Statistics Canada Reports II

[MolsonExport]

Fertility rate (USA) 1.64 births per woman (2020)
Fertility rate (Canada) 1.40 births per woman (2020)



Canada's is absolutely lower (and has been for 4 decades), but if you check the statistics over time, the trend line is pretty similar.


Fertility rates were highest in Saskatchewan (1.69), Quebec (1.49), and Alberta (1.45) and lowest in B.C (1.11), Nova Scotia (1.18), and Newfoundland and Labrador and P.E.I., both of which recorded a rate of 1.22.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Nashe

This feels like deja-vu from the housing thread where some folks failure of imagination can't deal with someone not wanting/needing a car.

I have a car AND kids. I feel like I've won the lottery!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nashe

That's a bit of a whitewash, and hyperbolic. I knew from an early age that I never desired a genetic "legacy". My wife and I are fine nurturing our pets, and seeing a bit of the world. There are a lot of different people in the world, and while the combined effect of cost of living, selfishness and complexity maybe be a few of the contributing factors, they aren't all of them and it's gross to suggest they are.

I’ve lived both sides, you haven’t. So to me, you are akin to a teenager telling an adult about life and the world.

I know there are those who physically can’t have children, or have had childhoods so traumatic that having children themselves is not an option, and those are very understandable circumstances, but when it’s just “we don’t want to have kids” all I can say is, your welcome for the services you will receive when your old.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I’ve lived both sides, you haven’t. So to me, you are akin to a teenager telling an adult about life and the world.

Ahh, so true. I've also lived both sides, and now I have two teenagers (18/16) telling me about life and the world.

[Nashe]

My personal opinion on the whole "selfishness" angle (sorry to belabour the point) is that the feelings of "legacy" and the "joy" to be gotten from childrearing definitely exist and are commendable.

...and in times past they MIGHT have been some of the ONLY ones available to working-class folks. Travel the world? Spend time on a fulfilling but expensive hobby? Those have all been "unlocked" in the past few decades. I can see how someone bent towards childrearing might consider those endeavors "selfish" but I don't see how, if the end result is the same: a joyful, fulfilled life.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Agreed. I can’t thank my wife enough for twisting my arm into becoming a father.

I also became a dad for the first time in my early 30s. But I was the arm-twister. My wife was the jet-setter with the international career: cocktail parties with diplomats and such...

She wasn't keen on giving that up and I actually had to give her a bit of an ultimatum. We'd been together for almost 10 years and from the outset (including when we'd gotten married) one of the life goals we'd agreed upon was to have a family.

She lost sight of that around 30 and I strongly reminded her of it and that an "adulescent" (as I called it) life wasn't what I signed up for.

Eventually she came onside and today she actually tells everyone we know how grateful she is that I twisted her arm.

And all that glamorous stuff she used to do? She's back to doing it, and often she or we do it with our kids these days.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I’ve lived both sides, you haven’t. So to me, you are akin to a teenager telling an adult about life and the world.

Again... inaccurate presumption. Careful. I HAVE been a parent.

I'm not telling you you aren't really happy. That would be wrong and equally presumptuous. If childrearing has been your fulfillment, who am I to say otherwise?

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I know there are those who physically can’t have children, or have had childhoods so traumatic that having children themselves is not an option, and those are very understandable circumstances, but when it’s just “we don’t want to have kids” all I can say is, your welcome for the services you will receive when your old.

...and you are welcome for the services you and your family will receive until I am.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Nashe

So... how on earth do you motivate people that don't want to have children to have them?

Hmmm...this is a tricky one from a top-down point-of-view. I don't think there's a program per se that would really cure things. It's a culture shift.

I'd start by shifting the cultural conversation to one of sacrificing for a better tomorrow. That's hard to do when there is a strong cultural bias towards today, because sacrificing for decades down the road isn't really a payoff for a large portion of our demographics. More money to healthcare and old-age support always gets more votes than investing in productive sectors of our economy. Indeed, we've sold more productive sectors of our economy in the name of expediency for today.

I'd drop the 'post-national state' rubbish that emanates from our leadership. As much as nationalism can be ugly, there's a certain drive there that encourages people to have families. The McKinsey-types always had a pallid, sterile vibe to them when proposing growth solutions: 'Move people from overpopulated place A to place B, problem solved!'

Try to make cost-of-living much lower without requiring a top-down program to deliver incentive. I have memories of a family of six living across the street growing up. They had a small bungalow and a couple of (older) vehicles in the driveway. It seemed a lot more possible in the 1980s/1990s, even with the high interest rates of the era. Today, it's an upper-middle class, two-income, highly indebted dream.

Instead of just 'more Canada', frame it as 'better Canada'.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nite

I am sure they say that but if they actually wanted to have kids they would've figured out a way to make it work.
Plus the Canadian government gives very generous of support to families to make it affordable to raise kids.

I don't have any doubts that some people use the cost excuse because it's more socially acceptable, when in actual fact they don't want kids for reasons XYZ of their own but are afraid of being judged.

That said, I know lots of people who are parents of 1, who would have liked to have 2, or have 2 but would have liked 3. But who stopped due to costs.

This is a good example of cost of living's effect on the TFR.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nashe

My personal opinion on the whole "selfishness" angle (sorry to belabour the point) is that the feelings of "legacy" and the "joy" to be gotten from childrearing definitely exist and are commendable.

...and in times past they MIGHT have been some of the ONLY ones available to working-class folks. Travel the world? Spend time on a fulfilling but expensive hobby? Those have all been "unlocked" in the past few decades. I can see how someone bent towards childrearing might consider those endeavors "selfish" but I don't see how, if the end result is the same: a joyful, fulfilled life.

Well, not to be too belligerent, but that does come off selfish, because none of that is stuff that I haven’t done, and did for over a decade. From Europe, to Asia, to Africa, been there, done that. Parties… drinking… hiking… etc…

But that was fun, I never knew joy until I had my children.

And again, it’s not something you can measure until you have experienced both.

And as posted above, as your kids get older those hobbies creep back in, and soon you are doing them and sharing them with your kids.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ahh, so true. I've also lived both sides, and now I have two teenagers (18/16) telling me about life and the world.

I’m watching my nieces enter their teenage years now… oh boy, preparing for that myself!

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well, not to be too belligerent, but that does come off selfish, because none of that is stuff that I haven’t done, and did for over a decade. From Europe, to Asia, to Africa, been there, done that. Parties… drinking… hiking… etc…

Parties and drinking were never my forte. But I'm genuinely happy that you've found happiness. Now exercise that improved perspective in the direction of open-mindedness, is all I'm asking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Again... inaccurate presumption. Careful. I HAVE been a parent.

I'm not telling you you aren't really happy. That would be wrong and equally presumptuous. If childrearing has been your fulfillment, who am I to say otherwise?


...and you are welcome for the services you and your family will receive until I am.

Pretty sure that if one does a full cost-benefit calculation, a childless person unless they are a huge philanthropist or economic giant will pull out more than they give in over a lifetime, than someone who had kids.

Childless

Childhood - taking
Adulthood - giving plus taking
Retirement - taking

Parent

Childhood - taking
Adulthood - giving plus taking (more than a childless person, sure)
Retirement - taking plus giving (quite a bit if they have multiple taxpaying offspring)

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure that if one does a full cost-benefit calculation, a childless person unless they are a huge philanthropist or economic giant will pull out more than they give in over a lifetime, than someone who had kids.

Childless

Childhood - taking
Adulthood - giving plus taking
Retirement - taking

Parent

Childhood - taking
Adulthood - giving plus taking (more than a childless person, sure)
Retirement - taking plus giving (quite a bit if they have multiple taxpaying offspring)

That would be an interesting exercise, lol. Time to go crank out some babies for all the wrong reasons! For the motherland!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

That would be an interesting exercise, lol. Time to go crank out some babies for all the wrong reasons! For the motherland!

Perhaps not, though there is a rationale for government policies that support families. (Arguably better than what Canada is doing at the moment.)

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps not, though there is a rationale for government policies that support families. (Arguably better than what Canada is doing at the moment.)

You won't find me arguing against those.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Parties and drinking were never my forte. But I'm genuinely happy that you've found happiness. Now exercise that improved perspective in the direction of open-mindedness, is all I'm asking.

I get it that child rearing isn’t for everyone, but there is a catch 22 to this.

At a time when having families with multiple children was the norm, there was leeway for those who chose not to do so.

When the norm becomes not have my kids, or a critical mass of childless household is reached, it does become a problem.

An interesting balancing act between the individual and the society / species, and recently we have tipped the scale, which makes lifestyles such as yours more under scrutiny.

[niwell]

The "childfree" crowd can be very annoying, but I absolutely bristle when people assume that the reason a couple in their 40s (or whatever) doesn't have kids due to selfishness. Nobody needs to know the background of what specific circumstances led to that situation, whether it be by choice or in many cases other factors

Being lectured about how much better one's life can be isn't great when circumstances are assumed. I'm personally fine with this path but I'll say that things like IVF aren't exactly a walk in the park. (I also note that people are completely ignoring Nashe's first statement in the post above).

I suppose the flipside of the teenage know-it-all is the new parent who acts like they're the first people in the world to have kids. Not everybody is like this of course, and I can make the comparison between certain people I know who are parents vs. others. Again, I'm not terribly bothered by it as I tend to take a "whatever life throws at me" attitude towards things, but not everybody is.

If the goal is more people having kids then things need to be more affordable earlier in life taking into account modern lifestyles. It's exponentially harder when you don't reach that stage until your late 30s/early 40s. Both biologically and economically.

[thewave46]

I have a strong bias against sanctimony as the driving reason to have kids.

Unto itself, child-rearing doesn't make one a saint. The foster system is filled with examples of that. Nor does it bring joy to everyone who undergoes it. It can be extremely hard on marriages, and I've been the unfortunate witness to watching relationships break down under those conditions.

That being said: Child-rearing can absolutely be a worthy thing for those who genuinely want kids. I've seen so many people thrive, spread their love, and their lives be filled with meaning through their children. The clear bit being: They did this under their own volition, and with the understanding that their children eventually become their own people.

At the end of the day: People who want children should have them for their own reasons. Hopefully as many as they want within that context.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I get it that child rearing isn’t for everyone, but there is a catch 22 to this.

At a time when having families with multiple children was the norm, there was leeway for those who chose not to do so.

When the norm becomes not have my kids, or a critical mass of childless household is reached, it does become a problem.

An interesting balancing act between the individual and the society / species, and recently we have tipped the scale, which makes lifestyles such as yours more under scrutiny.

Perpetuation of the ant-colony would be pretty far down my list of motivations for having kids. You're not making this sound any more fulfilling.