Want to raise a kid in Canada? That'll be $293K...and climbing
December 2, 2024 8:00 AM Subscribe
A child isn’t a luxury, but in 2024, the ability to provide that care, without significant material worry, can feel like one. Should we feel good about that?
obv the rising cost of child care is not native to Canada but we do have a better mat leave (generally) for moms
obv the rising cost of child care is not native to Canada but we do have a better mat leave (generally) for moms
There's a meme going around tumbler about The Simpsons.
It's like, here's this family of five, living in a suburban house, they have food and shelter, and a car, they can take care of themselves, and they do it on the income of one person with a not particularly good job. It's like UNATTAINABLE RICHES today, but it was just Life in the '80s when the series started.
Then there's a followup post about someone in real life who was a kid in the 80s and his father made pizza in a restauraunt, sometimes delivered it, and they had two cars, and a shitty house, and they had the little luxuries like movies and Nintendo, and the mom didn't work and it's like, HOW THE FUCK
But then I also grew up in the 80s and my single mom with a clerical job supported me in a duplex and we had decent food and took care of our cats and had a couple of shitty cars because I needed a car because I was a teenager, and we went to the Zoo and I had a computer, and we were OK, and i think about today and it's like those were MAGICAL TIMES
And you know it's because that was about when taxes on the rich were still up near 70-90% and those fuckers had to spend it rather than hoard it so the middle class was doing just fine.
And now it's like... well, you know what it's like.
It's been 44 years of Reaganomics and what we had has not only been destroyed, I'm not sure it can ever come back without bloody revolution.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:21 AM on December 2, 2024 [84 favorites]
It's like, here's this family of five, living in a suburban house, they have food and shelter, and a car, they can take care of themselves, and they do it on the income of one person with a not particularly good job. It's like UNATTAINABLE RICHES today, but it was just Life in the '80s when the series started.
Then there's a followup post about someone in real life who was a kid in the 80s and his father made pizza in a restauraunt, sometimes delivered it, and they had two cars, and a shitty house, and they had the little luxuries like movies and Nintendo, and the mom didn't work and it's like, HOW THE FUCK
But then I also grew up in the 80s and my single mom with a clerical job supported me in a duplex and we had decent food and took care of our cats and had a couple of shitty cars because I needed a car because I was a teenager, and we went to the Zoo and I had a computer, and we were OK, and i think about today and it's like those were MAGICAL TIMES
And you know it's because that was about when taxes on the rich were still up near 70-90% and those fuckers had to spend it rather than hoard it so the middle class was doing just fine.
And now it's like... well, you know what it's like.
It's been 44 years of Reaganomics and what we had has not only been destroyed, I'm not sure it can ever come back without bloody revolution.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:21 AM on December 2, 2024 [84 favorites]
A child isn’t a luxury
Quite so, but making one is.
With 8.2 billion humans already on this planet and the rest of the biosphere rapidly degrading as we crowd out ever more of it, the choice to avoid making more humans is more morally and economically sound than it's ever been.
In most of the developed world it already costs substantially less to raise somebody else's child than to make your own, and there are a lot of existing children in dire need of a stable, loving, supportive home to grow up in.
If you have a burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford to, look into the support systems that could be available to you for becoming a foster carer.
posted by flabdablet at 8:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [15 favorites]
Quite so, but making one is.
With 8.2 billion humans already on this planet and the rest of the biosphere rapidly degrading as we crowd out ever more of it, the choice to avoid making more humans is more morally and economically sound than it's ever been.
In most of the developed world it already costs substantially less to raise somebody else's child than to make your own, and there are a lot of existing children in dire need of a stable, loving, supportive home to grow up in.
If you have a burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford to, look into the support systems that could be available to you for becoming a foster carer.
posted by flabdablet at 8:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [15 favorites]
Even those of us with no kids are friends with people who have kids and man, the cost of stuff is harrowing. Like, jeezy creezy. I can't blame people for either opting out or waiting.
Wild how the Simpsons sort of became a touchstone for a life that is now unattainable but back then, they wouldn't have been considered that middle class.
posted by Kitteh at 8:28 AM on December 2, 2024 [14 favorites]
Wild how the Simpsons sort of became a touchstone for a life that is now unattainable but back then, they wouldn't have been considered that middle class.
posted by Kitteh at 8:28 AM on December 2, 2024 [14 favorites]
I grew up in the '80s and The Simpsons were way richer than us. IMO: the biggest difference between then and now is that 40 years of 'everyone outside is a pedophile and kidnapper' hadn't kicked in yet, therefore not every minute of a middle class kids' life had to be programmed and managed by their parents, and the level of status obsession for everything vs a few things (in the '80s moderately rich kids were status obsessed about a few more things, but still not everything).
Clueless was probably the first movie I recall about a kid who was status obsessed about everything. But she was rich in the movie. It's filtered down since then.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
Clueless was probably the first movie I recall about a kid who was status obsessed about everything. But she was rich in the movie. It's filtered down since then.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
A lot of people with kids somehow expect those of us without kids to raise their kids. Not at all sorry, no.
Don’t have kids, don’t want kids, not yours or anyone elses. You made them, you raise them and don’t come bitching to me when Junior inevitably does something you don’t like.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 8:39 AM on December 2, 2024
Don’t have kids, don’t want kids, not yours or anyone elses. You made them, you raise them and don’t come bitching to me when Junior inevitably does something you don’t like.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 8:39 AM on December 2, 2024
No, we just expect the world to not be actively hostile to children/people with children.
posted by AndrewInDC at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 8:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
and the level of status obsession for everything vs a few things (in the '80s moderately rich kids were status obsessed about a few more things, but still not everything).
It's the status-obsession writ bananapants. Like, my sister was one of the popular kids when we were in high school (I was the weird older sister) and she wanted the brand-name clothes/shoes of her peers. She got them despite the fact we were appeared comfortable middle class but debt was coming out of my parents' ears. I remember being so mad when she got a brand new cherry red 1994 Acura Integra as her FIRST car (mine was a beat up used Toyota Corolla but man, I did love that piece of junk).
My sister now has two teens of her own; I love my nieces to death but my god, the real world is going to eat them alive. They have never had to want for anything, the concept of saving money or having your own money through a job is just so unappealing to them (Eldest Niece had a summer job at a local mini-putt course and spent nearly the entire time texting her mom to pick her up because she was bored with being at work), but their ideas of what their lives WILL be like as adults is eye-opening. They imagine they will be able to buy homes, have super high paying jobs, etc.
I mean, I am 48 and I still can't believe that I got lucky in life for quite a lot.
posted by Kitteh at 8:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
It's the status-obsession writ bananapants. Like, my sister was one of the popular kids when we were in high school (I was the weird older sister) and she wanted the brand-name clothes/shoes of her peers. She got them despite the fact we were appeared comfortable middle class but debt was coming out of my parents' ears. I remember being so mad when she got a brand new cherry red 1994 Acura Integra as her FIRST car (mine was a beat up used Toyota Corolla but man, I did love that piece of junk).
My sister now has two teens of her own; I love my nieces to death but my god, the real world is going to eat them alive. They have never had to want for anything, the concept of saving money or having your own money through a job is just so unappealing to them (Eldest Niece had a summer job at a local mini-putt course and spent nearly the entire time texting her mom to pick her up because she was bored with being at work), but their ideas of what their lives WILL be like as adults is eye-opening. They imagine they will be able to buy homes, have super high paying jobs, etc.
I mean, I am 48 and I still can't believe that I got lucky in life for quite a lot.
posted by Kitteh at 8:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
A lot of people with kids somehow expect those of us without kids to raise their kids. Not at all sorry, no.
I’m so curious, what experiences have you had that have left you exasperated with people pestering you for involvement in their parenting decisions? I’m a parent and it’s tough for me to imagine being so short on other people’s opinions that I’d browbeat an unwilling person into providing his, so I’m kind of fascinated about the other side of this. Or is this really about property taxes or some such?
A few years ago Mr. eirias said he thinks the purpose of school is an agreement between a family and society: we, the community, will care for your child in exchange for your agreement that the child will participate in the continuation of our culture. It’s an imperfect agreement, in a lot of ways, but without it I do wonder what continuation of culture looks like, if we do not care for each other’s children to some extent.
posted by eirias at 9:00 AM on December 2, 2024 [49 favorites]
I’m so curious, what experiences have you had that have left you exasperated with people pestering you for involvement in their parenting decisions? I’m a parent and it’s tough for me to imagine being so short on other people’s opinions that I’d browbeat an unwilling person into providing his, so I’m kind of fascinated about the other side of this. Or is this really about property taxes or some such?
A few years ago Mr. eirias said he thinks the purpose of school is an agreement between a family and society: we, the community, will care for your child in exchange for your agreement that the child will participate in the continuation of our culture. It’s an imperfect agreement, in a lot of ways, but without it I do wonder what continuation of culture looks like, if we do not care for each other’s children to some extent.
posted by eirias at 9:00 AM on December 2, 2024 [49 favorites]
...we just expect the world to not be actively hostile to children/people with children.
Gee, if we could only live in a world where we were compassionate and kind to one another, where we would support each other, make sure everyone had enough to eat, a place to live, the ability to work and create. How about a world where there was support for physical and mental health? How about a place where everyone had access to education? Hell, if we can't be nice to kids, how are we going to be nice to each other?
We need fewer people in this world. We need free contraceptives, free morning after pills, free woman's health care, free vasectomies, tubal ligations, or hysterectomies, free abortions if necessary. Make it so you have to take a class on childcare if you're pregnant. Make it so that deadbeat dads are hounded to the ends of the earth to pay their child support. Make it so the same deadbeats are sterilized by law if they DON'T pay child support and continue to impregnate. Hell, make it so anyone with more than four kids needs to be sterilized. If you want more kids to indoctrinate into your Catholic, Mormon, Amish, trad, whatever cult then adopt.
And then we need to start caring about children. ALL children. And we are children, just grown.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:06 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Gee, if we could only live in a world where we were compassionate and kind to one another, where we would support each other, make sure everyone had enough to eat, a place to live, the ability to work and create. How about a world where there was support for physical and mental health? How about a place where everyone had access to education? Hell, if we can't be nice to kids, how are we going to be nice to each other?
We need fewer people in this world. We need free contraceptives, free morning after pills, free woman's health care, free vasectomies, tubal ligations, or hysterectomies, free abortions if necessary. Make it so you have to take a class on childcare if you're pregnant. Make it so that deadbeat dads are hounded to the ends of the earth to pay their child support. Make it so the same deadbeats are sterilized by law if they DON'T pay child support and continue to impregnate. Hell, make it so anyone with more than four kids needs to be sterilized. If you want more kids to indoctrinate into your Catholic, Mormon, Amish, trad, whatever cult then adopt.
And then we need to start caring about children. ALL children. And we are children, just grown.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:06 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
The idea that people in the 80s were not status obsessed is laughable.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:15 AM on December 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:15 AM on December 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
Don’t have kids, don’t want kids, not yours or anyone elses. You made them, you raise them and don’t come bitching to me when Junior inevitably does something you don’t like.
This is happening in most of the developed world already. Individually, everyone is freeing up their disposable incomes when they don't have children, but collectively, it means populations begin declining and socialized pensions collapse. I am not familiar with any other species that has tried a strategy of not-reproducing.
posted by DetriusXii at 9:18 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
This is happening in most of the developed world already. Individually, everyone is freeing up their disposable incomes when they don't have children, but collectively, it means populations begin declining and socialized pensions collapse. I am not familiar with any other species that has tried a strategy of not-reproducing.
posted by DetriusXii at 9:18 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
I am not familiar with any other species that has tried a strategy of not-reproducing.
Behold the arctic ground squirrel!
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:22 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
Behold the arctic ground squirrel!
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:22 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
The idea that people in the 80s were not status obsessed is laughable.
I didn't say they weren't status obsessed. I said they weren't about everything. Median income people didn't live in mcmansions in the '80s. They lived in 1500 sq ft homes. They shared bedrooms. They drove crappy cars. The luxury car switch didn't happen until leasing came on strong in the early 2000s. Like for example, Porsche sold about 10k cars in the US in the 1990s per year. In 2023, they sold 60k. The shift is real.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:28 AM on December 2, 2024 [8 favorites]
I didn't say they weren't status obsessed. I said they weren't about everything. Median income people didn't live in mcmansions in the '80s. They lived in 1500 sq ft homes. They shared bedrooms. They drove crappy cars. The luxury car switch didn't happen until leasing came on strong in the early 2000s. Like for example, Porsche sold about 10k cars in the US in the 1990s per year. In 2023, they sold 60k. The shift is real.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:28 AM on December 2, 2024 [8 favorites]
Median income people didn't live in mcmansions in the '80s.
For real! The kind of kids when I was a teen that lived in those kinds of homes had like parents who were doctors and mom could easily afford to not work. I mean, my parents never had enough money to buy a house, we were lifetime renters. I shared a bedroom with my sister until middle school.
posted by Kitteh at 9:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
For real! The kind of kids when I was a teen that lived in those kinds of homes had like parents who were doctors and mom could easily afford to not work. I mean, my parents never had enough money to buy a house, we were lifetime renters. I shared a bedroom with my sister until middle school.
posted by Kitteh at 9:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Anything on TV has always been well out of reach. Remember when Rosanne was supposed to represent a working family? You can't fit 1980's cameras into a house
posted by eustatic at 9:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 9:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
The development of the suburbs was a catastrophe, and I hope someday people regard pictures of car-lined streets with the same revulsion I feel about the idea of open sewers. Of course childcare is more expensive: you've got to drive your kids there. The caregivers have to drive there (probably from a distant, cheaper place). The whole system is set up to encourage full-time work (you're not going to drive all the way downtown to work four hours, right?), so flexibility is down and demand is up. It's harder to live close to family members for non-market support. You're inevitably tearing up your city's best agricultural land to build them. And then once you hit the limits of what people can stand to drive, and you can't keep housing cheap by just building new stuff anymore, the price of houses goes up - so people start locking it in with zoning, and making granny cottages illegal, etc. How could that not make everything more expensive?
posted by McBearclaw at 9:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
posted by McBearclaw at 9:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
Median income people didn't live in mcmansions in the '80s. They lived in 1500 sq ft homes.*
Housing is a big answer to a lot of these questions. And childcare costs - which include rent for childcare facilities; try $13-15,000 a month rent for a small daycare in my area - is another big piece.
Regardless, some of the expenses are kinda weird. Here's one. In the 80s I missed some key concepts in math somewhere around grade 10 and my math marks gradually sunk to Cs. My parents' attitude was "well, you're a words person" and my school's attitude can be summed up as girls can't really be expected to do well in math.
In contrast, when my kids' math education was showing some gaps (our local k-8 schools are not renowned for their math teaching abilities as seen in the provincial tests), I took them into the local tutoring centre (because I wasn't about to try to assess a math tutor's abilities) and paid, depending on what grade they were in etc., between $300-$600/month.
Of course there are alternatives, although we wouldn't qualify for any of the need-based ones. But seeing that problem as an instructional one vs. a lazy kid/non-math kid/etc. resulted in a difference in how I used my money. My parents would probably have died before they spent a dime on tutoring.
(FYI my dad taught stats in his program but could not tutor me to save our lives.)
I don't think a lot of the spending on kids is about status. Some is, probably the same some that it was in the 80s. I think it's a lot about anxiety in what feels increasingly like a winnner-take-all world.
*FTR this is my house. We have my MIL living here and my nephew crashing with us plus my husband and my two kids.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [16 favorites]
Housing is a big answer to a lot of these questions. And childcare costs - which include rent for childcare facilities; try $13-15,000 a month rent for a small daycare in my area - is another big piece.
Regardless, some of the expenses are kinda weird. Here's one. In the 80s I missed some key concepts in math somewhere around grade 10 and my math marks gradually sunk to Cs. My parents' attitude was "well, you're a words person" and my school's attitude can be summed up as girls can't really be expected to do well in math.
In contrast, when my kids' math education was showing some gaps (our local k-8 schools are not renowned for their math teaching abilities as seen in the provincial tests), I took them into the local tutoring centre (because I wasn't about to try to assess a math tutor's abilities) and paid, depending on what grade they were in etc., between $300-$600/month.
Of course there are alternatives, although we wouldn't qualify for any of the need-based ones. But seeing that problem as an instructional one vs. a lazy kid/non-math kid/etc. resulted in a difference in how I used my money. My parents would probably have died before they spent a dime on tutoring.
(FYI my dad taught stats in his program but could not tutor me to save our lives.)
I don't think a lot of the spending on kids is about status. Some is, probably the same some that it was in the 80s. I think it's a lot about anxiety in what feels increasingly like a winnner-take-all world.
*FTR this is my house. We have my MIL living here and my nephew crashing with us plus my husband and my two kids.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [16 favorites]
You made them, you raise them
Will do, am doing, but I expect society in general to contribute via taxation, as we need well educated, skilful, healthy, happy humans for it to not degenerate into a hellscape. Thanks!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [27 favorites]
Will do, am doing, but I expect society in general to contribute via taxation, as we need well educated, skilful, healthy, happy humans for it to not degenerate into a hellscape. Thanks!
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [27 favorites]
Creating additional children of your own instead of adopting, fostering or assisting others with existing children is both selfish and abusive of others.
Buddy as someone who got pretty far down the adoption pathway, have you looked into the ethics of adoption or foster care at all?
posted by warriorqueen at 9:52 AM on December 2, 2024 [45 favorites]
Buddy as someone who got pretty far down the adoption pathway, have you looked into the ethics of adoption or foster care at all?
posted by warriorqueen at 9:52 AM on December 2, 2024 [45 favorites]
Having a child is not like painting your house white or blue, its not just a personal choice. It's like firing a gun into a crowd.
What the what.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2024 [22 favorites]
What the what.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2024 [22 favorites]
It's too bad that the phrase "Social Darwinism" has already been claimed and abused. It would be a good description of what happens to civilizations that decline because nobody wants to make new citizens within it.
posted by quillbreaker at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by quillbreaker at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
Having a child is not like painting your house white or blue, its not just a personal choice. It's like firing a gun into a crow
I'd like to encourage and invite you to revisit this phrase and perhaps retract it. The decision to have a child is complex and may have both positive and negative impacts on others but to directly equate it to firing a gun into a crowd is... not helping. If you're expressly advocating a position that anybody ever choosing to have a child is committing an unethical action, I'm going to strongly disagree with that on several fronts.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2024 [12 favorites]
I'd like to encourage and invite you to revisit this phrase and perhaps retract it. The decision to have a child is complex and may have both positive and negative impacts on others but to directly equate it to firing a gun into a crowd is... not helping. If you're expressly advocating a position that anybody ever choosing to have a child is committing an unethical action, I'm going to strongly disagree with that on several fronts.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2024 [12 favorites]
Creating additional children of your own instead of adopting, fostering or
This is as good a time as any to announce and celebrate that my little brother got engaged over the holiday weekend! His fiancee has children from a prior relationship which means I am officially an aunt now (not to brag or anything) and also that my brother has made a surprisingly climate-forward choice to source his children locally and Certified Pre-Owned™. I'm very happy for him.
posted by phunniemee at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2024 [54 favorites]
This is as good a time as any to announce and celebrate that my little brother got engaged over the holiday weekend! His fiancee has children from a prior relationship which means I am officially an aunt now (not to brag or anything) and also that my brother has made a surprisingly climate-forward choice to source his children locally and Certified Pre-Owned™. I'm very happy for him.
posted by phunniemee at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2024 [54 favorites]
That we have a legal system and culture that supports this state of affairs is no different than the fact that some countries had cultures and legal systems that allowed and encouraged slavery or marital rape.
OK look there are definitely complex implications to having kids but this is a fucking obscene and absurd take, absofuckinglutely miss me with this shit.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2024 [21 favorites]
OK look there are definitely complex implications to having kids but this is a fucking obscene and absurd take, absofuckinglutely miss me with this shit.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2024 [21 favorites]
Though I do appreciate that a relatively short metafilter thread has run the gamut from a hard-right NO TAXES FOR YER DAMN SNOT-NOSED BRAT SCHOOLS to a CHILDREN SHOULD BE AS ILLEGAL AS SLAVERY take that is so far out into the hinterlands of the political universe that nobody can even see it from here. Truly, who says MeFi is an echo chamber?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2024 [42 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2024 [42 favorites]
His fiancee has children from a prior relationship
Too bad about the "marrying a mass murderer" part, but we've all heard how tough dating is these days.
posted by McBearclaw at 10:17 AM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
Too bad about the "marrying a mass murderer" part, but we've all heard how tough dating is these days.
posted by McBearclaw at 10:17 AM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
Flag him and let the mods earn their keep.
posted by phunniemee at 10:18 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 10:18 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
If you're expressly advocating a position that anybody ever choosing to have a child is committing an unethical action, I'm going to strongly disagree with that on several fronts.
If you look at it only through the climate lens then it's sorta true. Life is more complex than that, though.
I do wish being a parent wasn't treated so sacredly sometimes, as it's just a thing that humans do, like all good mammals. But we don't need to shit on it. It's also good Metafilter etiquette not to denigrate people in the thread with you.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:20 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
If you look at it only through the climate lens then it's sorta true. Life is more complex than that, though.
I do wish being a parent wasn't treated so sacredly sometimes, as it's just a thing that humans do, like all good mammals. But we don't need to shit on it. It's also good Metafilter etiquette not to denigrate people in the thread with you.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:20 AM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
What a thread! People's baser instincts and deep frustrations just spill out on topics like this, regardless of how many times they've been discussed here before, cutting loose as if society weren't full of all sorts of weird Catch-22s, trolley problems, and real pain associated with having kids or not having kids. I repeat, what a thread!
posted by cupcakeninja at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2024 [5 favorites]
Back to the discussion of raising kids in Canada - if there was ever a time when public support for social/public housing might be there if we actually discussed it seriously - wouldn't it be now? This is the major cost all younger people are grappling with. This is the time for Trudeau to make some bold moves. He's on his way out anyhow. The main problem of course is that this responsibility has been passed off to municipalities who can't shoulder it.
posted by kitcat at 10:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by kitcat at 10:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
It’s entirely natural for birth rates to fall as material prosperity increases; what seems to be happening in a lot of places though is the number of people who are avoiding children for monetary reasons — it’s not like they’ve got 8 kids to support, it’s like the idea of having even one is… a wild fantasy.
I have never wanted children, but I’m a little sad I never got a chance to be an uncle; that could have been fun.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
I have never wanted children, but I’m a little sad I never got a chance to be an uncle; that could have been fun.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Comment removed. Hi folks -- please do not turn this thread into attacks on other users. Discuss the topic and mind the guidelines, thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Also, please don’t fire a gun into a crow, even if youre mad their rent isn’t going up.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
There are a few Canadian-specific things that make raising a child here just that much more expensive.
One is the cost of housing. Our housing bubble never burst. In fact, after COVID and WFM housing prices across the whole country started to mirror the high price of living in cities. There's no more moving to a house in the burbs and getting your family started - what used to be smaller cities have turned into virtual suburbs, and the housing prices are extremely high. House prices in places like London, Ontario (pop 400k, 200km from Toronto) have doubled in the last 4 years. Not only has moving to the burbs become too expensive, leaving the big city and moving to somewhere smaller has become too expensive.
Another is looking at secondary education. Over the past few decades we've seen the cost of university go up, but even then the price could be higher. We don't put the same limits on tuition for foreign students. There's been pushback recently to the amount of foreign students let into the country. Cutting that back would see the tuition for domestic students spike to make up the difference.
On the other end of parenthood is the terrible roll-out for our $10/day daycare plan. The federal government mandated it but left roll-out to the various provinces. If you can get into a daycare that uses the program, great! But it's not mandatory and we're going through a spate of daycares pulling out of the program. Can you imagine your daycare cost doubling or tripling overnight due to your daycare deciding they'd rather not participate in a funding program?
posted by thecjm at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
One is the cost of housing. Our housing bubble never burst. In fact, after COVID and WFM housing prices across the whole country started to mirror the high price of living in cities. There's no more moving to a house in the burbs and getting your family started - what used to be smaller cities have turned into virtual suburbs, and the housing prices are extremely high. House prices in places like London, Ontario (pop 400k, 200km from Toronto) have doubled in the last 4 years. Not only has moving to the burbs become too expensive, leaving the big city and moving to somewhere smaller has become too expensive.
Another is looking at secondary education. Over the past few decades we've seen the cost of university go up, but even then the price could be higher. We don't put the same limits on tuition for foreign students. There's been pushback recently to the amount of foreign students let into the country. Cutting that back would see the tuition for domestic students spike to make up the difference.
On the other end of parenthood is the terrible roll-out for our $10/day daycare plan. The federal government mandated it but left roll-out to the various provinces. If you can get into a daycare that uses the program, great! But it's not mandatory and we're going through a spate of daycares pulling out of the program. Can you imagine your daycare cost doubling or tripling overnight due to your daycare deciding they'd rather not participate in a funding program?
posted by thecjm at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
Nice to see that “police are terrible,” “cars are enslaving bikes” and the other common Metafilter tropes can make room for “children are the same as mass murder.”
To be a little more on-topic, I am a grandparent from the U. S. And wonder if raising kids is roughly as expensive here as in Canada?
Because it’s pretty expensive here too, starting with the cost of a birth. When my kids were born in the early-to-late 1980’s, we never paid a dime with ordinary health insurance. Now I understand it is low single-digit thousands of dollars with all the copayments and other stuff. I assume that part is free in Canada? Or not?
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
To be a little more on-topic, I am a grandparent from the U. S. And wonder if raising kids is roughly as expensive here as in Canada?
Because it’s pretty expensive here too, starting with the cost of a birth. When my kids were born in the early-to-late 1980’s, we never paid a dime with ordinary health insurance. Now I understand it is low single-digit thousands of dollars with all the copayments and other stuff. I assume that part is free in Canada? Or not?
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
The level of neo-Malthusianism in this thread is off the charts. If you are arguing from some variation on the premise that there are too many people, please refresh your familiarity with the way that premise is historically intertwined with racism, eugenics and per se and etc.
Recent studies continue to confirm that the most wealthy create vastly disproportionate carbon output, account for more than their share of waste/pollution, etc. We have a complete mess of wealth disparity and oligopolistic/monopolistic control of production decisions, but we throw away food every day, housing sits vacant, and green technologies suffer from underinvestment.
You may not want a child, and that's fine. I am pretty ambivalent about it, myself. But check yourself if you are shaming others. The world's problems are not the fault of ordinary people wanting to have children.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
Recent studies continue to confirm that the most wealthy create vastly disproportionate carbon output, account for more than their share of waste/pollution, etc. We have a complete mess of wealth disparity and oligopolistic/monopolistic control of production decisions, but we throw away food every day, housing sits vacant, and green technologies suffer from underinvestment.
You may not want a child, and that's fine. I am pretty ambivalent about it, myself. But check yourself if you are shaming others. The world's problems are not the fault of ordinary people wanting to have children.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2024 [17 favorites]
In Canada everyone is covered for medical - trips to the doctor, hospital, specialists, etc. Things like dentists and eyecare are not covered though there are starting to be coverage options for children, seniors, low income, etc. Private insurance, often through work, is still needed to make up the difference.
posted by thecjm at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Now I understand it is low single-digit thousands of dollars with all the copayments and other stuff. I assume that part is free in Canada? Or not?
That is definitely very US. I mean, the fact that parents here can (and do) lengthy mat or pat leave and still get a chunk of their income coming in* means in many ways we do better than the US, a place that has laughable and mostly non-existent mat leave.
*does not apply if self-employed unless you pay into EI (employment insurance)
posted by Kitteh at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2024
That is definitely very US. I mean, the fact that parents here can (and do) lengthy mat or pat leave and still get a chunk of their income coming in* means in many ways we do better than the US, a place that has laughable and mostly non-existent mat leave.
*does not apply if self-employed unless you pay into EI (employment insurance)
posted by Kitteh at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2024
Slight derail: the only medical stuff I pay for with insurance through my spouse's work is dental and eyes. Everything else is taken care of. But as thecjm notes, there are inroads into covering teeth and eyes through the government.
posted by Kitteh at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
One last piece of context for the Americans in the thread - if you run a mortgage calculator, the required household income to buy a house in Ontario is about the same as wanting to buy in California or NYC.
posted by thecjm at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [8 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2024 [8 favorites]
Mostly it comes down to having been driven mad by overcrowding.
posted by flabdablet at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
One last piece of context for the Americans in the thread - if you run a mortgage calculator, the required household income to buy a house in Ontario is about the same as wanting to buy in California or NYC.
One thing I don't think Americans understand is that, to the average middle class Canadian, houses in the US are still stupid cheap compared to here. Even with a conversion rate that does not favour us AT ALL. (But by the same metric, Canada is a fire sale for American visitors.) Like, a house of comparable value in the US is half the price compared to where I live and I don't even live in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area).
Aside from better weather in places, there's a reason why Canadians buy property in the US. It's cheaper!
posted by Kitteh at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
One thing I don't think Americans understand is that, to the average middle class Canadian, houses in the US are still stupid cheap compared to here. Even with a conversion rate that does not favour us AT ALL. (But by the same metric, Canada is a fire sale for American visitors.) Like, a house of comparable value in the US is half the price compared to where I live and I don't even live in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area).
Aside from better weather in places, there's a reason why Canadians buy property in the US. It's cheaper!
posted by Kitteh at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
What a thread! People's baser instincts and deep frustrations just spill out on topics like this, regardless of how many times they've been discussed here before, cutting loose as if society weren't full of all sorts of weird Catch-22s, trolley problems, and real pain associated with having kids or not having kids. I repeat, what a thread!
Yes, you can always count in every childrearing thread on hearing a couple of comments that sound like they were delivered by Ebenezer "better that they should die and decrease the surplus population" Scrooge.
Back to the topic of the excellent article, I fully cop to having enough privilege to win the Canadian Dream lottery. We bought our three-bedroom townhouse in the GTA in 2010 for about three times our family income. We had fantasies of using this as our starter house and flipping into a semi or even a completely detached house like our parents' generation did in the 1980s. Well, we're still here, and we're never leaving. Our house's value has appreciated so much that on paper, we are millionaires (even after deducting our remaining mortgage). But it's meaningless. If we sold and tried to buy a detached house in our neighborhood, even with several hundred thousand dollars of equity from this place, we'd be doubling our mortgage. Also, Americans may not realize this, but mortgage interest rates in Canada are usually only available for 1-5 years, not for the entire life of the mortgage. Every five years at most, you're looking at your payment changing, which kills people if you locked in at a low rate in a rising interest rate environment.
The very uncomfortable truth is that the Millennial families who do well in major Canadian cities usually have some combination of the following factors:
1. Well-off Boomer parents with pensions or substantial investments who are willing to contribute significant gifts without strings attached such as a down payment, university tuition or a new car.
2. The two partners have two incomes from some combination of corporate / professional / entrepreneurship career (I see a lot of corporate bankers with teacher spouses, two dentists, a police officer and an owner of a housecleaning service, etc etc) - one spouse makes the big bucks and the other has a stable benefits plan and pension for security.
3. Fewer than three kids, and usually only one; if you have one kid and #1 and #2 you can usually swing a private school tuition. Bonus points if the grandparents are willing and healthy enough to pick up enough childcare to avoid daycare (my kids only went one day a week to a local daycare, because my parents were willing to care for them the rest of the week - probably the single greatest piece of privilege my family has experienced).
It's grim out there. There are not many easy paths to high paying careers and good quality homes. Even though we've won the lottery - so far - all of that anxiety has been transferred onto our worries for our kids. We fully expect that we will end up living with one of them to help them with their homeownership and childcare. Yes, having socialized health care and better maternity benefits helps, but there are still massive inequalities growing in our society. No wonder people are angry.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2024 [10 favorites]
Yes, you can always count in every childrearing thread on hearing a couple of comments that sound like they were delivered by Ebenezer "better that they should die and decrease the surplus population" Scrooge.
Back to the topic of the excellent article, I fully cop to having enough privilege to win the Canadian Dream lottery. We bought our three-bedroom townhouse in the GTA in 2010 for about three times our family income. We had fantasies of using this as our starter house and flipping into a semi or even a completely detached house like our parents' generation did in the 1980s. Well, we're still here, and we're never leaving. Our house's value has appreciated so much that on paper, we are millionaires (even after deducting our remaining mortgage). But it's meaningless. If we sold and tried to buy a detached house in our neighborhood, even with several hundred thousand dollars of equity from this place, we'd be doubling our mortgage. Also, Americans may not realize this, but mortgage interest rates in Canada are usually only available for 1-5 years, not for the entire life of the mortgage. Every five years at most, you're looking at your payment changing, which kills people if you locked in at a low rate in a rising interest rate environment.
The very uncomfortable truth is that the Millennial families who do well in major Canadian cities usually have some combination of the following factors:
1. Well-off Boomer parents with pensions or substantial investments who are willing to contribute significant gifts without strings attached such as a down payment, university tuition or a new car.
2. The two partners have two incomes from some combination of corporate / professional / entrepreneurship career (I see a lot of corporate bankers with teacher spouses, two dentists, a police officer and an owner of a housecleaning service, etc etc) - one spouse makes the big bucks and the other has a stable benefits plan and pension for security.
3. Fewer than three kids, and usually only one; if you have one kid and #1 and #2 you can usually swing a private school tuition. Bonus points if the grandparents are willing and healthy enough to pick up enough childcare to avoid daycare (my kids only went one day a week to a local daycare, because my parents were willing to care for them the rest of the week - probably the single greatest piece of privilege my family has experienced).
It's grim out there. There are not many easy paths to high paying careers and good quality homes. Even though we've won the lottery - so far - all of that anxiety has been transferred onto our worries for our kids. We fully expect that we will end up living with one of them to help them with their homeownership and childcare. Yes, having socialized health care and better maternity benefits helps, but there are still massive inequalities growing in our society. No wonder people are angry.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2024 [10 favorites]
fortitude25, I have posted here before about how much Boomer/Gen X parents can help their kids up here; I've never quite encountered anything similar in the US, but then I think Canadians put a heavy heavy emphasis on homeownership.
(this is not to say the US doesn't, but it was never part of my life growing up as we couldn't afford to buy, so we never got the "you must buy a house" talk)
posted by Kitteh at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2024
(this is not to say the US doesn't, but it was never part of my life growing up as we couldn't afford to buy, so we never got the "you must buy a house" talk)
posted by Kitteh at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2024
What on earth is wrong with people on this website?
We live in stressful times and many people are on their last nerve.
Also, the internet obv. makes everyone more horrible than they would ordinarily be (mostly).
Thankfully less so here at MeFi, even with the occasional children-as-handguns metaphor.
posted by reedbird_hill at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
We live in stressful times and many people are on their last nerve.
Also, the internet obv. makes everyone more horrible than they would ordinarily be (mostly).
Thankfully less so here at MeFi, even with the occasional children-as-handguns metaphor.
posted by reedbird_hill at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
if you have one kid and #1 and #2 you can usually swing a private school tuition
Born in Alberta, I have never known a single person who went to or sent their kids to a private school. So I just want Americans reading this to know - that's not really a thing here unless maybe you are firmly upper class and/or mingling with old money peeps? And being able to go to a private school is not a normal expectation for a decent, successful life in Canada. But owning a home and going to university certainly are.
posted by kitcat at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2024 [10 favorites]
Born in Alberta, I have never known a single person who went to or sent their kids to a private school. So I just want Americans reading this to know - that's not really a thing here unless maybe you are firmly upper class and/or mingling with old money peeps? And being able to go to a private school is not a normal expectation for a decent, successful life in Canada. But owning a home and going to university certainly are.
posted by kitcat at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2024 [10 favorites]
In an article describing the near 300K price per child of creating another Canadian, the idea that creating another Canadian does not have a disproportionate and unsustainable impact on the world is amusing. It's not 300K spent on virtual goods, it's real physical material impacts, its energy, and much of it oil,
its stuff, plastic and metal, its food, and its a lot of meat and dairy.
Also the idea that the average Canadian, by virtue of being average within Canada, is somehow akin to the impact of the average person on the planet, and thus not subject to any disproportional environmental impact is also amusing.
And sure, shaming people online is uncomfortable. But lets skip from shame to policy. I propose that the higher taxes imposed on childless Canadians (amortized around $2,000 per year) be removed and instead imposed onto Canadians having children. Furthermore, I propose that Canadaians (and all other high-consuming first-worlders) pay their proportional share into the loss and damage fund.
If high-consumers can't see that high-consumption has a negative impact on others, then its important that they get reminded of it. Because they are murdering people with their pollution and with their competitive exclusion from the resources of the planet. You can get your cobalt and lithium from all over the planet but can't seem to send any food back. You are somehow not responsible for what you put in the air and water, because you are only in the top 12% of polluters, not the top 1% and the amazing moral line you draw is always above your impact.
I know it's rude to take a post that is soliciting sympathy for Canada soon-to-be or new parents, and turn it into an opportunity to point out that their actions disproportionately harm people. But its not a metaphor that expanding Canadian society by another high-consumer causes the deaths of other people. Its a physical fact. its not restricted to canada, it's not at its greatest extreme in canada (each Billionaire's child causes the death of many more people than an average Canadian). But that's the thing about morality, being able to point to a nazi and saying "he killed so many more people than I did, so I should be allowed to kill without shame these 3 or 4", well it's not just rude, its evil.
Yes, it's evil to create more high-consuming kids, while watching other kids starve, while funding other kids to get bombed, while your lifestyle chokes and poisons and maims others. Personal choices have collective consequences. Accuse me of whatever you want, your pollution still murders people. Your choices have consequences. Return the land you occupy to its peoples, stop mining and logging and drilling the earth to poison its air and water and soil, stop imprisoning and torturing animals for your pleasure/preferences, and stop making more 300K babies.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2024
its stuff, plastic and metal, its food, and its a lot of meat and dairy.
Also the idea that the average Canadian, by virtue of being average within Canada, is somehow akin to the impact of the average person on the planet, and thus not subject to any disproportional environmental impact is also amusing.
And sure, shaming people online is uncomfortable. But lets skip from shame to policy. I propose that the higher taxes imposed on childless Canadians (amortized around $2,000 per year) be removed and instead imposed onto Canadians having children. Furthermore, I propose that Canadaians (and all other high-consuming first-worlders) pay their proportional share into the loss and damage fund.
If high-consumers can't see that high-consumption has a negative impact on others, then its important that they get reminded of it. Because they are murdering people with their pollution and with their competitive exclusion from the resources of the planet. You can get your cobalt and lithium from all over the planet but can't seem to send any food back. You are somehow not responsible for what you put in the air and water, because you are only in the top 12% of polluters, not the top 1% and the amazing moral line you draw is always above your impact.
I know it's rude to take a post that is soliciting sympathy for Canada soon-to-be or new parents, and turn it into an opportunity to point out that their actions disproportionately harm people. But its not a metaphor that expanding Canadian society by another high-consumer causes the deaths of other people. Its a physical fact. its not restricted to canada, it's not at its greatest extreme in canada (each Billionaire's child causes the death of many more people than an average Canadian). But that's the thing about morality, being able to point to a nazi and saying "he killed so many more people than I did, so I should be allowed to kill without shame these 3 or 4", well it's not just rude, its evil.
Yes, it's evil to create more high-consuming kids, while watching other kids starve, while funding other kids to get bombed, while your lifestyle chokes and poisons and maims others. Personal choices have collective consequences. Accuse me of whatever you want, your pollution still murders people. Your choices have consequences. Return the land you occupy to its peoples, stop mining and logging and drilling the earth to poison its air and water and soil, stop imprisoning and torturing animals for your pleasure/preferences, and stop making more 300K babies.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2024
fortitude25, I have posted here before about how much Boomer/Gen X parents can help their kids up here; I've never quite encountered anything similar in the US, but then I think Canadians put a heavy heavy emphasis on homeownership.
In my experience, it's because end-of-life care is such a dread spectre that even comparatively wealthy boomers aren't gifting their kids with down payments because they're anticipating that the next 10-20 years will consist of their assets being slowly siphoned by increasingly-VC-backed end-of-life care, until/unless they run out of money, at which point it's Medicaid and penury for everyone.
posted by Mayor West at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
In my experience, it's because end-of-life care is such a dread spectre that even comparatively wealthy boomers aren't gifting their kids with down payments because they're anticipating that the next 10-20 years will consist of their assets being slowly siphoned by increasingly-VC-backed end-of-life care, until/unless they run out of money, at which point it's Medicaid and penury for everyone.
posted by Mayor West at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
"Recent studies continue to confirm that the most wealthy create vastly disproportionate carbon output, account for more than their share of waste/pollution, etc. We have a complete mess of wealth disparity and oligopolistic/monopolistic control of production decisions, but we throw away food every day, housing sits vacant, and green technologies suffer from underinvestment.
You may not want a child, and that's fine. I am pretty ambivalent about it, myself. But check yourself if you are shaming others. The world's problems are not the fault of ordinary people wanting to have children."
I thought the argument was that because people living in the first world are the most wealthy and use the most environmental resources, the impact lies disproportionately among the people who we *would* consider ordinary.
It's been 44 years of Reaganomics and what we had has not only been destroyed, I'm not sure it can ever come back without bloody revolution.
Did Canada have their own version of Reaganomics?
posted by Selena777 at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
You may not want a child, and that's fine. I am pretty ambivalent about it, myself. But check yourself if you are shaming others. The world's problems are not the fault of ordinary people wanting to have children."
I thought the argument was that because people living in the first world are the most wealthy and use the most environmental resources, the impact lies disproportionately among the people who we *would* consider ordinary.
It's been 44 years of Reaganomics and what we had has not only been destroyed, I'm not sure it can ever come back without bloody revolution.
Did Canada have their own version of Reaganomics?
posted by Selena777 at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
I really, really, really wish they hadn't chosen to highlight the plights of an actor/podcaster/playwright, an artist, a furniture fabricator, a cookbook author, a journalist, and a musician, with a waste management manager and an anesthesiologist thrown in to ground things slightly in reality.
Housing and childcare issues are absolutely real and suck for everyone, and thank god they acknowledge status/consumerist bullshit, but holy shit, blithely ignoring these people's professions are also very much status-based (And no, that doesn't mean their work has no value, and yes, people with regular jobs are facing the same challenges) makes my head spin.
I find it very difficult not compare my family's situation against these examples and there's more than a little class ressentiment fueling my lack of sympathy, but how it's framed - No en suite laundry? Pass! Can't find a home in 2nd-most expensive city in the country? Guess I'll move in with mom in the most expensive city in the country! - reeks to me of bewilderment born of frustrated privilege.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:32 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Housing and childcare issues are absolutely real and suck for everyone, and thank god they acknowledge status/consumerist bullshit, but holy shit, blithely ignoring these people's professions are also very much status-based (And no, that doesn't mean their work has no value, and yes, people with regular jobs are facing the same challenges) makes my head spin.
I find it very difficult not compare my family's situation against these examples and there's more than a little class ressentiment fueling my lack of sympathy, but how it's framed - No en suite laundry? Pass! Can't find a home in 2nd-most expensive city in the country? Guess I'll move in with mom in the most expensive city in the country! - reeks to me of bewilderment born of frustrated privilege.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:32 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
One thing I don't think Americans understand is that, to the average middle class Canadian, houses in the US are still stupid cheap compared to here.
posted by Kitteh at 3:09 PM on December 2
This is really interesting to me because I recently moved from Nashville, Tennessee to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and housing prices (if you ignore the exchange rate) are almost identical (with the exchange rate, US houses are way more, but people earn similar amounts for similar jobs in Canadian money so the exchange rate seems irrelevant to me in comparing an-American-in-America and a-Canadian-in-Canada). But I looked up some figures for other cities (average home prices for the province of Ontario are $878,000!) and it looks like that's only because of the specific cities I moved from and to.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 3:09 PM on December 2
This is really interesting to me because I recently moved from Nashville, Tennessee to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and housing prices (if you ignore the exchange rate) are almost identical (with the exchange rate, US houses are way more, but people earn similar amounts for similar jobs in Canadian money so the exchange rate seems irrelevant to me in comparing an-American-in-America and a-Canadian-in-Canada). But I looked up some figures for other cities (average home prices for the province of Ontario are $878,000!) and it looks like that's only because of the specific cities I moved from and to.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
people, people: the correct consequentialist perspective on environmental degradation is FIRST EAT THE BILLIONAIRES.
then you can argue over the relative merits of non-childbearing vs self-termination
jeez.
posted by lalochezia at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
then you can argue over the relative merits of non-childbearing vs self-termination
jeez.
posted by lalochezia at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
My son and I and cousins were at the Santa Claus parade along with my son's friend from school and his parents. My son's friend's parents immigrated to Canada as adults, I think. My cousins and I grew up in Toronto as did my son and the cousins' kids. Those of us who were locally raised were commenting about what the parade was like when we were young. Sure the whole parade route is still lined, but it's lined one-family deep. It used to be a mosh put from the edge of the sidwalk to right up against the building, with kid on parents' shoulders so the could see, kids on top of mailboxes and trash bins, older kids climbed up and hanging off every hydro pole like monkeys, all the windows above the stores would have faces pressed against the windows, people in lawn chairs on the rooftops. Now it's one sad row of families*. I said to my cousin "There are no kids. Nobody can afford to have kids anymore." She thinks that will change now with $10/day daycare, but I'm not so sure.
*ok, I just googled to find some pics of the Santa Claus Parade in the good old days and I found pictures of some crowds that look like the good old days and were from this year and last. So maybe I just now the super great secret spot where things aren't too crowded. Memail if you want a good spot for next year, because our place has been a single row of families for the past 5 years or so.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
*ok, I just googled to find some pics of the Santa Claus Parade in the good old days and I found pictures of some crowds that look like the good old days and were from this year and last. So maybe I just now the super great secret spot where things aren't too crowded. Memail if you want a good spot for next year, because our place has been a single row of families for the past 5 years or so.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Wife and I are looking at a decent, not great retirement. We saved, are still saving. I plan on working until 67-70 though, if I can stay employed despite ageism. If we had a kid I think we would be in much, much worse shape than we are now.
I don't know how people do it. I work at a social services nonprofit that provides programs to help support families and individuals who are at/below poverty level. I see young moms show up with four kids in tow. I'm sincerely worried about what the world will look like for those kids ten years from now.
posted by SoberHighland at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
I don't know how people do it. I work at a social services nonprofit that provides programs to help support families and individuals who are at/below poverty level. I see young moms show up with four kids in tow. I'm sincerely worried about what the world will look like for those kids ten years from now.
posted by SoberHighland at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
But lets skip from shame to policy. I propose that the higher taxes imposed on childless Canadians (amortized around $2,000 per year) be removed and instead imposed onto Canadians having children. Furthermore, I propose that Canadaians (and all other high-consuming first-worlders) pay their proportional share into the loss and damage fund.
The naivete here is embarassing. What are you talking about? First of all, I think you're picturing that 300K price per child being spent on mountains of high-end strollers, gadgets, toys, clothes etc. When the vast majority of that cost is housing, food, daycare and university.
Furthermore, when parents buy services - daycare, extracurricular lessons, tutoring, speech therapy, that sort of thing - that's jobs for people and PST and GST going to the government. The additional goods we buy that are discretionary - that's also contributing tax dollars going to the government. I'd like to see hard numbers on the difference of tax dollars being collected from parent vs. non-parents to support your ideas on this.
posted by kitcat at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
The naivete here is embarassing. What are you talking about? First of all, I think you're picturing that 300K price per child being spent on mountains of high-end strollers, gadgets, toys, clothes etc. When the vast majority of that cost is housing, food, daycare and university.
Furthermore, when parents buy services - daycare, extracurricular lessons, tutoring, speech therapy, that sort of thing - that's jobs for people and PST and GST going to the government. The additional goods we buy that are discretionary - that's also contributing tax dollars going to the government. I'd like to see hard numbers on the difference of tax dollars being collected from parent vs. non-parents to support your ideas on this.
posted by kitcat at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2024 [11 favorites]
Creating additional children of your own instead of adopting, fostering or assisting others with existing children is both selfish and abusive of others.
If you hear someone loudly telling you to go fuck yourself all the way from Orange County in California, that's my wife who was adopted as a baby by a couple who believed in your "both selfish and abusive" horseshit.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
If you hear someone loudly telling you to go fuck yourself all the way from Orange County in California, that's my wife who was adopted as a baby by a couple who believed in your "both selfish and abusive" horseshit.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2024 [13 favorites]
(average home prices for the province of Ontario are $878,000!)
Please note that's the average home price in the province. That's not houses. It includes all the condos in Toronto, many of which cost more than $878,000 and it includes houses in isolated rural areas, which keep that average low. If you were looking at houses in cities, it would be higher. A quick realtor.ca search shows 3154 houses for sale in Toronto right now, 157 (~5%) of them are under $900,000.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
Please note that's the average home price in the province. That's not houses. It includes all the condos in Toronto, many of which cost more than $878,000 and it includes houses in isolated rural areas, which keep that average low. If you were looking at houses in cities, it would be higher. A quick realtor.ca search shows 3154 houses for sale in Toronto right now, 157 (~5%) of them are under $900,000.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
Please note that's the average home price in the province.
Thanks, If only I had a penguin..., that's helpful!
Did Canada have their own version of Reaganomics?
Selena777, yeah basically. Conservatives in Canada follow the same blueprint but have been less successful than conservatives in the US at taking control of the narrative and all levels of government. Canadians as a whole are further left than Americans, so that helps. A couple data points I could find on a quick google: 1. Canadian corporate tax rates have been about halved (50.9% to 26.5%) since 1981, with big drops in the '80s (about 10%) and 2000s (about 15%) - chart here, click the "max" tab; and 2. the percentage of Canadian union members "fell from 38% in 1981 to 29% in 2022. Two-thirds of the decline took place from 1981 to 1997..."
posted by joannemerriam at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Thanks, If only I had a penguin..., that's helpful!
Did Canada have their own version of Reaganomics?
Selena777, yeah basically. Conservatives in Canada follow the same blueprint but have been less successful than conservatives in the US at taking control of the narrative and all levels of government. Canadians as a whole are further left than Americans, so that helps. A couple data points I could find on a quick google: 1. Canadian corporate tax rates have been about halved (50.9% to 26.5%) since 1981, with big drops in the '80s (about 10%) and 2000s (about 15%) - chart here, click the "max" tab; and 2. the percentage of Canadian union members "fell from 38% in 1981 to 29% in 2022. Two-thirds of the decline took place from 1981 to 1997..."
posted by joannemerriam at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
the Aristocrats!
posted by chavenet at 12:09 PM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 12:09 PM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
I think the "300K" number is skewing the discussion. Frankly, an average of $15K per year in 2024 dollars to raise and sustain another human being over, what, 20 or so years, does not actually seem like an outlandish number to me. How much do people think it costs to exist in North America?
posted by AndrewInDC at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
The $293K number is the cost per child from birth to age 22 (keeping in mind that kids are not leaving home as early as they used to)
Someone else can do the math here if they like. Here's what the Statistics Canada article says about the $293K number:
Factoring in the cost of housing, transportation, food and clothing
The study found that housing is by far the largest single expense for families raising children, accounting for about one-quarter to one-third of total spending per child from birth up to the age of 22, depending on family type and income level.
For two-parent families with two children, transportation is the second-largest expense in raising a child (18% to 20% of total spending per child), while for one-parent families with two children, food is the second-largest expense (18% to 20%).
Clothing and health care each account for less than 10% of overall expenditures for both one- and two-parent families.
posted by kitcat at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Someone else can do the math here if they like. Here's what the Statistics Canada article says about the $293K number:
Factoring in the cost of housing, transportation, food and clothing
The study found that housing is by far the largest single expense for families raising children, accounting for about one-quarter to one-third of total spending per child from birth up to the age of 22, depending on family type and income level.
For two-parent families with two children, transportation is the second-largest expense in raising a child (18% to 20% of total spending per child), while for one-parent families with two children, food is the second-largest expense (18% to 20%).
Clothing and health care each account for less than 10% of overall expenditures for both one- and two-parent families.
posted by kitcat at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
But that's the thing about morality, being able to point to a nazi and saying "he killed so many more people than I did, so I should be allowed to kill without shame these 3 or 4", well it's not just rude, its evil.
Okay, at this point I have to ask...are you fucking listening to yourself? Or is this somehow some kind of "OW THE EDGE" performance-art doom bit that we've all been given unwilling comp tickets to?
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
Okay, at this point I have to ask...are you fucking listening to yourself? Or is this somehow some kind of "OW THE EDGE" performance-art doom bit that we've all been given unwilling comp tickets to?
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
The $293K number is the cost per child from birth to age 22 (keeping in mind that kids are not leaving home as early as they used to)
Do they count or subtract income that would be coming in from a fully grown adult?
posted by Selena777 at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2024
Do they count or subtract income that would be coming in from a fully grown adult?
posted by Selena777 at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2024
Mod note: Several deletions made and a couple left for context. Please refresh the thread if needed. Let's avoid attacking other members by calling them names. Also, please drop any comments condoning legally mandated sterilization, calling people evil for having kids, joking with suicide or wishing violence upon others.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2024 [9 favorites]
Having a child is not like painting your house white or blue, its not just a personal choice. It's like firing a gun into a crowd.
From the Sierra Club, on the racist issues with the overpopulation trope: “We as environmentalists must flatly reject this theory[of population reduction being necessary]. It is both factually incorrect and deeply racist.”
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2024 [16 favorites]
From the Sierra Club, on the racist issues with the overpopulation trope: “We as environmentalists must flatly reject this theory[of population reduction being necessary]. It is both factually incorrect and deeply racist.”
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2024 [16 favorites]
Do they count or subtract income that would be coming in from a fully grown adult?
For anyone interested, the full study is here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm
I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. A quick scan tells me that they counted such a 'child's' income into the total household income.
posted by kitcat at 12:46 PM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
For anyone interested, the full study is here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm
I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. A quick scan tells me that they counted such a 'child's' income into the total household income.
posted by kitcat at 12:46 PM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
I refuse to read that article until they add a table to summarize that cost... so I asked chatgpt to do it for me and it looked ok at a glance but turned out to be garbage upon a real read.
There's a bunch of those costs that seem to fold into other costs you may or may not have had to face, like housing & transportation. Or course if you went by bike/public transit and lived with roommates you may want to change your situation and that would be more expensive. But if you already had your place and a car (or live a metropolitan area well deserved by public transport/bike lanes) you may not be facing much additional costs.
Daycare & parental leave are the real killer. I'm particularly glad I live in Quebec where we've had the public affordable daycares and universal parental leaves for a long time, this program literally changes lives, especially for women who traditionally are the care giver who'd stay home. Program is not perfect, and there are accessibility issues, especially in certain areas, but I'll take that over nothing.
We also have the lowest university tuitions of all North America, thanks to the students who went all in on the 2012 strike to prevent a sudden jump in the cost. This strike cost me a lot of sleep (I lived right next to where they manifested every night for a few months) and I was a bit grumpy about it when it happened, but in retrospect it was necessary.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
There's a bunch of those costs that seem to fold into other costs you may or may not have had to face, like housing & transportation. Or course if you went by bike/public transit and lived with roommates you may want to change your situation and that would be more expensive. But if you already had your place and a car (or live a metropolitan area well deserved by public transport/bike lanes) you may not be facing much additional costs.
Daycare & parental leave are the real killer. I'm particularly glad I live in Quebec where we've had the public affordable daycares and universal parental leaves for a long time, this program literally changes lives, especially for women who traditionally are the care giver who'd stay home. Program is not perfect, and there are accessibility issues, especially in certain areas, but I'll take that over nothing.
We also have the lowest university tuitions of all North America, thanks to the students who went all in on the 2012 strike to prevent a sudden jump in the cost. This strike cost me a lot of sleep (I lived right next to where they manifested every night for a few months) and I was a bit grumpy about it when it happened, but in retrospect it was necessary.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Did I accidentally open Reddit? Whence the advocacy for forced sterilization?
posted by jy4m at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
I think the big difference about attendance for the Santa Claus parade from back in the day to the present is that now more families have better things to do than go see it. My family saw the parade a couple of years ago and even though my younger kids loves Christmas he hasn't expressed any interest to go see it again.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2024
There's a bunch of those costs that seem to fold into other costs you may or may not have had to face, like housing & transportation.
If you're already in a house or large apartment when you have kids, then yes. But if you're in a one-bedroom shoebox and need to move to somewhere with room for a family then there is of course going to be a cost.
Transportation also comes into play. My kids can ride on the TTC for free! But we also got a car for Costco runs and trips to see the grandparents. We live in the city near plenty of transit opportunities so getting a car was a choice. If/when we move to a bigger place out of the city then having a car is a must. So kids = bigger place in the burbs = gotta pay for that AND a car.
Quebec does have better child care and post-secondary costs. But their government has also made it very clear they're not interested in me (an Anglo immigrant who never had high school French) moving there.
posted by thecjm at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
If you're already in a house or large apartment when you have kids, then yes. But if you're in a one-bedroom shoebox and need to move to somewhere with room for a family then there is of course going to be a cost.
Transportation also comes into play. My kids can ride on the TTC for free! But we also got a car for Costco runs and trips to see the grandparents. We live in the city near plenty of transit opportunities so getting a car was a choice. If/when we move to a bigger place out of the city then having a car is a must. So kids = bigger place in the burbs = gotta pay for that AND a car.
Quebec does have better child care and post-secondary costs. But their government has also made it very clear they're not interested in me (an Anglo immigrant who never had high school French) moving there.
posted by thecjm at 1:10 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
I suspect with the immense financial loss of fleecing foreign students curtailed by the Liberals, universities will force a rise in tuition for resident students to make up for the shortfall. And I also suspect that if PP and his crew are in power when this happens, they would love to make sure less Canadians are university-educated and would say, "Yeah, you totally should."
Again, our taxes are high up here. I am okay with our taxes being high to pay for a good many things ALL Canadians can enjoy or make use of.
posted by Kitteh at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
Again, our taxes are high up here. I am okay with our taxes being high to pay for a good many things ALL Canadians can enjoy or make use of.
posted by Kitteh at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2024 [6 favorites]
I got a car when I went back to work after having my son because I literally could not get from daycare opening time to daycare closing time on transit and still work am 8 hr day. Of course my spouse also helped but that was the reality. Now I have it to get from work to X activity pick up. I am so looking forward to going back down a vehicle in a few years.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:49 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 1:49 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
There are certainly differences between the USA and Canada
We can't deduct mortgage interest payments but we do not pay a capital gains tax on the sale of the house.
We ,by and large, have free health care ( yeah there are exceptions but it's getting better)
We also have the CCB or child care benefit,
It is not a tax credit. But a non taxable monthly payment per child
According to Stats Can
" Child benefits are the largest component of government transfers for couples with children, accounting for 42% of the overall government transfers paid to these families in 2021. For example, most couple families with children (92%) received child benefits in 2021 and among these families with child benefits, the median amount received was $5,900 and the average was $8,300."
so 8300 times 17 years is $ 141,000 tax free child payments..
It is income dependent, and also on number and age of kids.
Again from Stats Can
Example
Fatima has:
two children under 6
an adjusted family net income of $125,000
Fatima would receive $7,207.96 (about $600.66 per month) for the July 2024 to June 2025 period.
--
Fatima has:
two children under 6
an adjusted family net income of $60,000
Fatima would receive $12,401.77 ($1,033.48 per month) for the July 2024 to June 2025 period.
----
posted by yyz at 2:00 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
We can't deduct mortgage interest payments but we do not pay a capital gains tax on the sale of the house.
We ,by and large, have free health care ( yeah there are exceptions but it's getting better)
We also have the CCB or child care benefit,
It is not a tax credit. But a non taxable monthly payment per child
According to Stats Can
" Child benefits are the largest component of government transfers for couples with children, accounting for 42% of the overall government transfers paid to these families in 2021. For example, most couple families with children (92%) received child benefits in 2021 and among these families with child benefits, the median amount received was $5,900 and the average was $8,300."
so 8300 times 17 years is $ 141,000 tax free child payments..
It is income dependent, and also on number and age of kids.
Again from Stats Can
Example
Fatima has:
two children under 6
an adjusted family net income of $125,000
Fatima would receive $7,207.96 (about $600.66 per month) for the July 2024 to June 2025 period.
--
Fatima has:
two children under 6
an adjusted family net income of $60,000
Fatima would receive $12,401.77 ($1,033.48 per month) for the July 2024 to June 2025 period.
----
posted by yyz at 2:00 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Yeah, we can't in the USA deduct mortgage interest anymore I think. Been a few years since I did my own taxes, but seem to remember they took that out a while back.
posted by Windopaene at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2024
posted by Windopaene at 2:32 PM on December 2, 2024
Yeah, we can't in the USA deduct mortgage interest anymore I think.
We definitely can.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:40 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
We definitely can.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:40 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
My bad. Thought that went away a while back. As I said, stopped doing my own a while back.
posted by Windopaene at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2024 [1 favorite]
So people should stop having children here because it leads to children dying there because…
*checks notes
…human life has intrinsic value?
Is there someone we can check with to see whether our particular children are worthy of existence based on the relative values of here and there? I want to make sure we’re all stack ranking their intrinsic value correctly.
Otherwise I’m just kind of left to pick a favorite kid arbitrarily. I guess I’ll pick my own.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 3:35 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
*checks notes
…human life has intrinsic value?
Is there someone we can check with to see whether our particular children are worthy of existence based on the relative values of here and there? I want to make sure we’re all stack ranking their intrinsic value correctly.
Otherwise I’m just kind of left to pick a favorite kid arbitrarily. I guess I’ll pick my own.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 3:35 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
There's a bunch of those costs that seem to fold into other costs you may or may not have had to face, like housing & transportation.
If you want to do this version, the Fraser institute (Right wing nut jobs) did it. Back in 2013, they estimated that it costs between $3000 and $4500 per year. They got this number not by examining what people spend but by deciding what people should spend and deciding what should and shouldn't count. Housing costs don't count because parents would live somewhere no matter what and if they moved somewhere bigger that's a choice they made, not a necessity required by kids. Childcare doesn't count because lots of parents don't pay for childcare, therefore childcare shouldn't count (I shit you not). Anything to accommodate a kid with special needs doesn't count because lots of kids don't have special needs. Camps? Recreation? Lessons? Sports? Not a necessity. Doesn't count. Food? We're not looking up what people spend or what kids eat? We took the Canada Food Guide to No Frills and found the cheapest possible way to meet the guidelines.
Seriously, in their own words...
However, all parents must at least cover the basic needs of their child and that amount can be estimated within a fairly narrow range. That amount, between $3,000 and $4,500, was my estimate, was drawn from calculations done by Health Canada (Nutritious Food Basket) and a prominent social agency helping lower income families with budgeting on the full range of necessities.
But why isn't daycare in the list of necessities? Doesn't every family with children have daycare expenses? No they don't. In fact, in 2009, 80 per cent of couple families with one child report no expenditure on daycare. Overall, 71 per cent of couple families with children and 84 per cent of single parent families with children spend nothing on daycare. [Mefite note: that would presumably include all the parents of say school age and high school students, all the families still on mat leave/parental leave, and of course all the families who WISH they could afford daycare and can't] For families for which daycare is a relevant expense, it should be included. But why would we have it in every family's budget when the majority don't have that expense?
The same rationale applies to housing. Children live in the housing their parents have already acquired with 72 per cent of parents with children owning their own home. Except for some additional operating costs (like hot water and supplies), it would be hard to justify attaching part of the mortgage and property taxes to the child. These are costs to the parents and their parental lifestyle. In measuring the cost of a child, we need to examine those costs that parents would not already have. While there may be cases where parents incur extra costs because they choose to move to a larger home to accommodate an additional child, not all families raising children incur these costs." from here.
And wait, even that $3000-$4500 might be a little high...
"These cost estimates exclude any savings strategies such as home gardens, sewing and knitting clothing, couponing and taking advantage of sales, own repair and maintenance work in the home, etc." from here.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:42 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
If you want to do this version, the Fraser institute (Right wing nut jobs) did it. Back in 2013, they estimated that it costs between $3000 and $4500 per year. They got this number not by examining what people spend but by deciding what people should spend and deciding what should and shouldn't count. Housing costs don't count because parents would live somewhere no matter what and if they moved somewhere bigger that's a choice they made, not a necessity required by kids. Childcare doesn't count because lots of parents don't pay for childcare, therefore childcare shouldn't count (I shit you not). Anything to accommodate a kid with special needs doesn't count because lots of kids don't have special needs. Camps? Recreation? Lessons? Sports? Not a necessity. Doesn't count. Food? We're not looking up what people spend or what kids eat? We took the Canada Food Guide to No Frills and found the cheapest possible way to meet the guidelines.
Seriously, in their own words...
However, all parents must at least cover the basic needs of their child and that amount can be estimated within a fairly narrow range. That amount, between $3,000 and $4,500, was my estimate, was drawn from calculations done by Health Canada (Nutritious Food Basket) and a prominent social agency helping lower income families with budgeting on the full range of necessities.
But why isn't daycare in the list of necessities? Doesn't every family with children have daycare expenses? No they don't. In fact, in 2009, 80 per cent of couple families with one child report no expenditure on daycare. Overall, 71 per cent of couple families with children and 84 per cent of single parent families with children spend nothing on daycare. [Mefite note: that would presumably include all the parents of say school age and high school students, all the families still on mat leave/parental leave, and of course all the families who WISH they could afford daycare and can't] For families for which daycare is a relevant expense, it should be included. But why would we have it in every family's budget when the majority don't have that expense?
The same rationale applies to housing. Children live in the housing their parents have already acquired with 72 per cent of parents with children owning their own home. Except for some additional operating costs (like hot water and supplies), it would be hard to justify attaching part of the mortgage and property taxes to the child. These are costs to the parents and their parental lifestyle. In measuring the cost of a child, we need to examine those costs that parents would not already have. While there may be cases where parents incur extra costs because they choose to move to a larger home to accommodate an additional child, not all families raising children incur these costs." from here.
And wait, even that $3000-$4500 might be a little high...
"These cost estimates exclude any savings strategies such as home gardens, sewing and knitting clothing, couponing and taking advantage of sales, own repair and maintenance work in the home, etc." from here.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:42 PM on December 2, 2024 [4 favorites]
Suburban and rural Ontario is full of petty landlords who've leveraged their 90s and 00s home purchases to buy rental income. Now they're pushing to get rid of capital gains taxes. They see it as the only way to get a foothold on a reasonably comfortable retirement…like the kind their parents had. They can’t afford the bubble to burst. A lot of them also think that private healthcare would be better than the underfunded public system. The boys at the top will claw back every cent and the dipshits of this province will continue to blame it on immigration. I saw a Trump lawn sign on the weekend. I’m getting sick of the dipshits around here.
posted by brachiopod at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by brachiopod at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
Did Canada have their own version of Reaganomics?
Neoliberalism, same as in town.
posted by Reyturner at 6:08 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
Neoliberalism, same as in town.
posted by Reyturner at 6:08 PM on December 2, 2024 [7 favorites]
If only I had a penguin... yeah that Fraser institute story is bonkers, and seem to be written in absolute bad faith.
Also, it's very hard to make Canada wide comparaisons, your situation as a parent on downtown Toronto vs lets says in a suburb of Quebec city will drastically change your costs.
Which is why I despise those walls of text, give us spreadsheets, simulators, charts that will make those numbers more meaningful and people will be able to relate those to their situation.
In fact, in 2009, 80 per cent of couple families with one child report no expenditure on daycare
If they indeed include childs in school that's very misleading, I don't know anybody who didn't send their child to daycare, but again particular situation in Qc where it's actually affordable.
If anybody is wondering, I'm not trying to minimize the cost of raising a child, I know it's expensive, some of those expenses are choice others are real necessities. I just wished for a better break down, something that can actually guide a potential parent into estimating the cost for their own situation.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:26 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
Also, it's very hard to make Canada wide comparaisons, your situation as a parent on downtown Toronto vs lets says in a suburb of Quebec city will drastically change your costs.
Which is why I despise those walls of text, give us spreadsheets, simulators, charts that will make those numbers more meaningful and people will be able to relate those to their situation.
In fact, in 2009, 80 per cent of couple families with one child report no expenditure on daycare
If they indeed include childs in school that's very misleading, I don't know anybody who didn't send their child to daycare, but again particular situation in Qc where it's actually affordable.
If anybody is wondering, I'm not trying to minimize the cost of raising a child, I know it's expensive, some of those expenses are choice others are real necessities. I just wished for a better break down, something that can actually guide a potential parent into estimating the cost for their own situation.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:26 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
Everyone I speak to here is planning for multi-generational living. That’s where it’s going.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:45 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:45 PM on December 2, 2024 [3 favorites]
To be fair, that's actually not such a bad place for it to go.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 PM on December 2, 2024 [2 favorites]
To be fair, that's actually not such a bad place for it to go.
Unless you had a dysfunctional/abusive upbringing, or one or both of your parents are narcissistic or otherwise impossible to live with.
Even for somewhat less dysfunctional families, living apart often just works better. I love my parents but you could not pay me enough to live in the same neighborhood as my father, let alone under the same roof.
posted by photo guy at 4:22 AM on December 3, 2024 [3 favorites]
Unless you had a dysfunctional/abusive upbringing, or one or both of your parents are narcissistic or otherwise impossible to live with.
Even for somewhat less dysfunctional families, living apart often just works better. I love my parents but you could not pay me enough to live in the same neighborhood as my father, let alone under the same roof.
posted by photo guy at 4:22 AM on December 3, 2024 [3 favorites]
Multi-generation is going to be the way to go, especially for bigger houses. If your mother-in-law sells her paid-off house and moves in with you, then you've maybe got a shot at having a house instead of a condo or an apartment
posted by thecjm at 6:14 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by thecjm at 6:14 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
To be fair, that's actually not such a bad place for it to go.
When the largest dwelling in the entire family is an 850 square foot cottage it's not a great place to go, Bob.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:46 AM on December 3, 2024 [6 favorites]
When the largest dwelling in the entire family is an 850 square foot cottage it's not a great place to go, Bob.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:46 AM on December 3, 2024 [6 favorites]
All nations should've one-child policies implemented through fairly mild taxation policies: one child is free, but your kth child increases your marginal income tax rate by maybe 0.01 * (k-1).
At least historically, sterilization efforts backfire, ala Indira Gandhi's idiot son Sanjay Gandhi, but a one-child policies via taxation worked in China.
You should become a teacher if you've some burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford one.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:49 AM on December 3, 2024
At least historically, sterilization efforts backfire, ala Indira Gandhi's idiot son Sanjay Gandhi, but a one-child policies via taxation worked in China.
You should become a teacher if you've some burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford one.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:49 AM on December 3, 2024
I suppose behavioral sink theory might've some bearing upon people not getting along with their parents. We westerners have lived in almost a utopia for a few generations, which we've survived better than John Calhoun's mice did, but some scars remain.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:55 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting and only engaging in tasks that were essential to their health. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones". Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.We need a lyrical tweaks to The Beautiful Ones by Prince turn the song into being about John Calhoun's mice and social collapse.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:55 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
If you want to do this version, the Fraser institute (Right wing nut jobs) did it. Back in 2013, they estimated that it costs between $3000 and $4500 per year.
This is so crazy it's giving me the despair giggles. Thinking about who in Canada actually spends this per child per year I can actually think of someone - my sister. Converted and married a mormon, had four kids and stayed home to raise them. Divorced a few years ago because husband was a dickhead and also gay. They were always poor, now it's even worse and she's barely above the poverty line. Only one of the four kids had formal lessons of any kind, didn't see the dentist, used clothing and hand-me-downs, etc.
(That said, they are a lovely family and the kids are amazing and thriving)
posted by kitcat at 7:17 AM on December 3, 2024 [2 favorites]
This is so crazy it's giving me the despair giggles. Thinking about who in Canada actually spends this per child per year I can actually think of someone - my sister. Converted and married a mormon, had four kids and stayed home to raise them. Divorced a few years ago because husband was a dickhead and also gay. They were always poor, now it's even worse and she's barely above the poverty line. Only one of the four kids had formal lessons of any kind, didn't see the dentist, used clothing and hand-me-downs, etc.
(That said, they are a lovely family and the kids are amazing and thriving)
posted by kitcat at 7:17 AM on December 3, 2024 [2 favorites]
You should become a teacher if you've some burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford one.
Oh my. Please do not do this. Teaching is not “parenting, but more of it.” Those kids (mostly) already have parents. Turning the heat up on feelings in an already absurdly demanding job is not going to improve anything.
One-child policies have problems. One of their strange properties is that after a few generations, everybody has only a tiny handful of relatives. I’m not sure what that does to the social fabric, China having abandoned the policy, but it doesn’t seem good. In combination with sexism and elective abortion it also overproduces males, which also isn’t great for the social fabric. Etc.
posted by eirias at 7:31 AM on December 3, 2024 [16 favorites]
Oh my. Please do not do this. Teaching is not “parenting, but more of it.” Those kids (mostly) already have parents. Turning the heat up on feelings in an already absurdly demanding job is not going to improve anything.
One-child policies have problems. One of their strange properties is that after a few generations, everybody has only a tiny handful of relatives. I’m not sure what that does to the social fabric, China having abandoned the policy, but it doesn’t seem good. In combination with sexism and elective abortion it also overproduces males, which also isn’t great for the social fabric. Etc.
posted by eirias at 7:31 AM on December 3, 2024 [16 favorites]
It's vague parallels, in that you at least like kids, not substitue parenting.
At current estimates, +4°C means world carrying capacity around 1 billion. IPCC estimates +3°C by 2100 but this could easily be worse. We've made zero progress on reducing emissions so far, expect this or worse. Also, other planetary boundaries should've reduce carrying capacity somewhat by then too. Also, we depend upon ocean transport for feeding millions now, including China, which move much slower using renewables. We'll have far fewer problems if "everybody has only a tiny handful of relatives", specifically zero siblings.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:48 AM on December 3, 2024
At current estimates, +4°C means world carrying capacity around 1 billion. IPCC estimates +3°C by 2100 but this could easily be worse. We've made zero progress on reducing emissions so far, expect this or worse. Also, other planetary boundaries should've reduce carrying capacity somewhat by then too. Also, we depend upon ocean transport for feeding millions now, including China, which move much slower using renewables. We'll have far fewer problems if "everybody has only a tiny handful of relatives", specifically zero siblings.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:48 AM on December 3, 2024
You should become a teacher if you've some burning desire to raise kids but don't believe you can afford one.
LOL no.
Setting aside that teaching is a profession with standards and required skills beyond "likes kids," if you can't afford a kid you should probably not choose a profession that is all but guaranteed penury and burnout.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:58 AM on December 3, 2024 [7 favorites]
LOL no.
Setting aside that teaching is a profession with standards and required skills beyond "likes kids," if you can't afford a kid you should probably not choose a profession that is all but guaranteed penury and burnout.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:58 AM on December 3, 2024 [7 favorites]
I suppose behavioral sink theory might've some bearing upon people not getting along with their parents. We westerners have lived in almost a utopia for a few generations, which we've survived better than John Calhoun's mice did, but some scars remain.
I am not a sociologist but wasn't Calhoun's whole point that the colony collapsed because of overcrowding? That is a very valid concern with very depressing predictors for the future of humanity, but I think your analogy in this case is a bit of a stretch.
And speaking from personal experience, blaming people for "not getting along" with their parents because of some abstract academic theory is not only grossly oversimplistic, it's more than a little insulting.
Sorry but I think your idyllic world of multi-generational living would still have plenty of abusive or emotionally manipulative parents, only now there are even fewer escape options.
posted by photo guy at 10:45 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
I am not a sociologist but wasn't Calhoun's whole point that the colony collapsed because of overcrowding? That is a very valid concern with very depressing predictors for the future of humanity, but I think your analogy in this case is a bit of a stretch.
And speaking from personal experience, blaming people for "not getting along" with their parents because of some abstract academic theory is not only grossly oversimplistic, it's more than a little insulting.
Sorry but I think your idyllic world of multi-generational living would still have plenty of abusive or emotionally manipulative parents, only now there are even fewer escape options.
posted by photo guy at 10:45 AM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
Sorry I got two comments conflated and missed the edit window, let me try that again. Overpopulation is absolutely an issue and I think there is no possible good outcome. Too many people and society collapses. Not enough population growth and the economy collapses, which will also probably eventually lead to society collapsing.
Multi-generation is going to be the way to go, especially for bigger houses. If your mother-in-law sells her paid-off house and moves in with you, then you've maybe got a shot at having a house instead of a condo or an apartment
That still bothers me an insane amount. Besides people being trapped into living with abusive or otherwise bad family, what about people with no living parents? Or who cannot have kids for whatever reason? The normalizing of multi-generational living would inevitably screw over people in those kinds of situations. You already see it in some cultures where multi-generational families are the norm - institutional support is not there, because it is assumed that your relatives will handle everything.
posted by photo guy at 10:57 AM on December 3, 2024 [5 favorites]
Multi-generation is going to be the way to go, especially for bigger houses. If your mother-in-law sells her paid-off house and moves in with you, then you've maybe got a shot at having a house instead of a condo or an apartment
That still bothers me an insane amount. Besides people being trapped into living with abusive or otherwise bad family, what about people with no living parents? Or who cannot have kids for whatever reason? The normalizing of multi-generational living would inevitably screw over people in those kinds of situations. You already see it in some cultures where multi-generational families are the norm - institutional support is not there, because it is assumed that your relatives will handle everything.
posted by photo guy at 10:57 AM on December 3, 2024 [5 favorites]
Overpopulation is absolutely an issue and I think there is no possible good outcome. Too many people and society collapses. Not enough population growth and the economy collapses, which will also probably eventually lead to society collapsing.
Overpopulation is not the issue, capitalism and the overconsumption it requires is the issue.
posted by corb at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2024 [6 favorites]
Overpopulation is not the issue, capitalism and the overconsumption it requires is the issue.
posted by corb at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2024 [6 favorites]
As I understand it, Calhoun argued the mice stopped all socail activity because of excessive social activity with too many other nice, not overpopulation. In particualt, they removed excess mice, so that the enviroment always provided space and resources. It usually comes up these days around social media abuse, but nothing concrete. Also "might've some bearing" cannot mean blame, because any relevant effects should be more subtle than individuals notice..
We recognize our overconsumption more easily, so yeah I'd previously always argued overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation. Yet, Corey Bradshaw cites interesting counter arguments in his discussion with Nate Hagens.
"only 25% of the increase in greenhouse-gas emissions globally is attributable to per-capita increases in consumption, whereas 75% is due to population growth."
posted by jeffburdges at 1:27 PM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
We recognize our overconsumption more easily, so yeah I'd previously always argued overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation. Yet, Corey Bradshaw cites interesting counter arguments in his discussion with Nate Hagens.
"only 25% of the increase in greenhouse-gas emissions globally is attributable to per-capita increases in consumption, whereas 75% is due to population growth."
posted by jeffburdges at 1:27 PM on December 3, 2024 [1 favorite]
Overpopulation is not the issue, capitalism and the overconsumption it requires is the issue.
Yeah disagree. You cannot have unlimited growth, and quite frankly I think limiting that is still a far easier sell than convincing people to go back to pre-industrial living. I'm all for finding ways to make it more substanable but more people is always going to lead to more conflict. Full stop.
And personally, after a lifetime of seeing how humans of all stripes and backgrounds destroy both each other and their environment (which has been going on for thousands of years and is not the sole result of capitalism), I can't say that constantly adding yet more people to the mix sounds appealing or substanable.
posted by photo guy at 4:10 AM on December 4, 2024 [1 favorite]
Yeah disagree. You cannot have unlimited growth, and quite frankly I think limiting that is still a far easier sell than convincing people to go back to pre-industrial living. I'm all for finding ways to make it more substanable but more people is always going to lead to more conflict. Full stop.
And personally, after a lifetime of seeing how humans of all stripes and backgrounds destroy both each other and their environment (which has been going on for thousands of years and is not the sole result of capitalism), I can't say that constantly adding yet more people to the mix sounds appealing or substanable.
posted by photo guy at 4:10 AM on December 4, 2024 [1 favorite]
Overpopulation is certainly not the issue in Canada, nor in most of the developed world, so would-be schemes to tax second or third kids seem to miss the point -- people aren't having them anyway! Canada's fertility rate in 2023 was 1.26 births per female -- the replacement fertility rate in most developed countries is 2.1 births per female.
posted by AndrewInDC at 6:52 AM on December 4, 2024
posted by AndrewInDC at 6:52 AM on December 4, 2024
Overpopulation is certainly not the issue in Canada, nor in most of the developed world, so would-be schemes to tax second or third kids seem to miss the point -- people aren't having them anyway! Canada's fertility rate in 2023 was 1.26 births per female -- the replacement fertility rate in most developed countries is 2.1 births per female.
I'm not on side with this one-child policy nonesense, but there's no reason replacement needs to be based on birth rate. Given that planet-wide we're more than replacing ourselves,we can reproduce biologically at less-than-fertility rate and fund our pensions via immigration if we want to. Climate-wise I don't think it makes sense to say over-population isn't our problem to deal with because we're not over-populated HERE.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2024
I'm not on side with this one-child policy nonesense, but there's no reason replacement needs to be based on birth rate. Given that planet-wide we're more than replacing ourselves,we can reproduce biologically at less-than-fertility rate and fund our pensions via immigration if we want to. Climate-wise I don't think it makes sense to say over-population isn't our problem to deal with because we're not over-populated HERE.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:02 AM on December 4, 2024
limiting that is still a far easier sell than convincing people to go back to pre-industrial living.
You don’t have to go to pre industrial living to limit overconsumption. You know those 1950s appliances that are still running now? If everyone just had functional appliances that lasted multiple decades and got repaired when they broke, rather than being pushed to buy the newest thing faster and may as well because your shit will break in 1-2 years anyway it would be a very different world. Same with clothing - if we had clothing that lasted there wouldn’t be a constant need to replace it. If we had more community spirit certain things could be owned on a “a few per neighborhood” basis.
When people go straight to “stop people from having kids” rather than “what if we made our world more sustainable” I really wonder if those ideas genuinely come from environmentalism.
posted by corb at 7:15 AM on December 4, 2024 [12 favorites]
You don’t have to go to pre industrial living to limit overconsumption. You know those 1950s appliances that are still running now? If everyone just had functional appliances that lasted multiple decades and got repaired when they broke, rather than being pushed to buy the newest thing faster and may as well because your shit will break in 1-2 years anyway it would be a very different world. Same with clothing - if we had clothing that lasted there wouldn’t be a constant need to replace it. If we had more community spirit certain things could be owned on a “a few per neighborhood” basis.
When people go straight to “stop people from having kids” rather than “what if we made our world more sustainable” I really wonder if those ideas genuinely come from environmentalism.
posted by corb at 7:15 AM on December 4, 2024 [12 favorites]
When people go straight to “stop people from having kids” rather than “what if we made our world more sustainable” I really wonder if those ideas genuinely come from environmentalism.
Again, I wonder about the Venn diagram overlap of men (and to a one, it's almost always men) who use overpopulation as a cudgel and the kind of men who don't wear condoms because "it just doesn't feel natural"
posted by Kitteh at 7:32 AM on December 4, 2024 [6 favorites]
Again, I wonder about the Venn diagram overlap of men (and to a one, it's almost always men) who use overpopulation as a cudgel and the kind of men who don't wear condoms because "it just doesn't feel natural"
posted by Kitteh at 7:32 AM on December 4, 2024 [6 favorites]
Multi-generation is going to be the way to go, especially for bigger houses. If your mother-in-law sells her paid-off house and moves in with you, then you've maybe got a shot at having a house instead of a condo or an apartment
Hahahaha oh to have a mother or mother-in-law with a paid off house, instead of an elder generation who is even more, VASTLY MORE, in debt and impoverished than the kids! Who are also not doing great!
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:10 AM on December 4, 2024 [3 favorites]
Hahahaha oh to have a mother or mother-in-law with a paid off house, instead of an elder generation who is even more, VASTLY MORE, in debt and impoverished than the kids! Who are also not doing great!
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:10 AM on December 4, 2024 [3 favorites]
Kitteh, wouldn’t the Venn Diagram overlap of those groups of guys just have gotten the snip?
posted by Selena777 at 11:05 AM on December 4, 2024
posted by Selena777 at 11:05 AM on December 4, 2024
Oh god no, they probably have some sort of masculinity reason as to why not.
posted by Kitteh at 12:24 PM on December 4, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 12:24 PM on December 4, 2024 [1 favorite]
« Older 63 Chinese Cuisines: The Complete Guide | Ocean fish and seaweed to be farmed hundreds of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It's like I always say: Plants are the new Pets, Pets are the new Kids, Kids are the new Yachts.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:12 AM on December 2, 2024 [35 favorites]