A plank in some political party's campaign

[ToadBrother]

You don't consider a continuation of that society to be a benefit? We are clearly not reproducing ourselves. That leaves fewer and fewer Canadians to carry on this society of which you are a part. Ultimately, we will have to import foreigners so that there is someone around to push your wheelchair in the old folks home. In fact, that's what we've BEEN doing the last twenty years.

But replacing our populace with someone else's people because our economic system discourages our people from having children is absurd. We need to adjust our economic realities so that economics is less of a deterrence to people having children.

Well, in the long run (and I do mean the long run) the baby boom bubble will work itself out. However, that's going to take another generation (so we won't really be out of this mess until somewhere between 2030 and 2050).

But it is true. Replacement population is absolutely essential, and considering that the rate of actual immigration into Canada isn't exactly at economic replacement levels either, we're not particularly doing well even if we decide to import a population boom.

We're not as bad as some places. Russia is in negative growth, and both Japan and Spain are approaching that. In the long term, that is exceedingly destructive not just to the economy, but to the society as a whole. In Russia, high energy prices are masking the problem, but at some point in this century it's going to hit a brick wall, and barring finding some way to up the birth rate, or opening the flood gates to immigrants (maybe doing in Siberia what Canada and the US did and opening up the West to cheap land for anybody who is willing to settle), Russia will go into a tailspin.

[fellowtraveller]

Open to supporting your kids in school but not for kids before school age.

That is just silly. Placing kids in govt sponsored day care isn't supporting the children, it is supporting the life choices and financial position of their parents. Supporting the children might involve habing a parent involved in their early development. Call me old fashioned......

You don't consider a continuation of that society to be a benefit? We are clearly not reproducing ourselves. That leaves fewer and fewer Canadians to carry on this society of which you are a part. Ultimately, we will have to import foreigners so that there is someone around to push your wheelchair in the old folks home. In fact, that's what we've BEEN doing the last twenty years.

But replacing our populace with someone else's people because our economic system discourages our people from having children is absurd. We need to adjust our economic realities so that economics is less of a deterrence to people having children.

I guess that means you support a complete ban on abortion, and the banishment of all forms of birth control then.

After all, you must then support govt intervention in reprodcutive choice if it is in the interest of society to breed and breed and breed.

Welcome to Romania.

"Someone elses children' smacks of somehting very ugly, so I won't go there. Immigrants have been coming to this country and multiplying for more like 130 years, not twenty. They will have no trouble populating the country now as they always have. What is the problem with that?

Economics is not a deterrent to having children, the ridiculous and relatively expectations of the middle class to have a large home, furniture, cars, expensive toys and vacations is what drives people now. If they can get free child care, or discounted childcare paid for by others, their greed and sense of entitlement drives our social policy, not any goofy talk of low birth rates.

Our economic syustem does not deter anybody from having kids, it is greed and self interest that stirs that pot.

[Argus]

Well, in the long run (and I do mean the long run) the baby boom bubble will work itself out. However, that's going to take another generation (so we won't really be out of this mess until somewhere between 2030 and 2050).

How is a 1.6 fertility rate going to work its way out? That rate is not going to improve without cultural changes or financial incentives. And waiting thirty or forty years to see how things go is not exactly planning for the future. Even that rate is somewhat untrue for a large chunk of it is represented by first generation immigrants. The ones I know are still having 3 or 4 or 5 kids. Will that continue with their kids?

But it is true. Replacement population is absolutely essential,

Then why are you opposed to measures intended to help stimulate conditions so that we bring about a replacement rate?

[Argus]

"Someone elses children' smacks of somehting very ugly, so I won't go there.

Really? What does it smack of? Pride in Canadian values, traditions and history? God forbid!

Again, we see this tendency among some to so highly value other people's cultures but sneeringly dismiss ours as not only unimportant but non-existent.

Immigrants have been coming to this country and multiplying for more like 130 years, not twenty. They will have no trouble populating the country now as they always have. What is the problem with that?

The problem is today's immigrants are not yesterday's immigrants, when their homelands were far, far away, lost in the past, and you adapted here or else. Now they return home every few years, view satellite TV from home, read newspapers from home, make sure their kids land grandkids learn their language and continue their culture and traditions, send their kids "home" to get married to a "proper" bride/groom - isolated little communities of foreigners in Canada. Canadians legally, but not really Canadians.

Economics is not a deterrent to having children, the ridiculous and relatively expectations of the middle class to have a large home, furniture, cars, expensive toys and vacations is what drives people now

.

Irrelevant. Snivel all you want about the wants of the middle class. But our society now requires these things and thus provides a disincentive to having children. I want to provide incentives to having children. Your position apparently is "Who cares, we'll just bring in millions and millions and millions of foreigners. They're just as good. No difference anyway. Nothing special about Canadians anyway."

Our economic syustem does not deter anybody from having kids, it is greed and self interest that stirs that pot.

Our entire economic system is based on greed and self-interest. You got something against that?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Argus

[Melanie_]

Come now, you are not so dense that you cannot see public schools as the same as publicly funded, universal daycare.

I already explained this, but public schools create an educated populace, a condition that ultimately benefits every citizen, not just those with young children. Personally, I don't see kids raised in government funded institutions as having any benefit to society as compared to kids raised by their parents.

Having children is voluntary, and it comes with plenty of joy and plenty of responsibility. Neither of those is the role of taxpayers to enjoy or finance. Having kids can have side effects including less money, a smaller house, an older car, a career delayed for a few years. None of those are obigatory and few of those situations require the involvement of taxpayers. It is a personal choice.

There are exceptions, as there alwas are, but in general there is no compelling reason to finance lifetsyles through universal access to daycare.

Who decided at what age "public" school should start? And why was that decision made? Why was it decided that age 5 was when the government took over the education of children, and not at age 3? Or age 7? And why do you see the school as benefitting every citizen, but not child care?

I'm also curious about what you determine to be an "educated populace". We tend to see academics as the measure of education, but we know that early childhood is a time when children learn about social behaviours - it's less important for a two year old to know the alphabet than it is for them to know it is inappropriate to bite another child when they want a toy, yet it is just as much a part of their education.

[jdobbin]

That is just silly. Placing kids in govt sponsored day care isn't supporting the children, it is supporting the life choices and financial position of their parents. Supporting the children might involve habing a parent involved in their early development. Call me old fashioned......

Okay. You're old fashioned.

Some other old fashioned people believe your kids should have their education paid by you and not by them.

[fellowtraveller]

Really? What does it smack of? Pride in Canadian values, traditions and history? God forbid!

It smacks of bigotry.

"canadian values" are not exclusively those of white Christian Europeans.

Immigrants from every place in the world are welcome in my country to work hard, enjoy their lives, rights and responsibilities as full Canadian citizens , pay taxes, obey our laws, and yes- have children.

I guess that differs from your country, a land where newcomers know their place.

[fellowtraveller]

Okay. You're old fashioned.

Some other old fashioned people believe your kids should have their education paid by you and not by them.

I guess I am old fashioned in that I am willing to take responsibility for my actions for at least 18 years after birth, and not looking for others to assume that load..

I'm also old fashioned in that I'm content to give a hand up to those that need one, and not willing to give a handout to those that demand it.

[ToadBrother]

The problem is today's immigrants are not yesterday's immigrants, when their homelands were far, far away, lost in the past, and you adapted here or else. Now they return home every few years, view satellite TV from home, read newspapers from home, make sure their kids land grandkids learn their language and continue their culture and traditions, send their kids "home" to get married to a "proper" bride/groom - isolated little communities of foreigners in Canada. Canadians legally, but not really Canadians.

Um, are you even vaguely familiar of the German and Ukrainian communities that stretched all the way from Ontario to Saskatchewan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? These were communities where people still spoke the mother tongue. My great-grandfather was born in such a community and didn't really begin speaking English full time until he was a teenager and had to go find work.

Look at cities like Montreal and New York, where many neighborhoods are still defined by the immigrants that moved into them, in some cases well over a century ago. These communities, particularly groups like Hasidic Jews, are still somewhat insular.

Heck, in my tiny town of 13,000 people, we have Dutch and Italian communities that still group together, and where the older members still often converse in the mother tongues.

It's always been the nature of migrant peoples that they group together, that they often take a few generations to start spilling out into the wider society. In some cases, like some of the more conservative Mennonite and Amish communities, they still hold themselves apart (I mean, how long have the Pennsylvania Dutch communities been around, since the early 18th century).

[ToadBrother]

Economics is not a deterrent to having children, the ridiculous and relatively expectations of the middle class to have a large home, furniture, cars, expensive toys and vacations is what drives people now. If they can get free child care, or discounted childcare paid for by others, their greed and sense of entitlement drives our social policy, not any goofy talk of low birth rates.

This is a trend that its roots in the late Medieval period, in particular after the Black Death. At that point Western European demographic patterns started to shift towards what we see today. After the Black Death, with so much of the populace dead, workers were in short supply, and despite various efforts to kill mobility and freeze wages, the balance was tipped towards that group that would ultimately become the working class. It took several more centuries, but by the Industrial Revolution we had the beginnings of a Middle Class, whose goal was always to achieve something of the life the landed gentry had so long enjoyed.

The other major demographic shift that happened was fewer children. Having fewer children was, to be blunt, probably the single most important revolution that the Western Europeans ever had, and it was most pronounced in England. Fewer children meant lower fixed cost, more capacity to save money, and less descendants to split the inheritance between. The fact is that in societies where smaller families are more acceptable, you find standards of living significantly higher than in societies where larger families are preferred. When the large bulk of the population was stuck farming land, large families were advantageous, and pretty much needed to assure the family's long-term economic viability. But as agricultural practices changed (and this began even before the Industrial Revolution) the necessity of everyone having a herd of children (to overcome high infant mortality rates and to have more hands to work the land), the family shrunk.

While I agree that the middle class sometimes bites off more than it can chew, I don't think there's any going backwards. In reality women seeking second incomes, particularly in urban areas, is pretty old. Women were often doing that in Victorian times, cleaning or baking on the side to shore up the family income. I honestly don't know how you would reverse that, or why you would want to.

[jdobbin]

I guess I am old fashioned in that I am willing to take responsibility for my actions for at least 18 years after birth, and not looking for others to assume that load..

Including education?

I'm also old fashioned in that I'm content to give a hand up to those that need one, and not willing to give a handout to those that demand it.

Like those with kids looking to have their education paid for?

[fellowtraveller]

You can load up on strawmen like education all day, it has little to do with the topic at hand.

Try again.

Here's your homework: prove that universal day care is unquestionably of benefit to a) children b ) society overall.

Try not to quote the NDP.

Edited September 28, 2009 by fellowtraveller

[Molly]

Your great desire to avoid it doesn't make it a strawman.

[jdobbin]

You can load up on strawmen like education all day, it has little to do with the topic at hand.

Try again.

Just pointing out that your argument about not funding someone lifestyle choices fits in with the argument that some don't want to fund other people's children in school.

You say that it is important. Try not to quote the NDP when supporting your argument.

Here's your homework: prove that universal day care is unquestionably of benefit to a) children b ) society overall.

Try not to quote the NDP.

Don't think I've ever said one choice should be favoured over a multi-pronged approach.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The sad truth is that it takes two incomes to support a family. We already know what is going on with respect to our birth rates, now we simply have to put the two ideas together and reach a conclusion.

[Argus]

It smacks of bigotry.

"canadian values" are not exclusively those of white Christian Europeans

Well, actually, yeah, they pretty much are. This was and remains the dominant culture here, and up until about thirty years ago there really were no non-Whites to speak of other than aborigines.

Immigrants from every place in the world are welcome in my country to work hard, enjoy their lives, rights and responsibilities as full Canadian citizens

Which means BECOMING Canadians, which means learning the language, learning the already-established culture and value system, and adapting to them.

[ToadBrother]

Well, actually, yeah, they pretty much are. This was and remains the dominant culture here, and up until about thirty years ago there really were no non-Whites to speak of other than aborigines.

That's simply not true. Here in BC we've had Chinese here since they built the railroad. There are also plenty of Japanese with pretty long roots (at least back to the beginning of the 20th century), and Indians, particular Sikhs fleeing the upheavals in the Punjab region, have been immigrating since at least the early 1950s.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We are a polyglot of the human genome, get over it. White , black, brown , yellow, green or striped we are just human.