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.
I wonder how much of the cost of living crisis is due to our shitty productivity?
It seems like regulations and government programs favour incumbents, be it telecoms who don’t want to deal with upstarts, fish plant owners who don’t want to automate, Tims franchises who don’t want to pay their workers, or NIMBYs.
I get that there were supply chain issues due to COVID-19, but did those cause problems, or exacerbate existing issues?
The Competition Act was weakly designed with the purpose of allowing a few Canadian companies to grow large. It was thought at the time that this would mean Canada could be a big player on the global stage, but instead it just trapped Canadians in the inevitable consequences of a marketplace dominated by monopolies-- high prices and little choice. You can thank Chicago school economics acolytes and leaders like Mulroney, Reagan, and Thatcher for htis.
Considering that if you aren’t making a lot, you can get quite a bit of money every month for each kid through child benefits until they are 18, I don’t think the cost of housing is the issue.
Here’s a radical thought: Maybe people simply don’t want to be burdened by kids.
Perhaps if we stopped pressuring mothers into believing that they NEED to have kids, or that couples can’t be complete without a real family.
Maybe then we can start normalizing the fact that not everyone actually wants (or needs) kids.
EDIT: For you idiots downvoting, could you at least read the study? It agrees with what I wrote!
I can attest from personal experience, finances are 100% the reason me and my partner can’t have kids right now. Its very hard to justify brining a kid into this world when its hard to maintain stability for 2 adults, let alone with the costs required to raise a child.
We were evicted from our last home for no other reason than the greed of our landlord. That stress would have been tenfold if we had to go through that with kids.
I can attest from personal experience, finances are 100% the reason me and my partner can’t have kids right now.
And government child benefits wouldn’t help? If you are struggling that much (and I don’t suggest having a kid if you are struggling at all), the government will pay you monthly for the next 18 years that you have a child…
I think you need to look beyond finances to make this decision, though. Do you have the energy and time for a kid? Are you willing to put all your plans on hold for the foreseeable future, potentially burden your relationship, for a child? Will you be able to quit your job to spend your entire day caring for a child with special needs? Are you willing to care for that child beyond age 18, when the financial burden of supporting them (a third adult) could jeopardize your retirement?
The decision to have a child shouldn’t be made lightly, regardless of how strong society pushes for it. Neither should the decision to have pets, but I digress.
I do wish you and your partner all the best, and hope that you find more financial stability in your lives.
the amount that any government pays you when you have a child is a pittance compared to the cost of having a child… especially if you want to do more than simply scrape by and have like… christmas, birthdays…
That’s a joke, right? When I looked it was only 500 to 620 a month per kid.
You have baby items to worry about, needing a crap ton of clothes (kids grow a LOT), having adequate nutrition (growth spurts too), school supplies, and more. If you’re already barely making ends meet, of COURSE you’ll struggle if you add another human being. Of course, cost of living also varies by area, as well as public transportation. Without that, you’d have to hope that you live near essentials like a family doctor, or you’d have to pony up even more money for a car and child seat.
If that’s not enough, you also get the fun of society looking down on your for “having kids before you were ready”. Many of us heard that from adults throughout the entire time we grew up. Why voluntarily walk into that? Nah. IF I ever have a kid, it won’t be untilI can guarantee that that doesn’t happen.
I’ve raised two, and they are rising their own.
If an extra 500+ a month isn’t enough, then you are overspending for no good reason!
Buy second hand, learn how to be frugal with certain items, get most larger items from a baby shower (if you have one), etc., don’t get sucked into blitz marketing that targets new parents, etc.
Kids become more of a financial burden when they grow up… age 10-18 and beyond, and that money is still rolling in.
If that’s not enough, you also get the fun of society looking down on your for “having kids before you were ready”. Many of us heard that from adults throughout the entire time we grew up.
That’s my point from my original comment. Society is pressuring people into “wanting” kids, but a great number of people simply don’t, and that’s OK!
Housing is an easy example. One bedroom or bachelor’s pads are, in my area, ~1200/month. Not the nicest ones at that price, but decent. You jump up to a two bed or a Ben+a den, and you’re looking at 1800/month at least. At a three bed, it’s close to 2500/month.
Even if you assume those are on the larger side for price jumps, if you’re barely able to scrape by with two people in a bachelor’s apartment or in a one bedroom, there’s no way you can “afford” it solely by CCB benefits. Almost all the benefit is eaten up by housing increases alone! Then add on childcare, and CCB isn’t enough to give those feeling like they’re just hanging on wiggle room to raise a child.
Kids are an enormous financial burden early on, especially for the small things. Kids get sick a lot, so you need to have a job that will allow you flexibility, or else you’ll lose money for unpaid days off for doctors appointments or to sit at home with them when they’re puking.
Kids need daycare unless youre staying home, which is suuuuper expensive these days. They also have limited hours, which if you’re stuck working a shitty job, you may not be able to make.
Even second hand, clothes are expensive, and with how fast kids grow, it’s an expense worth noting.
All in all, if you’re well off, yeah it may not be a big problem for you, but for the people that are already struggling, it’s a large factor into why they’re not having kids yet.
I’ve raised two, and they are rising their own.
Costs have increased significantly in the past few decades.
If an extra 500+ a month isn’t enough, then you are overspending for no good reason!
The only after school care available in my community costs around $400/mo. I’m in a rural area, so it’s probably higher in cities.
Daycare may be cheaper now due to the $10/day thing, but I’m not sure how many spots are available.
Swimming lessons are $200-300. Sports typically run for a season, but they start around $200. We’ve got our kids in “cheap” sports, but even then, costs add up.
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
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.
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.
Here’s a radical thought: Maybe people simply don’t want to be burdened by kids.
The studies cited in the op-ed show many people who want kids aren’t having them due to the cost of living.
Maybe then we can start normalizing the fact that not everyone actually wants (or needs) kids.
Definitely, that would be healthy for people and more environmentally sustainable.
The op-ed is not referring to people who don’t want kids, however, it’s looking at surveys where people say they can’t afford to have kids.
The studies cited in the op-ed show many people who want kids aren’t having them due to the cost of living.
That’s not true. The study cited expliciitaly states that:
“… 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.”
The op-ed is not referring to people who don’t want kids…
Fair point, but it is basing the op-ed on a survey that does refer to women who did not want kids, and when you consolidate the data, it’s pretty clear that there’s some reporting bias at play.
Still, to the point, cost of living is not the driving factor to low fertility.
I have long speculated that the reason why birthrate goes down in societies with a higher standard of living is because a higher standard of living effectively reduces the “carrying capacity” of the environment for humans. Which is not a bad thing, IMO, it’s just the underlying explanatory reason for why we see this pattern. Access to family planning and such is just part of the mechanism this operates by.
A common pattern in population dynamics is the S-curve, where population initially grows in an exponential-like pattern and then flattens back out again as it approaches the environment’s carrying capacity. I think we’ll see that with the human population too, and we are in the unique position as a species of being able to somewhat control where that carrying capacity will be. In this specific case here, we could boost our capacity for population growth by making housing more affordable.
Unless something happens - like, say, running out of manufactured fertilizers - that reduces the carrying capacity. Then we’ll have a bell curve.
Education … the more educated and informed a population becomes, the fewer children they have. It doesn’t mean that the population is very highly educated overall … even just a small uptick of an education lowers the birthrate. It just means that with a bit of knowledge, experience and education people become less likely to want to have children.
Is it directly the education or is it because more education leads to making more money?
There’s too many people on this planet anyways.
By what measure? Industry and a small minority of extremely wealthy people are setting the agenda to destroy the planet, not average people.
Look at what we did to the planet with the current (and smaller) population sizes. You think adding MORE people isn’t going to become an issue?
We are, in the near future, going to have a mass migration of people away from no longer inhabitable land.
Those people you’re talking about aren’t going to give up power and let “average people” right the ship. And those same “average people” have been placated and conditioned to buy shiny trinkets and celebrate touchdowns and home runs instead of organizing and uprooting the real problem makers.
By just about every measure? Would you rather have a smaller population and the same standard of living, or a larger population and a considerably lower standard of living? The earth’s resources and abilities to heal itself are finite. The more people we have, the more restrictive our quality of life needs to be. Instead of having a house on some usable land, a garden, and some chickens, you’re forced into a stacked box, with one window, and no yard, surrounded by other stacked boxes. Plus the impact of everything you do is magnified. Oh, you want to drive to the store? Better walk 20 blocks instead, because we’re already at our carbon capacity. That last example was hyperbole, but it’s not that far fetched. Basically a lower population gives us a lot more leeway to live our lives comfortably.
The fact the nearest store is 20 blocks away is a consequence of bad urban planning
There are more people on the planet than ever and QOL is up overall. Resources are not the problem, it’s resource allocation and wealth inequality.
Amputation doesn’t cure a systemic disease. Very little has to change about most people’s status of living in order for the vast majority of people to live comfortably without being forced into buying plastic, driving everywhere, etc. These are bad planning and poor oversight issues that have nothing to do with numbers of people in a population.
The majority of the remedy that would solve the issue long-term is opportunities and competition in green tech (which is being held back in favour of propping up a few fossil fuel giants), refusing to excuse wasteful and damaging industry practices, fugitive emissions, wastes of resources, etc. The ones who would be most likely to see significant change to their lives are the ones who are also individually wasting the most resources (with private jets, yachts, powering multiple homes, etc.)
But sure, give that small minority of super-wasteful people an excuse to waste even more and kill people off (since we don’t have time for natural causes or accidental deaths to make a difference) to prop up their lifestyle.
Totally agree. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants. A lot of environmentally unsustainable things become perfectly sustainable if there are fewer people on the planet. Like, we shouldn’t have to be worried about the impact of beef production or overfishing - the planet should be able to sustain the number of humans that want to eat those things. At 8-10B it obviously can’t.
By what measure?
Literally every objective measure of our planet’s health? We are permanently changing the atmosphere, simultaneously causing a mass extinction event, and virtually every environmental preserve and tourist attraction is facing huge damage from overuse.
Every human being has a carbon cost, none of us are carbon negative or neutral, until we build systems that change that, every extra human we add is destroying our planet faster.
Ugh, I hate this argument. I always wonder: so what do you propose ? Many countries’ retirement system are built on the active population paying for the retired population. What do you think happens when there are more retired than actives?
Low birth rate is a real serious issue for many countries. The problem is not overpopulation, it’s poverty and how we manage our resources.
Capitalism and retirement is set up as a pyramid scheme. We shouldn’t be looking at situations that were recklessly arranged assuming endless growth and saying “how do we prevent population contraction” - that’s insanity. We need to figure out how to retool society for a post-growth world.
If the only way to prevent the music from stopping is a pyramid scheme, we’re all fucked.
I would love to pump some baby batter into my gf and start having a kids, can’t do that while we’re stuck living paycheque to paycheque on a combined 130k in my parents basement.
Yeah fair XP. Apologies for totally disregarding the larger issue, bud. Didn’t mean to minimize one of our generational issues
How bad is housing in Canada right now? This is not a prominent topic here in Europe, so let’s say you look for a 200 m² house in the outer parts of a bigger city, what would be the price for that?
I bought a townhouse that was 1700sqft (~150m^2) in Markharm, a suburb of the GTA (1hr to the center of toronto by car, 1.5hrs by bus), in a pretty bad area for 800K CAD during a slight market crash during covid. By all accounts this was an exceptionally good deal, by realtor didn’t think we could get anything for under 900. I sold that townhouse for 1.1 mil in 2023.
The issue is that investors are buying houses 100k over asking price same or next day because they don’t plan on living in them, they just want to make the investment and prop up the housing market bubble for as long as they can.
Everything is worth what people will pay for it. The problem is that we aren’t building anywhere near enough housing.
Start with income perspective. The average annual salary in 2022 was just under $60,000. Nationally, the average house price in summer 2023 was a bit over $750,000. These incomes and house prices are affected pretty strongly by the lower incomes and lower housing costs in rural Canada vs the major cities like Vancouver and Toronto
So… shift attention to the cities. In Toronto and Vancouver, the average house price is around $1,200,000 give or take a little. You need at a combined income of least $280,000 to qualify for a house like that (or have substantial equity built up in previous home purchases). Most people are earning at or close to the national average… with a few - especially those in STEM careers (sw devs for example) up over $100,000 per year.
I live in a suburb city (I own my house)… it’s inconveniently located if you want/need to be in the core city centre for work (I’m about 3 hours commute right now if I needed to go in to a downtown office… thankfully I don’t). Houses on my street are relatively new (most built in 2019 and 2020). The houses currently for sale are listing between $1,250,000 and $2,350,000.
Renting can be really awful in Canada too… you get stunts like this https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/this-is-egregious-sisters-shocked-when-toronto-landlord-raises-rent-to-9-500-a-month-1.6548845 simply because they can…
tl;dr Housing in Canada is bonkers
Thanks for the insight, this is crazy. We are looking for houses right now here in Germany, and and the last one we visited was 269 m² for around 500.000€ and 30 minutes drive away of the inner city of the next major city. I hope politics does something about your problem, it can not stay like this.
Sorry but how are you living paycheck to paycheck with that income and little to no rent?
Without writing out my whole life story: student loans, unexpected vehicle issues (public transit isn’t an option where I live), out of pocket medical costs not covered by benefits or gov’t, long commutes with expensive gas and no feasible alternatives and few job opportunities closer to home in my field. Can’t afford to move due to high rents so I’m stuck driving.
There’s more but I’m hungry and wanna eat dinner and don’t feel like going into it. We save everything that isn’t essential and barely go out for fun, anything extra goes towards a down payment but the way things are going right not it doesn’t look like we’ll be able to buy for years unless we can put away like 2k a month.
I don’t know what province youre in but also the skyrocketing cost of food and groceries.
What I got a couple years ago with $100 doesn’t buy shit now a days.
Fuck our government both federal and provincial, and all parties. Fuck every politician that sits in parliament collecting a pretty 6 figure paycheque and watching their real-estate asset appreciate as Canadians get perpetually fucked over time and time again.
When people say pay cheque to pay cheque in this type of situation they’re still putting money away into savings typically but are out of reach of where they need to be. There’s usually large debts, medical costs or other financial burdens that aren’t mentioned like maybe taking care of a family member. Their pay cheque to pay cheque situation is a bit different than someone working minimum wage and will be out on the streets as they still have money going into some sort of savings
She does have an iud so I could before, but her Dr put her on medication for her rheumatoid arthritis last year that causes birth defects so at the moment we gotta double up. Even if that wasn’t the case, still couldn’t afford to have a kid right now.
Oof, well, no love baby juices for her.
Unless there was another hole where it could be injected 🤔
