5 ms·

There are a few groups pursing this goal: - People who imagine Canada as a global player. 100 million puts you in the big leagues. - People who fear our curren

by michael1999 3y ago

There are a few groups pursing this goal: - People who imagine Canada as a global player. 100 million puts you in the big leagues. - People who fear our current demographics. Given our birth rate, our pension system is bankrupt without multiple 100k new arrivals every year. An aging population does similarly bad things to our health systems. - People who worship GDP over GDP per capita. - Our ownership aristocrats (aka the new Family Compact, a subset of the GDP group). If you own big tracts of land, or control national chains in protected industries, then your income tends to a stable fraction of total GDP. Every new arrival is a forced customer of your monopolistic supply.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Nobody pushing more immigration also supports pro-natal policies to encourage higher native birth rates.
- michael1999 3y ago
  That is trivially refuted by the website. https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/our-work#focus-4-early-childhood-support https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/our-work#focus-4-early-chil... And all governments of the last 30 years have been spending money on children: Harper had sports credits, and the Universal Canada Child Benefit. Trudeau replaced it with Canada Child Benefit and has added daycare subsidies, dental and drug cover for minors. The bigger problem is that nobody in the world has figured out what effective "pro-natal" policies look like. You can't push on a string.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    The family compact doesn't have strong feelings about where their customers come from. But Canada's TFR fell below 2 in the 80s, and hasn't really changed since. If you have a magic wand, don't hold back. Given how old our demographics are, even if our 20-year-olds all started having 3 kids each, TFR wouldn't even climb much. Demographic decline is baked in the cake without immigration.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Healthcare for children is the baseline for a civilized country. It’s not a pro-natal policy. Obviously none of these token gestures towards the idea of pro-natalism have had any effect, and yet immigration has only accelerated.
    - michael1999 3y ago
      The CCB is ~6k/year cash. That's not healthcare. It's means tested, but bigger than the $50/mo baby bonus my mom got in the 70s. And 1 full year (combined) for maternity and paternity is much more than the US. I would say it in reverse: BECAUSE 40 years of trying to raise TFR has absolutely failed in every advanced nation on the planet, Canada has chosen immigration as the only practical path. Or you tell me - is there somewhere you think we should copy? Or are you just blaming 40 years of Canadian government for a global phenomenon? The ex-Soviet states have had some recent gains, but those look more like a rebound from the total collapse of the 80s. And they are all stabilizing around the new-normal 1.8. I don't think there are any lessons there. Hungary has struggled to recover from the post-Soviet low of 1.3, and has almost reached the might peak of 1.6! https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-new-normal-an-updated-look-at-fertility-trends-across-the-globe https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-new-normal-an-updated-look-at-f...
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > Hungary has struggled to recover from the post-Soviet low of 1.3, and has almost reached the might peak of 1.6! Dead cat bounce. Will be below 1.0 within a decade or two. Little girls who grow up watching all the adult women around them have few or no children don't suddenly get it in their heads that they want a large family. The rate of decline will only accelerate.
        hollerith 3y ago
        Until the government bans birth control.
        3y ago
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  A sad truth is that it's likely impossible to be (effectively) pro-natalist outside of totalitarianism. For instance, China had no trouble lowering their fertility rate to nearly 1, but they've since found it difficult to raise it back up. And they're not exactly a gentle government. Even Best Korea has Glorious leader crying and begging for people to have more children. On 4chan, they have some laughably bad conspiracy theories about it, and while I don't subscribe to those, we clearly have some very effective (accidental) propaganda that discourages people from procreating. But banning that propaganda isn't compatible with free speech, and so I think that it's virtually impossible for anyone to do anything about this in the West. What surprises me is that even China and North Korea apparently can't handle it either. It's not even easy to talk about. Any attempt is seen as (at best) thinly veiled racism. I think that even if you didn't care about natalism, that you still might not want your population to triple. Isn't the housing crisis already absurd in the Toronto region as it is? This can't be in the interest of any Canadian, no matter their skin color.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    Completely agree that this is a global thing. The Anglosphere housing crisis does seem special to a particular kind of colonial development pattern. But TFR is below replacement anywhere that has developed past poverty. Woke Canada and manly-manly Hungary are in the same boat. But I'll push back on one thing: who is this mysterious "you" people keep talking to? There is no single "Canadian" whose interests represent the whole. There are LOTS of people who are doing well from the current housing crisis -- landlords, real estate agents, homeowners, construction trades, the Family Compact, etc. Landlords have perfected the rennoviction sneak past rent-control. They love the crisis. Our mayor in 2000 was a (small-time crooked) furniture dealer. Immigrants buy furniture. Our last mayor worked for a monopoly cable company - every new immigrant needs a phone/tv/internet package. The Westons (grocery barons) basically make money from every new body in Canada. All of them know that more immigration = more money in their pocket. It's been hell on young people, but you might notice they aren't running the show.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

goodSteveramos 3y ago

Nobody pushing more immigration also supports pro-natal policies to encourage higher native birth rates.

michael1999 3y ago
That is trivially refuted by the website. https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/our-work#focus-4-early-childhood-support https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/our-work#focus-4-early-chil... And all governments of the last 30 years have been spending money on children: Harper had sports credits, and the Universal Canada Child Benefit. Trudeau replaced it with Canada Child Benefit and has added daycare subsidies, dental and drug cover for minors. The bigger problem is that nobody in the world has figured out what effective "pro-natal" policies look like. You can't push on a string.
- michael1999 3y ago
  The family compact doesn't have strong feelings about where their customers come from. But Canada's TFR fell below 2 in the 80s, and hasn't really changed since. If you have a magic wand, don't hold back. Given how old our demographics are, even if our 20-year-olds all started having 3 kids each, TFR wouldn't even climb much. Demographic decline is baked in the cake without immigration.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Healthcare for children is the baseline for a civilized country. It’s not a pro-natal policy. Obviously none of these token gestures towards the idea of pro-natalism have had any effect, and yet immigration has only accelerated.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    The CCB is ~6k/year cash. That's not healthcare. It's means tested, but bigger than the $50/mo baby bonus my mom got in the 70s. And 1 full year (combined) for maternity and paternity is much more than the US. I would say it in reverse: BECAUSE 40 years of trying to raise TFR has absolutely failed in every advanced nation on the planet, Canada has chosen immigration as the only practical path. Or you tell me - is there somewhere you think we should copy? Or are you just blaming 40 years of Canadian government for a global phenomenon? The ex-Soviet states have had some recent gains, but those look more like a rebound from the total collapse of the 80s. And they are all stabilizing around the new-normal 1.8. I don't think there are any lessons there. Hungary has struggled to recover from the post-Soviet low of 1.3, and has almost reached the might peak of 1.6! https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-new-normal-an-updated-look-at-fertility-trends-across-the-globe https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-new-normal-an-updated-look-at-f...
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > Hungary has struggled to recover from the post-Soviet low of 1.3, and has almost reached the might peak of 1.6! Dead cat bounce. Will be below 1.0 within a decade or two. Little girls who grow up watching all the adult women around them have few or no children don't suddenly get it in their heads that they want a large family. The rate of decline will only accelerate.
      - hollerith 3y ago
        Until the government bans birth control.
        3y ago
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
A sad truth is that it's likely impossible to be (effectively) pro-natalist outside of totalitarianism. For instance, China had no trouble lowering their fertility rate to nearly 1, but they've since found it difficult to raise it back up. And they're not exactly a gentle government. Even Best Korea has Glorious leader crying and begging for people to have more children. On 4chan, they have some laughably bad conspiracy theories about it, and while I don't subscribe to those, we clearly have some very effective (accidental) propaganda that discourages people from procreating. But banning that propaganda isn't compatible with free speech, and so I think that it's virtually impossible for anyone to do anything about this in the West. What surprises me is that even China and North Korea apparently can't handle it either. It's not even easy to talk about. Any attempt is seen as (at best) thinly veiled racism. I think that even if you didn't care about natalism, that you still might not want your population to triple. Isn't the housing crisis already absurd in the Toronto region as it is? This can't be in the interest of any Canadian, no matter their skin color.
- michael1999 3y ago
  Completely agree that this is a global thing. The Anglosphere housing crisis does seem special to a particular kind of colonial development pattern. But TFR is below replacement anywhere that has developed past poverty. Woke Canada and manly-manly Hungary are in the same boat. But I'll push back on one thing: who is this mysterious "you" people keep talking to? There is no single "Canadian" whose interests represent the whole. There are LOTS of people who are doing well from the current housing crisis -- landlords, real estate agents, homeowners, construction trades, the Family Compact, etc. Landlords have perfected the rennoviction sneak past rent-control. They love the crisis. Our mayor in 2000 was a (small-time crooked) furniture dealer. Immigrants buy furniture. Our last mayor worked for a monopoly cable company - every new immigrant needs a phone/tv/internet package. The Westons (grocery barons) basically make money from every new body in Canada. All of them know that more immigration = more money in their pocket. It's been hell on young people, but you might notice they aren't running the show.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago