Jump to content

The war on the family


Recommended Posts

The war on the family

The tug of war between the generations has already begun. Over the past three decades, governments have consistently funded and enriched programs for seniors. Meanwhile, young families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. As a result, they're reducing their number of kids -- which has the effect of ensuring the problem will grow even worse in years to come.

You can't blame young couples for their decision to have fewer children than their own parents. Over the past three decades, total family incomes in real terms -- that is, adjusted for inflation -- have actually gone down. Statistics Canada says the median family income in 1980 was $58,000. Twenty-seven years later, it's $57,700. (Both figures are expressed in 2005 dollars to remove the effects of inflation.)But stagnant incomes are not the worst problem. A generation ago, it took just one working parent to generate that median household income. These days it takes two.

As a result, child-rearing has become a monumental financial challenge. In the early 1970s, when 70% of families had only a single income earner, raising kids was demanding, but the only financial penalty you paid was the actual cost of raising each child. Today, both parents work in 70% of families. When they decide to have a child, they pay a double penalty. They pay the extra expenses of raising each child. They also pay with a huge drop in income since one parent has to take time off work.

Thoughts? Should government be intervening? What is the benefit to others in society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I can see your point but there are people out there that think government money should only go to certain things and alot of these people are against social programs. They think government is too big and it should be smaller, and welfare shouldn't be , let them starve, sleep on the street, I want my tax dollars coming back to me!! I feel for this generation because they finding it tougher but I wonder if some even want kids? The ones with the "good" education like lawyers doctors, ceos, will never go through what the middle and low income earners will. If companies try to roll back hourly wages than the housing market will only see the upper crusts have houses and consumers buying power will soon be felt among business. If government does try to look after its people than that government won't have the support of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article, Renegade! I know there are many on this forum who take the position that people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them, but this article really shows what that means. Is this really the best option? Should the only couples who have babies be the ones where one income is high enough to replace the other? Or, as this couple did, have one parent set up shop in her basement, trying to run a business while raising a newborn and a toddler. When my two youngest kids were small, I worked from home, taking small contracts and teaching night classes, but I had a career that could be flexible (although we lived in a tiny house, drove an ancient car, and barely scraped by from paycheque to paycheque). I doubt that is a viable option for many.

When her maternity leave was up, Michelle could have put Finleigh in daycare and gone back to her corporate job, but daycare would have cost $15,000 a year. Brad and Michelle crunched the numbers and decided that if Michelle worked for herself from home while looking after Finleigh, they would be better off. So she set up a home office in their musty basement and took on freelance communications projects, working whenever Finleigh napped. The arrangement worked fine -- until Ruarie arrived on the scene.

Since Michelle was self-employed, she wasn't eligible for maternity benefits. She couldn't work with a newborn on her lap, so for a while, her income largely vanished. Brad and Michelle now had to support two young children on a combined income that was close to half of its pre-child total.

~snip~

When they totalled up all their expenses, they discovered that they hadn't budgeted for groceries. "So I started working again when Ruarie was just five weeks old," says Michelle. "But it's difficult to do with a newborn and a three-year-old. Sometimes I get up at five in the morning so I can do some work before Brad leaves for the day. The other night, I worked until midnight. During the day, I'll put the kids in their rooms for half an hour so I can make a couple of phone calls. It's a juggling act."

What is the solution? Other countries recognize that helping families in the short term empowers them to be more economically productive in the long term. Of course, economic productivity is not the only important factor here, but it is the one that many like to trot out when they say they don't want to support other people's choice to have children. I like the suggestions proposed by the article:

The solution to our demographic dilemma involves a few simple remedies. Mintz, the tax expert, says the first step would be to reward people who have children with substantial tax deductions -- not the paltry amounts they get now, but real deductions that acknowledge the true magnitude of the costs involved when families decide to add another mouth to feed.

Better pay for new mothers would help, too. Beaujot says that when he asks what changes would have the biggest positive impact on young families, his students always say that longer leave and more maternity pay top the list. Most countries with higher fertility rates than Canada offer more than we do.

The third prong to the solution would be better daycare. The debate over whether it's better to give parents more money to spend on private daycare or offer subsidized universal daycare rages on. In the meantime, parents make do with a woefully inadequate government stipend of $100 a month per child under six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is simiple reduce spending on social policies, stream line the various forms of government, and reduce the taxes paid by everyone. But the socialist in this country would disagree, they would rather have the money taken from families filtered through different levels of government, costing the public purse for every level, before giving just pennies back for every dollar those tax payers paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second. Let me take this quote:

Over the past three decades, governments have consistently funded and enriched programs for seniors. Meanwhile, young families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
If a society takes from the young and gives to the old, it is simply creating a reward for the young to be civilized and earn the prize when they are old. Young couples will get their money back - if they are honest and civilized and pay their taxes. Generous pensions are a reward for good behaviour during life.

A civilized society takes from the young and gives to the honest elders.

----

I strongly object to this hackneyed article.

At no time in human history have people been as rich as they are now in countries such as Canada, the US, Europe and Australia. If couples choose not to have children, it is not because they are poor or can't afford them. The idea - on the face of it - is patently ridiculous. Canadians don't have children because they can't afford them? Gimme a break. (Most young Canadians are discussing what size plasma TV to buy... )

Another silly quote, in the same sense:

You can't blame young couples for their decision to have fewer children than their own parents. Over the past three decades, total family incomes in real terms -- that is, adjusted for inflation -- have actually gone down. Statistics Canada says the median family income in 1980 was $58,000. Twenty-seven years later, it's $57,700.

58,000? 57,700? Who cares - in real terms, few families on this planet ever have had such command over real goods and services as Canadian families now. If these modern families have fewer children, poverty isn't the reason. (In general, and contrary to the false logic of this article, poor families in poor countries have many children.)

If I were looking to reasons to explain why families have fewer children, I'd first look at birth control. Families (women) can now control whether they become pregnant. The contraceptive pill changed people's choices as did other forms of contraception. Women can usually obtain a safe abortion if they choose. There are Plan B pills.

Second, the skills of women (principal caregivers for children) have greater value outside the home now. When a woman chooses to have a child, the cost is very great. If she stays at home, she sacrifices all of the benefit of her efforts in the paid labour force. In the 1930s or 1950s for example, this was not a great a sacrifice. Now, it is.

Third (a major trouble), when the State takes on the task of child-rearing, families no longer benefit from having children around. We have nationalized children. Governments tend to botch things and I fear that as governments provide education (about a century) and bureaucrats now want to organize day care, the end result will be like the Soviet Union or Canada's health system. A government day care scheme would mean that in a generation or two, there would be no toddlers.

Fourth (another major trouble), I think the State pension scheme noted above is a factor in Canadians having fewer children. If the State will take care of me in my old age, then why should I bother having children? I'll let others have children and raise them. After all, the State will take care of me when I'm old. (IOW, other people's children will care for me.) There are sadly many childless boomers who believe that since they paid into a pension and own a home, they will have the means to receive personal care when they are confused and 80 years old. They trust governments and/or they trust markets. But they don't trust family, and they never had children.

If I were an old, confused person, I would not trust a government unionized bureaucrat to care for me. If I were rich? I wouldn't even trust a paid nanny/caregiver. I would only trust a daughter or a son. As a confused older person (elder), I would trust my daughter/son/nephews/nieces. Poor or rich, my son and daughter will make sure that I am fine.

When I am old, I will trust my family - certainly not ogvernments. They are fickle, and change the rules.

-----

Lastly, is it bad if Canadians don't have children? IMHO, the world does not lack children. The world lacks educated, civilized children.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have more than 1-2 kids if both spouses are going to work outside the home. The price paid in terms of stress/logistics is simply too high.

Things will not change until, as a first step, the government introduces a joint tax return so that at least those who want to try to keep a spouse at home have a fighting chance.

Many seniors are discovering that they are saving several thousands of dollar per year in taxes thanks to pension-splitting. At best, families with kids are finding that they are saving a few hundred dollars per year with the new tax credits.

My parents, who never made more than $20K-$30K each when working, are in their 80s now and pulling in $80K-$90K per year in gov't pensions, CPP, OAS etc. This is not far off what my wife and I make, yet we are raising 5 kids. My parents put everything in the bank, while we go into debt.

Our system works for my family, only because we're going to inherit many times 6 figures one day from the money our parents are banking. Otherwise, we'd be toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war on the family

Thoughts? Should government be intervening? What is the benefit to others in society?

I can see their point, but it's only a half a point. If they showed that upper income earners tended to have more kids that would be considerably more evidence. But that isn't true and we all know it. People who earn $60k per year tend to have about the same number of kids as couples who earn $70k or $80k or $90k or $100k. It isn't a lack of money it's a feeling of not wanting all that trouble, and a desire for more things. For example, I know a couple in their late twenties. They have no kids. They talk about having one eventually. Their joint income is certainly over $100k. They recently bought a $320k house. They take frequent trips abroad. They have all the snazzy electronics. I know a second couple, income also over $100k, homeowners, 2 SUVs, about to have their second child, but no more (they had originally thought of more). Another couple, again, joint income over $100k. They own two houses, one of which is let out to renters. They have two kids, and then the husband got a vasectomy so they wouldn't have more. Two was more than sufficient, they felt. Most of the people I know who have kids have 1 or 2. The culture today seems to be saying that's good enough, whereas the culture fifty years ago said you had to have at least 3, and 100 years ago you were expected to have 5-8.

I'm not saying having kids doesn't hit the pocketbook because it certainly does. But if people want them they can afford them. They just have to put off those trips abroad, those big screen TVs and settle for a smaller house and less electronic toys.

I'm thinking the ones who tend to have more kids aren't the rich but the poor. People on welfare have nothing else to do, and the government ups their incomes every time they have a kid. Besides, a lot of those women have poor self-esteem and want someone to love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article, Renegade! I know there are many on this forum who take the position that people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them, but this article really shows what that means. Is this really the best option? Should the only couples who have babies be the ones where one income is high enough to replace the other? Or, as this couple did, have one parent set up shop in her basement, trying to run a business while raising a newborn and a toddler. When my two youngest kids were small, I worked from home, taking small contracts and teaching night classes, but I had a career that could be flexible (although we lived in a tiny house, drove an ancient car, and barely scraped by from paycheque to paycheque). I doubt that is a viable option for many.

Unfortunately Melanie, this article paints a one-sided view. Sure it is tough for parents to bring up kids, but so what? The question which warrents further examination, which the article pretty much ignores, is what if any are the negative consequences to the rest of the population of people having less kids. If the main consequences are that OAS and Medicare won't be properly funded with a continued population decline, then perhaps the solution is to look at how those programs are financed and change their structure so that the don't depend upon continual population growth.

What is the solution? Other countries recognize that helping families in the short term empowers them to be more economically productive in the long term.

I'm not seeing the link you suggest. Certainly the most economically productive (per captia) countries aren't the ones with the largest population. Why would we think that by increasing the population we would be more productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second. Let me take this quote:If a society takes from the young and gives to the old, it is simply creating a reward for the young to be civilized and earn the prize when they are old.

Not necessarily. First, rules change all the time. The young should have little confidence that the rules won't change by the time they are old. Second, many of those who are currently old, never actually paid the price when they were young. Through much of the 70s, 80s, and part of the 90s social programs were financed by debt, which in effect transfered the cost to future taxpayers. So the current taxpayer, is in effect paying for past social programs given to the old, as well as paying for the current crop of the old, without any real guarantee that they will recoup what they paid.

Young couples will get their money back - if they are honest and civilized and pay their taxes. Generous pensions are a reward for good behaviour during life.

Not necessarily true. The ones who are truly paying are the high-income earners. Unless they suddenly become impovrished by the time they are old, they will likely only recoup a small subset of what they are paid.

A civilized society takes from the young and gives to the honest elders.

That would seem to be your opinion of what a civilized society is. I don't happen to share that one, nor do I believe there is concensus of what constitutes a "civilized society".

I strongly object to this hackneyed article.

At no time in human history have people been as rich as they are now in countries such as Canada, the US, Europe and Australia. If couples choose not to have children, it is not because they are poor or can't afford them. The idea - on the face of it - is patently ridiculous. Canadians don't have children because they can't afford them? Gimme a break. (Most young Canadians are discussing what size plasma TV to buy... )

Another silly quote, in the same sense:

58,000? 57,700? Who cares - in real terms, few families on this planet ever have had such command over real goods and services as Canadian families now. If these modern families have fewer children, poverty isn't the reason. (In general, and contrary to the false logic of this article, poor families in poor countries have many children.)

If I were looking to reasons to explain why families have fewer children, I'd first look at birth control. Families (women) can now control whether they become pregnant. The contraceptive pill changed people's choices as did other forms of contraception. Women can usually obtain a safe abortion if they choose. There are Plan B pills.

Second, the skills of women (principal caregivers for children) have greater value outside the home now. When a woman chooses to have a child, the cost is very great. If she stays at home, she sacrifices all of the benefit of her efforts in the paid labour force. In the 1930s or 1950s for example, this was not a great a sacrifice. Now, it is.

Third (a major trouble), when the State takes on the task of child-rearing, families no longer benefit from having children around. We have nationalized children. Governments tend to botch things and I fear that as governments provide education (about a century) and bureaucrats now want to organize day care, the end result will be like the Soviet Union or Canada's health system. A government day care scheme would mean that in a generation or two, there would be no toddlers.

Fourth (another major trouble), I think the State pension scheme noted above is a factor in Canadians having fewer children. If the State will take care of me in my old age, then why should I bother having children? I'll let others have children and raise them. After all, the State will take care of me when I'm old. (IOW, other people's children will care for me.) There are sadly many childless boomers who believe that since they paid into a pension and own a home, they will have the means to receive personal care when they are confused and 80 years old. They trust governments and/or they trust markets. But they don't trust family, and they never had children.

If I were an old, confused person, I would not trust a government unionized bureaucrat to care for me. If I were rich? I wouldn't even trust a paid nanny/caregiver. I would only trust a daughter or a son. As a confused older person (elder), I would trust my daughter/son/nephews/nieces. Poor or rich, my son and daughter will make sure that I am fine.

I pretty much agree with you here. I think the article takes too simplistic view of why Canadians have fewer children.

Lastly, is it bad if Canadians don't have children? IMHO, the world does not lack children. The world lacks educated, civilized children.

This is the part I'd like someone to address. Everyone seems to assume that less population is a bad thing. Personally I see many benefits of a smaller population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, how many kids did your parents have?

Just 2 of us.

My mother was in the minority in the 60s, in that she worked outside the home. She was able to hire sitters to come to the house all day (we went home for lunch from school).

It was difficult enough for her to manage a job and raise 2 kids. I doubt she could have managed any more kids, although she would have liked to.

BTW, even though my mother was out of the house pretty much from when we got up until after 4 p.m., it was great being able to be at home in the morning, at lunch and after school, just like all the other kids (in the 60s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I can see your point but there are people out there that think government money should only go to certain things and alot of these people are against social programs.
Government money to aid family formation will go to "beer and popcorn".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...