Statistics Canada Reports II

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

^Mass immigration from third world countries like Philippines, India, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran etc combined with conservative Christian Canadians. Spend some time in a maternity ward, or the main entrance of hospitals and observe who is producing babies.

Russia (1.50/female) and Iran (1.70/female) have low birthrates. India's birthrate has fallen to 2.05/female. The only place with high birthrates on your list is Afghanistan.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think you're on to something here. Stuff I've read about why Israel manages to maintain a TFR around 3 despite being a developed country largely attributes it to these sort of nationalistic, strive-for-the-future type thinking.

Hleihel uses official registry data from Israel and finds recent total fertility rates (TFRs) of 6.6 for Ultra-Orthodox Jews versus rates of 3 to 4.5 for other Orthodox Jews and 2 to 2.5 for other Jews.

The Hasidic Jewish sects in Brooklyn also have sky-high fertility rates.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Hleihel uses official registry data from Israel and finds recent total fertility rates (TFRs) of 6.6 for Ultra-Orthodox Jews versus rates of 3 to 4.5 for other Orthodox Jews and 2 to 2.5 for other Jews.

The Hasidic Jewish sects in Brooklyn also have sky-high fertility rates.

Still.. that means that Israel's secular Jews manage above-replacement fertility. I found this out a few years ago and was quite surprised - I would have guessed that stripping out the ultra-Orthodox would have yielded an Israeli birthrate similar to the OECD average, before I first saw those numbers.

Non-Orthodox Jews in the US certainly don't have above-replacement fertility.

It should be noted that there is a huge difference between "ultra-Orthodox" and "normal Orthodox", often missed in North American opinion - the latter are more or less "normal" people, just religious, while the former withdraw from society. Think the difference between a typical faithful Christian who goes to church every Sunday versus, say, the Amish. The fact that "normal Orthodox" in Israel maintain a fertility rate around 4 is pretty incredible. I'm pretty sure if you take a look at North American Christians, for example, you'd have to go all the way to hardcore, live in a commune type people before you'd have a TFR that high.

[kora]

When asked what is the ideal number of children to have, 69% of Canadians said 2 or more.

Among those who said they expected to have fewer than their ideal number of children in their lifetime, four in ten (38%) say their main reason for this is due to finances. Three in ten (32%) say they are too old. Just over one-quarter cite lack of affordable housing (27%) and medical reasons (27%), while 21% say they “just don’t want to.

Ipsos, Canadians Rate Having Close Friends and a Career They Enjoy as More Important for a Fulfilling Life Than Having Children
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadian...aving-children

[Changing City]

I suspect there's quite a bit of variation over time of the 'ideal' number of children. The Canadian Social Survey in 2022 found that more than a third of people aged 15 to 49 wanted two children, while one-third did not intend to have any. Overall, the average desired number of children was 1.50.

That's a much bigger survey than IPSOS, but it was taken closer to the peak of the COVID epedemic, so it might have reflected what people were thinking at that time.

It might also reflect who gets surveyed too. "The average number of children desired was higher among older people." The younger respondents wanted fewer (on average). 15 to 24 years said they wanted 1.35 children, 25 to 34 years said 1.51 and 35 to 49 years said 1.58.

Those variations in the intention to have children seem to be reflected in the actual fertility rates of different age groups in this Statistics Canada report.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by kora

When asked what is the ideal number of children to have, 69% of Canadians said 2 or more.

Among those who said they expected to have fewer than their ideal number of children in their lifetime, four in ten (38%) say their main reason for this is due to finances. Three in ten (32%) say they are too old. Just over one-quarter cite lack of affordable housing (27%) and medical reasons (27%), while 21% say they “just don’t want to.

Ipsos, Canadians Rate Having Close Friends and a Career They Enjoy as More Important for a Fulfilling Life Than Having Children
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/canadian...aving-children

More data at this link:

https://www.cardus.ca/research/famil...%20demographer.

Removed the graphs because they were far too big*

Basically, having a baby is for wealthy people in this country. A few poor people (but not many) have babies in their 20s, but lifetime fertility rates still lag behind that of the wealthy by quite a bit.

The only group achieving replacement rate is the group with a family income over $200,000.

[urbandreamer]

When you can't have children or have any heirs in your entire family, you suddenly DGAF about fertility rates.

A real simple solution, much less harmful to society and the environment than mass immigration, is $100-200k to every Canadian family with 4+ children, depending on family income.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

A real simple solution, much less harmful to society and the environment than mass immigration, is $100-200k to every Canadian family with 4+ children, depending on family income.

Unless housing costs in major urban centres come way down I don’t see that bending the curve a whole lot for the middle class.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

When you can't have children or have any heirs in your entire family, you suddenly DGAF about fertility rates.

A real simple solution, much less harmful to society and the environment than mass immigration, is $100-200k to every Canadian family with 4+ children, depending on family income.

[WarrenC12]

I'd be curious how many children people are having as it relates to the number who want zero. I feel like the "I don't want any kids" numbers are increasing.

Those who are starting families are having similar numbers as they did in the recent past would be my guess, most 2, some 3.

[Changing City]

One factor probably affecting the decision to have children is the amount of money you think is needed. This recent report on research about the amount you need to be happy may give some clues.

"On average, survey respondents said they would need $1.2 million in the bank and a salary of $284,167 per year to be happy. But averages can conceal major differences among respondent groups. Here are the actual results broken out by each generation:

Generation Z: Annual income of $128,000, net worth of $487,711

Millennials: Annual income of $525,000, net worth of $1,699,571

Generation X: Annual income of $130,000, net worth of $1,213,759

Boomers: Annual income of $124,000, net worth of $999,945."

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be curious how many children people are having as it relates to the number who want zero. I feel like the "I don't want any kids" numbers are increasing.

Those who are starting families are having similar numbers as they did in the recent past would be my guess, most 2, some 3.

Yep. There are a huge number of DINKS out there (dual income, no kids).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be curious how many children people are having as it relates to the number who want zero. I feel like the "I don't want any kids" numbers are increasing.

Those who are starting families are having similar numbers as they did in the recent past would be my guess, most 2, some 3.

Not any more.

Only-child families were the single most common type of family in 2021, according to Statistics Canada. Forty-five per cent of families had one child, compared to 38 per cent with two and 16.6 per cent with three or more. (Obviously some families with one will add more, but the trend to 'one and done' is signifcant'.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Yep. There are a huge number of DINKS out there (dual income, no kids).

Kids really get in the way of vacations and instragramming.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not any more.

Only-child families were the single most common type of family in 2021, according to Statistics Canada. Forty-five per cent of families had one child, compared to 38 per cent with two and 16.6 per cent with three or more. (Obviously some families with one will add more, but the trend to 'one and done' is signifcant'.

Yeah I think that's hard to say. Some of the 2s will have a 3rd, and so on.

Should survey people with kids who are 100% not planning on having more.

[billy1]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Kids really get in the way of vacations and instragramming.

......and posting crap on Internet forums.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Kids really get in the way of vacations and instragramming.

Old man yells at clouds vibe here.

The earth doesn't need more people. Canada needs to learn to "live within its means" of its population, the same way I need to live within my salary and not rely on a massive raise every year to sustain myself.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Old man yells at clouds vibe here.

The earth doesn't need more people. Canada needs to learn to "live within its means" of its population, the same way I need to live within my salary and not rely on a massive raise every year to sustain myself.

I was going to call it an avocado toast vibe.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by theman23

I was going to call it an avocado toast vibe.

Bootstraps! Starbucks! Damn millennials!

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I kind of agree, but with some qualifications... I think we tend to look at history sometimes with rose tinted glasses... I grew up amongst a widely varied set of families. Some had a lot, some had little. Some had big families, some had small families.

I think what has also changed, giving us maybe the illusion that perhaps our parents (grandparents?) were somehow more altruistic was that they just didn't have the opportunities for self-development that we do today. Example: Could my Acadian grandmother have seen Tokyo or Buenos Aires? Maybe TECHNICALLY, but practically: no. She wasn't just limited by lack of air travel, or money... but just knowledge; something we take for granted today. Could she have six kids and make bread and pie her whole life? Sure. Increasingly varied opportunities are going to create increasingly varied lifestyles. Grammy wasn't having her (9 actually) kids to somehow prop up Canada's birth rate after WWII in a fit of self-sacrifice. She just loved kids and taking care of them and never dreamed of anything else.

International travel was very expensive until the 1980s. Airfare from Canada to Europe (London or Paris) in 1960 was about $700 return, that's $7,150 in today's dollars. I doubt many would be bombing off to Europe if airfares were that high. Plus there was very limited credit.

People dreamed of travel as much as now but international travel was almost exclusively for those who were affluent or those who had saved for many years (ie, retired). Regular middle class folk took driving trips to the Rockies or California to see Disneyland if you were lucky. Or just to the cottage Working class people went camping at the lake or took regional trips, like Buffalo. It was considered a big deal to go to Montreal for Expo 67, at least in Western Canada.

There were different social expectations too, women were considered old maids if unmarried at 30. It was "odd" if a married couple had no kids. Divorced women were shunned, at least in Canada, I think Americans were always more liberal in that respect. Very few married women worked until the 70s as REAL wages were higher for most blue-collar and many white-collar jobs, so families did quite well on one income. Most people had one car and one TV. There was FAR less inequality. People ate healthier, as in in less processed junk and soda, and anyone even slightly overweight by today's standards would be considered fat. People drank and smoked more, university was a few hundred dollars for a semester so no need to pay for your kid's college, they made enough at their summer job. We have more "stuff" now but I'm not so sure life is better even if there is far more choice and far less judgment.