5 ms·

>The real issue is that Canada's birth rate is 1.4 children per woman on average. This means within a generation the population would be reduced to 2/3. With a

>The real issue is that Canada's birth rate is 1.4 children per woman on average. This means within a generation the population would be reduced to 2/3. With a points-based immigration program, the country is able to be selective about who it brings in. And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration.

arcticbull 6y ago
> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration. This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children. The reality is that as a country becomes more developed, it's birth rate plunges. There's a strong negative correlation between income, development and birth rate. [1] This is not an east-vs-west thing, it applies the world over. In developed countries, women do not want to have more children, and you can't make them. So, you allow immigration [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- gruez 6y ago
  >> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration. >This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children. But this doesn't disprove the prior statement. It's possible that they're incentivizing having children, but not enough. Given the available choices of incentivizing having children even more (eg. free daycare or longer parental leave) or simply admitting more immigrants, Canada went with the latter because it's cheaper. After all, why bother letting the native population produce average workers when you can admit above average workers from across the world?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    If you look at the chart, you'll see there is a substantial global negative correlation between income and fertility. High income countries have low fertility. Everywhere. The question for me is why are you trying to force "natives" to have kids they don't want to have?
    - gruez 6y ago
      >The question for me is why are you trying to force "natives" to have kids they don't want to have? I'm not sure how you got the impression that I'm for "forcing" people to have kids.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Applying pressure through substantial incentives is probably the better way of expressing it. I guess incentivizing someone enough is the same as forcing them but I digress. Why substantially incentivize locals to have children, when there's strong worldwide negative correlation between income/development and child birth? Why are local children inherently better than immigrants? To the extent that the society functions well and immigrants integrate into the broader country, what difference does it make? I would further argue that "bringing in immigrants" isn't the "easy way out" or even likely the "cheap way out" but rather probably more challenging. Creating a society that deals well with the gaijin isn't easy. I see no evidence that free daycare or longer parental leave actually incentivize adults to have children. The birth rate in Finland is 1.49 and falling rapidly, Sweden and Norway are 1.8ish. Iceland is 1.75. Germany is 1.57. Spain is 1.34. These places have incredibly generous programs and are well below the replacement rate of 2.1. Finland's mat leave is 4.2 months and pat leave is 2.2 months and offers public daycare centers. If that's not long enough or free enough to boost their brith rate over 1.49 I'm not sure what you'd suggest. Yes, mat/pat leave is great, and should exist. So should free daycare. However, I don't see any evidence that'll move the needle. If anything, it appears that pushes the birth rate further down being correlated broadly with increased development.
ardit33 6y ago
eh... sounds typical right wing comment. Japan has low immigration rates, yet they are not having any more babies. So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants), Italy (lax about immigration), or even Albania (has outflow of people). It is a world wide issue in all western countries, and it is independent of net 'in or out' immigration. The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes. Even if you stopped immigration, people would not be making more babies, as countries that don't have net immigration still don't make more babies. Baby making seems independent with net immigration rates.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants) Hungary incentivizes its native population to have larger families, a policy of Victor Orban's, and has seen consistent growth in its fertility rate since ~2010. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the way it should be tackled. > The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes. America and the UK's birth rates nose-dived in the mid-60's and hasn't recovered since. I'm failing to draw a connection to these countries being drastically more developed by the end of the 60s than they were at the start of them.

arcticbull 6y ago

> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration. This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children. The reality is that as a country becomes more developed, it's birth rate plunges. There's a strong negative correlation between income, development and birth rate. [1] This is not an east-vs-west thing, it applies the world over. In developed countries, women do not want to have more children, and you can't make them. So, you allow immigration [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

gruez 6y ago
>> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration. >This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children. But this doesn't disprove the prior statement. It's possible that they're incentivizing having children, but not enough. Given the available choices of incentivizing having children even more (eg. free daycare or longer parental leave) or simply admitting more immigrants, Canada went with the latter because it's cheaper. After all, why bother letting the native population produce average workers when you can admit above average workers from across the world?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  If you look at the chart, you'll see there is a substantial global negative correlation between income and fertility. High income countries have low fertility. Everywhere. The question for me is why are you trying to force "natives" to have kids they don't want to have?
  - gruez 6y ago
    >The question for me is why are you trying to force "natives" to have kids they don't want to have? I'm not sure how you got the impression that I'm for "forcing" people to have kids.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Applying pressure through substantial incentives is probably the better way of expressing it. I guess incentivizing someone enough is the same as forcing them but I digress. Why substantially incentivize locals to have children, when there's strong worldwide negative correlation between income/development and child birth? Why are local children inherently better than immigrants? To the extent that the society functions well and immigrants integrate into the broader country, what difference does it make? I would further argue that "bringing in immigrants" isn't the "easy way out" or even likely the "cheap way out" but rather probably more challenging. Creating a society that deals well with the gaijin isn't easy. I see no evidence that free daycare or longer parental leave actually incentivize adults to have children. The birth rate in Finland is 1.49 and falling rapidly, Sweden and Norway are 1.8ish. Iceland is 1.75. Germany is 1.57. Spain is 1.34. These places have incredibly generous programs and are well below the replacement rate of 2.1. Finland's mat leave is 4.2 months and pat leave is 2.2 months and offers public daycare centers. If that's not long enough or free enough to boost their brith rate over 1.49 I'm not sure what you'd suggest. Yes, mat/pat leave is great, and should exist. So should free daycare. However, I don't see any evidence that'll move the needle. If anything, it appears that pushes the birth rate further down being correlated broadly with increased development.

ardit33 6y ago

eh... sounds typical right wing comment. Japan has low immigration rates, yet they are not having any more babies. So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants), Italy (lax about immigration), or even Albania (has outflow of people). It is a world wide issue in all western countries, and it is independent of net 'in or out' immigration. The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes. Even if you stopped immigration, people would not be making more babies, as countries that don't have net immigration still don't make more babies. Baby making seems independent with net immigration rates.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants) Hungary incentivizes its native population to have larger families, a policy of Victor Orban's, and has seen consistent growth in its fertility rate since ~2010. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the way it should be tackled. > The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes. America and the UK's birth rates nose-dived in the mid-60's and hasn't recovered since. I'm failing to draw a connection to these countries being drastically more developed by the end of the 60s than they were at the start of them.