Statistics Canada Reports II

[harls]

People had 10 or 15 kids in the early 1900s because they needed to make sure enough of them would survive to carry on their legacy.

Case in point, my great grandfather was from a family of 15 siblings and two of them drowned as kids. Nowadays with all this fancy technology, you don't need so many.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

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.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

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.

Average 1BR condo in Toronto is 550k per TREB vs 700k for a 2br.
It'll probably also be a good idea to clothe the child and feed them, so might want to have some money left over for that.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

Average 1BR condo in Toronto is 550k per TREB vs 700k for a 2br.
It'll probably also be a good idea to clothe the child and feed them, so might want to have some money left over for that.

Well i assume they were living in Toronto before they had kids so they are affording rents or own a home already, so
upto $115,000 per child from the federal government can get you a hell of a lot of clothes and food for your children.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

Well i assume they were living in Toronto before they had kids so they are affording rents or own a home already, so
upto $115,000 per child from the federal government can get you a hell of a lot of clothes and food for your children.

Lets assume they already own (not exactly a reasonable assumption, but lets do it for the sake of your argument). Having a child will require that they buy a larger space, and the cost of doing so would be about $150k. That eats up the entirety of that $115k.

Of course you only get the maximum benefit if your family earns less than $34k a year. There are probably not too many of those families even contemplating living in a 2br apartment in Toronto, where an average 2br rents for close to $40k a year.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

Lets assume they already own (not exactly a reasonable assumption, but lets do it for the sake of your argument). Having a child will require that they buy a larger space, and the cost of doing so would be about $150k. That eats up the entirety of that $115k.

Of course you only get the maximum benefit if your family earns less than $34k a year. There are probably not too many of those families even contemplating living in a 2br apartment in Toronto, where an average 2br rents for close to $40k a year.

Median income in the city of Toronto is a little over $90,000 a year and for that amount he Canadian government gives you $5,000 a year ($415 a month) for 17 years per each child
which would cover food and clothes for for each child.
Based on income daycare might be fully covered by the city, health care, dentalcare, drugs are all covered by the government as well. Lets not also forget the upto 18 months of maternity leave also paid for by the government.

This is why i find this argument that i would have kids but it's expensive a hollow argument.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

Median income in the city of Toronto is a little over $90,000 a year and for that amount he Canadian government gives you 5,000 a year for 17 years per each child

which would cover food and clothes for for each child.

5k a year works out to about 85k, which is about 1/2 the cost of upgrading from a 1bedroom to 2 bedroom condo. Not including condo fees, taxes, or interest payments of course. Likely amounts to 1/4 the cost when all is said and done.

How many people here grew up with their parents in a one bedroom condo? Does that sound comfortable to you? Apparently this is the new expectation for the average Canadian family. I can only imagine what the expectation is if you're poor.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

5k a year works out to about 85k, which is about 1/2 the cost of upgrading from a 1bedroom to 2 bedroom condo. Not including condo fees, taxes, or interest payments of course. Likely amounts to 1/4 the cost when all is said and done.

How many people here grew up with their parents in a one bedroom condo? Does that sound comfortable to you? Apparently this is the new expectation for the average Canadian family.

you are talking a median prices, half the homes in Toronto are below the median, so if they can't afford median prices i would assume they would find below a median 2br home in the city.
Or they can also sell their home a rent out a 2 bedroom apartment in the city of Toronto.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

you are talking a median prices, half the homes in Toronto are below the median, so if they can't afford median prices i would assume they would find below a median 2br home in the city.
Or they can also sell their home a rent out a 2 bedroom apartment in the city of Toronto

I'm guessing someone with a median income would be looking to rent a median apartment, and so on down the percentiles. Either way, the math doesn't work out.

And give me a break about selling their home. How are you a serious poster? How many young families just have a spare home lying around that they can sell to rent a 2br apartment? Do you think this whole time we've been talking about a housing crisis what we've been talking about is how difficult it is to buy a second home?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

I'm guessing someone with a median income would be looking to rent a median apartment, and so on down the percentiles. Either way, the math doesn't work out.

And give me a break about selling their home. How are you a serious poster? How many young families just have a spare home lying around that they can sell to rent a 2br apartment?

you are the one who said they would have to sell to to buy a new bigger home. i am just pointing out they can also rent.

And also they could also have a second child and get $10,000 a year CCB and still live in a 2 bedroom home.
I see many solution for financial issues for people who actually want to have kids.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

you are the one who said they would have to sell to to buy a new bigger home. i am just pointing out they can also rent.

And also they could also have a second child and get $10,000 a year CCB and still live in a 2 bedroom home.
I see many solution for financial issues for people who actually want to have kids.

It doesn't work that way. You only profit from the equity, the rest needs to go to pay off your mortgage. There is still a cost borne, even if the effects of that cost is mitigated by profits you earned from selling your residence. Most 20-somethings don't have substantial equity in their real estate anyways (if they have any), so the point is moot.

The math is really simple. The costs of the benefits provided by the government don't come close to covering the incremental cost of housing another child, let alone all of the other expenses that come with raising a child.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

The math is really simple. The costs of the benefits provided by the government don't come close to covering the incremental cost of housing another child, let alone all of the other expenses that come with raising a child.

Only if you insist that they must buy a new bigger home at median prices in the 2nd most expensive market in the country. the math works out favourably for most people.
I think it's preposterous that you are saying new parents will need to buy a new home they can't afford instead of just staying where they are or find cheaper accommodations that they can afford
.
People who really want to have children will make the math work out for them is my main point. while those who don't really want kids will find ways to claim that the math doesn't work out for them.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nite

Only if you insist on buying a new home at median prices in the 2nd most expensive market in the country. the math works out favourably for most people.
People who really want to have children will make the math work out for them is my main point. while those who don't really want kids will find ways so the math doesn't work out for them.

I mean, clearly Canadians aren't making it work so perhaps things aren't as easy as you seem to suggest they are.

And no, these are not median prices for new homes. These are just median prices I'm quoting. If the median income in Toronto can't expect to rent a median apartment, what should the bottom quartile expect to rent?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by theman23

I mean, clearly Canadians aren't making it work so perhaps things aren't as easy as you seem to suggest they are.

And no, these are not median prices for new homes. These are just median prices I'm quoting. If the median income in Toronto can't expect to rent a median apartment, what should the bottom quartile expect to rent?

It's because they don't want kids like most of the developed world. it's not because of finance.
Raising kids goes against the individualism that modern society strives for

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

Why are people getting married at later ages?

It's a well known statistical fact, I am sure the reasons are complex but we can make safe assumptions here, such as better birth control, less religious influence and pressure, the advertised and glamorized lifestyles of the hedonistic "me" generations. People now have the luxury to enjoy a few years as singles or childless couples before they leap into the responsibility of parenthood. You don't need to get started as early if you only plan on having one or two kids. It's not just costs, but I imagine saving up for a supersized grand wedding is also a thing people do.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nite

Only if you insist that they must buy a new bigger home at median prices in the 2nd most expensive market in the country. the math works out favourably for most people.
I think it's preposterous that you are saying new parents will need to buy a new home they can't afford instead of just staying where they are or find cheaper accommodations that they can afford
.
People who really want to have children will make the math work out for them is my main point. while those who don't really want kids will find ways to claim that the math doesn't work out for them.

I think the typical living arrangement for young couples in large cities is a one bedroom apartment or condo. While it is possible to raise a family in this space (it was a fairly typical arrangement in the USSR for example), North Americans have been conditioned to believe children should have bedrooms. I think there would be a lot of stigma from friends, relatives, teachers and other children associated with putting kids in bunk beds in the living room, for example.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

...an excellent post...

Originally Posted by 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.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

...and this pretty much sums it up...

Originally Posted by Nite

It's because they don't want kids like most of the developed world. it's not because of finance.
Raising kids goes against the individualism that modern society strives for

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by harls

People had 10 or 15 kids in the early 1900s because they needed to make sure enough of them would survive to carry on their legacy.

Case in point, my great grandfather was from a family of 15 siblings and two of them drowned as kids. Nowadays with all this fancy technology, you don't need so many.

My grandfather is one of 21 children - 19 of which made it to adulthood. I often joke that half of New Brunswick is related to me. The crazy part is that there were no twins in the group - that’s 21 individual pregnancies.

Childhood mortality was higher back then, yes, but it wasn’t sky high. People just had wayyyy more kids. My great grandparents were apparently quite religious and that was likely a driving factor for so many children, but expectations have also just changed massively. Even my mother is from a family of 8 kids - having 3 kids these days is considered a “big” family. Just a generation ago that would have been on the smaller side.

Reduced fertility is coming not only from many couples going child free, but the ones who do have families having only 1-2 kids which doesn’t make up for those who chose not to or can’t have kids like in the past.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

...and this pretty much sums it up...

That's partly true, but people were also individualistic in 2008 when the total fertility rate was 1.7, compared to 1.3 in 2022. In 2008 we still had modern medicine, access to birth control, women in the workforce, etc.