4 ms·

Starting with the first sentence, I have 1 single word for this - bollocks. > Google “Bulgaria” and “demography” and you will rapidly learn that journalists an

Starting with the first sentence, I have 1 single word for this - bollocks. > Google “Bulgaria” and “demography” and you will rapidly learn that journalists and analysts have for years been reporting that the country’s population is one of the fastest shrinking in the world. Looking at our press and journalists, the first thing you need to keep in mind is that they rely solely on sensationalism: "everything is getting worse, we are the most miserable and oppressed nation in the entire multiverse". Essentially fox news, bild and daily mail. Because this is what sells best. This is what gets facebook shares, comments and likes, simple as that. It appears as if everyone has forgotten what the 90's looked like and what queuing at 4 in the morning to get a bottle of milk was, daily shooting in the streets and hyperinflation. Because this is what most of the 90's were. None of which is happening anymore. The population decline is a phenomenon which can be observed in most of Europe, the big difference is that there is very small migration from anywhere here which makes the issue more obvious (on paper) then in other countries. There are a million and one reasons for this, like bad reputation(see the paragraph above), language barrier which is a problem when it comes to daily life and realistically racism, which may be a problem outside the capital(even some large areas in the capital as well). Families in most modern societies are shrinking. And while there was a lot of immigration in the late 90's and 2000's, in recent years, the numbers have gone down drastically and there is a factor which no journalist will dare speak of because it goes against the "everything is worse than ever" rhetoric. The number of people who have returned after a certain amount of time spent abroad(me being one of them). I was one of the first that fled back for multiple reasons. And while the question "but why" was pretty common back then, no one has asked me that question in over 5 years.

jariel 6y ago
While you can take umbrage with the tone of the piece, it seems your concern for the 'bias' in the article has maybe led you astray with respect to the fundamentals. Bulgaria unquestionably has a demographic problem related to emigration that is completely different from 'the rest of Europe'. Since 2000 (after the 'ugly times') Bulgaria has gone from 8 -> 7 million. This is not derived from 'family sizes' - this is squarely a problem of emigration and it has everything to do with the social and economic conditions there vis-a-vis other places in Europe. What needs to be considered is how the EU of the last 20 years, which is a merging of Rich/Poor Europe has resulted in the obliteration of healthy working people and educated class from E. Europe overall, to the benefit of the 'rich west'. There may be some neoliberal advantages, in that, those people are perhaps able to achieve better employment and income with a 'greater net productivity for Europe' - but it's not going to benefit Bulgaria a whole lot. Much like businesses make short term decisions on employee work spaces because the 'sticker price' of cubes or offices is so much greater than 'open tables' and whereupon the productivity if private spaces is hard to measure ... it seems the 'free money' flowing from the EU is just too tangible to consider in the face of the more 'strategic' concern of mass emigration. As soon as you start to value those intangibles, it would seem that an economic union might actually have made more sense than a social one.
- axegon_ 6y ago
  This is a very simplistic view. Keep in mind that before 2007 emigration was borderline impossible. The first time I set my foot on foreign soil was in 2002 in Greece. And that was for a holiday with an invitation which went through the Greek embassy and a copy of my parents' income to verify that our intention was indeed to go on a holiday. A process which took around 4-5 months. So once the gates were opened, understandably, many fled. I know a few people who fled before that and many of them spent years living in migrant camps and this isn't for everyone. I'd argue that the vast majority of the people who have left/are leaving are not educated. Statistically most of them are construction workers, taxi drivers and so on. Yes, arguably some of them have education. I know one which was an electrical engineer but I'm not joking when I say that he has no idea what the difference between direct current and alternating current is. Hence the reason why he ended up delivering pizzas. Which is not to say there aren't educated people who have emigrated but that's not a real issue: And the counter argument - people like me who went there young, studied abroad and returned afterwards. Which was the case for many of the people around me. 60 people out of 90 in my class from school went to study abroad. 59 returned. And believe me, when I left I had no intention of returning and neither did most of the others. But things have changed and at a certain point it made more sense to make that step. Which is arguably one of the best decisions I've personally ever made. And for those 59 people, we were the early adopters of a huge wave of people to do that. The one that didn't return? Well honestly, a tiny country has very little to offer to a world class cancer researcher. I see nothing wrong with that, on the contrary - bravo. At this point I'd say the biggest problem the country is facing is not economical, or political but... I can't even call it social. Mental is probably the right word. The notion that the grass is greener everywhere else. The idea every country has it better. And annoyingly that comes from people who have never lived anywhere else or even worse-never even been anywhere else. The problems you face elsewhere are simply different and as an alien, they are much MUCH worse and often you have even less people to rely on. Been there, done that.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  I get your point, but I would say that you've only touched on the root issue: > emigration and it has everything to do with the social and economic conditions there vis-a-vis other places in Europe. and: > Much like businesses make short term decisions [...] I think everyone makes short term decisions. On the one side there's "the country", as in "those in power". They've chosen a path of rampant corruption, embezzlement, etc because they could get their hands on a lot of money very quickly. Even though I doubt this was specifically leur goal, they have instilled a particular kind of climate where people get the feeling that in order to get ahead and be able to do something you have to "know people" and grease a lot of hands. Of course, most educated people don't exactly enjoy this and don't feel like waiting around for years and years for this to change. So they look after their own short term interest and move some place where this situation isn't as strong. Also, feeling somewhat disconnected from this way of doing things, they won't have a particularly strong wish to help "their country". And as someone who's family left an other EE country before it was admitted in the EU, I've seen that the "educated" didn't wait around for their countries to join in order to move. Many, many people left during the '90s to the States and Canada. Sure, I bet with the EU it's much easier to do this, but "the smart guys", those who can actually benefit their home countries didn't have that hard of a time going elsewhere.
krastanov 6y ago
I get your irritation at the start of the article, but give it a full read: it does cover multiple sides of the issue and it does point out multiple things to be pleased or optimistic about. It is not as simplistic as this first sentence has made you believe.
- axegon_ 6y ago
  Perhaps. It was 3 in the morning and I didn't go in depth. Largely because I felt the rhetoric I was referring to, which is the whole reason I refuse to read local news outlets or watch news or go on social media.
a_imho 6y ago
The article features a misleading infographic starting at ~3M which makes me question its credibility or whether it was written with some agenda in mind. According to my experience Western reporting on Eastern affairs tends to do that.
- axegon_ 6y ago
  I wouldn't jump to conclusions and blame western reporting. I don't rule it out entirely but they could very well be taking those numbers from our media/sources which goes back to my original supply and demand argument. Our history has been re-written multiple times between 1944 and now and much of the data you'll find in the books since then has been written by someone with an agenda. Data from the periods before that were destroyed the day the red army set foot here. Coincidentally I own an almanac of Bulgaria from 1898 which survived (my family literally hid it in the woods, along with many other books which would have been confiscated and destroyed otherwise). Now they all proudly sit in my library and I'm certain that if there are other copies left, they are not more than 2 or 3. The official numbers which we are presented with now are very different from what this book states. And given my knowledge on my own family's history, I'm willing to believe the data in the almanac is a fairly accurate representation of the reality back then, which is arguably comparable to what we are experiencing now: not perfect but overall pretty good.

jariel 6y ago

While you can take umbrage with the tone of the piece, it seems your concern for the 'bias' in the article has maybe led you astray with respect to the fundamentals. Bulgaria unquestionably has a demographic problem related to emigration that is completely different from 'the rest of Europe'. Since 2000 (after the 'ugly times') Bulgaria has gone from 8 -> 7 million. This is not derived from 'family sizes' - this is squarely a problem of emigration and it has everything to do with the social and economic conditions there vis-a-vis other places in Europe. What needs to be considered is how the EU of the last 20 years, which is a merging of Rich/Poor Europe has resulted in the obliteration of healthy working people and educated class from E. Europe overall, to the benefit of the 'rich west'. There may be some neoliberal advantages, in that, those people are perhaps able to achieve better employment and income with a 'greater net productivity for Europe' - but it's not going to benefit Bulgaria a whole lot. Much like businesses make short term decisions on employee work spaces because the 'sticker price' of cubes or offices is so much greater than 'open tables' and whereupon the productivity if private spaces is hard to measure ... it seems the 'free money' flowing from the EU is just too tangible to consider in the face of the more 'strategic' concern of mass emigration. As soon as you start to value those intangibles, it would seem that an economic union might actually have made more sense than a social one.

axegon_ 6y ago
This is a very simplistic view. Keep in mind that before 2007 emigration was borderline impossible. The first time I set my foot on foreign soil was in 2002 in Greece. And that was for a holiday with an invitation which went through the Greek embassy and a copy of my parents' income to verify that our intention was indeed to go on a holiday. A process which took around 4-5 months. So once the gates were opened, understandably, many fled. I know a few people who fled before that and many of them spent years living in migrant camps and this isn't for everyone. I'd argue that the vast majority of the people who have left/are leaving are not educated. Statistically most of them are construction workers, taxi drivers and so on. Yes, arguably some of them have education. I know one which was an electrical engineer but I'm not joking when I say that he has no idea what the difference between direct current and alternating current is. Hence the reason why he ended up delivering pizzas. Which is not to say there aren't educated people who have emigrated but that's not a real issue: And the counter argument - people like me who went there young, studied abroad and returned afterwards. Which was the case for many of the people around me. 60 people out of 90 in my class from school went to study abroad. 59 returned. And believe me, when I left I had no intention of returning and neither did most of the others. But things have changed and at a certain point it made more sense to make that step. Which is arguably one of the best decisions I've personally ever made. And for those 59 people, we were the early adopters of a huge wave of people to do that. The one that didn't return? Well honestly, a tiny country has very little to offer to a world class cancer researcher. I see nothing wrong with that, on the contrary - bravo. At this point I'd say the biggest problem the country is facing is not economical, or political but... I can't even call it social. Mental is probably the right word. The notion that the grass is greener everywhere else. The idea every country has it better. And annoyingly that comes from people who have never lived anywhere else or even worse-never even been anywhere else. The problems you face elsewhere are simply different and as an alien, they are much MUCH worse and often you have even less people to rely on. Been there, done that.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
I get your point, but I would say that you've only touched on the root issue: > emigration and it has everything to do with the social and economic conditions there vis-a-vis other places in Europe. and: > Much like businesses make short term decisions [...] I think everyone makes short term decisions. On the one side there's "the country", as in "those in power". They've chosen a path of rampant corruption, embezzlement, etc because they could get their hands on a lot of money very quickly. Even though I doubt this was specifically leur goal, they have instilled a particular kind of climate where people get the feeling that in order to get ahead and be able to do something you have to "know people" and grease a lot of hands. Of course, most educated people don't exactly enjoy this and don't feel like waiting around for years and years for this to change. So they look after their own short term interest and move some place where this situation isn't as strong. Also, feeling somewhat disconnected from this way of doing things, they won't have a particularly strong wish to help "their country". And as someone who's family left an other EE country before it was admitted in the EU, I've seen that the "educated" didn't wait around for their countries to join in order to move. Many, many people left during the '90s to the States and Canada. Sure, I bet with the EU it's much easier to do this, but "the smart guys", those who can actually benefit their home countries didn't have that hard of a time going elsewhere.

krastanov 6y ago

I get your irritation at the start of the article, but give it a full read: it does cover multiple sides of the issue and it does point out multiple things to be pleased or optimistic about. It is not as simplistic as this first sentence has made you believe.

axegon_ 6y ago
Perhaps. It was 3 in the morning and I didn't go in depth. Largely because I felt the rhetoric I was referring to, which is the whole reason I refuse to read local news outlets or watch news or go on social media.

a_imho 6y ago

The article features a misleading infographic starting at ~3M which makes me question its credibility or whether it was written with some agenda in mind. According to my experience Western reporting on Eastern affairs tends to do that.

axegon_ 6y ago
I wouldn't jump to conclusions and blame western reporting. I don't rule it out entirely but they could very well be taking those numbers from our media/sources which goes back to my original supply and demand argument. Our history has been re-written multiple times between 1944 and now and much of the data you'll find in the books since then has been written by someone with an agenda. Data from the periods before that were destroyed the day the red army set foot here. Coincidentally I own an almanac of Bulgaria from 1898 which survived (my family literally hid it in the woods, along with many other books which would have been confiscated and destroyed otherwise). Now they all proudly sit in my library and I'm certain that if there are other copies left, they are not more than 2 or 3. The official numbers which we are presented with now are very different from what this book states. And given my knowledge on my own family's history, I'm willing to believe the data in the almanac is a fairly accurate representation of the reality back then, which is arguably comparable to what we are experiencing now: not perfect but overall pretty good.