Statistics Canada Reports II

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

Since births rates have been falling in pretty much ever country on the planet, i find it hard to believe that these countries are getting younger.
only if their child mortality has also decrease significantly will their their median age decrease.

According to Statistia, the median age of Niger and South Sudan appear to be dropping. Syria’s median age appears to be increasing, but it dropped between 2010 and 2015. I’m sure a lot of Syrians are pining for a return to those boom times.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by theman23

I believe the median age is falling in the Congo as well. Puts us in some illustrious company no doubt.

Well, the Feds have poured billions into making us an EV battery powerhouse, and now they have to find enough overseas workers with the right skills for this industry:

[kora]

The BC government released population estimates for 2023 and Greater Vancouver went from 2.862 million to 2.951 million over the past year (3.1% growth rate). Fastest growing communities are Port Moody (6.1%), Langley City (5.5%), Coquitlam (4.9%)

BC Government, Population Estimates
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/d...tion-estimates

[MolsonExport]

^I wonder just how awful the traffic is now on that awful Barnet highway (it was awful in the mid 90s; I can't imagine it today)

[Nite]

Japan just reported it's highest peacetime population decline ever, losing 830K last year.
It will soon be losing a million people a year.
The thing about population decline is that it starts of small but continues to increase every year until the old age population starts to declining as well.

I bring it up because Canada and Japan have the same fertility rate.

Japan

2022
Births 799,728
Deaths 1,582,033
Marriages 519,823
Natural increase -782,305

2023
Births 758,631 (-5.14%)
Deaths 1,590,503 (+0.54%)
Marriages 489,281 (-5.88%)
Natural increase -831,872

[Metro-One]

Yeah, that’s very concerning.

Sadly it’s the smaller rural communities that hallow out first. It’s very depressing seeing these unique and interesting local cultures dying out. One island community I visit often (population 50 years ago was 600, today it’s 14) has many unique agricultural techniques and traditions that will be completely lost soon. There is one person there trying to keep the harvest of a unique spicy pepper (only grown on this island) alive before it’s all gone.

Canada’s demographics aren’t healthy. The birth rate is far too low. The birth rate doesn’t need to be booming, but it should be at least near replacement.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Canada’s demographics aren’t healthy. The birth rate is far too low. The birth rate doesn’t need to be booming, but it should be at least near replacement.

I guess the question is how much people are choosing not to have kids and how much they are prevented from having kids by economic factors. Around here it feels to me like some people have fewer kids than they would want if they had decent housing and economic prospects.

I don't really believe that assembling a group of people who happen to create a similar-ish age distribution creates the same society as one with a higher birthrate and all that entails. I wonder if even the demographic-level plan will pan out as living standards deteriorate here, rise in some source countries, and the migrants are relatively old (and transition to being net consumers of public support if they're not in that bucket to begin with). I could see a dreary future where we get stuck with low productivity and high costs, we have imported millions of relatively low-skill workers, and birth rates stay where they are. I think that if we really want to be better off as a country we need to promote higher productivity (with good quality education, resource and other economic development, more efficient construction, and less government bloat).

[Nite]

Originally Posted by someone123

I guess the question is how much people are choosing not to have kids and how much they are prevented from having kids by economic factors. Around here it feels to me like some people have fewer kids than they would want if they had decent housing and economic prospects.

I don't really believe that assembling a group of people who happen to create a similar-ish age distribution creates the same society as one with a higher birthrate and all that entails. I wonder if even the demographic-level plan will pan out as living standards deteriorate here, rise in some source countries, and the migrants are relatively old. I could see a dreary future where we get stuck with low productivity and high costs, we have imported millions of relatively low-skill workers, and birth rates stay where they are.

In my experience if people want kids they will have as many as they want. if they don't want kids they will find reasons to justify not to having kids.
If cost was a real reason, then the poorest Canadians would have the fewest children.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nite

In my experience if people want kids they will have as many as they want. if they don't want kids they will find reasons to justify not to having kids.
If cost was a real reason, then the poorest Canadians would have the fewest children.

I think there’s a likely correlation between wealth/income, and fertility. Look at age-specific fertility rates. British Columbia and Ontario have the lowest fertility rates in Canada among women between 20 and 30. But for women aged 35 to 39, they have the highest. Why? I’m sure there are a mix of social and cultural factors, but I would not at all be surprised if one of those is simply that younger women/families don’t feel financially able to support kids, but by the time they’re in their late 30s they can swing it.

Meanwhile Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, two of the most affordable places in the country, have by far among the highest fertility rates for women under 25. Also high between 25-29, except Quebec joins them.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

In my experience if people want kids they will have as many as they want. if they don't want kids they will find reasons to justify not to having kids.
If cost was a real reason, then the poorest Canadians would have the fewest children.

In real life, people want and don't want things for something called "reasons".

I'm sure people in Ontario and B.C. are putting off having children into their late 30s is because that's the most biologically opportune time to have a child and has nothing to do with lack of financial security.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

In real life, people want and don't want things for something called "reasons".

I'm sure people in Ontario and B.C. are putting off having children into their late 30s is because that's the most biologically opportune time to have a child and has nothing to do with lack of financial security.

Perhaps people get married (or the equivalent) at a later average age now, which would be the most logical explanation. That might apply to single parents as well. I wonder how much our governments are willing to address this as a demographic problem; it seems it's a topic that's very culturally uncomfortable, and politically incorrect through the filter of modern liberal values.

[Metro-One]

Finance is big, it also some people are waiting for too large of milestones to have children.

My wife and I are renting a two bedroom apartment with our two kids, have never looked back. Having them while we are still young enough to have the energy to play with them (and hopeful my be a part of their lives for longer) was the best decision we made.

Now when I look at all the social media posts from friends my age (approaching 40) with their endless house parties, drink parties, eating out events, birthday parties, etc… with their friends and coworkers, nearly all of them single and without kids, it just looks incredibly depressing to me. They are still acting as if they are 22, they haven’t matured into the next stage of life yet. I know this will anger many on here, but it just looks so self-indulgent and wasteful.

When my wife was first pregnant I remember thinking I would be jealous of such friends, but the complete opposite has occurred.

I think this lack of moving to the next stage of life (and people having fewer siblings and cousins) is a huge part in fueling some of the more bizarre social movements of late.

I just find it ironic that those clamoring for more hard socialist values are the ones who seem the most indulgent on extreme materialism.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Architype

Perhaps people get married (or the equivalent) at a later average age now, which would be the most logical explanation. That might apply to single parents as well. I wonder how much our governments are willing to address this as a demographic problem; it seems it's a topic that's very culturally uncomfortable, and politically incorrect through the filter of modern liberal values.

I am going to assume you are unfamiliar to how much monetary support the Trudeau liberal gives plenty to parent through the child tax benefit which they greatly expanded and their $10 a day daycare plan

I just did a quick calculation with 2 kids to parent both each making 45,000 a year and we would get $10,322 a year from the federal government, more if our hypothetical income was less




The maximum you can get is $7,437 per year per child so $15,000 for 2 kids if you are part of the working poor.
you get the CCB until the child reacts 17. so the federal government will pay the poorest Canadians $115,000 per child up to the age of 17

PS the maximum amount is 7,437 per year for a child under 6
and 6,275 per year for a child between 6 and 17

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Architype

Perhaps people get married (or the equivalent) at a later average age now, which would be the most logical explanation. That might apply to single parents as well. I wonder how much our governments are willing to address this as a demographic problem; it seems it's a topic that's very culturally uncomfortable, and politically incorrect through the filter of modern liberal values.

Why are people getting married at later ages?

[Nite]

Nevermind

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

My wife and I are renting a two bedroom apartment with our two kids, have never looked back. Having them while we are still young enough to have the energy to play with them (and hopeful my be a part of their lives for longer) was the best decision we made.

Now when I look at all the social media posts from friends my age (approaching 40) with their endless house parties, drink parties, eating out events, birthday parties, etc… with their friends and coworkers, nearly all of them single and without kids, it just looks incredibly depressing to me. They are still acting as if they are 22, they haven’t matured into the next stage of life yet. I know this will anger many on here, but it just looks so self-indulgent and wasteful.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure most of those people think your life looks depressing too. After all, judging the value & meaning of a person's life based on a few social media posts while rationalizing their own choices is just part of the human condition!

Anyway, great that having kids early worked out for you, but I don't think you understand what the cost of living/quality of life issues are like for young people in much of Canada these days. Most under-30's I know either live with their parents or a bunch of roommates; or struggle to get by in a small apartment. That in itself is big contributor to the sense of delayed adulthood and subsequent delaying of traditional life milestones.

The calculus on raising a child has also changed. Just the cost of adding an extra bedroom for your kid to sleep in can add thousands to your monthly mortgage or rent payment. The resentment that having kids has become a luxury or a status symbol is real. While birth rates have been gradually falling for some time, it's no coincidence that birth rates have fallen more sharply in recent years as CoL has skyrocketed; and have fallen the furthers in the most expensive places (ie. BC and Ontario).

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by kora

The BC government released population estimates for 2023 and Greater Vancouver went from 2.862 million to 2.951 million over the past year (3.1% growth rate). Fastest growing communities are Port Moody (6.1%), Langley City (5.5%), Coquitlam (4.9%)

BC Government, Population Estimates
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/d...tion-estimates

Thanks for sharing kora.

The Capital Regional District went from 443,002 to 457,478. The CMA definition for Victoria had the population grow from 425, 214 to 439,112.

Vancouver Island as a whole now sits at 942,430. Looks like the island will hit 1 million towards the end of 2025 or in 2026 at the latest. A little known clause in the agreement that resulted in the Colony of Vancouver Island joining British Columbia is that once the island hit 1 million in population it would automatically trigger the Secession Clause resulting in the creation of the Republic of Vancouver Island..


;-)

[thewave46]

I am curious as to where the intersection of culture and finance is with respect to having children.

In one sense, the United States and France tend toward a higher TFR than Canada, but seem to have very different approaches to familial support at a state level. This seems to indicate culture drives TFR. I can see the flip side too, where the stifling cultural boundaries of South Korea and other East Asian countries demolish TFR once they achieve a relative measure of wealth.

In another sense, the most expensive city-states of the world have very low TFR. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore come to mind, which seem to indicate that financial ability does play a factor with respect to children.

If there's an intangible thread I might pull at, I suspect it's the culture of belief. Not so much in a religious sense nowadays, but a belief in one's country and culture. We are talking about developed countries here for limits on the context.

Say what you will about the culture of France and the United States, but those countries believe in themselves. It's an intangible thing, a sense of drive, rightness about their own country, and their way of life. That this place and people matter and are aiming a brighter future, even if it involves sacrifice. Sure, it can be ugly and nationalistic, but it's a drive.

Countries that have lost that belief, or seemingly don't believe in a better future for themselves seem to have a lower TFR.

Given the vibes of early 21st century Canada, I have an inkling that this may be partly be the case for us. Without going too far out on a tangent, the current spirit of the times mostly comes down to keeping the lights on for the Landed Gentry and kludging along. When one looks to young parents strugging to raise kids in Canada 2024, does one think those kids will inherit a better life? Hard to see that when government is complicit in screwing tomorrow for today and asks minimal sacrifice for tomorrow. Sure, we paper over the problem by bringing in a million plus per year (gotta have cheap labour!) in a hugely housing-restricted environment (can't have house prices decline!), never mind the 20-30 something locals getting hosed out of the Canadian dream. Why the hell would one have kids in that environment? Might as well be hedonistic if they're going to get fucked over.

This is all very metaphysical I know, and anathema to statistics fetishists who can only think in McKinsey 'Line must go up at any cost!' terms.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I am curious as to where the intersection of culture and finance is with respect to having children.

In one sense, the United States and France tend toward a higher TFR than Canada, but seem to have very different approaches to familial support at a state level. This seems to indicate culture drives TFR. I can see the flip side too, where the stifling cultural boundaries of South Korea and other East Asian countries demolish TFR once they achieve a relative measure of wealth.

In another sense, the most expensive city-states of the world have very low TFR. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore come to mind, which seem to indicate that financial ability does play a factor with respect to children.

If there's an intangible thread I might pull at, I suspect it's the culture of belief. Not so much in a religious sense nowadays, but a belief in one's country and culture. We are talking about developed countries here for limits on the context.

Say what you will about the culture of France and the United States, but those countries believe in themselves. It's an intangible thing, a sense of drive, rightness about their own country, and their way of life. That this place and people matter and are aiming a brighter future, even if it involves sacrifice. Sure, it can be ugly and nationalistic, but it's a drive.

Countries that have lost that belief, or seemingly don't believe in a better future for themselves seem to have a lower TFR.

Given the vibes of early 21st century Canada, I have an inkling that this may be partly be the case for us. Without going too far out on a tangent, the current spirit of the times mostly comes down to keeping the lights on for the Landed Gentry and kludging along. When one looks to young parents strugging to raise kids in Canada 2024, does one think those kids will inherit a better life? Hard to see that when government is complicit in screwing tomorrow for today and asks minimal sacrifice for tomorrow. Sure, we paper over the problem by bringing in a million plus per year (gotta have cheap labour!) in a hugely housing-restricted environment (can't have house prices decline!), never mind the 20-30 something locals getting hosed out of the Canadian dream. Why the hell would one have kids in that environment? Might as well be hedonistic if they're going to get fucked over.

This is all very metaphysical I know, and anathema to statistics fetishists who can only think in McKinsey 'Line must go up at any cost!' terms.

The Canadian federal government gives you up to $115,000 per child you have over a 17 year window via the CCB and pays for 1.5 years of maternity leave and sudizeds daycare to eventually cost $10 a day. Plus cover healthcare cost, dental cost and soon drug cost. This seems pretty generous and miles beyond what you would get in the US and most other developed countries.
This is why i don't buy that finances are the reason Canadians have a low fertility rate or people are ignorant to the amount of financial support the federal government gives you for having children.

A single mother of three assuming she is part of the working poor and receiving the maximum amount would get a total of around $2000 a month from the federal government for 17 years via the CCB alone.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nite

In my experience if people want kids they will have as many as they want. if they don't want kids they will find reasons to justify not to having kids.
If cost was a real reason, then the poorest Canadians would have the fewest children.

I live in Quebec but as a result of my upbringing have tons of family and friends in Ontario.

That group is full of people who have no kids or less kids than they would have wanted - for financial reasons.

Ontario treats children like a luxury item. Like a shiny ring on your finger. Not as the future of society.