Statistics Canada Reports II

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

...an excellent post...

To answer a question posted earlier, the people I’m referencing in my social media posts are not living at home or even with roommates, they are all career professionals (some of them really well paid) with their own condo units (and some of them even houses!) but no marriage, no kids. I don’t know, after doing the same self-indulgent routine for two decades, it just seems so… repetitive and lacking in growth.

It’s obvious that they are unwilling to give up any of their own needs for the experience or raising others.

And it’s true, you do need to make sacrifices raising kids, you can go drinking and clubbing or have a juvenile fury DJ party at the local park whenever you want, and there is stress and trouble, but you also mature and actually learn a lot about yourself and life in general that you can’t any other way.

Raising kids isn’t about having fun, it’s about discovering joy.

Again, my family of 4 lives in a small two bedroom apartment. It hasn’t been a problem. As the kids get older, we are slowly saving up to expand a little.

And finally, having lived both without kids and with kids, you do get the opportunity to know both lived experiences (something those who don’t have kids can’t). I lived my first 33 years without kids, so I know the self-indulgent party life very well, I was very hesitant to give it up (my wife was the driving force for kids) but comparing the two lifestyles together now, I wouldn’t give up the hugs I get from my children for anything else.

And here is the catch, if too many people decide to take the “no kids” route, then that means no future generation, which then means a huuuuuge decline in living standards come the time when these people are at retirement age.

[thewave46]

Mostly, I am wondering what has changed over the past few years as Canada has continually set record low TFRs.

For decades, Canada’s TFR was in the 1.5-1.8 range. Even as late as 2008, it was 1.7.

In the last 4 years, it has continually been in the 1.3-1.4 range, despite much vaunted government assistance. Is it just population momentum hitting the wrong moment? Or is it a greater malaise? Or both?

I suspect it is both. The last few years have absolutely proven that government serves the interests of the Landed Gentry at the expense of future domestic Canadians. One gets politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths - we need sustainable demographics, but a million people immigrating per year without housing because ‘labour shortage’.

Great, one gets $10k/year per kid. If government policy is essentially vacuuming the money it just put into your pocket right back out via housing/food inflation as it has over the past few years, what has one really accomplished?

There’s a malaise in Canada 2024, and a very real possibility that the future generations will not enjoy the same prosperity the last couple of decades have enjoyed due to this country’s reliance on debt, housing, and resources to prop up our way of life. I suspect this malaise has become apparent to those in their child-bearing age - at the risk of venturing too much into politics - the anger towards the current government may be a sign of awareness of that.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And finally, having lived both without kids and with kids, you do get the opportunity to know both lived experiences (something those who don’t have kids can’t). I lived my first 33 years without kids, so I know the self-indulgent party life very well, I was very hesitant to give it up (my wife was the driving force for kids) but comparing the two lifestyles together now, I wouldn’t give up the hugs I get from my children for anything else.

I'm similar. I was nearing 33 when I had my first kid. Just like you, the driving force for having children was my wife. I was guided more by inertia and a hectic work life. I have experienced both sides of the equation, and I agree with your observations.

Even now, at age 66, looking at my life and thinking about what life would be like right now with and without kids, and I think there would be a staggering difference. It is really comfortable and reassuring to have kids and grandkids nearby. I think if I hadn't had kids, I would have been a lot more lonely and unhappy.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And here is the catch, if too many people decide to take the “no kids” route, then that means no future generation, which then means a huuuuuge decline in living standards come the time when these people are at retirement age.

Indeed. In some ways, the act of having children is really a civic duty and responsibility. I don't really mind the government helping to support families. Education, health care and subsidized child care are all important investments by the government in the preservation of civilization.

[thewave46]

I might liken it to ‘failing company’ syndrome.

The salaries at failing companies usually have to be higher. Why? Talent has a way of fleeing when it senses that things aren’t going well. The rest stick it out because the money’s good, but they know things aren’t going well deep down.

Oh, on the outside the company looks healthy. Turns a profit. Inside? It’s a mess. Turnover is high, management is a mess, there’s no drive to better except for half-baked ideas that fizzle out because it’s trying to follow a trend instead of truly remaking its culture.

People are surprisingly perceptive.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Great, one gets $10k/year per kid. If government policy is essentially vacuuming the money it just put into your pocket right back out via housing/food inflation as it has over the past few years, what has one really accomplished?

It's not 10k per kid, the max a family can get is $7,400 per year for a kid under six, and $6,200 over that. And that's for low-income families; the amounts start getting clawed back once the family income is above 35k.

It's a great benefit and it eases a lot of costs, but no one is going to be upgrading to a bigger house due to it.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In some ways, the act of having children is really a civic duty and responsibility. I don't really mind the government helping to support families. Education, health care and subsidized child care are all important investments by the government in the preservation of civilization.

Ultimately as a species, we may have to design an economic system that doesn’t simply rely on ‘more people or economy fails’ on a planet of finite resources.

Will we need future generations of people? Certainly. Will we need a projected 10 billion of us, given the current status of technological development and declining rate of return for advancement at this point in human history? I don’t have an answer to that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nite

People who really want to have children will make the math work out for them is my main point.

In my personal experience, people who really want to have children despite the math not working, lose them to Child Protection Services before too long.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by harls

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.

Canada has chosen the path of low technology here: the modern equivalent of your great-grandfather is having one kid while importing 14 Indentured Servants (ideally, none of whom attempts to enter Canada by crossing the St. Lawrence at night from Upstate NY in winter so no drowning; the final number remains 14) who can then flip burgers or do menial tasks in battery factories.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Ultimately as a species, we may have to design an economic system that doesn’t simply rely on ‘more people or economy fails’ on a planet of finite resources.

Will we need future generations of people? Certainly. Will we need a projected 10 billion of us, given the current status of technological development and declining rate of return for advancement at this point in human history? I don’t have an answer to that.

This isn’t about the growth model of needing more people for increasing stock value.

But we need replacement populations to carry out the basic professions and care required to keep the quality of life stable.

No one here is asking for a baby boom of 8, 10, 20 children in a family. But having a fertility rate at or near replacement (let’s say 1.9 to 2.3) would be ideal.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm similar. I was nearing 33 when I had my first kid. Just like you, the driving force for having children was my wife. I was guided more by inertia and a hectic work life. I have experienced both sides of the equation, and I agree with your observations.

Even now, at age 66, looking at my life and thinking about what life would be like right now with and without kids, and I think there would be a staggering difference. It is really comfortable and reassuring to have kids and grandkids nearby. I think if I hadn't had kids, I would have been a lot more lonely and unhappy.



Indeed. In some ways, the act of having children is really a civic duty and responsibility. I don't really mind the government helping to support families. Education, health care and subsidized child care are all important investments by the government in the preservation of civilization.

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

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But we need replacement populations to carry out the basic professions and care required to keep the quality of life stable.

No one here is asking for a baby boom of 8, 10, 20 children in a family. But having a fertility rate at or near replacement (let’s say 1.9 to 2.3) would be ideal.

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

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

No one here is asking for a baby boom of 8, 10, 20 children in a family. But having a fertility rate at or near replacement (let’s say 1.9 to 2.3) would be ideal.

Agreed. We need a fertility rate of at least 2.1

Personally, I had three kids, and, so far, I have one granddaughter. Judging from family discussions, I have high hopes of eventually having three grandchildren, but, when you look at it, that's still only a fertility rate of 1.0.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nashe

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

Well for starters you stop telling people that the only thing that matters in their life is their career, and that sacrificing anything of your own needs for family is wrong / antiquated.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agreed. We need a fertility rate of at least 2.1

Personally, I had three kids, and, so far, I have one granddaughter. Judging from family discussions, I have high hopes of eventually having three grandchildren, but, when you look at it, that's still only a fertility rate of 1.0.

I got my fingers crossed for you!

My parents are rare these days where all of their 3 children have kids (5 grandkids so far). They are the envy of so many of their friends!

[Metro-One]

I actually thought of a good incentive for having children. A program where those who have children have free care when they are elderly, given that they have helped provide a future workforce, and those who don’t have children (by choice) have to pay at least a percentage for the same care.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well for starters you stop telling people that the only thing that matters in their life is their career, and that sacrificing anything of your own needs for family is wrong / antiquated.

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.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I actually thought of a good incentive for having children. A program where those who have children have free care when they are elderly, given that they have helped provide a future workforce, and those who don’t have children (by choice) have to pay at least a percentage for the same care.

“You’ll have no one to take care of you when you’ll be old” is ALREADY one of the main downsides of choosing to have no children.

[Acajack]

Viktor Orban is reviled in the western world but under his government Hungary has stepped up support for families with children almost to unheard-of levels.

There are all sorts of programs there, with one of the most eye-catching ones being that families with three or more kids basically pay no tax.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are all sorts of programs there, with one of the most eye-catching ones being that families with three or more kids basically pay no tax.

Given that, folks with kids should be thankful to us SINKs/DINKs for bankrolling the social programs that make their joyous brood possible.

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. The cyclist/walkers still pay taxes that fund the street system.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Given that, folks with kids should be thankful to us SINKs/DINKs for bankrolling the social programs that make their joyous brood possible.

I'd argue that it balances things out a bit more between all of the diverse people who benefit from society, both present and future. SINKs and DINKs pay for stuff like schools they won't benefit from (though they did when they were younger, and someone had to pay), but also don't produce future taxpayers that will pay for everything they'll need when they are older.