No money, lets make babies

[Michael Angel]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Putting off childbirth is a bad habit for many women in developed countries:

How so?
There is an increased risk of trisomy 21. Many decide to terminate such pregnancies.

In Australia now, about 30% of the female workforce are entitled to paid maternity leave. Fathers get a little too.
There is also a push for more child care facilities and to make them tax deductible. More flexible working conditions and starting and finishing times are also being introduced. There seems to be a growing mood that supporting families is good social policy.

Certainly, IMO career wise, taking time off to have a family does not help a woman break the "Glass Ceiling"

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Michael Angel

How so?
There is an increased risk of trisomy 21. Many decide to terminate such pregnancies.

Women are putting off having a baby to develop their career, or just have a good time. Both are widely available in developed nations.

The previous graph shows why this is a bad idea.

In addition, IVF is seen as a back up plan, ignoring the incredibly low success rate of it.

Women today take their 20's out for themselves, to pursue career and relationships - but not permanent ones - to experiment, to have fun. It's the 'me' decade of their life. I have no problem with that, but it does lead to a kind of independence that can make it hard for women to ever settle down with another person and willingly accept all the emotional and financial compromises that entails.

This, in turn, has led to another unintended consequence - this time biological. The principled and often pathological belief that men and women have to be treated the same has led women to believe they can have kids whenever they want and with whomever they want - or even by themselves if they choose. The principle legacy of that belief is not more contented mothers, but more women putting money in the pockets of a booming fertility industry as they discover the hard way that nature doesn't perform to order and pays no regard to social idealism.

Yet when two highly esteemed doctors had the temerity to point out this simple truth, they were pilloried. To howls of derision from the feminist lobby, Susan Bewley and Melanie Davies - consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology - wrote an article for the British Medical Journal stating that the "the most secure age of childbearing remains 20-35".

I went to meet them, and they told me that the growing belief among women that pregnancy can be delayed until their 40's is becoming a serious public health problem. "The problem is that women think because we're healthy and we live longer, somehow our reproductive health goes on longer", they told me. "But that's not the case.

THE SILENT CONSPIRACY by Amanda Platell - By khankrumthebulgar

I recommend you read the whole article, and there's a youtube of Amanda Platell talking about it.

In Australia now, about 30% of the female workforce are entitled to paid maternity leave. Fathers get a little too.
There is also a push for more child care facilities and to make them tax deductible. More flexible working conditions and starting and finishing times are also being introduced. There seems to be a growing mood that supporting families is good social policy.

Certainly, IMO career wise, taking time off to have a family does not help a woman break the "Glass Ceiling"

Glass Ceiling? Largely a myth. Women tend to have different ambitions to men. Men are more likely to actually want to spend long hours for that promotion (or pressured to do so by family issues). Women are more likely to want to have more flexibility.

All else being equal, guess which will be more likely to be promoted?

There is only so much child care that can be implemented. With small businesses, its espeically difficult for maternity leave expenses.

Of course you never hear of women trying to break through the "Glass Cellar" where men also dominate

[Michael Angel]

Originally Posted by Wobs

The previous graph shows why this is a bad idea.

What graph are you talking about? I see no graph.

In addition, IVF is seen as a back up plan, ignoring the incredibly low success rate of it.

It is a pity women don't look to traditional methods of conception. The N. American Indian tradition is much more effective and less expensive IMO than the IVF Industry.

THE SILENT CONSPIRACY by Amanda Platell - By khankrumthebulgar

I recommend you read the whole article, and there's a youtube of Amanda Platell talking about it.

I skimmed though the article and found it very shallow if not total BS
Patel's qualifications seem very suss
e.g.

at the age of 42, she took on what was one of the most challenging jobs in British politics: top spin doctor to William Hague and the Conservative Party
. . .
She quickly created a stir in both Fleet Street and Westminster with the publication of a novel: Scandal.

As the title suggested, it was a racy bodice-ripper with many of the central characters bases loosely on real life figures in journalism and politics.

.
BBC News | UK POLITICS | Amanda Platell: Nobody's fool

Described as 'poisonous' by one commentator over the The Fern Britton gastric band furore,

Amanda Platell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see her as an expert in this field.

Glass Ceiling? Largely a myth.

Any proof of that?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Michael Angel

What graph are you talking about? I see no graph.

It's actually in post of mine that you quoted in this thread. Sorry if you can't see it.

It is a pity women don't look to traditional methods of conception. The N. American Indian tradition is much more effective and less expensive IMO than the IVF Industry.

Or even aiming to concieve when most fertile might be a plan.

I skimmed though the article and found it very shallow if not total BS

I think I see your error here. Try reading it a bit more thoroughly. Or watch the youtube of it. She interviews Fay Weldon:

"Women like you should be cursing women of my generation", she told me. "All we did was make you go out to work and earn money and have children and completely exhaust yourselves. I'm sorry". She called women like me 'the lost generation' - the ones who had inherited a barren landscape after the revolution had marched through.

"If you want to be like a man, then feminism hasn't gone far enough", she said, "if you want to be like a woman, it has gone too far.

And speaks to experts in fertility, if you read it properly, you'll find some detail.

Patel's qualifications seem very suss
e.g.
.
BBC News | UK POLITICS | Amanda Platell: Nobody's fool

Amanda Platell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see her as an expert in this field.

I don't see you disporving anything with this. She's a successful career woman, done a lot of journalism, and researched the subject at hand, interviewing those in the know. An interesting article, but only part of the picture as we'll see.

Any proof of that?

Glass ceiling myth?

Here's a starter:

After the release of the Sex and Power report, various powerful women were canvassed on whether the glass ceiling exists. Fay Weldon, writer and mother of four, pointed out that it exists only for women with children and not because mothers are discriminated against, but because after childbirth women regard their role as mothers as more important than anything else. It is also physiological: “Women aren’t promoted because they don’t apply for promotion. They don’t want the longer hours, bringing more strain and more stress. They don’t want that extra responsibility because they already have enough responsibility as a mother.”

Nicola Horlick, a mother of five and the so-called City “superwoman”, said that she had never experienced any discrimination or glass ceiling: “The changes we’ve witnessed [the report’s findings that the number of women employed in senior positions is falling] don’t reflect women being disadvantaged. They simply show a greater desire for control over their lives.”

Just a mo, I’m dusting this lovely glass ceiling | Rachel Johnson - Times Online

Or look up Warren Farrell, who'll tell you:
Its the way men and women choose their career paths that dictate how much they earn and how high up the corporate ladder they get.

The better paid jobs tend to be:
* From the technologies or hard sciences or high risk

* Hazardous work

* Work long hours, and you need to be flexible for the company rather than the other way around.

* Low skilled or jobs requiring low education thresholds will only pay well if it involves being out in the sleet of heat

* In most highly paid jobs you can't psychologically check out at the end of the day.

* Higher paid jobs are often less fulfilling

.....among other issues.

These conditions tend to be avoided by women, whereas men often feel much more pressure to earn to provide for his family, and so will take on some aspect of the above.

Even taking that into account, job patterns are evolving, with more "comfortable" jobs available which are more suitable for women than men. This explains why female single childess 20somethings are often out earning their male counterparts.

But when families come into the picture, men and women soon find their priorites change.

Or here:
Glass ceiling myth: Reality is women make different choices | Milwaukee Sentinel | Find Articles at BNET

According to the "Glass Ceiling Report" issued by the Labor Department, there seems to be "an invisible but impenetrable barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits."

It's a fascinating thesis and almost entirely wrong.

The theory is that women are being denied promotions for which they are as eager to compete and as qualified as their male counterparts.

The report laments that only 5% of senior managers of Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies are women. It also reports one study showing that men were eight times more likely than women to be CEOs 10 years after earning a degree from the Stanford University Business School.

What the report doesn't show is that women often make different choices than those men make, choices that profoundly affect their careers but which don't constitute discrimination.

It's feminist heresy to say so, but most women including professionals and mid-level executives put their families first.

Climbing to the top of the corporate world often entails cutthroat competition involving 80- and 90-hour work weeks, frequent moves and a fanatical devotion to the job above all else.

Few women are willing to play by those rules for long thankfully so.

I speak from experience.

No one who knows me would describe me as unambitious, but my ambition has always been tempered by my unwillingness to totally sacrifice family life.

In 1986, after losing a race for a U.S. Senate seat, I was asked by the head of the White House Office of Personnel if I'd be interested in an ambassadorial appointment.

With three children in school and a husband with a career in Washington, I said no, despite a keen interest in foreign affairs.

Over the years, I've had plenty of inquiries from corporate headhunters for high-paying jobs all of which required moves to other parts of the country and all of which I rejected.

Although I often put in grueling hours now, I work primarily in an office in my home.

My experiences aren't unique.

In talking with a group of female political commentators, hardly an unaspiring lot, each had her own story of ambition deferred, of making career choices that put family before job.

The choice to have children in the first place often dramatically affects a woman's career.

One study of female MBAs who took time off to have children and later returned to work found they earned 17% less than a comparable group of women who experienced no break in service.

The study also found that only 44% of the first group reached senior middle-management positions, while 60% of those who stayed on the job reached that level.

Even for those women who climb to the top of the corporate ladder, the rewards aren't always what they expected.

As one senior executive told Fortune magazine in 1990, "I would never want my mother to know how much it hurts me to be childless."

Another top executive said, "I used to think I could work and raise a family. I realize now it's hard just to do my job well."

Yet another described her situation, "I don't cook. I don't take my children to malls and museums. And I don't have any close friends."

Thanks, but no thanks.

It sounds like shattering through that "glass ceiling" risks deep cuts into a woman's personal life that many of us would simply rather forgo.

Don't call us victims. We've set different priorities and experienced different rewards.

Linda Chavez is director of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Washington-based think tank, and was director of public liaison in the Reagan administration. She writes this column for USA Today and Gannett News Service.

{} Women often make different choices than those men make, choices that profoundly affect their careers but which don't constitute discrimination.

[Michael Angel]

This is more of the "proof" I had in mind

The Australian National University
Centre for Economic Policy Research
DISCUSSION PAPER

In addressing the prime hypothesis that is posted initially, the major finding reveals the existence of glass ceiling in the Australia private sector; whereas the gender wage gap seems to be relatively constant over all percentiles in the public sector.
In this paper estimation took the following steps. First the results from the
unconditional raw gender gap identified the existence of the gender pay gap in both sectors.
The second step was obtaining the conditional QR estimates. By imposing the
restriction of equal returns to labour market characteristics between genders, it was found that gender differences accounted for substantial amount of the public sector sticky floor and private sector glass ceiling

Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor
There are dozens of articles that refute what your articles say .
Here are a few
*

Do women want IT?

At a conference all about Women in IT, the speakers discussed how to encourage women (of all ages) into IT and - more importantly - how to keep them there.
*
Mind over matter - Hunter’s recipe for success

Brenda Hunter, managing director of business software vendor Frontstep muses on a career spent ignoring invisible barriers.
*
Are women cracking IT's glass ceiling?

While the tech industry has a history of pay inequity between men and women, recent surveys show this may be balancing out. However, pay is not the only factor at play in the workplace battle of the sexes.
*
Tech women hit glass ceiling: study

Women climbing to the top of major telecommunications, media and Internet companies appear to be hitting the same glass ceiling they face at traditional companies, a new study shows.
*
Women haven't broken the VC ceiling

According to one group, women-owned companies receive only 4 percent of venture funding. A new program aims to address such gender-related inequities.

More News >
Blogs (1)

*
Read the blog post - Sheryle Moon
Male-dominated workforce costs AU $47bn a year

Restricting women's job opportunities costs the Asia Pacific region up to $47 billion each year.

Features and Case Studies (4)

Glass Ceiling - ZDNet Australia

Glass ceiling will add to skills shortage: report

Posted Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:29pm AEDT

* Related Story: Big business maintaining glass ceiling: report

More women must be attracted to board positions of major companies to counter impending skills shortages, the author of a report into gender equality says.

A report by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) has found the number of women on company boards has been declining because of a "systematic bias" against women.

Glass ceiling will add to skills shortage: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

If it were going to happen naturally, it would have happened by now. Women would be moving and shaking their way around corporate Australia, holding down sizeable numbers of senior and chief executive jobs and they would be visible and active on corporate boards.

It isn't happening. Instead, as the recent census of women executives and directors conducted by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency demonstrated, the numbers are miniscule, they are not going up and, in some cases, they are going down.

Only 8.8 per cent of executive managers in Australia's top 200 companies are women, up from 8.4 per cent last year. When it comes to boards, women comprise 8.4 per cent of company directors (up from 8.2 per cent last year). These statistics are risible.

Glass ceiling needs leverage - www.smh.com.au

Glass ceiling will add to skills shortage: report

Posted Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:29pm AEDT

* Related Story: Big business maintaining glass ceiling: report

More women must be attracted to board positions of major companies to counter impending skills shortages, the author of a report into gender equality says.

A report by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) has found the number of women on company boards has been declining because of a "systematic bias" against women.

Author Chris Thomas told the ABC's Midday Report Australia's corporate sector will suffer if the decline continues.

"As the baby boomers retire there's going to be a serious shortage of talent and it's essential that women and their skills are tapped to fill those gaps," he said.
. . .
An earlier report from the EOWA showed the number of women on boards and in executive positions has declined since 2006, and in some cases was at pre-2004 levels.

Glass ceiling will add to skills shortage: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Not even scratching glass ceiling

August 22, 2007
Article from: The Australian

THERE was a palpable air of excitement at last Friday morning's press conference at Westpac's Sydney headquarters to announce St George chief executive officer Gail Kelly as its next CEO.

"There's hope for us yet," one woman journalist in the crowd joked before it started.
. . . . .
The EOWA study shows that women make up 12 per cent of executive management positions in Australia -- a smidgen up from 11.4 per cent in the 2004 survey.

The survey showed that almost 40 per cent of companies surveyed had no women executive managers.

Most of the women in executive positions were in support positions, as opposed to the line management positions, which are the ones that directly lead to the top.

Almost 60 per cent of women executives were in support positions -- compared with only 26.7 per cent of the male executives.

Not even scratching glass ceiling | The Australian
As for pay rates

Gender wage gap under review


Mark Davis Political Correspondent
June 10, 2008


THE Federal Government is considering creating a new body to tackle the long-standing gender pay gap which results in women earning less than men doing comparable jobs.

The department of the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has told Senate estimates that the Government would consider establishing a pay-equity tribunal as it finalised its next wave of workplace relations reforms
. . .
Bureau of Statistics figures show that in February full-time female employees earned an average $1004 a week compared to full-time male average weekly earnings of $1190.
. . .
They have also argued that within occupations, women have less access than men to sources of extra pay such as overtime and promotions.

large and growing gender wage gap in WA

Australian Wage Determination and Gender Equity: A View from the West

Far From Equal
The Glass Ceiling in the
Australian Public Service
A CPSU Report - September 2008
This Report shows what it means to be a woman in the modern APS. It shows a system in need of repair:
• There is a substantial pay gap between agencies that are female dominated and those that are male dominated.
• Highly feminised agencies tend to be service delivery agencies such as Medicare and Centrelink.
• In all agencies, regardless of pay level, women tend to be clustered at the lower end of the classification scale.
• There is clearly a glass ceiling for women in the APS.
This report starkly illustrates that while some women are employed at the highest possible levels in the APS, there is still a significant problem and the glass ceiling remains a reality for many women in many APS agencies.

http://www.cpsu.org.au/multiversions...t%20250908.pdf
or
Far From Equal

[GreenRewards]

with germans maybe it's different - I think, they still have sort of 'post-nazi' trauma, even buried deep in nation subconciousness and its main message is 'no more germans'

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Michael Angel

This is more of the "proof" I had in mind

There are dozens of articles that refute what your articles say .
Here are a few

Yes and all miss out the detail behind the "glass ceiling" and "gender pay gap" headlines.

If you read the articles I put up, and a few more I'll put up later, you'll realise that just because you read that "men are earning X% more than women", or "there are only X% of directors in companies that are women" does not mean that it is a result of any kind of discrimination.

It is the choices that men and women make that dictates what these figures are, not some invisible barrier to half the population.

It is the women who are choosing the lower pay lifestyles, as it is a trade off, while the men feel the pressure to earn more to provide. Its not the case that women are blocked from well paid jobs as a group.

If it was the case, that for example, women were blocked from reaching the boards of major companies, then surely, a major company that didn't have such a barrier would be far more successful? It is a nonesense to suggest that women are disadvataged in this way, as commercial competition means that employing the best people is essential.

There are however, biological reasons why there are few women in the boardroom and in IT sectors:
The drive to develop a career to the level of director and higher is a more likely to be found in men than in women.

Interest in technical areas of work are more likely to be taken up by men.

Also, the dedication in terms of long hours and a willingness to relocate are things that men are more likely to do.

We could both pull up dozens of articles highlighting the glass ceiling/ gender pay gap, but that doesn't mean it is a sign of any kind of discrimination against women. In fact its quite the opposite.

Women are more likely to have a better work/life balance, that puts them more in contact with their family. They are more likely to have a partner that works longer hours than them so they can do so, and if they are childess, I've shown that could can actually out earn men, as there are more opportunities in developed countries for women (it may take w hile to dig out the ref. for that, but even before the recent decline, there were more men being laid off than women).

Here another article though:
Warren Farrell - Author of Why Men Earn More, Father and Child Reunion, Why Men Are the Way they Are and The Myth of Male Power
I recommend you read it all, but this stuck out:
"Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made."

You also need to question the motives of many of the people who wish to portray women as victims, such as those who write your glass ceiling articles. Many are feminists of the more radical variety, or are just sucked into the paradigm of repeating the same old stories that the news agencies churn out, dispite the evidence that you'll see reading pieces by the likes of Warren Farrell (who has done extensive research into the subject and is highly qualified in the area.)

Many want to get more women into certain areas to keep wages down (skills shortages), others have their own political agenda, some are just dishonest.

For further reading on the biological reasons for these choices, try reading books like Why Men Don't Iron, showing that biology is a strong driver.

Or the new book "Should We Mind the Gap?" here:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-release149pdf?.pdf

The author of this monograph lucidly examines the evidence
and finds that the free choice of men and women who are seeking
employment – as well as earlier educational choices and the
choices they make regarding their domestic arrangements – are at
the heart of differences in pay levels. This conclusion is profoundly
important. If we assume that the pay gap is caused by discrimination
and, as a result, bring in yet more onerous regulations to add
to the regulations that we already have, then we make the employment
of both men and women more expensive. This will increase
unemployment – especially among women – lower average
wages and raise business costs. Indeed, it is proponents of antidiscrimination
legislation, and not the classical economists who
oppose it, who are treating women as mere economic units with
no independent personal, non-economic preferences. If policies
are enacted that close off options for women (or men) to enter
lower-paid, part-time work at a convenient location, in jobs often
chosen for social reasons rather than because they match the skills
and experience of the applicant, then such women will either have
no employment or will have to enter the world of formal, wagemaximising,
full-time employment, which they may wish to avoid.
By ignoring the supply side of the equation, those who would want
to abolish wage differences end up ignoring the subjective preferences
of all those who offer their services in the labour market.

And:

For what would you need to close the gender pay gap
completely? Men and women would need to have the same qualifications,
in the same subjects, be employed in the same types of
occupations in the same type of firms, have the same preferences
between paid work and home work, share domestic tasks equally
and take the same amount of time out of the workforce, have the
same career plans and expectations, value the same attributes of
jobs, take the same amount of time travelling to work and so on. Is
this likely ever to be achieved? And would it be desirable?

This clearly is not going to happen, but if it did, it would be to the detriment of women's lifestyles.

In the end, we must realise the equal opportunity does not equate to equal result. Yes?

[Michael Angel]

It is the women who are choosing the lower pay lifestyles, as it is a trade off, while the men feel the pressure to earn more to provide. Its not the case that women are blocked from well paid jobs as a group.

If it was the case, that for example, women were blocked from reaching the boards of major companies, then surely, a major company that didn't have such a barrier would be far more successful?

Well, yes this seems to be the case.

"A Business Case for Women", by three McKinsey executives, says that "research in Europe and the US suggests that companies with several senior-level women tend to perform better financially".

Fewer women on Australian boards, survey shows | The Australian

It is a"cop-out" for men to say women choose not to be paid more or to take on executive positions.
so "Its not our fault. It's their biology."

The World Today - Females challenging boardroom boys club

Women executives: the view from on high - FeaturesNational - www.theage.com.au

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Greenrewardretard

with germans maybe it's different - I think, they still have sort of 'post-nazi' trauma, even buried deep in nation subconciousness and its main message is 'no more germans'

And how would you know?

[Michael Angel]

Originally Posted by Karl

And how would you know?

My this is a friendly place.

While I think it is a big leap from Nazi/WW2 trauma to "no more Germans"
two things are undeniable.
1. Germany has the lowest birth rate in Europe
2. Many older Germans have severe post traumatic stress disorder.
Study Shows Older Germans Suffering WWII Trauma | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 20.05.2008
Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma

While one swallow does not make a spring, my father came back from WW2 totally screwed up.
Among other things he buried his own platoon in the jungles of Borneo.
He had wanted a large family. My mother decided not to have a large family, as although she loved him, she didn't trust him any more.
Too many wild mood swings and alcohol dependence.

I don't see how anyone could remain sane after surviving the Stalingrad massacre or even civilians as the allies progressively levelled every German town leading to Berlin.

Research on why Germans say they are not having babies would be similar IMO to many western nations with good social security systems.

The Allensbach institute, on of the principal public-opinion research institutes in Germany, recently asked Germans of child-bearing age why they aren't having children.
Here are some of the reasons (German):

1. A child would be too much of a financial burden (47%)
2. I'm still too young for that (47%)
3. My career plans would be hard to fulfil with a child (37%)
4. I haven't yet found the right partner (28%)
5. I want to have the maximum amount of freedom, not to have to limit myself (27%)
6. I have many interests that would be hard to reconcile with having a child (27%)
7. Children are hard to raise; I am not sure I have the strength and nerves for that (27%)
8. I want to be as independent as possible (26%)
9. I would then have less time for friends (19%)
10. I don't know if my relationship will stay together (17%)
11. I or my partner would be at a career disadvantage if we had a child (16%)

German Joys: Why Germany has a Low Birth Rate

This could be a historical factor too.

chronicling the war's impact on a generation of war children, and on some two million women believed to have been raped by Soviet soldiers as Germany fell in 1945.

In their first report, Berlin-based television producers Karsten Deventer (Deventer.K@zdf.de) and Eva Schmitz (Schmitz-Guembel.E@zdf.de) told the story in particular of one woman from Eastern Germany who is now ready to speak out about how as a 16-year-old she was raped repeatedly by Russian soldiers, and about how that experience—shared by so many of her generation—had scarred her life.

Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma
Sometimes, fears and traumas from one generation, can be passed on to the next.

There is some psychobabble here:-
Aufsätze/Artikel[tt_news]=13&tx_ttnews[backPid]=63&cHash=76e3770d2a
But the point seems to be:-

In recent years, together with the emergence of trauma studies in the humanities and especially in social sciences, there have been attempts (not many, indeed) at reading the German case in terms of trauma and post-traumatic condition, and the controversial notion of a “trauma of perpetrators” has come out.
. . .
* The traumas unleashed by what others did to Germans (the Allied air bombings on Dresden and other cities, the millions of Germans expelled from the East, the Germans killed after the war etc.)

* The traumas caused by what Germans did to others (in other words, the trauma of guilt and shame, essentially for having committed/allowed the extermination of Jews, Gypsies and other categories of people)

* The moral trauma of defeat, followed to national exhilaration and delusion of grandeur – i.e. The “collective psychological breakdown” analysed by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. .

Also
Germany of late has had a high unemployment rate as much as 12%+; at the moment 8%. This combined with the current world recession won't talk too many middle class into having babies.
Does Germany have a baby bonus scheme as in Australia and Japan? The Australian scheme has resulted in a "baby boom'.