this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023

398 points (98.3% liked)

Canada

8004 readers

563 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

398

Canada’s birth rate has dropped off a cliff (and it’s likely because nobody can afford housing) (nationalpost.com)

submitted 1 year ago by sbv to c/[email protected]

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Statistics Canada confirmed last week that 351,679 babies were born in 2022 — the lowest number of live births since 345,044 births were recorded in 2005.

The disparity is all the more notable given that Canada had just 32 million people in 2005, as compared to the 40 million it counted by the end of 2022. In 2005, it was already at historic lows for Canada to have a fertility rate of 1.57 births per woman. But given the 2022 figures, that fertility rate has now sunk to 1.33.

...

Of Canadians in their 20s, Statistics Canada found that 38 per cent of them “did not believe they could afford to have a child in the next three years” — with about that same number (32 per cent) saying they doubted they’d be able to find “suitable housing” in which to care for a baby.

...

A January survey by the Angus Reid Group asked women to list the ideal size of their family against its actual size, and concluded that the average Canadian woman reached the end of their childbearing years with 0.5 fewer children than they would have wanted

“In Canada, unlike many other countries, fertility rates and desires rise with income: richer Canadians have more children,” it read.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not a radical thought, it's just wrong.

Desired fertility is higher than actual fertility. https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-canadian-women-arent-having-the-children-they-desire

I have three kids, and if money wasn't a factor my wife and I would probably have 4 or 5

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

As the oldest of six, having grown up quite poor, thank you for stopping while still in your means.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Desired fertility is higher than actual fertility.

From that same study, you need to acknowledge that many women also REGRET having kids or too many kids.

"“excess” births have a larger unhappiness effect than “missing” births individually,"

Also, from that same study, which basically proves my original point:

"Many factors influence Canadian women in having fewer children than they desire, but the most influential factors relate to the ideas that children are burdensome, that parenting is intensive and time-consuming, and that women want to finish self-development and exploration before having children. The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs."

Literally, the study being reported says that housing and childcare costs are NOT the biggest factor. Exactly as I said.

I wish you guys downvoting would at least read the damn study before shooting the messenger.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Much of that regret comes from cost pressures, not the actual existence of the children. Even if you can "afford" children, having to have both parents work full time to afford them doesn't make it easy to actually raise them.

If one parents was SAH and money still wasn't a problem there would be far fewer regrets.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

Much of that regret comes from cost pressures, not the actual existence of the children.

Well, yeah, it's not saying that people hate their kids. LOL

According to the same survey the article linked to, people are less happy when they have more kids (than ideal) vs having fewer kids (than ideal). It doesn't say that cost pressures are a main factor.

If you look at the reasons why people don't want kids (original survey linked in the article), then you could assume that those same factors explain why people having regrets. No opportunity to grow as a person, the time commitment, less freedom, the derailment of their career, etc. (per the survey results).

A different study said that:

" Older parents with minor children still at home are less happy than their empty nest contemporaries by about 5 or 6 percentage points. And ... Both men and women report less personal happiness and less happy marriages when there are minor children around the house."

But I suppose happiness and regret can be different for each person. Having a child grow up to be a successful, contributing member of society would probably make parents happy.

I'd say that the vast majority of parents aren't in that situation, though. They not only have to continue to support their child into adulthood, but they never had a chance to develop personally because their child was never independent enough. I can see how that would cause a lot of regret for older parents.