Statistics Canada Reports II

[kora]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Exactly. Most countries around the world other than parts of Africa are either below replacement rate, or nearing it. Even India a country that had huge birth rates not long ago is heading in that direction.

India is below replacement. Some Indian states have Canada level fertility rates.

[Nouvellecosse]

So we're to believe that the less developed countries of the world, aka the global south, will be equally wealthy and stable as affluent countries within just a couple of decades? And that countries with extremely high population densities will lose so much population that they'll have as many resources per person as a place like Canada? Unless there's good reason to make both assumptions, there will still be plenty of people wanting to emigrate to other places.

Remember, the population crash doesn't mean populations will drop suddenly. It just means they'll stagnate (stop growing) or shrink slowly over time which is what we've seen in Japan where they've been losing population for about 15 years and have only dropped by less than a percent per decade. But when there are less affluent countries with over a billion people and others in the hundreds of millions that still leaves huge numbers of people seeking better opportunities. And that's just talking normal immigrants without considering all the refugees who will be seeking asylum from various conflict and upheavals which we can expect to happen. The idea that there won't be people migrating to affluent countries within a couple of decades verges on pure fantasy.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Is it possible for the world to survive without a constant population growth?

I'd sooner argue that it is impossible for the world to survive with constant population growth.

As for our economic system, well that is another story.

Canada will remain a very attractive destination for immigrants for the foreseeable future, including from some very low population growth (read: decline) places, like South Korea or China, let alone the parts of Asia and Africa that are still experiencing exponential growth. For all of our economic and social problems, the quality of life in Canada is far, far better than many places.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd sooner argue that it is impossible for the world to survive with constant population growth.

As for our economic system, well that is another story.

This is a key point, IMHO. For many reasons, climate/environment being among the top, a gradual decrease in the world’s population due to lower birthrates is the best possible outcome, not a problem.

The problem (again IMHO) is our economic system that only seems to be able to thrive (or perhaps survive) in population growth situations. I’m no economist, but to the layman it appears that the obvious solution is to create a way for our (the world’s actually) economy to function well with a stable or even declining population. It really seems like the only way forward that we have a chance to survive as a species (notwithstanding a major nuclear war or universe/celestial event that takes us out in the meantime).

[someone123]

In the past, standards of living often went up after the population dropped. If India had 1/2 the people I think it would have a much higher standard of living, all else being equal. Japan even with 100M people will be heavily populated.

The problem in our economy is not inherent to our level of inherent productivity (which is going up; fewer workers required as a proportion of the population), it's caused by a pattern of borrowing against the future and spending large amounts of dollars per capita on elderly people. Those policy choices will have to change, but that doesn't mean society will fall apart.

Since we have fewer young people the dependence level in the population also isn't that high. Fast-growing populations have a similar burden in providing services to children.

[Innsertnamehere]

A lot of productivity gains over the last 20 years have been eaten by declining workforces.

I think this is a combination of declining participation rates and increasing numbers of seniors - as we get wealthier we are mostly choosing to work less, not earn more.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I think this is a combination of declining participation rates and increasing numbers of seniors - as we get wealthier we are mostly choosing to work less, not earn more.

Who is "we"? In my experience most young people have no choice but to work. A relatively large share of Baby Boomer aged people on the other hand were able to quit work early because of the massive windfalls they got from real estate combined with generous government programs that go to older people (like OAS, and pharma/dental that generally kicks in with much weaker means testing than programs for younger people). We have other structural costs like very high end of life healthcare costs, and other subsidies like low property taxes with deferral.

I am not sure this system will be sustainable or that younger people will be getting the same magnitude of benefits at a demographic level in 40 years. By and large they won't have houses that they can tap to help them live a 30 year long retirement. Part of the "crisis" is that the government hands out cheques to people with $2M in the bank, or pays for expensive end-of-life care for terminally ill folks with no chance of surviving and no quality of life.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes the problem with dropping or stagnating population isn't that we need more people to improve the economy in general. It's all in the transition period in which there's inevitably an aging population because older generations were larger than newer ones. This places a drag on the economy because the people who are still working age having to power an economy that not only provides their needs but also cares for older people who are no longer in the work force.

People of retirement age need by far the most healthcare funding, and health spending is one of the biggest budgetary line items for most economies. Plus many will also need assisted living care givers at some point which is also expensive. And all the extra medical and support workers who will be needed would otherwise be contributing elsewhere in the economy. But once the population stabilizes then those issues subside.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes the problem with dropping or stagnating population isn't that we need more people to improve the economy in general. It's all in the transition period in which there's inevitably an aging population because older generations were larger than newer ones. This places a drag on the economy because the people who are still working age having to power an economy that not only provides their needs but also cares for older people who are no longer in the work force.

Other countervailing factors are that people are healthier for longer now and jobs generally require less physical labour. Part of the healthy adaptation would presumably be finding humane ways that people could contribute more to the workforce in later years, as well as increasing automation to make jobs easier and more productive.

[Bishop2047]

Originally Posted by someone123

Who is "we"? In my experience most young people have no choice but to work. A relatively large share of Baby Boomer aged people on the other hand were able to quit work early because of the massive windfalls they got from real estate combined with generous government programs that go to older people (like OAS, and pharma/dental that generally kicks in with much weaker means testing than programs for younger people). We have other structural costs like very high end of life healthcare costs, and other subsidies like low property taxes with deferral.

I am not sure this system will be sustainable or that younger people will be getting the same magnitude of benefits at a demographic level in 40 years. By and large they won't have houses that they can tap to help them live a 30 year long retirement. Part of the "crisis" is that the government hands out cheques to people with $2M in the bank, or pays for expensive end-of-life care for terminally ill folks with no chance of surviving and no quality of life.

My grandparents retired at 50 and lived fairly comfortable lives. He always gave terrible (by today's standards) financial advice like investing in GICs (he was getting 15% annual returns while most are under inflation now).

He often pointed out how his generation had written themselves a lot of "cheques" that their children and grandchildren would have to pay.

Perhaps we should start encouraging smoking again to reduce life expectancy? We are already starting to trend downward https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310083701

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by someone123

Who is "we"? In my experience most young people have no choice but to work. A relatively large share of Baby Boomer aged people on the other hand were able to quit work early because of the massive windfalls they got from real estate combined with generous government programs that go to older people (like OAS, and pharma/dental that generally kicks in with much weaker means testing than programs for younger people). We have other structural costs like very high end of life healthcare costs, and other subsidies like low property taxes with deferral.

I am not sure this system will be sustainable or that younger people will be getting the same magnitude of benefits at a demographic level in 40 years. By and large they won't have houses that they can tap to help them live a 30 year long retirement. Part of the "crisis" is that the government hands out cheques to people with $2M in the bank, or pays for expensive end-of-life care for terminally ill folks with no chance of surviving and no quality of life.

Young people haven't worked enough (unless they need generational wealth) to be able to retire. People still need to work, they just need to work less across their life.

Across society participation rates have been slowly declining though - which means less and less working-age people are choosing to work. This, as you allude to, is likely mostly due to increasing amounts of early retirements where more and more people exit the workforce earlier in life when they are still considered "working age", i.e. before 65. This is actually an interesting phenomenon, as labour participation rates consistently increased up until around the Great Recession as more women entered the workforce. That process has now largely matured however, and male participation rates have been slowly declining for decades.





Of course even with a declining participation rate, 65% of working age people are still working.

Even those who do choose to work are generally working less as well. Men have seen a decline of average hours worked from about 42 hours in 1976 to 37 hours in 2024, and total hours worked across both genders has declined from about 39 hours to 37 hours since 1990.



And on top of all this - we have increasing percentages of the population which are seniors.



The increasing rate of seniors is a big part of it - but people are simply working less than they used to.

As a whole - those over 65 are the largest single driver of "unproductive time" in Canadian society - 19.4% of Canadians are over the age of 65 today compared to just 13.8% in 1990. This represents a "drag" of 5.1% in overall labour productivity once you adjust for the population of children declining from 20.9% in 1990 to 20.5% 2025.

But you also have lower labour participation rates for those who are working age - 65.1% of that population participates in 2025 compared to 67.1% in 1990 - a drag of about 3%. AND you have reduced working hours. In 1990, the average employee worked 39.4 hours a week. Today, it is 37.2 hours. This is about a 4% drag on total productivity.

So overall, yes, the increased population of seniors needs those who are working to work about 5% more to earn the same amount as a society. But we as a society also work about 7% less than we did 35 years ago as well. So our society as a whole puts about 11% less labour out than we did in 1990.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I'd sooner argue that it is impossible for the world to survive with constant population growth.

As for our economic system, well that is another story.

Canada will remain a very attractive destination for immigrants for the foreseeable future, including from some very low population growth (read: decline) places, like South Korea or China, let alone the parts of Asia and Africa that are still experiencing exponential growth. For all of our economic and social problems, the quality of life in Canada is far, far better than many places.

Agree on all points. Even a slight decline in overall world population is better for the planet in many ways, as long as it's not too sharp of a decline. And despite our economy being slower relative to a countries like China, etc.., our country is still a great place to live. The quality of life here is something people in most countries only dream about.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Young people haven't worked enough (unless they need generational wealth) to be able to retire. People still need to work, they just need to work less across their life.

Across society participation rates have been slowly declining though - which means less and less working-age people are choosing to work. This, as you allude to, is likely mostly due to increasing amounts of early retirements where more and more people exit the workforce earlier in life when they are still considered "working age", i.e. before 65. This is actually an interesting phenomenon, as labour participation rates consistently increased up until around the Great Recession as more women entered the workforce. That process has now largely matured however, and male participation rates have been slowly declining for decades.





Of course even with a declining participation rate, 65% of working age people are still working.

Even those who do choose to work are generally working less as well. Men have seen a decline of average hours worked from about 42 hours in 1976 to 37 hours in 2024, and total hours worked across both genders has declined from about 39 hours to 37 hours since 1990.



And on top of all this - we have increasing percentages of the population which are seniors.



The increasing rate of seniors is a big part of it - but people are simply working less than they used to.

As a whole - those over 65 are the largest single driver of "unproductive time" in Canadian society - 19.4% of Canadians are over the age of 65 today compared to just 13.8% in 1990. This represents a "drag" of 5.1% in overall labour productivity once you adjust for the population of children declining from 20.9% in 1990 to 20.5% 2025.

But you also have lower labour participation rates for those who are working age - 65.1% of that population participates in 2025 compared to 67.1% in 1990 - a drag of about 3%. AND you have reduced working hours. In 1990, the average employee worked 39.4 hours a week. Today, it is 37.2 hours. This is about a 4% drag on total productivity.

So overall, yes, the increased population of seniors needs those who are working to work about 5% more to earn the same amount as a society. But we as a society also work about 7% less than we did 35 years ago as well. So our society as a whole puts about 11% less labour out than we did in 1990.

That's incredibly misleading. In particular, the idea that people are working less today than they did 50 years ago. That's utter nonsense.

People today work much more, they just don't do it at their main workplace. They have to. People can't afford to "just" have a job. You need to work two jobs just to afford rent and groceries. That's not because they wouldn't like to work at one job, it's because that one job pays them peanuts. Contrast that with 1976 where you could still support a family, a home, a car and an annual vacation while also having something left over to put in the bank. Only those nearing the end of their careers can afford that lifestyle today. The rest of us work our 40 hours a week and then pick up whatever else we can any way we can.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Spocket

That's incredibly misleading. In particular, the idea that people are working less today than they did 50 years ago. That's utter nonsense.

People today work much more, they just don't do it at their main workplace. They have to. People can't afford to "just" have a job. You need to work two jobs just to afford rent and groceries. That's not because they wouldn't like to work at one job, it's because that one job pays them peanuts. Contrast that with 1976 where you could still support a family, a home, a car and an annual vacation while also having something left over to put in the bank. Only those nearing the end of their careers can afford that lifestyle today. The rest of us work our 40 hours a week and then pick up whatever else we can any way we can.

I mean say what you want but that's just heresay. I'm using actual hard data measured consistently across decades. People work less than they used to - full stop.

You can still do the same things you could in 1976 if you live a lifestyle like those did in 1976. Live in an 1,100sf home, drive an old car, rarely go on vacation or out for dinner, do not enroll your kids in any activities other than maybe hockey rec league with hand-me-down furniture, clothes, and sports equipment..

The meme of "declining quality of life", beyond real estate costs in the largest cities (primarily Toronto and Vancouver) - is a myth. People work less and consume more than they did 50 years ago across basically every measurable metric. People live in larger homes with less people per home, own homes at higher rates, work less hours, retire earlier, own more things, spend more on entertainment, drive nicer vehicles, travel more, basically everything, again, excluding housing affordability in Toronto and Vancouver which have extenuating circumstances driving down living standards in those areas.

People struggled in 1976 just like they do today, and people did well in 1976 just like they do today. There is just slightly less people struggling today than back then.

Believe it or not, Boomers struggled when they were young too. Everyone does and always has. It's a part of life, you get wealthier as you get older and accumulate wealth.

[Coldrsx]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/lindaadu?min...p3_feed%3BzG%2F6ZYiCQ8CDHcIo5qPQVg%3D%3D

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by someone123

Other countervailing factors are that people are healthier for longer now and jobs generally require less physical labour. Part of the healthy adaptation would presumably be finding humane ways that people could contribute more to the workforce in later years, as well as increasing automation to make jobs easier and more productive.

Healthier bodies but not necessarily minds. Following on the recent Robert Munsch news, MAID needs to be made more easily available and discussed for those facing dementia. How much money is spent cruelly warehousing people who have no idea where and who they are?

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Spocket

That's incredibly misleading. In particular, the idea that people are working less today than they did 50 years ago. That's utter nonsense.

People today work much more, they just don't do it at their main workplace. They have to. People can't afford to "just" have a job. You need to work two jobs just to afford rent and groceries. That's not because they wouldn't like to work at one job, it's because that one job pays them peanuts. Contrast that with 1976 where you could still support a family, a home, a car and an annual vacation while also having something left over to put in the bank. Only those nearing the end of their careers can afford that lifestyle today. The rest of us work our 40 hours a week and then pick up whatever else we can any way we can.

Did you miss the title of the chart that said "main job"?

You're also being misleading and overgeneralizing. I'd like to see data to back up just how many people have multiple jobs like you claim - I suspect its far from a majority (but I don't have the data so I'm not making a claim).

This is the statistics thread, IMO the bar to make such claims is particularly high.

And trope being able to afford everything under the sun on a high-school grad's pay is vastly over-exaggerated and far from universal.

Anecdotally - I personally don't know a single person who has two jobs, unless you count managing their rental properties as a second job. My sister used to, but stopped, and my brothers and I had done some seasonal farm work, but it wasn't our need, it was relatives need for some extra bodies.

[Innsertnamehere]

Luckily Stats Canada tracks this!

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/14-28-0001/2024001/article/00002-eng.htm

In 2023, the share of employed Canadians holding more than one job was 5.6%, representing approximately 1.1 million people. While the proportion of workers with multiple jobs edged up from 2022 to 2023 (+0.1 percentage points), the rate remained below the high of 5.8% recorded in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers with part-time jobs—particularly those working part-time involuntarily—were more likely to have multiple jobs compared to full-time workers. Moreover, having more than one job was more common among paid employees with lower weekly earnings in their main job. Multiple jobholding was also more prevalent among self-employed workers.

The rate of multiple job-holders has indeed increased slightly since 1976, but has been largely stable since 1990.



The change in multiple-job holders has gone from 2% of the population to 5.5% of the population since 1976. So 2.5% of people now hold a second job that didn't in 1976. Not exactly an earth-shattering change, and that graph aligns pretty closely with female labour participation rates which makes me suspect the causation has something more to do with that than decreasing incomes and increasingly tough times to make ends meet.

Studies have shown that middle income families earn about 50% more today than they did in 1976.

https://thenelsondaily.com/2016/09/middle-class-incomes-dramatically-canada-1970s-42702/

Median household incomes are up about 17% in real terms since 1976, but this fails to account for that households are far smaller than 1976 too so that money is spread across fewer people. There are far more people living alone or without children which means they can use those dollars to their own ends much easier.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Healthier bodies but not necessarily minds. Following on the recent Robert Munsch news, MAID needs to be made more easily available and discussed for those facing dementia. How much money is spent cruelly warehousing people who have no idea where and who they are?

Didn't expect you to be on the forefront of effectively pushing seniors onto icebergs to die.

[WarrenC12]

These statistics really show that in general, life is "better" than it has been in the past. Work doesn't dominate peoples' lives as much as it used to. Social media is the problem, as usual.