Enjoy Bulgaria While It Lasts

Hey Milena,
Very good piece.

"The social security system, in its turn, will fail to take care of the increasing numbers of pensioners."
This is the problem in most developed countries, but, not being one of them, Bulgaria's problem is much more catastrophic.

In western (rich) countries, pensioners, who trusted their version of social security and didn't save and invest for old age, can be called mislead at best, and stupid at worse.
The problem in Bulgaria is compounded by the fact that the people we call "pensioners" now, spent a lifetime in a system where planning for financial independence was not only difficult, but illegal.

All Socialist systems, regardless of the degree of benevolence, derive their power from and have vested interest in maintaining the popular dependency on their provisions and services.
We are seeing that very clearly in Bulgaria today, where after a life time of exploitation and bitter disappointments, the elderly are still more likely to vote their former tormentors in power, having been robbed of alternative choices, in the hope that the Socialists will give them something that they took away from them - the chance for dignified old age.

Some are confused by the "security" bit in the social security, and forget that there isn't any.
Looking at the term "security" as an interchangeable with "guarantee" is a mistake, considering that there is no such a thing as "guarantee" in life.

What comes close to a "guarantee" here is that any retirement skim based on population growth - i.e. increasing number of workers, with a decreasing number of elderly, is doomed - that IS a virtual guarantee!.

The only other "guarantee" is that technology will continue to propel productivity forward, and over a life time, real estate and multinational stocks, provided well diversified, are a much, much safer bet for old age, that population growth, or God forbid the astute management of any national economy by its elected politicians...

The only answer is to place that bet on productivity growth - meaning the Market.
Yes, the Market can go down in the most inopportune time for given individuals, but there is a way to manege that risk, by investing in different types securities at different stages of your working life.
History supports that contention....

Two theses:

POLITICS

Two theses:

1) Politics is what society does collectivity to solve identified social problems.

2) Journalism should identify political options for solving those social problems, and also identify the forces which would implement and which would benefit from each solution.

Good journalism serves the public by identifying those social forces (and beneficiaries) behind the several suggested options.

Such work is not solely the task of politicians or of interest groups or of social science professors or of political parties or of the 'political press.' It is the proper task of journalists and of journalism itself.

Now let me shock you by saying that the proper role of journalism is not 'to make a profit.' It is not to deliver a market segment to advertisers. It is not to support the party currently in power. The proper role of journalism is to deliver information and options to citizens so that they can act to shape their common future together.

In contrast the 'journalism of powerlessness' presents only emotions and widely held (and hence acceptable) opinions.

The 'journalism of powerlessness' frequently declares solutions to be insoluable, and hides the forces that benefit from the current arrangements of power and wealth in society behind articles that stress emotionality and sensationalism.

Specifically:
-------------

By stressing the demographic decline of Bulgaria as a phenomenon that may 'provoke thoughts' and 'provoke guilt' this article avoids discussion of how the destruction of the Bulgarian citizenry can be avoided, what factors are contributing to it, and which economic segments and interests benefit from this current arrangement.

This article avoids mentioning the social-democratic solution (found, for example, in Sweden) of state subsidies for child-bearing and child-rearing that would actually prevent this decline and have actually done so in many countries.

The only 'solution' this article offers is not honestly presented as one option among others - as one option, that is, which would benefit some interests and harm other interests, and which would help to shape the future of society as a whole.

The 'solution,' a right-wing one to be sure, presented here is positively to increase poverty in Bulgaria by cutting real pensions for the elderly (both now and in the future).

Those private business interests and wealthly individuals who wish to escape taxation for positive demographic growth of a skilled and political powerful workforce naturally favor this one option among others.

It is not the only option, however.

We do not have to lose ourselves in emotionally escapist rightist or centrist journalism while Bulgaria dies off in poverty!

Observer: “We do not have to lose ourselves in emotionally escapist rightist or centrist journalism while Bulgaria dies off in poverty!”

On the whole, a good analysis, with the exception of this last emotionally escapist leftist slogan that shows the opinion of this author to be of an activist’s point of view.

As a private person one can say anything one wants to (the prerogative of democracy) but as a journalist one should stick to searching the truth, presenting it to the public and stay away from preaching. In a democratic society the journalist’s main role is to serve as the watch dog in keeping the balance of power, to serve the public interests.

A good journalist should try to present his/her opinions with as much impartiality as humanly possible and demonstrates understanding of all options when presenting solutions. At the end, it is the people, not the journalists, that make the choices.

For 45 years Bulgaria was lost in emotional leftist journalism/indoctrination helping along a corrupt, unjust, regressive system lead its people to a catastrophe. Bulgarians survived communism with its hopelessness and helplessness, and you can stay assured that they will not only survive, but prosper in a system that encourages initiative, self reliance, traditional Bulgarian values and keep the course already taken.

DP - thanks for your kind comments and especially for patiently reading what I wrote.

I sometimes wonder whether anyone does take the time. In fact that's why I like to end up with a strong emotional appeal or end with some humour - just to keep the reader's interest.

Action always follows informing oneself. In fact 'inaction' is a kind of action, too.

Most problems are solved by acting, of course.

And for those whose interests would be harmed by a proposed action. . . well, then, 'inaction' is the sermon you'll always hear from them!

It is too bad that the author of this SNA piece didn't explore or even mention the social-democratic alternative of subsidising child-bearing and child-rearing.

Surely she is correct when she says that people won't have babies 'because of statistics,' but as every economist will passionately affirm, if you increase the subsidy to a behavior, you'll get increased amounts of that behavior!

The author's own implied recommendation is to cut pensions to the elderly. She actively promotes an definite course of action, plus a stance of despair at the end of Bulgaria ('Enjoy Bulgaria While It Lasts').

The sermon she speaks is 'eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die' (as in 'Enjoy Bulgaria While It Lasts'). That a _decrease_ in the amount of GDP going to pensions would actually effect yet a still _higher_ poverty and mortality rate in Bulgaria is a connection she doesn't quite make.

For Kolega the answer for people too old to work is to have shares and other investments which would subsidise individual elderly income from private (not public) sources.

K's argument is not meant to 'solve' anything. She opposes an adequate budgetary pension, pure and simple. Those who rely on an adequate pension are 'stupid' in her words. I do not see how your own advocacy of 'the course already taken' avoids the demographic decline of Bulgaria, either.

But here we have the eternal rightist solution: Are you bothered by low incomes, by low pensions, by poverty, by an absolute demographic decline?

Well, the rightist answer here is to cut the 'social wage'! Meaning: to cut pensions, to cut health care, to cut education. Of course such actions would only make things worse.

That all this is presented as an inevitability is both dishonest and bad journalism. The resulting despair ('Enjoy Bulgaria While You Can') may be keenly felt, however.

Observer,
Let me start with a question: Who is K?
Assuming that it is for H(ristova) I wonder how did you come to the conclusion that what she wrote can be interpreted in this fashion: “Those who rely on an adequate pension are 'stupid' in her words.”

Here is what she said, and here is how I read it:
“The burden on the social security system is getting heavier, experts say, but fail to provide solutions to the problems that this will trigger. The state may force people to retire a few years later, but this will hardly make up for the shortage of young workers. The social security system, in its turn, will fail to take care of the increasing numbers of pensioners.”

In my view Milena starts with a jab at the “experts” who just state the obvious but fail to provide answers/solutions for the inevitable; then she muses over the possibility of raising the retirement age (to compensate for the decline in contributions due to the declining demographics), and finally she states an arbitrary opinion that it will not be enough. There is no hint of reduction of pensions and a judgment on the intelligence of Bulgarian seniors, only a threat of a dire future.

The comment regarding the need of more babies to be made and her conclusion were again stating the obvious and thankfully in my opinion. I shudder at the thought that the state might mandate the minimum number of children that people have to produce, or else…. China’s policy in reverse. It will take more than subsidies to put people in the mood of making babies, I think...

“It is a rule, however, that the individual knows how to tackle the future, while the state as a whole does not. Small wonder another survey showed that Bulgarians are among the quickest to find their feet and adapt to new environment after moving to live in a EU member state. Sadly, at the expense of their national identity.”

I am kind of surprised to read the first sentence of this paragraph, for I do not comprehend what Milena means by “state as a whole”. I think of society rather then state tackling the future and I believe that we have a collective responsibility to take care of the poor, sick and weak, even though I believe that it is the individual’s primary responsibility to take care of self. The rest of the paragraph is contentious in my opinion and I have no comment.

In conclusion my advocacy for “the course already taken” is advocacy for the system (free enterprise versa socialism). The decline of demographics is very much a pet issue for Bulgarians just as illegal emigration is for Americans. They are legitimate concerns but they are only a part of the overall economic dynamics and should not be used as the catalyst for fear mongering doom’s day scenario.

P.S. I read everything that interests me :-)

K. in my post stands for 'Kolega,' not Hristova.

And here's the 'stupid' quote from Kolega's post: 'In western (rich) countries, pensioners, who trusted their version of social security and didn't save and invest for old age, can be called mislead at best, and stupid at worse.' Read it at http://www.novinite.com/forum_view.php?main_id=108436

So you see Kolega's complaint is with _all_ pension schemes in _every_ country of _whatever_ wealth. This is at bottom an issue of rightist ideological rigidity, rather than one of practicality. Economic incentives affect child-bearing in every country (example: Sweden). Many in Bulgaria do feel, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot 'afford' to have children.

Another 'economic' alternative would of course be to make abortion less readily available, but that policy alternative is unlikely to be adopted! Carrots (incentives) are better than sticks (penalties). I agree with you at that point.

Yet the state - even today - passes around incentives all the time, even in a 'free' market. Everyone's child in Bulgaria is subsidised with free education. Every private car owner (like me) is subsidised by with free highways. These are at bottom political decisions. Here's the overall principle: Every _system_ of regulation has a _politics_ of regulation.

But, simply put, the economic incentives to have children is insufficient at present in Bulgaria to prevent absolute demographic decline.

Even maternal health care, which is supposed to be free, is hardly that, and this is much criticised by the EU at present. One economic effect of expensive health care is that many, many, many pregencies don't go to full term in Bulgaria. Would money make the difference? Of course it would!!

In fact the direction of economic incentives in Bulgaria is going in just the opposite direction. For example: does anyone remember the two-year maternity leave? Economically speaking, if you eliminate that (and it was indeed eliminated), you will have fewer babies born in Bulgaria. Ditto for any other country in any economic or political system that you can imagine.

Anyone who does not acknowledge that economic incentives do affect human behavior has not yet learned to think economically. Now such people may be ferocious ideologists, but rather poor economists.

Hristova the journalist writes that it is rare that reports of Bulgarian demographic decline will 'provoke thoughts.' Let's prove her wrong by actually beginning - to think.

She also writes of such reports 'provok[ing] guilt.' Let's consider the season, then, and move beyond guilt - to metanoia.

For what we are being asked to do is not abstractly to reverse the demographic decline of Bulgaria, but take measures to care for other people's children, for other people's health, for the future of other people.

But as with profit, perhaps the rightists among us will also want metanoia - to be kept privatised.

Observer,
not quite sure where have you been in the last few decades, but when you say things like:
"Anyone who does not acknowledge that economic incentives do affect human behavior has not yet learned to think economically. Now such people may be ferocious ideologists, but rather poor economists."

Interestingly, Western Europe's overall generous welfare ("economic incentives" did you call it?) has also brought their birth rate to the near disastrous level of Eastern Europe and Bulgaria, so may be you are right, welfare does affect human behavior.

Observer,
Milena did an opinion piece so I am not sure what the problem is here, except rubbing your Left Wing behind, the wrong way.

"1) Politics is what society does collectivity to solve identified social problems."

Do you believe that? This is pure bullshit.
Politics is the alternative to violence in the eternal straggle between opposing human interests.

"2) Journalism should identify political options for solving those social problems, and also identify the forces which would implement and which would benefit from each solution."

Sorry, but this is even dumber.
You are in affect handing over everything to the journalists.
They should stick to the news, and if and when they should have the urge to express an opinion, they should, as Milena has, kindly put is in the form of an opinion page, so that we all have the fair warning, and not fall victim of some journalist attempting to shape our views.

Observer:
"This article avoids mentioning the social-democratic solution (found, for example, in Sweden) of state subsidies for child-bearing and child-rearing that would actually prevent this decline and have actually done so in many countries."

If I hear one more time people recommend Swedish remedies for Balkan ills, I will positively puke all over the culprit!
How lost in your own fantasies do you have to be, to think that anything that may or may not work in Scandinavia has a chance in the Balkans?...

"And for those whose interests would be harmed by a proposed action. . . well, then, 'inaction' is the sermon you'll always hear from them!"

Who is advocating for inaction? I called for action - privatize most of the retirement now!
Change the way we've been doing it for ever, do away with the past!
Take advantage of the 21st century!

"It is too bad that the author of this SNA piece didn't explore or even mention the social-democratic alternative of subsidising child-bearing and child-rearing.

Like France and Germany you mean?
The only developed country with any birth rate is the US - the one with the least child bearing subsidies - surprised?


"Surely she is correct when she says that people won't have babies 'because of statistics,' but as every economist will passionately affirm, if you increase the subsidy to a behavior, you'll get increased amounts of that behavior!"

Show me an economist with a "passion" and I'll show you an ideologue.
In fact it's quite the opposite - subsidy brings about impotence, no pun... Bulgarian and all East Europe's low birth rate is nothing new - it dates from the early 1960's - age of unprecedented child bearing related Government subsidies!
The difference now is that young people are free to leave and do so - that's brought about the crises.
Guess where most of them go? The US!
And they do have babies here - they say it's the water, but I have a feeling it has to do with more dynamic economy, unburdened by child bearing government subsidies;)!

K - how interesting!!

About what politics actually _is_ . . . I wrote:

"1) Politics is what society does collectivity to solve identified social problems."

You write:

"Politics is the alternative to violence in the eternal str[u]ggle between opposing human interests."

Okay!! I think my definition emphasises _consensus_ and your definition stresses _conflict_ in the political process. Fair enough?

But let's focus on the common good. Otherwise, we might become like the devils in Hell in Milton's Paradise Lost. They could only endlessly debate with one another, and could never (in hell) reach any agreement among themselves!

If so, then our debate would be eternal - just like theirs.

You also object to my definition:

"2) Journalism should identify political options for solving those social problems, and also identify the forces which would implement and which would benefit from each solution."

Yes, that's an educative function for journalism, to be sure.

I did object to Milena's neglect of positive policy actions, like social democratic child subsidies. Her neglect of positive solutions I felt contributed to a sense of powerlessness in the face of Bulgaria's demographic crisis.

But I also left room for "politicians . . . interest groups . . . social science professors . . . political parties . . . the 'political press" etc.

That's a pretty healthy beginning for civil society! And I do believe that the popular media like SNA has an educative responsibility as well, too, not just an entertainment or profit-seeking function only.

Of course, Milena's piece was a personal and reflective one, as you suggest.

Probably she felt guilty that she wasn't doing her part to solve Bulgaria's birthrate problem herself.

But she did include a personal picture!

Very interesting (and important) article and discussion - unfortunately, it is not easy at all to capture all aspects of the topic.

I found a pretty good bbc article regarding the same subject in Poland - social change slows Polish birth rates

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4852924.stm

IMO, what happens with the demography now in BG and E-Europe in general has its roots even before 1989 and is pretty much linked to the gain of personal freedom and subsequent lack of pressure from the society about what a person or a couple "must" do - people say, Im free to do whatever I want - and what I want is to enjoy my life, to have a decent career. Family - oh, I must find the right person, well see, children - bah, once you have children youre framed, for women its bad for their career and takes all their time, for men its expensive or so they say - etc etc.

The economic reasons for demographic decline in BG were very relevant 10 years ago but not so much now, now the reasons are pretty much in the peoples heads and their values, if you think that BG is developing not that bad.

Whether the government should do easier for people to raise children via financial motivation, labor laws for people with 2 or more children, facilities for childen in the age 3-6 - absolutely. Its their obligation to try and promote higher birth rates, whether it will work is another story.

Maybe the problem will lessen in the future maybe not- it really depends on what the people decide is a better way of life - to take responsibility of a family or go free until its too late to have children. But in Russia, for example, the birth rates are on the rise after a huge decline in the 1990s, and its apparently linked to wealthier state and more confidence in the future. So - well see.

But the mere mention of the word "guilt" by Milena makes me think that the situation in BG is not lost at all - when you take seriously the interests of the group (or the nation) and find youre too egoistic, youre not that bad. But well see, the BG society has a long way to go before establishing some new values, if any, it takes time and one never knows. If were condemned to die out from egotism, so be it, if not, better for us.

PS The funniest thing in this story is that if younger people decide and have, say in average 3 children now, the social security system will be pretty much okay when they retire - they wont be so much in number as the old people now would die out and the population will be younger so they will have decent pensions without problem - their children will pay the bill;)

Lol, Creepy,

who's being overly optimistic now?
"Im free to do whatever I want - and what I want is to enjoy my life, to have a decent career."

I am not too sure I'd agree with this characterization of pre - 89 Eastern Europe though;)
That psychological journey is much more complex, I am afraid..
Much of it has to do with our tradition of ensuring for the future of our offsprings - creating wealth, enlarging holdings for the future of our children and grand children, was made impossible under Socialism and that in turn took away much of the incentive, not just to work hard, but to even have such children.
I know things are changing in BG now, and I haven't had that type of conversation lately, but you've heard: " what would I bring children to? What kind of future can I give them here?" Never: The government doesn't give me any subsidies"...

I do agree with you about Russia and linking wealthier state of affairs to birth rate - but that proves my point that more dynamic economy, not government subsidies will improve the birth rate better.
Unfortunately, a dynamic economy comes at the price of less government taxing and less subsidies, (yes for children too) so you see that the quasi "Social Democratic" remedies have really been the source of the illness in Eastern Europe.

Observer,

"Okay-!! I think my definition emphasises _consensus_ and your definition stresses _conflict_ in the political process. Fair enough?"

Fair? Are you for real?
There is no "my definition" and "your definition"!
What you call "definition" is what you'd like it to be. I am just expressing what politics is.

Politics are set up for the adversary relationship or "checks and balance" as the Americans like to call it.
It is all about winning and losing for the interests and constituency a politician represents. The genius of Democracy is that it makes all that possible without the element of violence, so natural to us humans a genius so unattainable in many parts of the world still....

"But let's focus on the common good." - why?

When I hear that, I know enough to translate it to "lets focus on your money";)

"And I do believe that the popular media like SNA has an educative responsibility as well, too, not just an entertainment or profit-seeking function only."

No Observer, focus on the common good!
SNA's "role" is achieved by us even having this exchange, stead of blowing each other up (as we would in the perfect Muslim world), and we should be grateful that some private corporation is paying them for the advertisements, so that we can have this civilized debate... while they are making a fair profit for their service....

Why do we have to be so divisive and how did you call it, "conflict"? Everybody needs to feed their children (if we expect them to have more right?)? Why not let profit and corporations into the picture?

So you see you are not about "consensus"....

Hi Kolega,

I really forgot the a bit too excessive care of the Bulgarians parents for their children even when the latter are well in their 30s;).

I agree that what I said about the mentality is more valid (if valid at all) now than before 1989.

I know for sure that in Belgium many people have 3 children while others dont have at all - guess why - because with 3 children you get in the "numerous family" taxation and with 2 you dont, so its less expensive to have 3 children than 2;)
And a single mother of 3 actually gets enough SS so she doesnt need to work at all - a parasitic policy that I dont approve but many people practice it.

In general subsidies are not a good thing as they dont solve economic problems, just drag the agony of unviable businesses. For this depopulation case I dont know, seems to me that some socialist policies could work, but I wont bet 1000$ that Im right and youre wrong - we can actually import some Asians, they will populate BG in no time;)

Do you know this one from Ron Reagan?

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it";)