Costs too little, you mean. When housing and groceries are actually unaffordable, people have children to help grow food and prepare supplies for shelter. This is why birth rates are still quite high in poor countries and why birthrates fall off a cliff when people have plenty of resources readily available.
Please show me on the map where I can take my future family and farm the land on my theoretical meager wealth.
There is none.
We don’t live in a world where the average human can farm their own food meaningfully anymore. Not at scale at least. The lands been bought, built on, or industrialized for large scale crop harvest.
What you are proposing doesn’t work in most places on this planet anymore.
Lots and lots and lots of crown land that is more than suitable to provide for a family. If the people are not permitted to settle on that crown land… change that. Said land is literally owned by the people. The people can do whatever they want with it.
Only the super high productive land is used for large scale crops. You do not need anything of the sort to feed a family. You’re not becoming a farmer here. Farmers don’t need children. They have tractors.
Well, you’re not becoming a modern farmer. You’re becoming a preindustrial farmer. Modern life has its problems but I’d rather not become a peasant, thanks.
Growing food doesn’t make you a farmer. A farmer, by definition, is an owner of a farm business. In Canada, we take it further and require the business has at least $7,000 in gross farm sales to legally consider its owner a farmer.
So, let’s say you want to make it a business. Who will be your customers? You are definitely not going to be able to produce the food more cheaply than large scale agriculture working Canada’s most prime land. What’s your value proposition?
Let’s be realistic: You’re not becoming a farmer. You are growing food for yourself in this scenario because your time is otherwise worthless. If your time was not worthless, you would use that time to generate value and use that value to buy food from a farmer.
Modern life has its problems but I’d rather not become a peasant, thanks.
I don’t follow. Because food and shelter is still quite affordable (even if not nearly as cheap as you wish it were) and with both starting to fall in price you think you’re going to become a peasant? You may want to clarify.
The way I see it, a farmer is one who operates a farm, and a farm is an area dedicated to the production of food or other plant or animal products, but that’s irrelevant. We can use the word “homesteader” if you prefer.
Life as a homesteader sucks. It’s very hard work with long hours. If you get a few bad crop years in a row, you starve. If you become disabled, you starve. If you become seriously ill, far away from decent medical care, you die. Of course the community can help you, but you’re surrounded by other homesteaders with the same problems.
That is, more or less, the way it was for most of human history. These days, we specialize. We assign a few people to produce food, a few people to educate the young, a few people to treat illness, and so on. In most of the Western world, we organize this with money. If I opt out of the system to become a homesteader and work the land for food for my family, that is my full-time job. I don’t contribute anything extra to society, and so I have no (or little) money. My life becomes essentially that of a peasant. Oh, sure, I have vaccines and civil rights and maybe running water, so my life isn’t as bad as that of a medieval peasant, but it’s still fundamentally similar: I give up most of the advantages of living in a modern, industrialized society.
You make it sound like we are talking about actively choosing to become a homesteader.
If you read the thread (a lot to ask, I know) you would know that we are talking about one ending up as a homesteader because they have failed to provide value to society. If one was providing value to society then one could easily afford to live in modern society, including having their food produced by a farmer.
If you did read the thread then you are not making yourself clear. Why would someone purposely stop providing value to society?
Look at what we did to the planet with the current (and smaller) population sizes. You think adding MORE people isn’t going to become an issue?
We are, in the near future, going to have a mass migration of people away from no longer inhabitable land.
Those people you’re talking about aren’t going to give up power and let “average people” right the ship. And those same “average people” have been placated and conditioned to buy shiny trinkets and celebrate touchdowns and home runs instead of organizing and uprooting the real problem makers.
By just about every measure? Would you rather have a smaller population and the same standard of living, or a larger population and a considerably lower standard of living? The earth’s resources and abilities to heal itself are finite. The more people we have, the more restrictive our quality of life needs to be. Instead of having a house on some usable land, a garden, and some chickens, you’re forced into a stacked box, with one window, and no yard, surrounded by other stacked boxes. Plus the impact of everything you do is magnified. Oh, you want to drive to the store? Better walk 20 blocks instead, because we’re already at our carbon capacity. That last example was hyperbole, but it’s not that far fetched. Basically a lower population gives us a lot more leeway to live our lives comfortably.
QOL is not up overall. Well I guess it depends on your standards for QOL. Sure, entertainment options are plentiful and you can get well made products delivered to your door in 12 hours. But housing affordability is at an all-time low, cost of living near all-time highs, and we’re hitting record high and low weather events every single freaking day. These are all fallouts from rapid population expansion and using old systems to maintain an ever changing reality. An influx of 1 million people into an area that only builds a few thousand houses per year is going to cause massive spikes in demand, which attracts the attention of investment bankers, who then fund real estate acquisition, further exacerbating the problem. The carbon footprint of 8 billion people is more than double the carbon footprint of 4 billion people. Sure, many issues still remain with a smaller population, but every issue is magnified by a larger one. There are some benefits to large populations, but I think we’re beyond sustainable now.
Amputation doesn’t cure a systemic disease. Very little has to change about most people’s status of living in order for the vast majority of people to live comfortably without being forced into buying plastic, driving everywhere, etc. These are bad planning and poor oversight issues that have nothing to do with numbers of people in a population.
The majority of the remedy that would solve the issue long-term is opportunities and competition in green tech (which is being held back in favour of propping up a few fossil fuel giants), refusing to excuse wasteful and damaging industry practices, fugitive emissions, wastes of resources, etc. The ones who would be most likely to see significant change to their lives are the ones who are also individually wasting the most resources (with private jets, yachts, powering multiple homes, etc.)
But sure, give that small minority of super-wasteful people an excuse to waste even more and kill people off (since we don’t have time for natural causes or accidental deaths to make a difference) to prop up their lifestyle.
Yes I agree, those are all good strategies. But to implement all of those things on a global scale takes generations. In the meantime, we’re stuck with an old system, designed for a much smaller populace. Our growth outpaced our progress.
Edit: and to be clear I never said a damned thing about killing people. You added that. Choosing to not have kids is not even remotely similar to killing people.
Totally agree. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants. A lot of environmentally unsustainable things become perfectly sustainable if there are fewer people on the planet. Like, we shouldn’t have to be worried about the impact of beef production or overfishing - the planet should be able to sustain the number of humans that want to eat those things. At 8-10B it obviously can’t.
Literally every objective measure of our planet’s health? We are permanently changing the atmosphere, simultaneously causing a mass extinction event, and virtually every environmental preserve and tourist attraction is facing huge damage from overuse.
Every human being has a carbon cost, none of us are carbon negative or neutral, until we build systems that change that, every extra human we add is destroying our planet faster.
I mean if you’re concerned about the actual planet then don’t worry the Earth will survive with or without humans lol. If your concern is our survival as a species then that’s a different story.
Ugh, I hate this argument. I always wonder: so what do you propose ? Many countries’ retirement system are built on the active population paying for the retired population. What do you think happens when there are more retired than actives?
Low birth rate is a real serious issue for many countries. The problem is not overpopulation, it’s poverty and how we manage our resources.
Capitalism and retirement is set up as a pyramid scheme. We shouldn’t be looking at situations that were recklessly arranged assuming endless growth and saying “how do we prevent population contraction” - that’s insanity. We need to figure out how to retool society for a post-growth world.
If the only way to prevent the music from stopping is a pyramid scheme, we’re all fucked.
Well, when your rent is 50% of your income and your food costs take up almost 30% of your income and your bills take up the remainder and you’re constantly one missed paycheck from homelessness and starvation and your family are in equally dire straits and so cannot bail you out - having children becomes entirely impossible.
You say you weren’t financially prepared, but evidently it was financially possible for you to have children. For at least half of my generation it just point blank is not possible.
at the same time we’ve had the highest immigration numbers. Canada was always immigrant country. I don’t see it as a negative thing in general. Lots of immigrants and their children are higher motivated individuals so it could be a good thing. One thing to watch out for is erosion of values in society. So just welcome newcomers and show them what does it mean to be Canadian 😃
But immigration is mostly made up of refugees who are usually pretty poor, and they come here and we have no housing for them. It’s honestly embarrassing that we welcome so many and yet they end up in shelters.
Working conditions in this industry are not great. The turnover rate can reach 80% sometimes. It can be a difficult, stressful and low paid job that few people enjoy. At the same time, the demand for this work keeps increasing as more and more of consumer activity shifts online and remote. It seems to me that the technology may be a net benefit in this case. The public and its regulatory authority should, however, keep a close eye on developments to make sure humans are not left behind.
Hopefully it’ll be the end of capitalism. How is the economical model supposed to function when nobody is working? Where are people supposed to get money from? How is anything going to be taxed?
Realistically though it’ll somehow push capitalism into hyperdrive and enslave the global population under the control of the AI owners.
A lot of jobs are just busy work that does nothing and makes nothing. Talking about automating them misses the point of why the jobs exists in the first place.
“I see that you are throwing a ball at a target that is connected to a platform with a human sitting above a tank of water. Here is a AI generated picture of a random human underwater to sate your needs. Ya! I have made this process 200% more efficient!”
It’s crazy how people seem fundamentally incapable of looking at the big picture and ask themselves things like, “what even is the purpose of society? Is this the best society humanity is able to come up with? What if I am not ready to accept society as it is presented to me, what are my alternatives, do I even have any? What are my obligations towards a society that marginalizes me and treats me like a second or third tier human, without any hope of ever improving my lot?”
Ask people if they would rather be free and get everything they want without having to work for it. The answers you’ll get will boggle your mind.
I’m surprised by the number of workaholics that exist, like why do you want to work so much? Go explore the world, learn things, make things, but people want to work instead?
We’ve been permeated by the idea that “you have to be financially productive to be a decent human” for so long, even people against excessive/useless work still sometimes miss the point of this crazy race toward making more benefit regardless of anything else.
Sometimes, reaching the “it works” point is enough, but higher ups never stops there. It always have to be “better/more”.
Cheaper than outsourcing to poor countries with middling English speaking capability.
Coming to call center lines near you: voiced chatbots to replace the ineffective, useless customer support lines that exist today with the same useless outcomes for consumers but endless juggling back and forth without any real resolutions. Let’s make customer service even shittier, again!
Oh hey! It’s literally describing my current situation.
Got engaged, got a promotion, have solid long term housing (“renting” from family)
Still can’t keep more than 1.5k in savings month over month. No way in hell in having a baby in these conditions… and i feel like I’m better off than most
Tax domestic speculators. It’s such an easy solution. It’s going to be painful because it’s been allowed to happen for so long. Canadians are doing this to other Canadians but no politician wants to do this to help end this gross cycle of exploitation, add in the fact provinces like Ontario that remove things like rent control and things become even further out of reach.
Because it’s political suicide. They have a Silver Tsunami coming up, and thanks to a) many companies weakening retirement plans (defined benefit? LOL), b) recessions wiping out people’s savings, there’s been a concerted shift to using home-ownership to bandage over old-age income security.
Prior to this, moderate investment and company pensions were enough to see you through, but that’s largely gone–just another part of our society that we sold off so that the rich can get more tax breaks. The cherry-on-top? We sold off LTCs to private companies, so elder-care is now a for-profit luxury.
The only way Boomers can retire is home equity. Heck, it’s the only thing fuelling our economy in general.
Of course, this is fixable: tax the rich. Pay for a society that works for everyone, not just Galen Weston or David Thompson. It would have been easier to do this back in the 1990s (before the problem really started in earnest) or before 2018 (when it got fully out of control) but it’s still possible.
Cars are taking our living spaces, roads, excessive parking. Cars are ruining out health, pollution, no one walk anymore. Cars are expensive for everyone. Cars are a drain on society’s wealth and yet, we made damn sure that everyone need one.
Cars are probably one of the biggest factor, in my opinion, for a lot of problems in society.
Considering that if you aren’t making a lot, you can get quite a bit of money every month for each kid through child benefits until they are 18, I don’t think the cost of housing is the issue.
Here’s a radical thought: Maybe people simply don’t want to be burdened by kids.
Perhaps if we stopped pressuring mothers into believing that they NEED to have kids, or that couples can’t be complete without a real family.
Maybe then we can start normalizing the fact that not everyone actually wants (or needs) kids.
EDIT: For you idiots downvoting, could you at least read the study? It agrees with what I wrote!
I can attest from personal experience, finances are 100% the reason me and my partner can’t have kids right now. Its very hard to justify brining a kid into this world when its hard to maintain stability for 2 adults, let alone with the costs required to raise a child.
We were evicted from our last home for no other reason than the greed of our landlord. That stress would have been tenfold if we had to go through that with kids.
I can attest from personal experience, finances are 100% the reason me and my partner can’t have kids right now.
And government child benefits wouldn’t help? If you are struggling that much (and I don’t suggest having a kid if you are struggling at all), the government will pay you monthly for the next 18 years that you have a child…
I think you need to look beyond finances to make this decision, though. Do you have the energy and time for a kid? Are you willing to put all your plans on hold for the foreseeable future, potentially burden your relationship, for a child? Will you be able to quit your job to spend your entire day caring for a child with special needs? Are you willing to care for that child beyond age 18, when the financial burden of supporting them (a third adult) could jeopardize your retirement?
The decision to have a child shouldn’t be made lightly, regardless of how strong society pushes for it. Neither should the decision to have pets, but I digress.
I do wish you and your partner all the best, and hope that you find more financial stability in your lives.
the amount that any government pays you when you have a child is a pittance compared to the cost of having a child… especially if you want to do more than simply scrape by and have like… christmas, birthdays…
Kids under 10 aren’t expensive, especially when you’re getting a few hundred dollars extra every month from the government.
What’s expensive is going out to buy a brand new $800 stroller, a $400 crib, hundreds on toys that will outgrow or discard after a few months, luxury items that aren’t needed. In other words, new parents are more than likely overspending when they don’t need to.
Be creative and raising a kid isn’t expensive… until they become teens/adults and are still dependant on you. LOL
FYI: Stats Canada published recent data on the cost of raising a kid in Canada (how much parents spent). It’s estimated that low-income homes spend around $30,000 for a child from 0 - 12 years of age ($214 / month on average). Just throwing in some numbers in the child benefit calculator for two people making $35,000 each with around $1200 in rent a month, they’d get $207 in child benefits + other beneifts (climate action incentives, etc.). $7 out of pocket to spend on the kid… if you are overspending like people usually do.
So, yeah, it’s not the cost of having kids that turns people off from having them. The study that the article is based on even says this!
yeah and it’s possible to live on $15 of food per day without internet, electricity, a car
… but we don’t, because it’s not comfortable
like you’re literally saying that if you think raising kids is too much of a financial burden maybe you haven’t considered giving up everything in your life to pay for one
how about no… my bar for having kids (actually i never want kids for so many reasons, but if i did) is not just survival
I think you misunderstood… or, perhaps I’m not following you.
Do you expect that people should not have to pay for the care of their own child? Is putting in more than $7 too much?
Canadian families, according to stats Canada, are not losing money by having a child. Many in the lower-income groups might actually be turning a profit in the early years, since they’d get more money in child benefits than they’d be spending. I’m not saying this as opinion, that’s what the data is suggesting.
If having kids were a cheat code to having more money we would be seeing the exact opposite thing happen than what we're seeing. Also how much does it cost to buy a rent an additional bedroom in canada? The housing market there is insane so that I will probably wipe out your meager government benefit
Also with inflation these days I'm not sure if you can actually feed a family on $15 per day, even if you try really hard. You also need internet and electricity these days, it's not even optional. Hell I think my landlord probably evict me if we let them shut off the electricity. Since this is Canada we're talking about you probably do need the car because they botched things just as bad as the Americans
I'm not in Canada but childcare for our two children when they were little was $24k/year. I'd imagine its more like $30k/year now. We did not go overboard and buy the latest fad this or that, and used tons of hand me downs, but we absolutely needed childcare so that we both could work. Their afterschool, once they were old enough for public Elementary school, was around $10k/year for the two of them.
Does Canada provide free childcare? Would a couple, with each making $35k/year, qualify for free childcare? Otherwise I don't see how $30k would cover one child from 0-12 years.
In Ontario, we have $10/day daycare available, but multiple child benefits and a daycare subsidy, depending on your needs and situation.
Child planning should include the cost of daycare.
Some families find it better to have one partner stay at home with their child, rather than pay for daycare. They would still get childcare benefits ($200+ dollars a month), and that wouldn’t stop the partner from working part-time.
People do have to be realistic here. If they need to have both partners working to make ends meet, is a child really the best thing for them?
I'm pretty sure they got their numbers wrong. I have linked to a Stats Canada article in a different reply with what I think are correct numbers that are massively higher than their claim.
Another thing you have to worry about is the uncertainty. Do you trust that the government will still provide free childcare for 12 years? Do you think you could afford to pay for it if they couldn't? What if the cost of something else went up. I could see myself having a kid if I was financially comfortable and stress-free but I'm barely maintaining myself so there's no fucking way I would even dream of having a kid
I saw your cost claim and found it really hard to believe. I mean I spend more than $200 a month raising two cats lol. I found this from Stats Canada from 2017 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm as far as I can see your numbers a way off. Looking at Table 2 for Predicted annual expenditures for one child in a one child family. It costs $14960 a year from 0-5 or $1246 a month which seems much more realistic. I wonder if you were assuming that total was from 0-5 rather than the total per year from 0-5. If you take the 0-17 total of $290,580 the monthly is $1424.
So, yeah, it’s not the cost of having kids that turns people off from having them. The study that the article is based on even says this!
…Are you high? The article literally states that a third of young canadians are doing just that.
In a survey published last month, the agency found that more than a third of young Canadians were setting aside plans for a family due purely to financial reasons. Of Canadians in their 20s, Statistics Canada found that 38 per cent of them “did not believe they could afford to have a child in the next three years”
Firstly, the stats can census really only talks about affordability, while the survey linked in the article talks about actual “factors influencing family plans”, and quite literally states that:
“The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs.”
The article is referring to low fertility rates, skips the survey data they linked to, and then jumps to the conclusion that it’s all about costs! That’s dishonest journalism.
i’m just gonna quote a couple of sections from the conclusion of the survey here that actual statisticians wrote after analysing their own data:
When having children is viewed as hampering the pursuit of one’s career, self-development, or financial goals, as a capstone to be achieved once these other goals have been reached, women’s wishes for children, or for the number of children they consider ideal, may be deferred to the point of permanence.
… only women with considerable financial resources at their disposal feel confident about pursuing larger families. As a result, and perhaps uniquely among industrialized societies, Canadian fertility outcomes and intentions are highest among the wealthiest women.
research should also focus on more tractable issues such as housing costs or family policy, including child care
That's another thing. Being able to afford the bare minimum isn't enough to justify having kids. People who grew up in poverty say it sucked and it's better to have fewer kids than have them live in poverty
That’s a joke, right? When I looked it was only 500 to 620 a month per kid.
You have baby items to worry about, needing a crap ton of clothes (kids grow a LOT), having adequate nutrition (growth spurts too), school supplies, and more. If you’re already barely making ends meet, of COURSE you’ll struggle if you add another human being. Of course, cost of living also varies by area, as well as public transportation. Without that, you’d have to hope that you live near essentials like a family doctor, or you’d have to pony up even more money for a car and child seat.
If that’s not enough, you also get the fun of society looking down on your for “having kids before you were ready”. Many of us heard that from adults throughout the entire time we grew up. Why voluntarily walk into that? Nah. IF I ever have a kid, it won’t be untilI can guarantee that that doesn’t happen.
If an extra 500+ a month isn’t enough, then you are overspending for no good reason!
Buy second hand, learn how to be frugal with certain items, get most larger items from a baby shower (if you have one), etc., don’t get sucked into blitz marketing that targets new parents, etc.
Kids become more of a financial burden when they grow up… age 10-18 and beyond, and that money is still rolling in.
If that’s not enough, you also get the fun of society looking down on your for “having kids before you were ready”. Many of us heard that from adults throughout the entire time we grew up.
That’s my point from my original comment. Society is pressuring people into “wanting” kids, but a great number of people simply don’t, and that’s OK!
Housing is an easy example. One bedroom or bachelor’s pads are, in my area, ~1200/month. Not the nicest ones at that price, but decent. You jump up to a two bed or a Ben+a den, and you’re looking at 1800/month at least. At a three bed, it’s close to 2500/month.
Even if you assume those are on the larger side for price jumps, if you’re barely able to scrape by with two people in a bachelor’s apartment or in a one bedroom, there’s no way you can “afford” it solely by CCB benefits. Almost all the benefit is eaten up by housing increases alone! Then add on childcare, and CCB isn’t enough to give those feeling like they’re just hanging on wiggle room to raise a child.
Kids are an enormous financial burden early on, especially for the small things. Kids get sick a lot, so you need to have a job that will allow you flexibility, or else you’ll lose money for unpaid days off for doctors appointments or to sit at home with them when they’re puking.
Kids need daycare unless youre staying home, which is suuuuper expensive these days. They also have limited hours, which if you’re stuck working a shitty job, you may not be able to make.
Even second hand, clothes are expensive, and with how fast kids grow, it’s an expense worth noting.
All in all, if you’re well off, yeah it may not be a big problem for you, but for the people that are already struggling, it’s a large factor into why they’re not having kids yet.
FYI: Stats Canada published recent data on the cost of raising a kid in Canada (how much parents spent). It’s estimated that low-income homes spend around $30,000 for a child from 0 - 12 years of age ($214 / month on average).
Just throwing in some numbers in the child benefit calculator for two people making $35,000 each with around $1200 in rent a month, they’d get $207 in child benefits + other benefits (climate action incentives, etc.).
$7 out of pocket to spend on the kid… if you are overspending like people usually do.
But I do agree that there are areas where kids can be more expensive, like high-cost daycare. This is less of a concern in multi-generational families or single-income families, where the child can be watched by their parent or family member (more common in Canada, especially among immigrant families).
These are things that vary from family to family, and are ever-changing – you can’t predict what expenses you’ll have 10 year from now. What if the kid is born with a special need? This goes well beyond the “cost of living”.
Kids are not risk-free, and we shouldn’t act like money is the only factor here.
That shows that even for low income families (<83k/yr), they spend an average of 14,000$/yr on each child. That’s way higher than your estimated 30,000/ages 0-7, so I’m curious where you got your data from.
I don’t discount that there’s a societal push for people to get older and make sure they’re confident in wanting kids before they have them, and with low cost birth control we’ve reduced accidental pregnancies, but cost is still an enormous factor.
Costs have increased significantly in the past few decades.
If an extra 500+ a month isn’t enough, then you are overspending for no good reason!
The only after school care available in my community costs around $400/mo. I’m in a rural area, so it’s probably higher in cities.
Daycare may be cheaper now due to the $10/day thing, but I’m not sure how many spots are available.
Swimming lessons are $200-300. Sports typically run for a season, but they start around $200. We’ve got our kids in “cheap” sports, but even then, costs add up.
I know not everyone wants to hear it, but having a child requires sacrifice.
If it’s more affordable/practical to have one parent stay at home with the child, while the other works, then that’s what needs to be done. There’s no shame with one parent watching their own kid while their partner works, then their partner can care for the child while the other goes to their job.
These are things that need to be planned and discussed BEFORE having a child. It’s all part of the deal.
Sports have always been expensive, and prohibitive to the point of discriminating against low-income families. This is not a childcare issue, but an issue with how sports and services are being delivered. I went through the same with gymnastics for our daughter, and various activities for our son, so I completely understand how unfair that is.
Desired fertility is higher than actual fertility.
From that same study, you need to acknowledge that many women also REGRET having kids or too many kids.
““excess” births have a larger unhappiness effect than “missing” births individually,”
Also, from that same study, which basically proves my original point:
“Many factors influence Canadian women in having fewer children than they desire, but the most influential factors relate to the ideas that children are burdensome, that parenting is intensive and time-consuming, and that women want to finish self-development and exploration before having children. The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs.”
Literally, the study being reported says that housing and childcare costs are NOT the biggest factor. Exactly as I said.
I wish you guys downvoting would at least read the damn study before shooting the messenger.
Much of that regret comes from cost pressures, not the actual existence of the children. Even if you can “afford” children, having to have both parents work full time to afford them doesn’t make it easy to actually raise them.
If one parents was SAH and money still wasn’t a problem there would be far fewer regrets.
Much of that regret comes from cost pressures, not the actual existence of the children.
Well, yeah, it’s not saying that people hate their kids. LOL
According to the same survey the article linked to, people are less happy when they have more kids (than ideal) vs having fewer kids (than ideal). It doesn’t say that cost pressures are a main factor.
If you look at the reasons why people don’t want kids (original survey linked in the article), then you could assume that those same factors explain why people having regrets. No opportunity to grow as a person, the time commitment, less freedom, the derailment of their career, etc. (per the survey results).
A different study said that:
" Older parents with minor children still at home are less happy than their empty nest contemporaries by about 5 or 6 percentage points. And … Both men and women report less personal happiness and less happy marriages when there are minor children around the house."
But I suppose happiness and regret can be different for each person. Having a child grow up to be a successful, contributing member of society would probably make parents happy.
I’d say that the vast majority of parents aren’t in that situation, though. They not only have to continue to support their child into adulthood, but they never had a chance to develop personally because their child was never independent enough. I can see how that would cause a lot of regret for older parents.
The studies cited in the op-ed show many people who want kids aren’t having them due to the cost of living.
That’s not true. The study cited expliciitaly states that:
“… the most influential factors relate to the ideas that children are burdensome, that parenting is intensive and time-consuming, and that women want to finish self-development and exploration before having children. The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs.”
The op-ed is not referring to people who don’t want kids…
Fair point, but it is basing the op-ed on a survey that does refer to women who did not want kids, and when you consolidate the data, it’s pretty clear that there’s some reporting bias at play.
Still, to the point, cost of living is not the driving factor to low fertility.
I have long speculated that the reason why birthrate goes down in societies with a higher standard of living is because a higher standard of living effectively reduces the "carrying capacity" of the environment for humans. Which is not a bad thing, IMO, it's just the underlying explanatory reason for why we see this pattern. Access to family planning and such is just part of the mechanism this operates by.
A common pattern in population dynamics is the S-curve, where population initially grows in an exponential-like pattern and then flattens back out again as it approaches the environment's carrying capacity. I think we'll see that with the human population too, and we are in the unique position as a species of being able to somewhat control where that carrying capacity will be. In this specific case here, we could boost our capacity for population growth by making housing more affordable.
Education … the more educated and informed a population becomes, the fewer children they have. It doesn’t mean that the population is very highly educated overall … even just a small uptick of an education lowers the birthrate. It just means that with a bit of knowledge, experience and education people become less likely to want to have children.
Education is expensive, which makes having children more expensive. A society that "requires" more education would have to reduce its birthrate to afford it, all else being equal.
Education has not shown to lead to making more money. Incomes have held stagnant.
But the hallmark of an educated society is having time. Education becomes possible when you are not stuck toiling in the fields day in, day out. Which also means you don’t need little hands to help you in the field.
It’s access to contraception combined with material conditions. It’s much easier for people to make the choice of whether they want to have children these days, and a lot of people are looking around and saying, “nah.”
I agree with you in the general sense. In this case it’s more of speculators exploiting the market and destroying the future for many of the provinces across this country.
Imagine wanting to have a child in times where the only way to afford a house is to never purchase a single thing with your next 4 decades worth of pay cheques from a high paying job.
Then come find out you get to finally own a single square foot of land because everyone else comes in and swoops up everywhere else or the bar rises quicker than you could ever hope to catch up with or some other dumb reason.
Good! Maybe we can get back to sane population levels and half of these problems with the housing market and global warming will just resolve themselves. The earth’s population has more than doubled since I was born, and let me tell ya, it’s noticeable. It’s noticeable everywhere I look.
Nope, but I think it’s good that people are deciding not to have kids, especially if they can’t afford them. I think the best scenario is if people can afford kids and still decide not to have them, or only have one of them.
nationalpost.com
Active