Immigration being made easier

[Moonbox]

Having kids is actually economics. The gready have inflated housing and other costs so much there is little left to have kids. If you do have kids, the logistics of daycare and other aspects are required to looked after kids properely. Where is this money going to come from? Traditionally, a family could get by with the father only working. That is no longer the case. To sustain the same lifestyle as your parents/grandparents requires two people working. Even then, nowadays that still not enough. Given this dynamic, how can Canadian's have kids when they are being f'ed over by the gready and the exploitive. There is no magic or mystery in having kids. It's biological fact of nature. What is magic about kids, is transitioning them to accomplishment and innovation. An aspect which was lost on the Boomer trash.

Your economic theory isn't very sound. Having kids costs money. Agreed. Why are things so much more expensive now though? Because women everywhere in the world work now and Canadian women have to as well to remain competitive. Yes, this means daycare and more expensive housing etc, but is it the fault of immigration? Not really, it's just a changing economic paradigm. Canada, being a first world nation, is actually BETTER equipped for large families than most other places in the world. Canadians simply don't want to have kids because they'd rather spend their money on vacations, useless SUV's, big-screen tv's and houses they can barely afford. Without immigration our population would shrink, and the workforce wouldn't be able to sustain the economy.

Diane Finley is a conservative and look at her lax policy on permanent residency which really is as good as citizenship. The conservative government's current policy on work permits and immigration shows them to be the immigrant party, not the liberals.

Read up on Liberal immigration policy first. What the conservatives are trying to do is get and keep SKILLED immigrants. They are also trying to push through legislation to allow ministers to more quickly process QUALIFIED, LITERATE AND SKILLED immigrant applications rather than a first come first serve policy that the Liberals support. Liberal immigration policy is about as lax as it can get. It's no secret why Toronto and Vancouver are liberal strongholds. It's because the populations there are largely asian immigrants and the Liberals pander to them. This is FACT.

How could you possibly argue against bringing skilled and qualified immigrants into Canada ahead of unskilled beggars unless you were pandering to the immigrant population?????

[CANADIEN]

Any party who looks outside to build a Country, rather than solve the problems within to move Canada forward is unfit to continue in governing.

Canada has been built through the hard work of people born here and people coming from outside.

And about everyone knows that the Liberal Party had historically had a much open policy towards immigrants. Everyone except you, as usual.

[whowhere]

Your economic theory isn't very sound. Having kids costs money. Agreed. Why are things so much more expensive now though? Because women everywhere in the world work now and Canadian women have to as well to remain competitive. Yes, this means daycare and more expensive housing etc, but is it the fault of immigration? Not really, it's just a changing economic paradigm.

So the run up in Real Estate prices over the last 20 years is something of my imagination? The average cost of home in a Canada is over 300k. What kind of monthly payment does that require? What about the taxes and utilities on that? What makes a home bought today different from those bought back in the sixties or seventies? You have a home, you pay to keep it, etc, etc. Instead what you have is the gready who have exploited this area and driven up the price. For a young couple in their early twenties who have not been corrupted by the boomer trash and other trash will realize their best opportunity to own a home will be if they inherit money rather than finding stable progressively rewarding employment. The reality is, Canada does not have that mindset. What we have are those who are keen on driving up all living costs while at the same time driving down incomes. This is accomplished by Controlling the supply. Whether this is Oil, Housing, etc, etc. To drive up demand for this Controlled supply, the gready support lax immigration policies because the gready are about themselves and their money.

Canada, being a first world nation, is actually BETTER equipped for large families than most other places in the world. Canadians simply don't want to have kids because they'd rather spend their money on vacations, useless SUV's, big-screen tv's and houses they can barely afford. Without immigration our population would shrink, and the workforce wouldn't be able to sustain the economy.

Canada, apart from Quebec (they have a daycare program) is not family friendly. To get a sense of how family unfriendly Canada is, listen to your local media on the level of families looking for food and clothing from the various organizations. This situation is progressively getting worse. I wonder who's economy you are trying to sustain? The average Canadian who wants just enjoy life by doing what their parents and grandparents did?

My grandpa had a regular factory job. He bought a house, had a cottage way up north. My grandmother didn't work. They had a really nice house and the cottage was excellent. Somehow he was able to afford a home, a cottage, a grandmother who didn't work, and the money to afford the gas to get to the cottage. Nowadays with the employment prospects you will be hard pressed to afford a car and put gas in it, nevermind haveing the income to buy a home and cottage. You are trying to make it sound like todays people are living a more elaborate lifestyle which is actually further from the truth. Yes, it is true, the gready are living large.

Read up on Liberal immigration policy first. What the conservatives are trying to do is get and keep SKILLED immigrants. They are also trying to push through legislation to allow ministers to more quickly process QUALIFIED, LITERATE AND SKILLED immigrant applications rather than a first come first serve policy that the Liberals support. Liberal immigration policy is about as lax as it can get. It's no secret why Toronto and Vancouver are liberal strongholds. It's because the populations there are largely asian immigrants and the Liberals pander to them. This is FACT.

I have lived in the the GTA for more than 20 years. I know the mosaic of cultures in and surrounding Toronto. I also know that these same immigrants whine and cry how they were engineers and doctors in the countries they came from but are now driving taxi cabs. I know the conservative policy all to well. Their policy is to allow employers to advertise employment opportunities outside of Canada in turn bypassing job seekers in Canada. These employers claim they can't find the skillset they are looking for although they may in fact have likely had able applicants from within Canada. The reality is, these employers are either upstarts with no knowledge of the business they are pursueing or they are trying to bypass businesses who specialize in the work they are trying to get done. These employers are more about saving money and the politicians/Conservatives who pander to these employers shows who they are really looking out for.

How could you possibly argue against bringing skilled and qualified immigrants into Canada ahead of unskilled beggars unless you were pandering to the immigrant population?????

You want to come to Canada as a Canadian Citizen, you go through the same channels as every other Country. You apply and if the government is interested they will get back to you. If you want to come to Canada on a work visa that company should be required to show what they have done to have a Canadian do the work. Under the conservatives that is not the case. The conservatives allow employers to claim they can't find the person in Canada and allow them to recruit outside. Now the Conservative want to bypass the immigration department and grant these same people citizenship. Other than getting work done for the employer, how has this process benefitted Canadians? What this process enables is the bypassing of Canadians for employment opportunites and businesses specializing in that area of expertise.

[Argus]

No you didnt. You introduced plenty that I didnt talk about.

But since you posted, apart from Vancouver none of our cities are crammed. Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal et al have room to grow.

Curious you didn't mention Toronto, where you live, and where the most immigrants go - you know, the place where it's almost impossible to move around because of the traffic jams?

And sure, there is "room to grow" right out into the country's prime farmland. But it's not like we need that for anything important, right? I mean, we need to have more Lebanese restaurants and Greek cafes so the squishy, brainless liberal types can feel all girlishly happy at our multiculturalism.

[Argus]

Funny enough , it is what people want. Ok, some people. It is true people with kids are moving into condos homes and apts in downtown Toronto. They are moving from the burbs. some suggest that it is because of the amenities of inner city living, the museums, restaurants and other cultural dailies you dont get in the burbs.

The drive-by shootings and street gangs, the pimps and drug dealers, the pan handlers and crazy homeless people, the condoms found in the driveway and used needles in the garden. Ahhhh, city life! What parent wouldn't want to expose their little tykes to all that's good!?

Hey, preaching to the choir. I see everyday where the immigrants live ...in mikedavids apt enjoying tea and fine conversation....oh wait, maybe not.No, I see them but I also see the room available

I dunno, those public housing projects are pretty damned full, with long, long waiting lists.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

After reading Mark Steyn's book that spends a chapter or two discussing the low replacement birth rate of western countries, particularly Canada, all this seems kinda academic.

In short, replacement births have been so low that we couldn't possibly take in enough immigrants to hold our own. The next 20-40 years are going to show a huge decline as old folks die off and there are fewer youngsters coming up to take their place

Is this actually what you intended to write, because it doesn't actually make a lot of sense. We couldn't possibly take in enough immigrants to hold our own? We're taking in more than enough immigrants to "hold our own" now. In fact, our population is growing, has been growing, and will continue to grow over the next 20-40 years.

If we took in no immigrants - zero - then our population would slowly begin to decline over the next thirty years, but that decline would be so small it's a matter of fractions of a percent.

The proper plan is to take in just enough immigrants, and only the best, while we put in place policies to encourage the growth of Canadian families. Not what we're doing now, by a long shot.

[Argus]

I dont share the doom and gloom.

It's the knowledge you don't share.

We cant stop growth since we are an inviting society to live in.To stop it would imperil our growth and prosperity.

Interesting argument. We can't stop growth because, well, that would imperil our growth. Uhm, yeah. Okay. No one has shown that growth = prosperity, btw. We are not, individually, any better off with 30 million than we were when our population was 20 million. When we reach 40 million, we will not be any better off either.

That sounds as if population drops were due to immigration rising. Is that correct? If it is, then I do not agree one bit.

Yeah, that's where that lack of knowledge comes in. In fact, a number of sociological studies over time have purported to show that rises in immigration, and the subsequent drop in labour costs - while good for business - is not good for workers. With more difficulty finding well-paying jobs and good housing, families tend to have fewer children. This is true not just in modern times but over the past as well, in both Canada and the US. Is there an absolutely provable equation that shows that high immigration lowers native birth rates? Probably not, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest it does.

But then, none of that is important just so long as you can find lots of colourful foreign restaurants to make you feel all goose bumpy at what a great liberal society this is.

[whowhere]

It's the knowledge you don't share.

Interesting argument. We can't stop growth because, well, that would imperil our growth. Uhm, yeah. Okay. No one has shown that growth = prosperity, btw. We are not, individually, any better off with 30 million than we were when our population was 20 million. When we reach 40 million, we will not be any better off either.

Yeah, that's where that lack of knowledge comes in. In fact, a number of sociological studies over time have purported to show that rises in immigration, and the subsequent drop in labour costs - while good for business - is not good for workers. With more difficulty finding well-paying jobs and good housing, families tend to have fewer children. This is true not just in modern times but over the past as well, in both Canada and the US. Is there an absolutely provable equation that shows that high immigration lowers native birth rates? Probably not, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest it does.

But then, none of that is important just so long as you can find lots of colourful foreign restaurants to make you feel all goose bumpy at what a great liberal society this is.

I am not sure why you are blaming the liberals. The conservatives are the current government and the conservatives are the one who wants to pander to employers and allow them to bypass Canada's job seekers to recruit abroad. The conservatives are the ones who want to allow these recruited employees to remain in Canada as a permanent residence once here.

It is quite obvious the Conservative party hates Canada and they hates Canadians. If the conservative immigration policy is to only bring in the most skilled and in depriving Canadian job seekers the opportunity to be trained for these so called positions they can f' themselves.

It doesn't take a genious to see the unique spot Canada was in the early nineties after mulroney left office. He ballooned the National Debt and left Canada with a 40 Billion dollar deficit. The Canadian Dollar was trading at 60 cents, we had a free trade agreement with the US. Any shrewd businessman would recognize the cost savings of Manufacturing in Ontario over the United States. As such, Ontario Manufacturers enjoyed an advantage in Manufacturing and in turn became a net exporter to the United States. Because of the dollar parity, this advantage no longer exists and now these manufactures are suffering. As the dollar was rising these manufacturers exploited immigrants and displaced Canadian workers to capitalize on their greed. The days of the well paid manufacturing job is few and far between and this is because these manufactures are able to use immigrants to keep wages low.

All Canada has going for it is it resources and the Conservatives Can't wait to give those away for free or for the benefit of others. Not only are the conservative giving away Canada's oil, they are giving away Canada's employment opportunities and giving these people citizenship.

If that's is the Canada charted out by the Conservatives I believe it is time to appeal to a higher power to trump the conservatives hate of Canada and those of Canada. That higher power is the Queen's office. Her office should be petitioned to repeal the statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the legislative Control of the UK. Once Canada is back under the Control of the UK, Canadians will be elgible for a Euro passport. Canadians will have the choice of staying in an immolation type environment or moving on to look for better work and living conditions in Europe. Oppositely, those of Europe could also choose to come to Canada to live and work.

If the Queen were to repeal the Statue of Westminister, Quebecs move for sovereignty would also be a moot point. This is because those of Quebec will have access to France and vice versa. Happiness all way round!

[CANADIEN]

If that's is the Canada charted out by the Conservatives I believe it is time to appeal to a higher power to trump the conservatives hate of Canada and those of Canada. That higher power is the Queen's office. Her office should be petitioned to repeal the statue of Westminister and put Canada back under the legislative Control of the UK. Once Canada is back under the Control of the UK, Canadians will be elgible for a Euro passport. Canadians will have the choice of staying in an immolation type environment or moving on to look for better work and living conditions in Europe. Oppositely, those of Europe could also choose to come to Canada to live and work.

Immigrants from Europe would be... immigrants, right? whatever.

But feel free to move to Europe right away... and stay there.

[Wild Bill]

All Canada has going for it is it resources and the Conservatives Can't wait to give those away for free or for the benefit of others. Not only are the conservative giving away Canada's oil, they are giving away Canada's employment opportunities and giving these people citizenship.

Well, this trend towards a resource-based economy at the expense of manufacturing has been going on for a lot longer than Harper's term.

Incidently, isn't having a resource based economy with little or no higher level manufacturing the very definition of being a third-world country? One that tries to compete by selling its natural resources cheaper than the other guys?

[Wild Bill]

Is this actually what you intended to write, because it doesn't actually make a lot of sense. We couldn't possibly take in enough immigrants to hold our own? We're taking in more than enough immigrants to "hold our own" now. In fact, our population is growing, has been growing, and will continue to grow over the next 20-40 years.

If we took in no immigrants - zero - then our population would slowly begin to decline over the next thirty years, but that decline would be so small it's a matter of fractions of a percent.

The proper plan is to take in just enough immigrants, and only the best, while we put in place policies to encourage the growth of Canadian families. Not what we're doing now, by a long shot.

Hey, its not my argument. It's Steyn's!

He talks about fertility rates, or births per couple. For a stable population he says you need 2.1 births per woman. I guess that .1 is to take care of accidental deaths. He says Canada has a rate of only 1.48, the whole of Europe has 1.38 and Russia is 1.14!

He cites Spain as having a fertility rate of only 1.1! That means half as many children as parents. A quarter as many grandchildren as grandparents. And and eighth as many greatgrandchildren as greatgrandparents.

What policies do you suggest governments implement to encourage larger families?

What's your best guess on how likely our governments will ever implement them? After all, the real reason we have smaller families is because since the past few decades we seem to have been getting poorer and working longer hours with less time for ourselves. People have the number of children they feel they can afford, both financially and with time. For governments to come up with successful policies to reverse this trend they would have to address the MONEY!

[AngusThermopyle]

It is quite obvious the Conservative party hates Canada and they hates Canadians. If the conservative immigration policy is to only bring in the most skilled and in depriving Canadian job seekers the opportunity to be trained for these so called positions they can f' themselves.

How many times do you have to be told? Don't forget to take your meds!

What is it about young trash not wanting to take their meds?

[Argus]

What policies do you suggest governments implement to encourage larger families?

Lower immigration, for one, more tax credits for children, more help for working mothers, including improving mat leave rules, and better day care. And I don't mean national day care as in Quebec. That hasn't really solved the problem, just made daycare less available. Tax changes to those who mind children might help too, so they get taxed at a lower rate.

What's your best guess on how likely our governments will ever implement them? After all, the real reason we have smaller families is because since the past few decades we seem to have been getting poorer and working longer hours with less time for ourselves. People have the number of children they feel they can afford, both financially and with time. For governments to come up with successful policies to reverse this trend they would have to address the MONEY!

And yet, the birth rate in the US is 2.1. Any idea why?

[Drea]

And yet, the birth rate in the US is 2.1. Any idea why?

Religion.

Religious folks have more children and the US has a higher percentage of religious folks than we do.

They also let in waaay more immigrants than we do.. so expectedly, their population growth is higher.

[Wild Bill]

Lower immigration, for one, more tax credits for children, more help for working mothers, including improving mat leave rules, and better day care. And I don't mean national day care as in Quebec. That hasn't really solved the problem, just made daycare less available. Tax changes to those who mind children might help too, so they get taxed at a lower rate.

And yet, the birth rate in the US is 2.1. Any idea why?

Money! We Canadians in general are poorer than Americans. We are lower down the living standard list.

In my neighbourhood some mothers are paying over $100 per day for daycare. Not much left at the end of the week from that second family income.

[Smallc]

Money! We Canadians in general are poorer than Americans. We are lower down the living standard list.

Actually the opposite is true. Americans hold more debt and make the same amount of money. The average Canadian is worth more. They are also behind us on pretty much every index available when it comes to standard of

Edited August 17, 2008 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

Actually the opposite is true. Americans hold more debt and make the same amount of money. The average Canadian is worth more. They are also behind us on pretty much every index available when it comes to standard of

Can you back this up? The only stats I ever saw that made such claims came from some cheerleading, Anti-American group that used "quality of life" benchmarks instead of hard facts like disposable income and cost of living.

[Smallc]

Can you back this up? The only stats I ever saw that made such claims came from some cheerleading, Anti-American group that used "quality of life" benchmarks instead of hard facts like disposable income and cost of living.

I've posted this Macleans article before. Some won't believe it, I do.

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/art...ref=patrick.net

As of 2005, the median family in Canada was worth US$122,600, according to Statistics Canada, while the U.S. Federal Reserve pegged the median American family at US$93,100 in 2004. Those figures, the most recent available, already include an adjustment for our higher prices, and thanks to the rising loonie Canadians are likely even further ahead today.

The numbers show that our median household incomes are about the same, or at least they were back in 2005 when the most recent figures came out. That year the median household income in Canada was about US$44,300, after you adjust it for the exchange rate and our lower purchasing power, while the American median was US$46,300. Since then, the loonie has gained on the U.S. dollar, so we've likely narrowed the gap.

Here in Canada the average amount of personal debt per person is US$23,460. In the U.S. it's a whopping US$40,250. And all those numbers are from 2005...

There are other areas that still need work, but overall, we seem to be doing quite well.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Smallc

[Argus]

Religion.

Religious folks have more children and the US has a higher percentage of religious folks than we do.

They also let in waaay more immigrants than we do.. so expectedly, their population growth is higher.

Canada lets in waaaay more immigrants than the US does as a percentage of the population.

[Wild Bill]

I've posted this Macleans article before. Some won't believe it, I do.

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/art...ref=patrick.net

There are other areas that still need work, but overall, we seem to be doing quite well.

Ah yes, the MacLeans article!

This article puzzled me. I have respect for the magazine and normally tend to credit what they publish. Yet this article is at odds with my own personal experience and that of my social network. I have to ask myself, why?

Perhaps part of it is that the article states that this present positive situation only came about after 1997. My industry collapsed after 9/1/1, not that long after. I found myself over 50 in a field that no longer offered any jobs. Worse yet, I live in an economically depressed town. Perhaps that colours my perceptions.

Also, the author factors the depressed American house prices into the equation. This is a snapshot view that only matters if you are selling your house today. If your home is your home and not a liquid investment this might not be a fair way to calculate debt load. 5 years from now your home could be worth quite a bit more than the current depressed value. That's the nature of real estate.

Besides, your house value is only important if you have to sell, TODAY! If you don't, then just live in it for a few more years until the price comes back and then decide if you want to sell it.

Including medical insurance is also a huge can of worms. True, we don't go in hock to have a baby delivered. We also often have wait times of months or years for things like MRI's. And don't believe the propaganda that "of course, in an emergency we'll bump you to the head of the line". How can they tell its and emergency? By when you have collapsed and are in the ambulance trying to hang on till you reach the hospital.

So when you compare the value of the two insurance systems you just get sucked into diverging arguments.

I didn't see any mention of regional disparities in the article. Are the oil patch wages high enough to skew the equation? Do most of the country's people live with less disposable income and more debt?

What I do know is that I spent my career often working for Canadian branches of American firms. The personal information I gleaned from my American co-workers was dramatically different from that implied in the Maclean's article. They didn't have to put in as much overtime (unpaid in salary jobs), their homes cost less, their utilities were lower, what they bought tended to be cheaper (especially meat and dairy products, due to Canadian supply boards that inflate the resale prices dramatically), their income taxes were lower and they could deduct their home's mortgage interest! They could also split income/deductions with their spouses on their taxes!

Most important, they paid less for beer! A LOT less!

So I have a hard time believing what was written. I'm not 100% sure just where the discrepancies lie in the article but it just makes claims absolutely different from my own experience and observations. Perhaps I'm just in a statistical anomaly. I'm not sure.

If so, it doesn't make living any easier!

[Renegade]

To some degree you are correct. But inroads are made everyday to utilize less energy, water adn so on. For instance larger buildings in downtown TO are heated and cooled using pipes far out into Lake Ontario. The demand for power for HVAC is lessened.Expand that and savings are made.

You seem to ignore the reality that no matter how energy efficient we get, a smaller population will be more energy efficient than a larger one.

If we as a society stopped wasting what we have, then we would resources to sustain us for a very long time. We have water, but we waste it. We have power but we waste it. The idea is with conservation we would offset the demands for more.

You seem to ignore the reality that no matter how energy efficient we get, a smaller population will be more energy efficient than a larger one.

I am not trying to posit some pollyanna place vis a vis growth, but more like we can if we want to, the resources , if managed correctly ,are there.

I dont share the doom and gloom. We cant stop growth since we are an inviting society to live in.To stop it would imperil our growth and prosperity.

When you say "We cant stop growth" do you mean populaiton growth? We most certainly can since we control immigration policy and the bulk of our population growth is due to immigration policy. As you have acknowledged yourself we have a declining birth-rate so eventually without immigration we would limit growth.

You have said that to stop growth "would imperil our growth and prosperity". How exactly do you know that? Is a population such as seen in some crowded Asian countries more prosperous than in many less crowded Western countries?

That sounds as if population drops were due to immigration rising. Is that correct? If it is, then I do not agree one bit. The idea that mom and dad thought....hmm no more kids, there are enough immigrants to take up the slack has never occurred.

Huh? "population drops were due to immigration rising"??? Who said that? Our natural birth rate goes down for a variety of reasons including more choices available to potential parents, and their changing expectaions. Regardless if people choose to have less kids, so be it. It's not like the population is suddenly dropping to an extent where society is in peril. If there is a gradual decline society is well equiped to accomodate it.

Those market conditions by the way have been fueled by growth and people wanting to move into a bigger house , thus causing pressure on the market and prices rise. Have you seen a profit on paper for your house? I have, and to some degree that is fueled by wealth of all of us. Born here or migrated here. Doesnt matter, profit is profit.

Of course. Isnt' that what I've said. The point is that housing prices have been set by supply and demand. More population leads to more demand which puts upward pressure on prices.

NYC is what. 12 million people? Seems to work just fine. And in NYC everyone wants to live in a brownstone in Manhattan or Soho etc. If the space issue bother someone, then it is up to them to move. The world doesnt stop turning because someones neighbourhood has changed. Either adapt or move away.

Do you actually know what it is like to live in NYC? Most people who live in the city live in a shoe-box apartment. Many others have a 2-hour commute from New Jersey, Long Island, or Connectect. It seems completely illogical to suggest that NYC is a utopia and if we drive sufficient population growth in Canada to simulate the conditions of NYC somehow Canadian society will be better off.

People lose cottages since the taxes are too high. It sucks for them since they may be 80 yrs old and the family has owned it since the 1800's, but what option is there? Pay the taxes or sell. Aint no other choice.

More people less space per , agreed, also more people less space per person also equals more value in the space they already own. Thus, more profit. If you like it , stays, if not sell and reap the rewards.

Listen to the logic of your argument. By the extension of your logic we should let 6 billion people into Canada and then we would all be filthy rich because the postage size property we own would be worth a fortune.

Cant say where enough is enough. Virtually everything, as in nature, either keeps growing or dies off.

If you can't say where "enough is enough", how can you then say with any confidence that we are already past "enough"?

Cant think of anything in nature that stays the same. A tree gets so huge it topples since its roots cant hold it. A plant keeps growing then stops and soon dies. Cities are no different. If ti gets too big, say like Sao Paolo, it rots from the centre out and dies off, or grows from another branch.

If you want to use nature as your model, why do you insist that conditions of growth be changed artifically. You have already admitted that birth rates are declining. So what? Let them decline naturally.

[Renegade]

After all, the real reason we have smaller families is because since the past few decades we seem to have been getting poorer and working longer hours with less time for ourselves. People have the number of children they feel they can afford, both financially and with time.

This is not true. People are on average richer than they were decades ago when the birth-rates were high. The difference is choice. Birth-control and the availability of abortion has given potential parents choice. In addition expectations on lifestyle have changed. Children are expensive and many parents have chosen to live a more luxurious lifestyle over opting to have children.

There was a time when having more children was a sound economic choice. The reason to have them was to use their labour in the fields and as your social saftey-net when you retire. Those conditions have changed, making having kids no longer an economic benefit but rather and economic burden.

For governments to come up with successful policies to reverse this trend they would have to address the MONEY!

Of course, but why should it even bother.

[Drea]

Canada lets in waaaay more immigrants than the US does as a percentage of the population.

Oh, I count "illegals" as immigrants because they are there to stay. So the "real official government numbers" are not correct. "Officially" the US has less immigrants per capita... but unofficially waaaaaaaay more. LOL

[Wild Bill]

This is not true. People are on average richer than they were decades ago when the birth-rates were high. The difference is choice. Birth-control and the availability of abortion has given potential parents choice. In addition expectations on lifestyle have changed. Children are expensive and many parents have chosen to live a more luxurious lifestyle over opting to have children.

Really? Decades ago we were poorer?

Decades ago when I was a lad the norm was that Mom stayed home! My father was a typical working man at a local factory. On his income alone we had a house and a car. We were all reasonably well fed and clothed. There were four of us kids. Mom staying home made a dramatic difference in our upbringing compared to today, with so many kids raised more hours in daycare than with their parents.

Mom staying home meant that the household duties could be done by her. This freed up evenings and weekends for family and leisure time pursuits. 4 kids was not that big a deal to look after in those days.

Today both partners working is the norm, not for some sense of accomplishment for the female half of the partnership but just to pay the mortgage and bills! With work time and in areas like Toronto ridiculously long commute times the time left for family and leisure is severely curtailed. Nothing for the household is done through the day. Both partners are at work. When they get home is when they look after cooking, cleaning

and childrearing.

No wonder they have fewer kids. They're too flippin' tired! And the thought of trying to help put more than one or two through higher education to save them from a similar fate is pretty intimidating. A larger brood would simply be impossible.

The average Canadian can't afford a live-in nanny. I would totally disagree with your premise that couples today are richer than decades ago. They may have more toys but today its the toys that are cheap! A colour TV is only a few hundred dollars. My parents spent nearly a grand in the early 60's, when a gallon of gas was maybe 22 cents. It's the home and car that are expensive today.

If we want to encourage larger families we'll have to do it by ways that give modern couples TIME! That will kick the hell out of the productivity stats. We'll need to make the same money with a LOT fewer hours!

I don't think this could be accomplished in just one or two elections.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Renegade]

Really? Decades ago we were poorer?

Yes, really!! See m response below.

Decades ago when I was a lad the norm was that Mom stayed home! My father was a typical working man at a local factory. On his income alone we had a house and a car. We were all reasonably well fed and clothed. There were four of us kids. Mom staying home made a dramatic difference in our upbringing compared to today, with so many kids raised more hours in daycare than with their parents.

Mom staying home meant that the household duties could be done by her. This freed up evenings and weekends for family and leisure time pursuits. 4 kids was not that big a deal to look after in those days.

Today both partners working is the norm, not for some sense of accomplishment for the female half of the partnership but just to pay the mortgage and bills! With work time and in areas like Toronto ridiculously long commute times the time left for family and leisure is severely curtailed. Nothing for the household is done through the day. Both partners are at work. When they get home is when they look after cooking, cleaning

and childrearing.

No wonder they have fewer kids. They're too flippin' tired! And the thought of trying to help put more than one or two through higher education to save them from a similar fate is pretty intimidating. A larger brood would simply be impossible.

The average Canadian can't afford a live-in nanny. I would totally disagree with your premise that couples today are richer than decades ago. They may have more toys but today its the toys that are cheap! A colour TV is only a few hundred dollars. My parents spent nearly a grand in the early 60's, when a gallon of gas was maybe 22 cents. It's the home and car that are expensive today.

You may disagree but your ancedotal evidence based upon your experience does not agree with the facts. Statistics Canada: Median total income They have posted back to 1987. If you dig you can find the income back to the 60s. You will see that in general incomes (as measured in constant dollars) have risen.

If we want to encourage larger families we'll have to do it by ways that give modern couples TIME! That will kick the hell out of the productivity stats. We'll need to make the same money with a LOT fewer hours!

Actually, I couldn't give 2 fits to encourage larger families. People should have kids if they want to and can support them and shouldn't have them if not. I'm not looking to encourage or discourage them and neither should taxpayers in general.