this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
385 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
397 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Statistics Canada confirmed last week that 351,679 babies were born in 2022 — the lowest number of live births since 345,044 births were recorded in 2005.

The disparity is all the more notable given that Canada had just 32 million people in 2005, as compared to the 40 million it counted by the end of 2022. In 2005, it was already at historic lows for Canada to have a fertility rate of 1.57 births per woman. But given the 2022 figures, that fertility rate has now sunk to 1.33.

...

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” — with about that same number (32 per cent) saying they doubted they’d be able to find “suitable housing” in which to care for a baby.

...

A January survey by the Angus Reid Group asked women to list the ideal size of their family against its actual size, and concluded that the average Canadian woman reached the end of their childbearing years with 0.5 fewer children than they would have wanted

“In Canada, unlike many other countries, fertility rates and desires rise with income: richer Canadians have more children,” it read.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 66 points 1 year ago (19 children)

I would love to pump some baby batter into my gf and start having a kids, can't do that while we're stuck living paycheque to paycheque on a combined 130k in my parents basement.

[–] bananaw@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hate the beginning of this comment

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hate that I can't do it so I guess we're even?

[–] bananaw@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah fair XP. Apologies for totally disregarding the larger issue, bud. Didn't mean to minimize one of our generational issues

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

All good man lol, just trying to add a little humour to the devastating reality of maybe never having kids.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sorry but how are you living paycheck to paycheck with that income and little to no rent?

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Without writing out my whole life story: student loans, unexpected vehicle issues (public transit isn't an option where I live), out of pocket medical costs not covered by benefits or gov't, long commutes with expensive gas and no feasible alternatives and few job opportunities closer to home in my field. Can't afford to move due to high rents so I'm stuck driving.

There's more but I'm hungry and wanna eat dinner and don't feel like going into it. We save everything that isn't essential and barely go out for fun, anything extra goes towards a down payment but the way things are going right not it doesn't look like we'll be able to buy for years unless we can put away like 2k a month.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When people say pay cheque to pay cheque in this type of situation they're still putting money away into savings typically but are out of reach of where they need to be. There's usually large debts, medical costs or other financial burdens that aren't mentioned like maybe taking care of a family member. Their pay cheque to pay cheque situation is a bit different than someone working minimum wage and will be out on the streets as they still have money going into some sort of savings

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Groceries and housing cost way too much for many people to make babies.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago

but no politician wants to do this

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] S_204@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Who the fuck is financially prepared for having children?

As a father of two, I sure as shit wasn't.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

We were. We started a bit later than average though. I regret that, tbh.

I wasn't expecting child care to be quite so expensive, but the tax refunds in the first few years were helpful.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Szymon@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is quickly becoming a crisis for the next twenty years but nobody is doing a god damned thing to actually fix the cost of living issue.

We need to vote in people affected by this, not benefitting from it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There’s too many people on this planet anyways.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

By what measure? Industry and a small minority of extremely wealthy people are setting the agenda to destroy the planet, not average people.

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact the nearest store is 20 blocks away is a consequence of bad urban planning

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless something happens - like, say, running out of manufactured fertilizers - that reduces the carrying capacity. Then we'll have a bell curve.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are a few people in my family that are married with good jobs and own their own homes and they are not having children. They are focusing on other things. I am proud of them as I am proud of those in my family who have chosen to have children. This does not need to be one more point of division. It is OK to have kids and it is OK to not have kids.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›