Jump to content

The Decline


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Argus said:

There's no evidence to support this. In fact, poor people in Canada have more children than middle class people. And there's absolutely no sign that the really better off, be they the upper middle class or rich, have more children than the middle class. Furthermore, in really poor countries, they tend to have the most kids. So no, I think it's cultural, a lack of importance placed on having children, a lack of a sense of obligation, and a sense that children are expensive, troublesome, and distract from ones main purpose in life, which is self-enjoyment through the acquisition of nicer 'stuff'.

I'm just adding a note here relating to the relative increase in living and particularly housing costs. A recent CNBC article (1st link, below) notes that adjusting for inflation the actual cost of renting in the U.S. adjusted for inflation has risen 46% since 1960 while the cost of home ownership has risen 73% over the same period. And a Pew Research Center (2nd link, below) study from 2014 notes that between 1964 and 2014 hourly wages in the U.S. barely budged at all on an inflation adjusted basis. The study bluntly states that "For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs."

And the situation hasn't been much different in Canada, particularly in large urban centres, like the Toronto and Vancouver regions, where housing cost increases have undoubtedly outstripped those in most American locales while real wages, adjusted for inflation, have effectively stagnated since the 1970s. (See article reporting on Stats Can study, 3rd link below) The two income household has become a necessity for all but the wealthy and the subsidy dependent. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/how-much-more-expensive-life-is-today-than-it-was-in-1960.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

https://globalnews.ca/news/3531614/average-hourly-wage-canada-stagnant/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

The reason why poor parents (including poor immigrant parents) tend to have more kids than do middle class parents in Canada is that they're insulated to a greater degree than others from the vagaries of the free market economy.

And if that were the only reason then we'd see rich people with five, six, eight, ten kids like we used to. But that doesn't happen. Rich people aren't interested in having a houseful of kids. Rich women are most definitely not interested in repeated pregnancies, even though pregnancy is FAR safer today and they don't worry about money and have a live-in nanny or governesses to help. How many kids do the British royals have? These people have servants to do EVERYTHING. Elizabeth had four kids. Then again, she was busy, being a monarch. And then on the other hand, Victoria had nine kids while being a monarch.

Charles only had two kids. Andrew had two. Edward and Anne had two as well. So here you have the people who are most able to bear a lot of children and they show no interest in doing so. If you look at wealthy Canadian couples, they show the same lack of inclination to have large families.

I know a number of couples who have a family income well over $100k, who live in large, comfortable homes, with new cars, and go on regular vacations down south or elsewhere. And they have two kids. No one I know has more.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Argus said:

And if that were the only reason then we'd see rich people with five, six, eight, ten kids like we used to. But that doesn't happen. Rich people aren't interested in having a houseful of kids.

 

Perhaps you didn't fully read my post. Rich parents, unlike poor ones, aren't incentived to have large families. It may, however, be the one class in society where social and cultural changes have had significant impact because economic concerns don't apply to the rich to nearly same degree. Wealthy parents once had large families in an era when large families were generally commonplace. There is a theory which holds that in the West wealthier parents have transitioned from an "r-selection" model to a "K-selection" model. In the first case, parents have lots of kids but invest little in them individually whereas in the second they have fewer children and invest a lot in them individually. A big change that may have contributed to this is that a lot more children, particularly in the West but also elsewhere, now survive childhood than was the case in the past.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

And if that were the only reason then we'd see rich people with five, six, eight, ten kids like we used to. But that doesn't happen. Rich people aren't interested in having a houseful of kids. Rich women are most definitely not interested in repeated pregnancies, even though pregnancy is FAR safer today and they don't worry about money and have a live-in nanny or governesses to help. How many kids do the British royals have? These people have servants to do EVERYTHING. Elizabeth had four kids. Then again, she was busy, being a monarch. And then on the other hand, Victoria had nine kids while being a monarch.

Charles only had two kids. Andrew had two. Edward and Anne had two as well. So here you have the people who are most able to bear a lot of children and they show no interest in doing so.

 

Looks like William and Kate are going to remedy that.  They've just christened their third.

How many is a good  number as far as "many" goes? 

 

Society isn't the way it used to be.  Whereas in the old days, a farmer  would want a big family so there'll be more helping hands.....thanks to technology, that's not a requirement anymore.  

People are thinking mostly about their own selves too in this new clime.  It's a time where convenience rules. 

Moral values had changed.

The decline of religion is a factor - whereas before having children is considered a blessing.....today, children are more like accessories.

Of course, having an array of contraceptives, and the legalization of abortion, is another factor to consider.  No one need get stuck with a child they didn't plan for.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A declining population is a good thing. With the technological revolution taking place, we need fewer people in the work force. A lower population means you can buy a house in Vancouver, not have great swaths of wilderness destroyed by logging and maybe even have more clean powder for a longer period in winter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 10:31 AM, eyeball said:

We don't.

Embrace the horror.

I believe that ilk that you support have something to do with it. Oh, the horrors of it all. Just saying. :rolleyes:

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A declining population is a good thing. With the technological revolution taking place, we need fewer people in the work force. A lower population means you can buy a house in Vancouver, not have great swaths of wilderness destroyed by logging and maybe even have more clean powder for a longer period in winter.

What is it that they call it? Oh ya, "it's immigration, stupid". To clarify I am not calling you stupid. Less immigration means less problems and why people out there cannot figure that one out is beyond ridiculous. The only ones that keep pushing for more immigration are corporations, zionists, stunned politicians, pro immigration special interest groups and dumb lefty liberals who seem to feel that flooding Canada with hundreds of thousands of new immigrants every year will be great for Canada and it's economy. Bull shit to that. It will be more like a disaster if anything. More immigration means more problems. Sadly when I say things like this I am called a racist and anti-immigrant. Aw well. The struggle to inform the masses must go on. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2018 at 8:29 AM, Argus said:

So I was reading a review of Denis Arcand's film The Decline of the American Empire - which has nothing to do with the US, btw. It's actually about Quebec. One part of the review struck a chord and seemed worth discussion.

"While the exact circumstances of societal breakdown might differ somewhat according to location, at the core of what’s killing our communities, in Mr. Arcand’s telling, is the cult of the individual and the death of collective values. We live for nothing and no one but ourselves and the fleeting pleasures and possessions we spend our time pursuing."

This echoed themes I've read and heard from others of late. With the fall of religion, and the falling out of fashion of patriotism, with families reduced to perhaps two to three individuals instead of the huge, multi-generational mob that was the norm even back fifty years ago (I had eighteen uncles and aunts when I was a child, and they all had multiple kids) there doesn't seem to be any sense of belonging to something, of striving for something, of unity. Nothing binds us together as a community or as people. We're increasingly alone in our world, with nothing to care about but ourselves.  And what do our community leaders do about it? Make it worse, usually. Trump divides America. Trudeau insists that Canada is a 'post nation state' with no unifying theme, culture or values other than tolerance of different people. Both of them disdain religion and religious values. Over in Europe, I don't see anything better. in the UK, May is an idiot, and the opposition leader is a lunatic of the far left. In France, the opposition leader is on the far right while the PM fumbles. Russia and China are led by brutal dictators. 

So if there is no white knight on he horizon how do we save ourselves?

This is what happens when you try and introduce massive third world immigration and multiculturalism into a country. You get one hell of a bloody mess going. Choo-choo. Hello. 

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
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

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