PDA

View Full Version : Can Northern Europe's Low Birth Rate Be Remedied?



Northern Paladin
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 11:12 PM
Yes we all know low birth rate is a problem facing Northern Europe. This combined with uncontroled immigration and movements of people's will be the end of Northern Europe was we know it.

Can Northern Europe's low birth rate be remedied? If so how?

I think there is still hope. As recently as the 1970s Northern European controls across the board had positive population growth numbers.

Todesritter
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 11:35 PM
Yes we all know low birth rate is a problem facing Northern Europe. This combined with uncontroled immigration and movements of people's will be the end of Northern Europe was we know it.

Can Northern Europe's low birth rate be remedied? If so how?

I think there is still hope. As recently as the 1970s Northern European controls across the board had positive population growth numbers.
[One little thing..]

Social scientists claim that the decline in birthrate is due to social and economic changes, so since many of us would like to see changes to various governments anyway, hypothetically a friendlier government in the near future could restructure the social and economic pressures to be advantageous to reproduce above simple replacement. Say for example, one thing could be a simple tax structure change:

- 2.1 children (statistical replacement level) or less = no Family Tax Benefit.
- 3-5 children = standard Family Tax Benefit.
- Above 5 children = reduced Family Tax Benefit *
- Family w/ both parents high above average IQ, or family history of great longevity, etc, target family size shifted upward, or extra Family Tax Benefit.
- Family w/ one or more parents with hereditary disadvantages, low IQ, or diabetes, etc.. target family size shifted downward, or reduced Family Tax Benefit.

* some work would be needed to make sure individual families did not overdo it - determine ideal average family size + 1 child, or something.
** Assume, that singles (Single childless people past the age of 30) have received resources from a society reliant upon a stable or growing population, therefore they get the highest tax rate (penalty) though it should not be phrased as such, rather they are helping give back to their society through financial means in lieu of contributing biologically to the next generation. This would help subsidize those households attaining the target family size to enjoy the lowest taxes, possibly owing zero on good years.

--> Just an idea. People should ultimately have families because they fall in love, and decide they can make a relationship last, but subsidizing family households would not hurt, to help those who would otherwise have only felt they could afford 1 or 2 children to feel they could afford more. :)

/Ultimately it seems irresponsible to me to come from a line of ancestors who underwent hardship to have families who survived much harsher conditions than those of the modern day, and then to 'live for yourself', given that modern people take for granted all of the benefits dependent upon a living society they have received in order to become a healthy educated adult.

Death and the Sun
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 12:08 AM
As soon as we get pro-White governments.

We are about the wealthiest region in the world, we can easily afford it to support working-class families with several children better.

It's quite simply a matter of will.

infoterror
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 12:24 AM
Can Northern Europe's low birth rate be remedied? If so how?

All of Europe's problems have the same origin. Fix that, and the birth rate will normalize.

Death and the Sun
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 12:37 AM
All of Europe's problems have the same origin. Fix that, and the birth rate will normalize.

Elaborate, please.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 12:53 AM
[One little thing..]

Social scientists claim that the decline in birthrate is due to social and economic changes, so since many of us would like to see changes to various governments anyway, hypothetically a friendlier government in the near future could restructure the social and economic pressures to be advantageous to reproduce above simple replacement. Say for example, one thing could be a simple tax structure change:

- 2.1 children (statistical replacement level) or less = no Family Tax Benefit.
- 3-5 children = standard Family Tax Benefit.
- Above 5 children = reduced Family Tax Benefit *
- Family w/ both parents high above average IQ, or family history of great longevity, etc, target family size shifted upward, or extra Family Tax Benefit.
- Family w/ one or more parents with hereditary disadvantages, low IQ, or diabetes, etc.. target family size shifted downward, or reduced Family Tax Benefit.

* some work would be needed to make sure individual families did not overdo it - determine ideal average family size + 1 child, or something.
** Assume, that singles (Single childless people past the age of 30) have received resources from a society reliant upon a stable or growing population, therefore they get the highest tax rate (penalty) though it should not be phrased as such, rather they are helping give back to their society through financial means in lieu of contributing biologically to the next generation. This would help subsidize those households attaining the target family size to enjoy the lowest taxes, possibly owing zero on good years.

--> Just an idea. People should ultimately have families because they fall in love, and decide they can make a relationship last, but subsidizing family households would not hurt, to help those who would otherwise have only felt they could afford 1 or 2 children to feel they could afford more. :)

/Ultimately it seems irresponsible to me to come from a line of ancestors who underwent hardship to have families who survived much harsher conditions than those of the modern day, and then to 'live for yourself', given that modern people take for granted all of the benefits dependent upon a living society they have received in order to become a healthy educated adult.

Awesome! If what you said was implented I bet we'd see a Baby Boom like no other. As economical factors are one of the main reasons why Nords tend to keep their famalies small.

A Nordic Government that had the best interests of it's people in mind should do all what you said. It would benefit the people in countless ways. The bad Economy in Scandinavia I believe can be traced to low birth rates, high taxes, and a welfare system that is being Leeched by Foreigners.

If all the money the Scandinavian governments spent on Foreign refugees and their famalies were given to Remedy the low birth rates that plague the North lands the problem would be fixed within a few years.

I'd add giving the mother more Maternal leave. I don't think that's a problem in Scandinavia or the European countries but it's a real problem here.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 12:58 AM
As soon as we get pro-White governments.

We are about the wealthiest region in the world, we can easily afford it to support working-class families with several children better.

It's quite simply a matter of will.

Yes Scandinavia has the potential to support a population many times as large and still be a nice place to live in.

Todesritter
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 01:31 AM
Awesome! ....

I'd add giving the mother more Maternal leave. I don't think that's a problem in Scandinavia or the European countries but it's a real problem here.
Thanks :)

With a large family, a mother (or in some cases a father) should have the option of being a stay-at-home parent – at the very least subsidizing this demographic change should also easily provide for compensating a woman’s employer to keep her position open for her if she wishes to return to work but take an extended Maternal leave.

That was just one moderate idea that came to mind. As others have commented, educated Nordic populations listen to the wisdom that humans are overproducing, and also attempt to be financially responsible. It is a trait to want to give the same or more to ones children as was available to the parents among the North Folk. However, as others have noted in other threads, if only the educated North European types listen and try, as is their earnest natured, to do ‘right thing’, then it is not fair. It results in the current situation where the Northern Europeans are creating a surplus, which rightly should go to their own children first, followed by their kin-folk, but instead people in distant lands reproduce at irresponsible levels, and have ecological catastrophes or wars, and export their excess population and their problems to the land whose people are able to mind their affairs, as well as contribute to the world through trade, art, and research. Basically, this injustice serves no one, the foreign peoples never are forced to deal with their own problems and evolve, the once prosperous host country is gradually eaten apart from within, and the basic logic of social progress, the cornerstone of civilization advancing, is turned on its head as it becomes ethnically advantageous for the foreign people to exist in perpetual crisis, and disadvantageous for the North Europeans to be stable and self-sustaining.

/This is the Wisdom of the Fable of “The Ant and the Grasshopper” inverted.
Aesop's Fables: The Ant and the Grasshopper (http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/ant-grasshopper.shtml)

Triglav
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 02:44 AM
[One little thing..]

Social scientists claim that the decline in birthrate is due to social and economic changes, so since many of us would like to see changes to various governments anyway, hypothetically a friendlier government in the near future could restructure the social and economic pressures to be advantageous to reproduce above simple replacement. Say for example, one thing could be a simple tax structure change:

- 2.1 children (statistical replacement level) or less = no Family Tax Benefit.
- 3-5 children = standard Family Tax Benefit.
- Above 5 children = reduced Family Tax Benefit *
- Family w/ both parents high above average IQ, or family history of great longevity, etc, target family size shifted upward, or extra Family Tax Benefit.
- Family w/ one or more parents with hereditary disadvantages, low IQ, or diabetes, etc.. target family size shifted downward, or reduced Family Tax Benefit.

* some work would be needed to make sure individual families did not overdo it - determine ideal average family size + 1 child, or something.
** Assume, that singles (Single childless people past the age of 30) have received resources from a society reliant upon a stable or growing population, therefore they get the highest tax rate (penalty) though it should not be phrased as such, rather they are helping give back to their society through financial means in lieu of contributing biologically to the next generation. This would help subsidize those households attaining the target family size to enjoy the lowest taxes, possibly owing zero on good years.



Just a few days ago, some Slovenian politician proposed something along the same lines and was assailed by the media for putting forward proposals that would undermine freedom of choice, etc. This is what every other similar proposal in any other European country would be met with, I suppose.

Todesritter
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 02:53 AM
Just a few days ago, some Slovenian politician proposed something along the same lines and was assailed by the media for putting forward proposals that would undermine freedom of choice, etc. This is what every other similar proposal in any other European country would be met with, I suppose.
It is only civilization that has brought people the peace, advancement, and wealth that enable them to enjoy freedoms beyond those of the Stone Age, such as ina given instant breathing air or not being eaten by a giant bear. Civilization was created by responsibilities and freedoms, but mostly responsibilities; citizens of the West may choke themselves on their precious freedoms, if they evaluate freedom, responsibility, and duty, and hold freedom to be paramount.

Draugr
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 05:54 AM
Can Northern Europe's low birth rate be remedied? If so how?

Easy, both men and women should remain chaste until they become married and should stay married for life for the purposes of raising and rearing children, forget that romantic bull that the media has been cramming down our throats.

Freja
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 07:29 AM
Here in Norway, maternity leave lasts one year. Usually the mother stays at home with the child for that whole year, in some families the father takes the two last months as paternity leave.

The real problems start when that year has passed. A working class family in Norway simply cannot survive on one salary. We even have an arrangement that pays families with children between the ages of one and three a small sum each months to encourage mothers to stay at home and take care of their little ones.
This was originally planned to decrease the numbers of children on waiting lists for kindergarten.

The problem is that this small sum just isn`t enough to make a difference, as it is only 1/4 to 1/5 of the normal monthly wages.
Here in Norway, the solution would clearly be

1) Reduced Tax Benefit, as mentioned
2) More financial support
3) Family discounts on groceries etc.

This would cover the financial aspect of the case.
Next battle would be to fight the feminists who would go absolutely bananas over this concept. :speechles

Fenrisulfr
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Just a few days ago, some Slovenian politician proposed something along the same lines and was assailed by the media for putting forward proposals that would undermine freedom of choice, etc. This is what every other similar proposal in any other European country would be met with, I suppose.

How can "freedom of choice" surpass your one and only biological meaning of life? This free world crap is often working against the very ways of nature.


Easy, both men and women should remain chaste until they become married and should stay married for life for the purposes of raising and rearing children, forget that romantic bull that the media has been cramming down our throats.

Thats one solution yes,but then marriage and chastity must be re-encouraged by government/media or whatever inspires people (in general).


The real problems start when that year has passed. A working class family in Norway simply cannot survive on one salary.

How do you define working class? (By Norwegian standards)

Freja
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 04:41 PM
How do you define working class? (By Norwegian standards)

I base it loosely on an average income of about 200-250.000 kroner/year per adult in the family. Losing one income has great impact on such a family`s economy.
In comparison, a family where one adult makes 500.000 a year, one income would be sufficient.

fenriSS_
Thursday, March 10th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Jeg tror nordmenn har blitt for late til å produsere mange barn. De fleste jeg kjenner har 2-3 barn, men veldig sjeldent fler. Vet ikek hva dette kommer av, men foreldrene mine var i verstefall for late til å produsere fler enn meg og broren min :icon1:

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 01:56 AM
I base it loosely on an average income of about 200-250.000 kroner/year per adult in the family. Losing one income has great impact on such a family`s economy.
In comparison, a family where one adult makes 500.000 a year, one income would be sufficient.

The problem nowadays is there are no employers who give their workers a family wage (i.e. a salary that one person could suport his family on), no once women got into the workforce and competing with their men, employers figure they can save money by skimping on their workers wages.

No the white woman has gotten her equality but at the price of shedding her family's blood. Now you know why I regard them with ire.

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:19 AM
The problem nowadays is there are no employers who give their workers a family wage (i.e. a salary that one person could suport his family on), no once women got into the workforce and competing with their men, employers figure they can save money by skimping on their workers wages.

This sounds a little far-fetched to me. I think the problem lies more in the fact that our expected standard of living has increased in the last 100 years or so. In addition, Norway is a very expensive country to live in.


No the white woman has gotten her equality but at the price of shedding her family's blood. Now you know why I regard them with ire.

You like it when you can blame everything that goes wrong on women and feminism, don`t you? I also resent the fact that you generalize. It might mean you`ll end up alone, as I think I have pointed out before.
Even though some males act like - and are - morons, that does not mean all of them are. At least not in my book. It all comes down to individualism.

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:32 AM
You like it when you can blame everything that goes wrong on women and feminism, don`t you? I also resent the fact that you generalize. It might mean you`ll end up alone, as I think I have pointed out before.
Even though some males act like - and are - morons, that does not mean all of them are. At least not in my book. It all comes down to individualism.

No just a great part, like being stabbed in the back. You may resent the fact that I generalize but I am in the middle of a war whose enemies are ill-defined at best and everywhere, if the fly the enemies colors, I hit 'em with all I've got. No time to distinguish who might be a friendly and who isn't, if they are on the wrong side then they are part of the enemy body.

Sort of like when the IRA bombs pubs frequented by British soldiers, oh well if some Irish get wasted, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Plus I avenge betrayal 5 fold, like when I was brawling against the Ukrainians we had a man pull out and turn tail and run, well needless to say after we found him, we had a little waffle tread party on his face.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:36 AM
The problem nowadays is there are no employers who give their workers a family wage (i.e. a salary that one person could suport his family on), no once women got into the workforce and competing with their men, employers figure they can save money by skimping on their workers wages.

No the white woman has gotten her equality but at the price of shedding her family's blood. Now you know why I regard them with ire.
Our society should make it possible for a parent, either the woman, or sometimes the man, to be a stay-at-home parent to run the household and care for the children. It is wrong for companies and individuals to claim that the market should be allowed to dictate prices in this regard; it is unfair. (1.) Our societies to function need all manner of jobs. (2.) Our societies to function need wholesome families, and stable households, so that social costs don’t burden the system in later generations – and it is the RIGHT thing to do anyway. Therefore, all households, even working-class households should have the economic tools provided by society government or employer I do not care, to be a sustainable single income household. This is a valuable job for a functioning society, and there should be some easy solutions to this – I will happily pay extra for my hamburger at a restaurant for society to ensure the janitor and the clerk can provide for their household. Economic tools and tax structures should be re-imagined to view more strongly the family household as the basic unit to be taxed or subsidized, rather than the individual.

Blaming women going to work is too simplistic a critique to adequately explain why the system is failing in the western world, and does not suggest a route for positive change, unless we mean to forcibly send women to the kitchen for life.

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:46 AM
I will happily pay extra for my hamburger at a restaurant for society to ensure the janitor and the clerk can provide for their household. Economic tools and tax structures should be remained to view more strongly the family household as the basic unit to be taxed or subsidized, rather than the individual.


Well said.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Well said.
Thanks ... except I meant 're-imagined'. :)

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 08:57 AM
A major portion of the problem is the Jews have us by the balls with inflation and control over the money, they deside how well we live by how much money they print.

And I will still blame women, most of the characteristics I don't like about them are the same ones I find in negro men (who are very efeminate in character). The women still play into the hands of the Jews of the forces of destruction, I gaurentee a day of reckoning for the white woman is coming, for a civilization cannot rise above it's women and they have set the bar oh so low.

Many a race-mixing whore will defend her sambo with more energy than her own kin, sickening beyond all imagination. My solution: empty the mag and don't look back, the nightmares will fade with time.

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:03 AM
And I will still blame women, most of the characteristics I don't like about them are the same ones I find in negro men (who are very efeminate in character). The women still play into the hands of the Jews of the forces of destruction, I gaurentee a day of reckoning for the white woman is coming, for a civilization cannot rise above it's women and they have set the bar oh so low.

Many a race-mixing whore will defend her sambo with more energy than her own kin, sickening beyond all imagination. My solution: empty the mag and don't look back, the nightmares will fade with time.

:speechles

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:11 AM
:speechles

That's why they keep me chained in the basement, 'cause I don't know when to stop, like a one-eyed dog with a bone.

The Horned God
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:12 AM
This sounds a little far-fetched to me. I think the problem lies more in the fact that our expected standard of living has increased in the last 100 years or so. In addition, Norway is a very expensive country to live in.

A far as I know, the increase in living standards is due to economic growth out-striping population growth.If the economy is growing at 3% per year and population growth is stagnant, and as long as the surplus is distributed, you have an increase in living standards.
In Africa the situation is reversed because the economy is all but stagnant while the population is managing to grow, so living standards are reduced.
In the West, advances in technology and the increased ability to exploit natural resources and open new markets is what drives growth, stagnant technology= stagnant growth.

Women in the work place just make this cycle go round faster than it ever did before, in fact the WWII war economy never really ended, it turned into the cold war.
Don't fool yourself into thinking it was invented by feminists to free women from anything, it was created to defeat the Soviet Union, and is a considerable part of what is currently depleting the planets resources in order to provide more none essential luxaries for people who don't need them.

If women stopped working outside the home men would then hold all the ecomomic power and one wage would again be enough to buy a house and run a car and raise a family.etc Great for mens self-esteem no so great for unmarried women, that I freely admit, but I believe it would be for the greater good. :viking1:
Of course it would need to be imposed on the entire world at the same time otherwise we would be uncompetitive, thats where the plan falls down a little and the reason why women entered the workforce in the first place...

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:14 AM
That's why they keep me chained in the basement, 'cause I don't know when to stop, like a one-eyed dog with a bone.

:laugh:

The Horned God
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:40 AM
I will happily pay extra for my hamburger at a restaurant for society to ensure the janitor and the clerk can provide for their household..

You will be paying $20 for that hamburger, I kid you not, they already pay that in skandinavia, services are a killer, but then people cook for themselves and eat more healthily and they drink a lot less alcohol in general except what they brew themselves. These would be the consequences and much more besides to have zero cheap immigrant labour, and more stay at home mothers, but I would be all for it.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:01 AM
You will be paying $20 for that hamburger, I kid you not, they already pay that in skandinavia, services are a killer, but then people cook for themselves and eat more healthily and they drink a lot less alcohol in general except what they brew themselves. These would be the consequences and much more besides to have zero cheap immigrant labour, and more stay at home mothers, but I would be all for it.
I’d be eating less hamburgers then, but happy with the results of the $20 spent on the hamburger. I don’t know that it would be that bad, but if it was, I’d pay it and be happy to know I was not a silent partner in the destruction of my land and people.

Besides, looking at peoples' guts here in America, they are poisoning themselves with the $1 hamburgers.

They have also announced on the news today that places like Los Angeles, where so much of the working-class is now foreign, and therefore both super-cheap and incapable of understandable English for making orders, McDonalds will ‘out source’ the ordering system to people who can speak English, and send the orders via telecommunications tech back to the workers in the kitchens of McDonalds. This is not how I would like to see my money spent, I will vote, and I will vote also with my dollars.


The world is going crazy

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:18 AM
L.A. is lost let the smog engulf it for the rest of time, and the memory of what it once was haunt our dreams.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:21 AM
…and you pay from your taxes, the social costs of the $1 burger too, health problems, social problems from the children of the McDonalds clerk* who must work 14 hours a day just to pay rent, and therefore has little time for family matters, or to read, or otherwise better their mind – and a place where a family can live in a larger city will frequently take 2 working-class incomes, so even if the parents stay together, then there is no one at home to teach the children values, to raise them, and read to them, and take them on walks. You pay the costs of those youth becoming thieves, or murderers, or drug fiends, sometimes you pay when they commit crime on you. The free market economy is a tool, a useful tool, yet still just a tool, not the master, we are the master, and if the tool is not helping us the right way, we have the power to change the rules of how the tool functions for us, if only we have the resolve.

* I know I am oversimplifying to illustrate my point, not everyone works at McDonalds, or is a customer, but I feel this is a good representative of a lower-end working-class job, but it could as easily be cannery worker, janitor, maid, garbage collector, clothing sales clerk, etc…

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:23 AM
L.A. is lost let the smog engulf it for the rest of time, and the memory of what it once was haunt our dreams.
I am with you, except if they do this in LA, they will do it elsewhere. A corporation, developing this type of system, if it works, logically they will try to implement it everywhere it will make them more money.

The Horned God
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:53 AM
I’d be eating less hamburgers then, but happy with the results of the $20 spent on the hamburger..
In fairness, that is one thing I noticed about Norway, everything cost the earth but at least it was all top quality, wheather it was a burger or a t-shirt or cup of coffee there was no shoddy merchandise, that I saw.



Besides, looking at peoples' guts here in America, they are poisoning themselves with the $1 hamburgers.
You wouldn't have to worry about those thats for sure!



They have also announced on the news today that places like Los Angeles, where so much of the working-class is now foreign, and therefore both super-cheap and incapable of understandable English for making orders, McDonalds will ‘out source’ the ordering system to people who can speak English, and send the orders via telecommunications tech back to the workers in the kitchens of McDonalds.
I think I feel an attack of future-Shock comming on.


This is not how I would like to see my money spent, I will vote, and I will vote also with my dollars.
That being your only real vote...

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 11:06 AM
...

I think I feel an attack of future-Shock comming on.
...

Here is the link, just so you know it is not science fiction/horror. :speechles

McDonald's outsourcing drive-thrus? (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/10/news/fortune500/mcdonalds.reut/)

lei.talk
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 07:27 AM
Draugr
EXSECRABILIS IMPERATOR

regarding:
"family wage
(i.e. a salary that one person could suport his family on)"

gloria steinem and her fellow travelers
may have been college-educated,

but they were disastrously ignorant.

if one has enough of some thing
and suddenly you have twice as much
(without any extra effort on your part),
it is now worth only half
of it's previous value.

when feminists became "liberated",
half of the adult population joined the work-force.

at that point,
the value of labor was halved.

good planning, gertrude.
now, we both have to work
to earn the same purchasing-power.

lei.talk
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 07:51 AM
the low white birth-rate is not a strictly economic issue.
if it were,
there would be a lot more birth-control practiced
both preventively and after the fact.

some of the problem is biological.

recently, at the university of california at san diego,
douglas c. wallace was the guest-speaker
from the university of california at irvine.

he hails from the center for molecular
and mitochondrial medicine and genetics at uci.

as he was discussing
"the latitudinal cline of mitochondrial dna distribution",
he mentioned that mitochondria are racially specialized:
they can keep your cells warm or make them fast,
you are genetically predisposed to one or the other.

one practical result, that he mentioned,
was races from warm latitudes
do not need to generate body-heat.
so their cells are faster
than races from cold latitudes.

all of their cells.
he specifically mentioned sperm-cells.

Dagna
Saturday, July 3rd, 2010, 09:02 AM
Baby boom as Swedes go forth and procreate

The number of children born in Sweden in the first half of 2010 climbed by almost seven percent from the corresponding period of 2009, to 58,174, new figures show.

At the same time, the number of deaths declined by 3 percent, to 46,486 people, according to a new report from Infotorg.

"Our previous figures from 2009 indicated that a baby boom was looming," said Patrik Attemark, InfoTorg CEO in a statement on Thursday.

The report indicates that immigration is 70 percent higher than emigration, despite a 35 percent hike in the number of those leaving Sweden in comparison with 2009.

While Swedish procreation is ensuring an increased at the younger end of the population, longer life spans and a higher average age of new arrivals to Sweden, the average age of the population increased somewhat over the period.

"Sweden will continue to see pregnant bellies and baby carriages in increasing amounts in the streets. At the same time, we note a reduced number of deaths, a trend that indicates a prosperous population living longer," Attemark said.

The Infotorg report is based on figures from the Swedish Population Address Register (SPAR), which are based on an average daily change over a given month multiplied by the number of days in the month.


http://www.thelocal.se/27554/20100701/