The Aging Population of Canada

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

TORONTO -- Canadian baby boomers are steamrolling their way toward retirement age in such massive numbers that in a decade, seniors will likely outnumber children - and immigration will not compensate for an aging population.

According to Statistics Canada's national census snapshot released yesterday, nearly one in three Canadians are boomers, and the 55-64 age cohort is the fastest growing population in the country by far, accounting for 3.7 million people - a 28.1 per cent rise from 2001.

At the other end of the spectrum, numbers for the under-15 group shrank to just 17.7 per cent of the population, or 5.6 million, the lowest level ever.

"We do see a trend where children are on the decline and seniors are on the increase, and these two lines are going to cross in about 10 years," Rosemary Bender, director-general of social and demographic statistics at Statscan, said in an interview.

There hasn't been mention of this important release of census information this week.

It pretty much confirms that Canadians are aging fast. Even immigration won't change it all that much since the average age of those who migrate is 30 years of age.

It seems quite clear that no matter what happens, Canada will be seeing more seniors than ever before and quite honestly, the country has yet to come to terms with just how many people that will be.

The issue of fewer children will also have to be addressed both on a provincial and federal front. Is it a problem? Does anything have to be done or can it be ignored?

[ScottSA]

I reckon everyone knows where I stand on that issue. Opening the immigration gates further will cause unconscionable problems, and the only other solution is to attempt to generate a babyboom. The way to do that is the question, and it will, as always, break down between the left wanting to create a state-sponsored infrastructure including things like "universal daycare," and the right wanting to decrease taxation and strengthen the traditional family. I reckon everyone knows where I stand on that one too...

[Bonam]

Gotta boost those birth rates.

[sharkman]

So, how do you encourage people to have a family? Throw more tax money at them? I don't think any realistic amount will do, we are headed for a time perhaps unparalled in history. There will be not enough workers, too many demands on the medical system for which there will be not enough wor... uh, you get the picture. The education system will have to shrink greatly, and what will it do to private property values as baby boomers retire to the old folks home.

I say we are going to reap what our philosophy has brought about. Convenience abortions and the pill in the age of the gland. We wanted sex without responsibilities and man did we get it. The family unit has been on the retreat ever since it was wrongly accused of being a religious thing. People are so easy to manipulate. Ah well, at least it will be interesting.

[Leafless]

Gotta boost those birth rates.

There are many reasons couples don't want children and most of them from the people I talked with, are associated with a Liberalized Canada.

There are just to many values and morals thrown out the window, along with loose lifestyles, crime, cultural indifference and a corrupt, uncaring society driven by greed.

Why should a couple burden themselves with the almost impossible task of raising children when they can simply pool their working revenues and buy a new house, a couple of cars and maybe throw in a cottage.

Is this not what especially the Liberals lecture buy, buy , buy, buy.

Don't blame couples for not having children, blame government.

[Bonam]

Would be easier to grow legions of new workers in tubes than it would be to reverse the trend in our society for couples wanting to have less and less kids.

[August1991]

There hasn't been mention of this important release of census information this week.

That's true and I was thinking of starting a thread on the topic.

[Minor point: I didn't start a thread because I was fed up of the direction of most threads here and I didn't want to contribute further. Rue's post here in a controversial thread has encouraged me to believe in this forum idea.]

The census data that I looked at quickly showed Trois-Rivieres and Montreal's neighbourhood of Cote-St-Luc as places where old people live. I happen to know both and they both remind me of villages in eastern Europe.

If you have never seen such, it is hard to imagine an entire city where many people are old. I haven't been to Japan but I imagine that most rural areas of Japan are like this.

Such places are very quiet and orderly. They are pleasant.

----

In the case of Canada (and America), I would only add this point, understandable to anyone who works in retail. Would you prefer a busy, rich boomer customer arguing with kids on a cellphone or a retired, rich boomer customer arguing with kids on a cellphone?

Canada is about to face several million people who are convinced that they've earned and deserve the platinum card. And they'll have the time to argue, dispute, litigate.

For younger Canadians, it'll be great. A seller's market.

[geoffrey]

For younger Canadians, it'll be great. A seller's market.

For now, until we have to pay the bill.

The good news is that the boomer's demise is going to force us to completely change our health care system... in fact our whole social system. We can't possibly continue the way it is with all that increased demand.

It may force progress through alot of suffering. At least I hope so (the progress, not the suffering).

[jdobbin]

That's true and I was thinking of starting a thread on the topic.

[Minor point: I didn't start a thread because I was fed up of the direction of most threads here and I didn't want to contribute further. Rue's post here in a controversial thread has encouraged me to believe in this forum idea.]

The census data that I looked at quickly showed Trois-Rivieres and Montreal's neighbourhood of Cote-St-Luc as places where old people live. I happen to know both and they both remind me of villages in eastern Europe.

If you have never seen such, it is hard to imagine an entire city where many people are old. I haven't been to Japan but I imagine that most rural areas of Japan are like this.

Such places are very quiet and orderly. They are pleasant.

----

In the case of Canada (and America), I would only add this point, understandable to anyone who works in retail. Would you prefer a busy, rich boomer customer arguing with kids on a cellphone or a retired, rich boomer customer arguing with kids on a cellphone?

Canada is about to face several million people who are convinced that they've earned and deserve the platinum card. And they'll have the time to argue, dispute, litigate.

For younger Canadians, it'll be great. A seller's market.

I've been to Montreal but not the neighborhood you speak of. How so on villages in eastern Europe?

When I lived in Japan, I was very near Tokyo but in an area considered rural. Part of my experience was skewed living on a university campus but I did have cause to drive to several rural areas on a daily basis. Some definitely had an older population but it was never a "Children of God" scenario.

In my travels in the U.S., I saw more evidence of entire geriatric communities. In fact, I found there were a few gated communities that were all people over 60, no children allowed. The problem with those communities was that while they were good for an active senior, they became harder and harder for people who lost the capacity to drive or do other tasks. Moreover, the absence of younger people nearly meant that there was no one nearby to service the growing needs.

Even in Japan, I never noticed the same imbalance that was built into the above communities.

One of the oldest communities in Manitoba is Gimli. However, it is also a resort area that attracts a lot of young people seasonally. It has a balance or sorts but one that will only continue to succeed as long as they find ways of keeping younger residents year round.

Older populations will require a re-thinking of every aspect of the economy and social infrastructure. The regions that do that most successfully will prosper.

[jdobbin]

For now, until we have to pay the bill.

The good news is that the boomer's demise is going to force us to completely change our health care system... in fact our whole social system. We can't possibly continue the way it is with all that increased demand.

It may force progress through alot of suffering. At least I hope so (the progress, not the suffering).

I think one of the things people mention about growing old is the downsizing. You just can't afford or want to upkeep a 4 bedroom super home when you are in your 70s. Also, if you lose your licence, you can't maintain a subrurban lifestyle.

As far as healthcare goes, seniors will be even more protective of it. Reforms will have to re-enforce the idea of universality while improving the quality.

[mikedavid00]

It pretty much confirms that Canadians are aging fast. Even immigration won't change it all that much since the average age of those who migrate is 30 years of age.

Actually I got an idea.

How about we have a NEW immigration policy. Another one that is specific to Canada that is genre breaking and unseen anywhere else in the world.

Let's call it the S.I.P (Stonage Immigation Policy).

This policy would allow anyone, I mean ANYONE to come to Canada. That goes for Congo, Samolia, Pakistan, Bangledesh, Iraq, Afganistan, ANYWHERE!

And we can even fly some over. Have busses run through the streets of IstanBul or Islamibad and have them load up on them busses and we can take them to the airport and bring them to Canada.

But first we need to go to Punjab India and make sure that all those Sikh's who wear a turban get first preference into Canada for their hard earned contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada.

This will solve our crisis. MORE PEOPLE!

Don't be dumb, let the world come here and we'll have no problems..

Right?

After all that's the answer to all this hype and hystaria about baby boomer that HAVE BEEN REPORTED SINCE EVEN I WAS A KID

[uOttawaMan]

It's not like this is surprising news.

So what if Canada's population isn't going to be "baby booming " anymore.

As for those who talk about allowing anyone to immigrate to canada, that's the way the system works now anyway. The amount of people that get denied entry is pretty damn slim.

[capricorn]

A baby boomer is anyone born between 1944 and 1964 in a country that experienced an unusual spike in birth rates following World War II, a phenomenon commonly known as the baby boom.

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

It appears the biggest concern today regarding boomers is the strain they will place on the health care system. Looking at the numbers, assuming that boomers live to a median age of 80, they will gradually die off between the years 2024 and 2044. That's only a 20 year span. Why is everyone getting so panicked? Before you know it, you'll be there and the strain on the health care system will have abated.

Rather than decrying the problems created by boomers (which I think are overblown), we should be concentrating on replacing them with a workforce to ensure the continuity of the quality of life that we, as Canadians, have so far enjoyed. Immigration provides about 250,000 new Canadians per year. Yet, not all of them are of working age. Some are older family members who place a further strain on health and social services. So, as a first step, no one over the age of 30 should be allowed to immigrate to Canada. Sorry, our Country's needs come first.

Couples will not have more children if they feel that if they do, they and their children will live from hand to mouth. Can anyone blame them? Instead of spending all that money on universal day care and school breakfast programs, those funds should be used to increase the child tax credit. Also, the personal income tax deduction for dependants should be increased substantially. The more kids you have, the more money should stay in the pocket of the breadwinner so that a decent standard of living can be maintained.

There are many initiatives that could be taken. But I know, it would be an upward battle. The left has never given traditional families any breaks and it believes that our children need to be institutionalized as early as possible to ensure they are "socially" adapted.

[mikedavid00]

It's not like this is surprising news.

So what if Canada's population isn't going to be "baby booming " anymore.

I agree. Beside the fact that most of the 1st world should have a booming issue to from Poland to the US. Either way they've been saying this since I was a kid and still nothing has happened. Pay has decreased for all intensive purposes with less job opennings to the public per capita.

As for those who talk about allowing anyone to immigrate to canada, that's the way the system works now anyway. The amount of people that get denied entry is pretty damn slim.

I agree.

But my idea had busses that would bring people to the airport and bypass any testing. Canada *desperatly* needs people from Nigerea and Islamibad.

Let's just open our borders completely. After all, there's no problems with just letting anyone come here and as in the Xul thread, people are people adn we're all the same. If people is what Canada needs to save itself from this global warm... errr.. baby boom crisis then by gosh that's what we gotta do.

Edited July 21, 2007 by mikedavid00

[Moxie]

I've been hearing this song and dance since I was a child, if all those jobs suddenly become available because we all drop dead or get ill perhaps some of our young who had to leave Canada can come back take care of of us old people and take our jobs. It's like global warming (ice age in the 70s) 30 year old propaganda from those who need immigrants to get elected. I read in our local rag that the only immigrants that came to Nova Scotia and stayed long term were the Scots. LOL considering how hateful our climate is I can understand why we aren't the first choice amongst newcomers in fact most always go to Torona and Vancober.

[mikedavid00]

I've been hearing this song and dance since I was a child, if all those jobs suddenly become available because we all drop dead or get ill perhaps some of our young who had to leave Canada can come back take care of of us old people and take our jobs. It's like global warming (ice age in the 70s) 30 year old propaganda from those who need immigrants to get elected.

YES I AGREE!!

THANK YOU!

Edited July 22, 2007 by mikedavid00

[geoffrey]

What jobs become available? We will have over 100,000 positions in Alberta available in the next 10 years with no one to fill them. Know someone that needs one?

We need immigrants, especially now that everyone is kicking off or getting out of the labour force. All Canadian that want to work are currently working, the rest are a lost cause. If Canadians weren't so stubborn and supported by generous EI and welfare, we'd easily pick up the Newfies and move them West. Unfortunately, refusal to work an available job is an option, so we need to find people less picky to work.

Which means immigrants.

n fact, megaproject fever is now overfishing both provincial and national labour pools. With more than $120 billion worth of capital works projects on the books for the next decade in the public and private sector in Alberta, employers will need to fill 400,000 new jobs by 2010. But even with special programs to employ seniors, aboriginal youth and foreign workers, the provincial government predicts a staggering human-capital deficit of 100,000 people over 10 years.

Source: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/employees/article.jsp?content=20060522_77876_77876

[Renegade]

There hasn't been mention of this important release of census information this week.

It pretty much confirms that Canadians are aging fast. Even immigration won't change it all that much since the average age of those who migrate is 30 years of age.

It seems quite clear that no matter what happens, Canada will be seeing more seniors than ever before and quite honestly, the country has yet to come to terms with just how many people that will be.

The issue of fewer children will also have to be addressed both on a provincial and federal front. Is it a problem? Does anything have to be done or can it be ignored?

It is really quite obvious what needs to be done, yet no one has the courage to do it. Seniors benefits need to be drasticly cut. That includes OAS, Healthcare, and other benefits such as pension-splitting and tax deductions. Possibly even the retirement age should be pushed back given that people are living longer.

The longer we wait to address the issue, the harder it will become, because as time goes on, the seniors become a greater and greater political lobbying force.

[jdobbin]

It is really quite obvious what needs to be done, yet no one has the courage to do it. Seniors benefits need to be drasticly cut. That includes OAS, Healthcare, and other benefits such as pension-splitting and tax deductions. Possibly even the retirement age should be pushed back given that people are living longer.

The longer we wait to address the issue, the harder it will become, because as time goes on, the seniors become a greater and greater political lobbying force.

The way Harper is spending now, it seems that cutting anything is a very low priority.

[mikedavid00]

What jobs become available? We will have over 100,000 positions in Alberta available in the next 10 years with no one to fill them. Know someone that needs one?

So basically you have 1000 jobs opening a month? Gee workopolis doesn't show this!

Either way, you'll need low paying laborers becuase those are the bulk of those jobs. Please don't make me prove something that i've proved before. Why not have an immigartion policy that allows work permits to allow workers to come and take these jobs and stay if they prove they have been productive in Canada?

We need immigrants, especially now that everyone is kicking off or getting out of the labour force.

No Geoff. We need an immigration policy. Immigrants will then follow and fill those specific jobs. What we have are over 200,000 people coming to the GTA for family re-unification which is destroying our welfare state slowly but shurely. This is not beneificial to Canada. We don't need intillectuals here, we need laborers. Why do you think nothing gets done about Mexicans? Becuase underneith it all, they are needed.

All Canadian that want to work are currently working, the rest are a lost cause.

Don't be so quick to say that. You are looking through your own rose colored glass. The accountants here are very low paid, and do mainly grunt work. Have you ever done accounting grunt work? It's brutal. Become a software developer and see how well you fair. Go to North Bay ontario and see how well you do. In the US, you can do well anywhere. Canada is not like this. Accountanting used to be a very well paid profession. Here in Toronto,accounting has been completely saturated due to immigration and the pay (and quality) of acconting has taken a nose dive.

Come here to Toronto and just try to get an accounting job. Just try and see how far you get. Your jaw will drop when you see how low the pay is and the credentials that employers want.

If Canadians weren't so stubborn and supported by generous EI and welfare, we'd easily pick up the Newfies and move them West. Unfortunately, refusal to work an available job is an option, so we need to find people less picky to work. Which means immigrants.

I agree with you, but we do not have a functioning immigration policy to fill these job shortages.

I am PRO immigration policy. If there are jobs that cannot be filled and the employer can prove it, we should bring people in to fill those jobs. And I mean you land on Friday, begin work on Monday. Just how it's done in the US and any other country in the world. We have to stop people from just 'settling' here. Or 'living' here.

in Alberta, employers will need to fill 400,000 new jobs by 2010.

That's silly and you know it. You are saying that alberta's getting over 12,000 jobs a month?

Don't believe those news bytes, they've proven to be wrong each time.

[NovaScotian]

If Canadians weren't so stubborn and supported by generous EI and welfare, we'd easily pick up the Newfies and move them West. Unfortunately, refusal to work an available job is an option, so we need to find people less picky to work.

Not to be too nit picky....lol

But Newfoundlanders are one of the most mobile populations in Canada, especially the young. Another issue to contend with is the age of the NFLD population. Most are in the 40-50's. So...would it be practical for a fishermen. With established roots, no other skill but fishing, a house with no mortgage going to uplift yourself and move to Calgary, Edmonton or Fort Mac and probably end up working in a burger joint till you are 80 just to pay off another mortgage.

[August1991]

It is really quite obvious what needs to be done, yet no one has the courage to do it. Seniors benefits need to be drasticly cut. That includes OAS, Healthcare, and other benefits such as pension-splitting and tax deductions. Possibly even the retirement age should be pushed back given that people are living longer.

The longer we wait to address the issue, the harder it will become, because as time goes on, the seniors become a greater and greater political lobbying force.

I don't see why the government should get involved in this; and I'm not sure that it should uniliaterally change pension rules. (And politically, given that boomers are about to retire and anyway, retired people have time to read the news and have a high turn-out rate in elections, anything reducing pensions would be political suicide.)

Most governments in Canada have removed mandatory retirement ages. People are free to work if they want. Most pension contracts forbid double-dipping into the same profession. IOW, if someone continues to work, no pension is paid out. In any case, we have progressive taxes and fortunately Brian Mulroney had the political courage to introduce pension clawbacks.

In general, the government should not change any private pension contracts. The labour market will induce any older people to keep working rather than retire. I would expect wages in certain occupations to rise in the near future. What occupations? Anyone who supplies a good or service to older people and any occupation requiring physical force. Let the market work these details out.

----

Renegade, you do introduce an interesting idea.

I have always wondered why we have a higher personal tax exemption (personal tax credit) for people over 65. Why?

It would be politically impossible to eliminate this tax credit. But we could "eliminate" it by raising the personal exemption for everyone else. One problem with raising the personal exemption is that it amounts to a bigger tax cut for the rich than the poor (and for the really poor, raising the personal exemption is no tax cut at all. They pay no tax now). We could rejig the tax tables to partly correct for this problem.

I have always thought that a government is wise if it collects taxes from as few people as possible. (This doesn't mean that the incidence of taxes need be narrow.)

Something else we could do to make the playing field more fair: CPP contributions stop at 70. Why? To make this politically palatable, CPP payments should be increased by the amount of the contributions so that current CPP receivers can pay this "tax". To those over 70, they should be told that the CPP is really a way for all of us to share the wealth. And indeed, that's what the CPP is despite what the CPP web site states:

The CPP is a "contributory" plan. This means that all costs are covered by the financial contributions paid by employees, employers and self-employed workers, and from revenue earned on CPP investments. The CPP is not funded through general tax revenues.

Link

BS.

----

Now, an interesting animated graph that illustrates this thread's main point. (Your tax dollars at work. Might as well get some benefit from the graphic programmer's salary: you paid for it.)

Check this out.

[Renegade]

I don't see why the government should get involved in this; and I'm not sure that it should uniliaterally change pension rules. (And politically, given that boomers are about to retire and anyway, retired people have time to read the news and have a high turn-out rate in elections, anything reducing pensions would be political suicide.)

I'm not suggesting that the government should get involved in changing private sector pensions, however income programs such as OAS which kick in at 65 are within government control. I agree with you that it is fraught with political risk to do any change which impacts the beneifts of seniors, which is why I said it takes a certain amount of courage.

I have always wondered why we have a higher personal tax exemption (personal tax credit) for people over 65. Why?

I have always considered this an unjustified benefit and its continued existance is solely a testament to the lobbying and voting power of the seniors.

[margrace]

If Canadians weren't so stubborn and supported by generous EI and welfare, we'd easily pick up the Newfies and move them West. Unfortunately, refusal to work an available job is an option, so we need to find people less picky to work.

Not to be too nit picky....lol

But Newfoundlanders are one of the most mobile populations in Canada, especially the young. Another issue to contend with is the age of the NFLD population. Most are in the 40-50's. So...would it be practical for a fishermen. With established roots, no other skill but fishing, a house with no mortgage going to uplift yourself and move to Calgary, Edmonton or Fort Mac and probably end up working in a burger joint till you are 80 just to pay off another mortgage.

be careful here, you will be judged as a another winny old bat by a geneation of young spoiled brats whom we have provided with everything their hearts desire.

[Renegade]

be careful here, you will be judged as a another winny old bat by a geneation of young spoiled brats whom we have provided with everything their hearts desire.

It is always stunning to me to see the level of entitlement many seniors display. That attitude manifests itself as intense lobbying and high-levels of political action when there is even the slightest threat to a benefit which may affect seniors. Most of the social infrastructure programs which seniors collect on today and have collected for many years have been funded through debt financing. That enormous debt has been the "gift" that seniors have left the current working generation. Seniors as a group, today consume a disproportionate amount of the social expenditures and yet have a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the rest of the population. The only reason the rest of the polulation tolerates it is because they gleefully wait for their turn so that they too can feed at the trough. What the masses haven't considered is that the feeding frenzy can't last forever.