the pill, education, possibly even a generalised
biological awareness that the world is full up, would all be reasons.
"Now one thing is for sure, immigrantion is steadily nudging up Spain's
fertility rate"
If you're interested, Edward has been doing a lot of work on European
demographics, to the extent that he's well ahead of the media and as far as
I can tell mainstream academia.
A lot of it he posts at http://more.fistfulofeuros.net/, which is a sort of
sister blog.
They are Catholics, but are all married to Protestants.
I agree, but I'm trying to move Mr Henderson away from his abortion idea.
The only thing which matters in the fertility debate is the rate of
conception. Abortion merely terminates the conceived child. RH
RH: There is no decline in fertility: there is a decline in births due to
abortion.
JH: But due more to many/most womens'* decisions to a) delay starting a
family and b) have fewer children.
RH: Nope. Stop the abortions and the "fertility" problem vanishes.
I challenge you to post your line of reasoning and any appropriate
references. AIUI, your claim isn't supported by the literature.
I do understand the difference I assure you. What I don't understand is why
you continue to confuse 'the ability to conceive' with 'the average number
of live births per woman'. As you have already been informed, in the
context of this subject, the latter is what is meant by 'fertility' .
What you are implicitly claiming is that (in simple terms) if there were no
abortions, the number of live births would match or exceed replacement
fertility. You could be right. I do not know, I have not worked it out.
Have _you_ worked it out? If you have, please show your working.
1. National Statistics doesn't measure the ability to conceive but rather
the numbers of conceptions, live births, legal abortions, and infant
mortality.
2. According to NS, the UK has had below replacement fertility since 1973.
It seems the word 'fertility' confuses you. Ok:
There is a decline in the average number of live births per woman. What you
are implicitly claiming is that (in simple terms) if there were no
abortions, the number of live births would match or exceed the number of
live births required to sustain the current population. You could be right.
I do not know, I have not worked it out. Have _you_ worked it out? If you
have, please show your working.
