Pro/Anti Child Bearing Policies (split from "Canada don’t matter" thread)

[brihard]

We already have 18 months of paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, good benefits for each child. Even with all that, it is still difficult to get by with kids for many families. Families need two full time working parents to afford a comfortable lifestyle. Not further amount of benefits will encourage people to have more kids.

EI maternity/parental at the 12 month rate is slightly over $600 a week, taxable. At the 18 month rate, $400 a week. If you don’t have employer top-up, that doesn’t necessarily go far.

My wife is in her final three months of maternity/parental. Her employer topped her up for the first six months; for the latter half she only has the EI component. I could have taken the other six months with top up, but for various reasons specific to us, it was important for her to stay home with him for the full year.

We’re very fortunate that we both have a relatively high income and can swing six months with her only receiving EI. Many aren’t in that position.

Don’t get me wrong, our EI maternity/parental is a fantastic benefit compared to some other countries, but it by no means assures you’re still in a good financial position if the other partner doesn’t have a high paying job. We also got into the housing market before it spiked so we aren’t dealing with high mortgage or rent payments.

 

[SupersonicMax]

It takes more than that. It will require cultural and economic shifts.

Don’t bore us with generalities. It weakens your position. Be precise in your argument: what cultural and economic shift will convince people of procreating more?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Don’t bore us with generalities. It weakens your position. Be precise in your argument: what cultural and economic shift will convince people of procreating more?

Why do you have to be condescending ? It weakens your place in this world.

It means portraying families and child rearing in a positive light, it means the same as motherhood this is the cultural shift. It also means transforming the economy to one that allows single income familied to be more sustainable, this would be the economic.

What bothers me the most is that I have 6 excellent women who work directly for me. None of them want children. In fact they distain the idea, and I think that's really sad, because they would be such excellent mothers.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Why do you have to be condescending ? It weakens your place in this world.

It means portraying families and child rearing in a positive light, it means the same as motherhood this is the cultural shift. It also means transforming the economy to one that allows single income familied to be more sustainable, this would be the economic.

What bothers me the most is that I have 6 excellent women who work directly for me. None of them want children. In fact they distain the idea, and I think that's really sad, because they would be such excellent mothers.

How are families and child rearing portrayed in a negative light in our society? What needs to be fixed and how?

How do we transform the economy to allow single income families to be sustainable? Any second and third order effects on other spheres of the economy?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nope, not even that will work and we'd better get ready for it as opposed to trying to 'bribe' our way to a baby boom that will never happen ...

Visualizing the World’s Plummeting Fertility Rate

In this graphic we explore the world’s declining fertility rate over the last 60 years and the disparity in fertility rates between nations

www.visualcapitalist.com

Its nothing I didn't already know, or dislike.

Declining fertility rates are a consequence of a confluence of many related factors, including (but not limited to):

• Better access to contraception
• Improving opportunities for women, outside of childbearing
• Robust healthcare that lowers mortality rates of children

That middle point bothers me.

 

[Halifax Tar]

How are families and child rearing portrayed in a negative light in our society? What needs to be fixed and how?

How do we transform the economy to allow single income families to be sustainable? Any second and third order effects on other spheres of the economy?

I think you wont have to spend much time on modern media to find popular examples of DINKs (Duel Income No Kids) and SINKs (Single Income No Kids).

What is it about us dinks (dual income, no kids) that so many people dislike? | Kathryn Bromwich

Unaccountably, it is still deemed acceptable to criticise a couple’s decision not to produce offspring

www.theguardian.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/21/what-dink-dual-income-no-kids-trend-means-for-your-money.html

'We’re DINKs. We get a full eight hours of sleep': Childless couples spark debate

The DINK (double income, no kids) lifestyle has gained popularity among young couples choosing not to have children. Learn more

nationalpost.com

I don't have TikTok, but if you do; use what ever search function they have and watch your algorithm work.

I am content to leave people to make their choices, and I am also free to sadly lament the choices they have made. They and you are also free to ignore me.

I would argue we are bad at looking at the long term societal consequences of our cultural movements. Perhaps that's just how societies mutate change. I'm not a anthropologist. I just know what I see in front of me.

For the economy, I am not an economist, but there has to be something we can do to make starting and growing family more affordable. But we are an opulent group now so perhaps there is nothing in this sphere that is possible.

 

[rnkelly]

That middle point bothers me.

Because you don’t agree with the framing of “improving opportunities” or because it’s true?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because you don’t agree with the framing of “improving opportunities” or because it’s true?

Because it sounds to me like motherhood isn't viewed as a positive opportunity.

 

[suffolkowner]

Don’t bore us with generalities. It weakens your position. Be precise in your argument: what cultural and economic shift will convince people of procreating more?

clearly its going to take a cultural and economic shift to change otherwise it wouldnt be an issue

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . what . . . economic shift will convince people of procreating more?

$8000.00, perhaps?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/boons-boondoggles-seen-in-p-c-baby-bonus-pitch-1.672839

CBC News · Posted: Sep 20, 2007 A campaign pledge to pay Newfoundland and Labrador parents to have babies will address — but won't solve — the province's dropping population, an economist says.

Progressive Conservative leader Danny Williams this week announced a $1,000 payment will be made for every baby born or adopted in the province.

The program won't overcome the low fertility rate, said Doug May, a Memorial University professor who specializes in the labour market and demographics.

A similar bonus program worked in Quebec during in the 1990s, he said, but not until the government raised the benefits for a third child to $8,000.

But accounting for inflation (the Quebec program started in 1988), it might take nearly $18,000 to get those extra rugrats popped out.

$8,000 in 1988 → 2024 | Canada Inflation Calculator

This inflation calculator uses the official Canadian consumer price index. An inflation rate of 2.25% per year means $8,000 in 1988 is worth $17,834.35 in 2024.

www.in2013dollars.com

$8,000 in 1988 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $17,834.35 today, an increase of $9,834.35 over 36 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.25% per year between 1988 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 122.93%.

My post is, of course, tinged with sarcasm. For a more concise analysis of Quebec's pronatalism adventure, try here.

Quebec's Alternative to Pronatalism

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

 

[suffolkowner]

Because it sounds to me like motherhood isn't viewed as a positive opportunity.

well motherhood involves financial penalties on women and economic opportunity reduces motherhood? Despite which women around the world under reproduce by 1 child on average from what they desire

 

[suffolkowner]

I am content to leave people to make their choices, and I am also free to sadly lament the choices they have made. They and you are also free to ignore me.

I would argue we are bad at looking at the long term societal consequences of our cultural movements. Perhaps that's just how societies mutate change. I'm not a anthropologist. I just know what I see in front of me.

For the economy, I am not an economist, but there has to be something we can do to make starting and growing family more affordable. But we are an opulent group now so perhaps there is nothing in this sphere that is possible.

There's a problem when we have devised a society which promotes its own extinction.

 

[dimsum]

What bothers me the most is that I have 6 excellent women who work directly for me. None of them want children. In fact they distain the idea, and I think that's really sad, because they would be such excellent mothers.

There can be other factors too. Maybe they really like travelling and the no-kid lifestyle, for one.

Hell, we have a dog and sometimes that’s too close to being a child that my spouse and I re-cage whether we want children or not. I’m the more pro-child but at least 50% of the time I’m thinking “nah, I’m good”.

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

 

[mariomike]

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

I vehemently agree.

 

[rnkelly]

Because it sounds to me like motherhood isn't viewed as a positive opportunity.

I understand that interpretation but think they’re just describing an opportunity that wasn’t commonly available before and increases options. The individual then gets to choose their preferred option, if motherhood isn’t chosen then the value proposition wasn’t persuasive enough or motherhood wasn’t going to be considered anyway. Hopefully those choosing motherhood will be better due this dynamic too, quality vs quantity kinda thing. I acknowledge the numbers need to still be reasonable to be able to support demographics though.

Also, a close family member who’s a community nurse in an under-privileged area has described some families that, in her opinion, are only having more kids due to the financial benefits. She has to supervise the grocery cards they get, it’s quite concerning to hear what they fill the pantry with and other household “atmospherics”. If that’s representative of government run incentives to procreate more I would approach those policies with caution.

 

[KevinB]

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

I’m 180 degrees from you on that, as it needs to be a joint decision as for the next 18 years or so both the Mother and Father will be somewhat occupied with child rearing.

I’d also offer that a certain point pets are more of an impact onto things than children. I saw that as having three kids (26,15, 12) and two dogs.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782134043296833965

this is a good account to follow as they explore things that lead to low fertility and ways to counter act it

 

[Blackadder1916]

Nope, not even that will work and we'd better get ready for it as opposed to trying to 'bribe' our way to a baby boom that will never happen ...

Visualizing the World’s Plummeting Fertility Rate

In this graphic we explore the world’s declining fertility rate over the last 60 years and the disparity in fertility rates between nations

www.visualcapitalist.com

Visuals can raise questions. The "high fertility" countries are mostly located in central Africa.



What other "high rate" is also associated with the region?

Child (under 5) mortality rate,



Infant mortality rate.

 

[Remius]

The fact is that there is a lot of dog whistling out there that the solution is to roll back women’s rights, enforce certain by law and ban things like contraceptives, divorce etc (which is by all accounts a huge factor).

None of which will happen nor will it actually fix anything. Trad Cons want to increase birth rates but won’t accept social programs as the solution nor do they take some of the causes as being causes.

There needs to be a more balanced approach.

 

[Brad Sallows]

One thing could be a straightforward public education campaign. After mid-30s, women's fertility (already dropping) starts to drop off rapidly. After mid-30s, quality of men's "contribution" deteriorates (genetically).

People will go to a lot of effort to give their children advantages, when the single greatest advantage is to start young and eliminate avoidable health risks.