Jump to content

Visible Minorities to be majority in 25 years


Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Theres a list of birthrates.

Canada is 169th. Immigrants are the only reason our population and economy is not stagnant or shrinking.

Birthrates are not some inevitable, unchangeable monolith. If instead of embracing population replacement as a solution, Canada focused on revitalizing its existing culture and population, encouraging having children with financial and social incentives, etc, we could probably get back to adequate birth rates.

By the way for making demographic arguments, this list here is more useful than the birth rate list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Canada is at 1.52, far below replacement. However, our neighbor to the south is at a much more healthy rate of 2.05. What we should be looking at is how America can maintain a stable/growing population while Canada and most of Europe is in a death spiral, rather than just giving up and importing immigrants.

Its likely due to the fact that the tradional goal of raising a family has been replaced in our culture with having as easy a life possible, and building up the largest cache of non-durable consumer goods possible.

Guess we pretty much did this to ourselves.

That seems unlikely to be the whole explanation. American society is, if anything, even more materialistic and consumerist than Canadian society, and yet they have a 35% higher birth rate.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Birthrates are not some inevitable, unchangeable monolith. If instead of embracing population replacement as a solution, Canada focused on revitalizing its existing culture and population, encouraging having children with financial and social incentives, etc, we could probably get back to adequate birth rates.

By the way for making demographic arguments, this list here is more useful than the birth rate list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Canada is at 1.52, far below replacement. However, our neighbor to the south is at a much more healthy rate of 2.05. What we should be looking at is how America can maintain a stable/growing population while Canada and most of Europe is in a death spiral, rather than just giving up and importing immigrants.

That seems unlikely to be the whole explanation. American society is, if anything, even more materialistic and consumerist than Canadian society, and yet they have a 35% higher birth rate.

Yeah, those are basically the points I was trying to make. Having a family is not seen as a worthwhile/atrractive endeavor in our society, and education has reduced the ammount of families that happen by accident.

Maybe theres ways we can incentivize birth... Instead of just whining about immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, those are basically the points I was trying to make. Having a family is not seen as a worthwhile/atrractive endeavor in our society, and education has reduced the ammount of families that happen by accident.

Maybe theres ways we can incentivize birth... Instead of just whining about immigration.

Just came across this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg

It plots birth rate vs GDP per capita, and shows, as we all know, that richer countries have reduced birth rates. What is interesting are the outliers: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. The only thing I can think off the top of my head that these countries share in common is an above average religiosity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonam...

Heres some quotes I found about reasons the US birthrate is higher than ours.

?Fewer traditional marriages, women establishing themselves in the job

market and better contraception are cited as reasons for the declining

birth rate in Canada.?

Indirect factors related to the decline in fertility in Canada

"One of them is that marriage is less prevalent and comes later in

life here in Canada. Another is that the population is more

traditionalist in the United States."

"StatsCan says 34% of American women in their childbearing years go to

church every week, compared with 18% of Canadian women of the same

age."

"The report suggests the growing numbers of Canadians choosing to

enter into common-law marriages are less likely to have children than

those who have tied the knot in a more traditional way. The high

divorce rate is also cited as a factor."

"Greater economic uncertainty in Canada may have a very strong bearing

on whether people choose to have a child."

"It's difficult to make the decision to have a child when your future

is not secure and the unemployment rate, as an indicator of security,

has been much higher compared to the U.S.," Mr. Belanger said.?

(..)

?David Foot, an economics professor at the University of Toronto and

co-author of Boom, Bust and Echo, said the declining birth rate may

have a lot more to do with education than unemployment."

"Essentially, if you educate women, they have other options,

especially in the workplace, and they delay having children," Prof.

Foot said. The U.S. fertility rate has been increasing at the same

time the Canadian rate has been falling."

"Most of the difference is due to the teenage fertility, which was

already much higher in the States, and the minority fertility rate.

The Hispanic and black population in the United States have a much

higher fertility rate," Mr. Belanger said."

"Sixty per cent of the gap is due to declining fertility among

Canadian women aged 20 to 29 and a third due to high fertility levels

among American females aged 15 to 19, the report says. Just over 50 of

every 1,000 American girls between the age of 15 and 19 have children.

In Canada and the rest of the developed world, that number is closer

to 20 per 1,000 girls.?

(..)

?The report suggested Canadian women use better contraceptive methods,

with more than eight in 10 opting for birth control pills, a method

used by fewer than one in six American women.?

(..)

?The United States has a higher percentage of poorer women who don't

have access to better birth control, he said. Canada's health system

allows many unemployed Canadian women access to birth control pills at

a fraction of the cost.?

Canada has less uneducated young women, and women here have better access to birth control, and dont go to church as much. Canada also has historically higher unemployment rates. We are also less "traditionalist". Canadian teens 15-19 are much less likely to have an unplanned pregnancy in Canada than the US. Women of childbearing age are less likely to go to church.

Not sure which of those differences are the biggest factors, probably all of them together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came across this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg

It plots birth rate vs GDP per capita, and shows, as we all know, that richer countries have reduced birth rates. What is interesting are the outliers: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. The only thing I can think off the top of my head that these countries share in common is an above average religiosity...

Interesting. I think Israel might be not be a good bell-weather due to its unique demographic challenges. I think they have a lot of government programs, etc to encourage birth.

Saudi Arabia might be a bad example as well... women are basically posessions... owned in much the same way you or I might own a toaster or a hacksaw. I imagine they have almost no access to birth control at all, and not much access to education.

Still I think youre absolutely right that religiosity plays a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US case it is a large minority group which is much poorer than the average. In Canada the Native fertility rate is high for the same reason.

Yes I noticed that as well. The US birthrate is buoyed by a large impoverished, and uneducated underclass of blacks and hispanics. That definately plays a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I was hoping for a better solution than to deliberately create a large uneducated impoverished "birther" class of people...

Interesting. I think Israel might be not be a good bell-weather due to its unique demographic challenges. I think they have a lot of government programs, etc to encourage birth.

I think most of the West faces exactly the same demographic challenges, they just don't know it. If Israel's government programs are truly the reason for their much higher fertility rates, we should take a very close look at those programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the birth rate in Iran, I think you will find it to be rather low, despite their being a theocracy. They also tend to be more well off and educated than many other Arab neighbours. I think though that birth rates are influenced by a larger and more complicated confluence of factors than just religion, education, wealth, and health, however. National character probably also plays a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I was hoping for a better solution than to deliberately create a large uneducated impoverished "birther" class of people...

I think most of the West faces exactly the same demographic challenges, they just don't know it. If Israel's government programs are truly the reason for their much higher fertility rates, we should take a very close look at those programs.

Im not sure the challenges are the same. Israel is trying to maintain a majority jewish state, and dealing with the fact that arab Israelis traditionally have much higher birthrates than jews. Thats a bit different than what we face in Canada where we arent overly concerned with the followers of one magic sky-god outnumbering the followers of another.

Still I agree with your underlying point, that we should look at ways to increase our birthrate, and see which methods might be effective here.

In any case its cool that the thread has evolved from a rant about immigration to a discussion about some of the actual issues involved.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I was hoping for a better solution than to deliberately create a large uneducated impoverished "birther" class of people.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you implying that a declining population is a bad thing that needs fixing? I disagree. There are too many people on the planet as it is and the unfortunate economic reality is poor people will always have more kids because the opportunity cost is lower.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary reason people don't have more kids is because it takes a lot of time and effort to look after those kids. This was fine when mom had nothing much else to do with her time all day all month all year for years on end. Now mom tends to work. She gets a year off, and then what?

Every mother of a new baby I know of would have preferred to stay home longer with their child. Every one has had trouble with day care, both getting it and paying for it. When they have more than one child in day care, the costs obviously are double. I know at least one mother of two young kids who didn't go back to work for five years because the day care costs made it pointless. Another pays $1200 per month for her two kids and her life is a mad rush from work to daycare to home and back. She had originally said she wanted four or five kids (Irish Catholic). Now she's going to settle for two.

If we want to increase our birth rate we need to address the issues of young women who are both expected to and economically required to work and yet somehow expected to have multiple kids - at least three, really in order to continue the species locally. We need to decide whether that is enough in the interests of our society to justify policies which make it easier to have multiple kids. Those policies will carry a cost to the rest of us.

As an example, and perhaps because I've always worked in large buildings, I think every large office building or factory should have sufficient daycare to accommodate all the mothers of young children who work there and for a fairly moderate fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think every large office building or factory should have sufficient daycare to accommodate all the mothers of young children who work there and for a fairly moderate fee.
Daycare at workplaces only helps in years 1-4. As soon as the kids need to be in school there is a need for after school care at the schools. However, subsidized daycare does nothing for shift workers, business owners or professionals with long hours. Nor does it help when the kids get sick and cannot be left in a group setting with other kids. The best solution is a system that encourages one parent to fore go the income and take care of their own kids (I know many dads married to professional woman who end up taking on child care - so it does not have to be the woman). For that reason, I oppose any subsidized daycare unless an equal amount is given to families who adjust their lifestyle in order to allow one parent to stay home. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what you mean. Are you implying that a declining population is a bad thing that needs fixing? I disagree.

Yes, I am most certainly "implying" that. A declining population is a prelude to extinction.

There are too many people on the planet as it is

This is the enviro-suicidal viewpoint that I loathe utterly. First, the planet can sustain many more people than it presently has, through the use of technology. Secondly, we are not permanently limited to just this one planet. Third, letting advanced Western societies and populations die out while third world populations grow faster than ever would not address the issue you see, even if it really was an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best solution is a system that encourages one parent to fore go the income and take care of their own kids (I know many dads married to professional woman who end up taking on child care - so it does not have to be the woman). For that reason, I oppose any subsidized daycare unless an equal amount is given to families who adjust their lifestyle in order to allow one parent to stay home.

That is nuts. The only problem that is going to solve is the disparity in wealth between Canada and many other countries - by making ours poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is nuts. The only problem that is going to solve is the disparity in wealth between Canada and many other countries - by making ours poorer.

Im not sure thats necessarily true. 20 years ago a family with a single income lived pretty well, could afford to eat, own a home, etc. The problem is that workers are getting an ever shrinking slice of the pie and we have become corporate bitches to the point where now almost our entire lives revolve around earning an income, which has not even come close to keeping up with our record productivity as workers.

I would personally like to live in a country where it was possible for a family of four to live comfortably on one income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure thats necessarily true. 20 years ago a family with a single income lived pretty well, could afford to eat, own a home, etc. The problem is that workers are getting an ever shrinking slice of the pie and we have become corporate bitches to the point where now almost our entire lives revolve around earning an income, which has not even come close to keeping up with our record productivity as workers.

I would personally like to live in a country where it was possible for a family of four to live comfortably on one income.

I don't think it has anything to do with evil corporations. The reality is that the vast majority of income these days (at least from my Vancouverite point of view) is spent on housing. If houses still cost a similar portion of income as they cost 30 years ago, families could indeed live comfortably on that one income. Unfortunately, today, buying a house in Vancouver costs around 20 years of income instead of 2 or 3 as it used to.

Why the massive increase in housing costs? Well, precisely for one reason, politically incorrect as it may sound: women joining the workforce. Usually, men and women live together in the same house, as a family. A family only needs to be able to afford that one house they like. As women joined the workforce, families shifted from having one income to two incomes, but they still wanted to get the same kinds of houses in the same neighborhoods. Naturally, as families had more cash to spend and competed to buy the same houses, the price of housing was driven up. Now, if one wants to buy a good house in a good part of a city like Vancouver, doing so on just one income, even of a relatively well paid professional, is almost impossible.

In short, the reason that it is now pretty much required to have two incomes to live comfortably, is because having two incomes is now the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is nuts. The only problem that is going to solve is the disparity in wealth between Canada and many other countries - by making ours poorer.
Taking money in tax dollars to subsidize daycare makes everyone poorer too. If you want to talk about straight economics: if a parent does not make enough money to pay market rates for daycare then there is no economic benefit to be had keeping that parent in the work place. In fact, there may be more economic benefit to be gained by having the non-stay at home spouse work more hours if that spouse has a job with adds more value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the massive increase in housing costs? Well, precisely for one reason, politically incorrect as it may sound: women joining the workforce. Usually, men and women live together in the same house, as a family. A family only needs to be able to afford that one house they like. As women joined the workforce, families shifted from having one income to two incomes, but they still wanted to get the same kinds of houses in the same neighborhoods. Naturally, as families had more cash to spend and competed to buy the same houses, the price of housing was driven up. Now, if one wants to buy a good house in a good part of a city like Vancouver, doing so on just one income, even of a relatively well paid professional, is almost impossible.

lol Man its awesome you said that and I agree with you 100%, I hope there's a feminist reading this thread.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As women joined the workforce, families shifted from having one income to two incomes, but they still wanted to get the same kinds of houses in the same neighborhoods.
Ultimately it is about lifestyle choices. Families that have one parent stay home reduce their expectations in terms housing/vehicles/vacations. That is why I see subsidied daycare as nothing but a wealth transfer from people that are willing to reduce their expectations to raise their kids to those that refuse to reduce their expections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anything to do with evil corporations. The reality is that the vast majority of income these days (at least from my Vancouverite point of view) is spent on housing. If houses still cost a similar portion of income as they cost 30 years ago, families could indeed live comfortably on that one income. Unfortunately, today, buying a house in Vancouver costs around 20 years of income instead of 2 or 3 as it used to.

Why the massive increase in housing costs? Well, precisely for one reason, politically incorrect as it may sound: women joining the workforce. Usually, men and women live together in the same house, as a family. A family only needs to be able to afford that one house they like. As women joined the workforce, families shifted from having one income to two incomes, but they still wanted to get the same kinds of houses in the same neighborhoods. Naturally, as families had more cash to spend and competed to buy the same houses, the price of housing was driven up. Now, if one wants to buy a good house in a good part of a city like Vancouver, doing so on just one income, even of a relatively well paid professional, is almost impossible.

In short, the reason that it is now pretty much required to have two incomes to live comfortably, is because having two incomes is now the norm.

And you would have the data to back that up, right? At best this looks like an example of an infamous correlation-causation fallacy.

The reality is that home ownership for most people didn't really evolve into we had middle classes. Prior to that what you had was mainly tenants. While in some markets home ownership costs have ballooned, it has nothing to do with women in the workforce, and everything to do with low interest rates and speculation. I suspect once you get out of places like Toronto or Vancouver that the costs of buying and home probably match up reasonably well with inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you would have the data to back that up, right? At best this looks like an example of an infamous correlation-causation fallacy.
Housing prices are determined by what people can afford to pay. If interest rates go down - prices go up. If two people work - prices go up. If mortgage interest is made tax deductible - prices go up.

Here is one reference that talks about this problem.

I suspect once you get out of places like Toronto or Vancouver that the costs of buying and home probably match up reasonably well with inflation.
I did a quick check with the BOC inflation calculator for my parent's prairie town home. Easily double the inflation rate. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anything to do with evil corporations. The reality is that the vast majority of income these days (at least from my Vancouverite point of view) is spent on housing. If houses still cost a similar portion of income as they cost 30 years ago, families could indeed live comfortably on that one income. Unfortunately, today, buying a house in Vancouver costs around 20 years of income instead of 2 or 3 as it used to.

Why the massive increase in housing costs? Well, precisely for one reason, politically incorrect as it may sound: women joining the workforce. Usually, men and women live together in the same house, as a family. A family only needs to be able to afford that one house they like. As women joined the workforce, families shifted from having one income to two incomes, but they still wanted to get the same kinds of houses in the same neighborhoods. Naturally, as families had more cash to spend and competed to buy the same houses, the price of housing was driven up. Now, if one wants to buy a good house in a good part of a city like Vancouver, doing so on just one income, even of a relatively well paid professional, is almost impossible.

In short, the reason that it is now pretty much required to have two incomes to live comfortably, is because having two incomes is now the norm.

Those are good points but there are others. Theres a gigantic industry built around realestate speculation, and the investor class has actually been able to get the government to act as their agent to help them inflate the bubble.

Also I never said corporations are evil... but the fact remains that the productivity of workers has gone through the roof in recent decades, but inflation adjusted wages have been comparativly stagnant, and workers recieve a smaller portion of our GDP than ever before.

There was been a steady shift in what gets rewarded in our society away from labor/work towards investment/ownership.

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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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