Pro/Anti Child Bearing Policies (split from "Canada don’t matter" thread)

[mariomike]

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

I’m 180 degrees from you on that, as it needs to be a joint decision as for the next 18 years or so both the Mother and Father will be somewhat occupied with child rearing.

What if the Mother's decison is different than the Father's decision?

 

[TacticalTea]

Separating pre-school care from education, kids aren't commodities.

They are made so when their parents get rid of them ASAP and hand them over to mommy state.

Childcare is a service to parents and children. For whatever reason - the reasons don't matter - parents have to work, and the children can't be left unattended for long periods. Stipulating that there may be specific instances of unpleasant facilities and unpleasant workers, it's also true that kids look forward to the time they spend with their friends and the workers, and that the adult supervision and general environment in the facility can be better than that at home - including moral values, skills, and early childhood education. This is particularly true for kids who have f*cked-up home lives, or even merely flaky parents.

Why are you talking about exceptions?

Engage with the generality, applicable to the majority, before thinking about exceptions.

You're not unfamiliar with this principle.

Now looking only at education, the kids will have to be surrendered to someone unless the parents undertake home schooling. I'd prefer to see more options, supporting by voucher-based education funding, but in the majority of cases parents will have no options but that someone else provides the service.

Then our positions are not dissimilar.

$8000.00, perhaps?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/boons-boondoggles-seen-in-p-c-baby-bonus-pitch-1.672839

But accounting for inflation (the Quebec program started in 1988), it might take nearly $18,000 to get those extra rugrats popped out.

$8,000 in 1988 → 2024 | Canada Inflation Calculator

This inflation calculator uses the official Canadian consumer price index. An inflation rate of 2.25% per year means $8,000 in 1988 is worth $17,834.35 in 2024.

www.in2013dollars.com

My post is, of course, tinged with sarcasm. For a more concise analysis of Quebec's pronatalism adventure, try here.

Quebec's Alternative to Pronatalism

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

This is a much better analysis of Quebec's experience than that initially provided ITT.

Still, it proved insufficient, as does Orban's Hungarian natality program. However, I expect that his will pay dividends in time if it is maintained, as it may lead to a cultural shift, which is what is truly required.

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

How does that make any sense?

The only person to decide to have a child should be the mother? As in, she should rape the father, or...?

Also, a close family member who’s a community nurse in an under-privileged area has described some families that, in her opinion, are only having more kids due to the financial benefits. She has to supervise the grocery cards they get, it’s quite concerning to hear what they fill the pantry with and other household “atmospherics”. If that’s representative of government run incentives to procreate more I would approach those policies with caution.

Yes, that's why I oppose cash benefits that encourage the birth of children in conditions of poverty.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What if the Mother's decison is different than the Father's decision?

Then it should be up to the father, no?

 

[dimsum]

How does that make any sense?

The only person to decide to have a child should be the mother? As in, she should rape the father, or...?

I was responding to @Halifax Tar ‘s point about the 6 women who he works with.

But, if the woman doesn’t want a child, then the father/family/society/religion shouldn’t pressure/overrule her.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was responding to @Halifax Tar ‘s point about the 6 women who he works with.

But, if the woman doesn’t want a child, then the father/family/society/religion shouldn’t pressure/overrule her.

In my mind, it should be a 50/50 decision.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I was responding to @Halifax Tar ‘s point about the 6 women who he works with.

But, if the woman doesn’t want a child, then the father/family/society/religion shouldn’t pressure/overrule her.

In my mind, it should be a 50/50 decision.

Ideally this is something that should be discussed and decided before marriage. If one wants children or not seems to be somewhat of a deal breaker.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why are you talking about exceptions?

There are always exceptions. Acknowledging them up front and stressing that they are exceptions frames the discussion so there's no nonsense about "Aha! You said 'all' - or 'none' - and I found an exception", or where on the spectrum of "most/many/some/few" things fit. If you're reduced to debating about how I debate, you're off in the weeds. I know there are teachers who flat-out don't like kids, so there must be some working in daycares - they are there for the job. My own 12 years of public schooling suggests the number is very low. Screwy parents and protective parents (pretty much everyone who waits to have kids until they're over 30) do more damage than daycares and schools.

 

[TacticalTea]

If you're reduced to debating about how I debate, you're off in the weeds.

No, calling out fallacies has always been at the heart of the rhetoric art.

My point was that childcare-as-default creates a society in which children are seen as a burden, not as the miracle of life that they are or, at the very least, something precious and loved.

Then you downplayed it by reducing the downsides of childcare-as-default as those applicable to exceptions, or bringing up those kids that really would need third-party childcare. Neither of which relate to what I was saying. Bit of non-sequitur.

19 times out of 20, centering a discussion on exceptions is done with the express purpose of stalling it by hiding behind a wall of learned helplessness. It is more helpful to build a model for the majority, and then tinker around the edges for the marginal.

Screwy parents and protective parents (pretty much everyone who waits to have kids until they're over 30) do more damage than daycares and schools.

Agreed. But in the first case, that doesn't mean all children should suffer just because some parents suck. And in the second case, I do advocate for having kids earlier, and having more of them, both of which would alleviate this problem.

I also think we must double down on law & order to ensure kids can actually go out of their parent's reach while still being safe, while we pull back on the overbearing safetyism of our modern society.

 

[suffolkowner]

We'll get to see what SK, Taiwan and China and maybe Japan do pretty soon and if they have any success. When you get down to 0.5 fertility numbers you start to see it year to year

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, calling out fallacies has always been at the heart of the rhetoric art.

A stipulation isn't a fallacy; it's a point agreed to in advance, usually as a premise conceded to anyone who might otherwise take up an objection.

Then you downplayed it by reducing the downsides of childcare-as-default as those applicable to exceptions, or bringing up those kids that really would need third-party childcare. Neither of which relate to what I was saying. Bit of non-sequitur.

I had decided to take a pass on being too blunt about your assumption of things that just aren't so. My mom did family daycare for 20 years, and she was really good at it. I have some notion of what it's like, and why the parents and kids are there, and how they like it, and what the value of the service is, and the economics, and what likely problems governments are going to create in their efforts to facilitate access. "Mommy state" just isn't a player.

19 times out of 20, centering a discussion on exceptions is done with the express purpose of stalling it by hiding behind a wall of learned helplessness. It is more helpful to build a model for the majority, and then tinker around the edges for the marginal.

20 times out of 20, including the exceptions and edge cases is a helpful technique for "steelmanning" all points of a discussion.

[Add: perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case it would help if you restate your thesis/hypothesis.]

 

[TacticalTea]

A stipulation isn't a fallacy; it's a point agreed to in advance, usually as a premise conceded to anyone who might otherwise take up an objection.

I had decided to take a pass on being too blunt about your assumption of things that just aren't so. My mom did family daycare for 20 years, and she was really good at it. I have some notion of what it's like, and why the parents and kids are there, and how they like it, and what the value of the service is, and the economics, and what likely problems governments are going to create in their efforts to facilitate access. "Mommy state" just isn't a player.

Again, it doesn't matter how good or how bad the daycare is, the problem is its very nature. The dynamic it generates. Hence the problem with talking about exceptions. Good or bad, they obfuscate the conversation. They hide the forest with trees.

In the practical world, though, that's not how universal childcare is achieved in Quebec (particularized, but the following can probably be generalized). Universal healthcare means everyone gets the same benefit, guaranteed (not exactly) by the government. Obviously, family daycare implies way too much individuality and variance for the government to micromanage adequately, so instead it sets up what we call "les CPE", which is essentially pre-school. Mass-produced daycare.

As a kid, I was sent to both. Vastly preferred family daycare.

20 times out of 20, including the exceptions and edge cases is a helpful technique for "steelmanning" all points of a discussion.

[Add: perhaps I misunderstand you, in which case it would help if you restate your thesis/hypothesis.]

What I'm trying to get is for people to see the problem, or at the very least, be troubled in their assumption that this or that sacred cow is unquestionable. Or alternately, show fellow doubters who may not have verbalized the issue that they are not alone.

And that problem, is that we'll never get out of this mess as long as we see children as burdens.

 

[Eaglelord17]

How are families and child rearing portrayed in a negative light in our society? What needs to be fixed and how?

How do we transform the economy to allow single income families to be sustainable? Any second and third order effects on other spheres of the economy?

There can be other factors too. Maybe they really like travelling and the no-kid lifestyle, for one.

Hell, we have a dog and sometimes that’s too close to being a child that my spouse and I re-cage whether we want children or not. I’m the more pro-child but at least 50% of the time I’m thinking “nah, I’m good”.

I also vehemently believe that the only person that should make that decision is the mother - not the family, father, God, or society.

I was responding to @Halifax Tar ‘s point about the 6 women who he works with.

But, if the woman doesn’t want a child, then the father/family/society/religion shouldn’t pressure/overrule her.

I can say that having a child is viewed negatively by many young women. It is 100% how society portrays it. It is currently seen as the death of fun, as the end of being able to experience life.

Thats ignoring that having a child is a lot of fun and a amazing experience in itself. I just had a kid, its been some of the most fun I have had in a long time.

There is plenty of people who wait to long to have kids or never do at all and regret it. As society pushes having children farther and farther out it creates all sorts of other issues.

For example if your parents had you at 35, and you waited until 35 to have a child there is now very little child care support from your parents. Even worse they are at the point now of requiring support from you, just when you really need it.

You can say people shouldn’t pressure women to have children, but by the same regard society is currently pressuring them to not have kids. ‘Have to finish school’, ‘don’t settle down to quickly’, ‘what about your career’, ‘a child will ruin your life’, etc.

Your idealistic stance of no pressure one way or another is a ideal, not a reality. The government should be providing some pressure towards what is beneficial for society. Pressure doesn’t mean forcing, it simply can be portraying in a positive light or providing incentives towards having children.

Hungary is the Western country with the most change on the birthrate in the last decade. They offer tax breaks, women who have 4 or more children pay no tax. They have loans of up to 36k which get written off if you have 3 or more children. First time home buyers with kids get a 35k downpayment assistance. And the government has fertility clinics they run to encourage child making.

Those seem like a good start. We are throwing money and basically everything else, might as well spend it on something that will actually benefit Canada.

 

[Remius]

I can say that having a child is viewed negatively by many young women. It is 100% how society portrays it. It is currently seen as the death of fun, as the end of being able to experience life.

You can blame decades of unplanned pregnancies and the previous generations that saw that as sin and forcing young unmarried women to give their kids up. Those that didn’t were either shunned or relegated to poverty. While some want a return to traditional values, they either have no idea what they are talking about or forget what that used mean. Bastard children and children sent to government run orphanages setting them up for future failure.

Thats ignoring that having a child is a lot of fun and a amazing experience in itself. I just had a kid, its been some of the most fun I have had in a long time.

No one ignores that.

There is plenty of people who wait to long to have kids or never do at all and regret it. As society pushes having children farther and farther out it creates all sorts of other issues.

I don’t disagree but those that want to see younger mothers, aren’t very supportive of what that would take.

For example if your parents had you at 35, and you waited until 35 to have a child there is now very little child care support from your parents. Even worse they are at the point now of requiring support from you, just when you really need it.

And the fact that parents of parents live longer have to work later in life and some never get to retire or have enough income to provide that child care. We already are seeing a sandwich generation that has to care for elderly parents and children.

You can say people shouldn’t pressure women to have children, but by the same regard society is currently pressuring them to not have kids. ‘Have to finish school’, ‘don’t settle down to quickly’, ‘what about your career’, ‘a child will ruin your life’, etc.

You are conflating the messages about unplanned pregnancies with the perception that that is pressure to not have kids. It’s pressure to not have kids until you are ready. What does it mean to be ready then?

Your idealistic stance of no pressure one way or another is an ideal, not a reality. The government should be providing some pressure towards what is beneficial for society. Pressure doesn’t mean forcing, it simply can be portraying in a positive light or providing incentives towards having children.

Again, the only argument I’ve seen so far are soft arguments for “teach history” and “teach the value of having kids”. The funny thing about educated women is they make educated choices.

I absolutely agree with you about incentivizing it. But as you have seen here, some are none too keen on that. Which went to my original point. TTs position that subsidized daycare is “commodifying children” (a ridiculous position), and that it is anti natalist (despite just about every pro natalist policy includes childcare options and programs).

Hungary is the Western country with the most change on the birthrate in the last decade. They offer tax breaks, women who have 4 or more children pay no tax. They have loans of up to 36k which get written off if you have 3 or more children. First time home buyers with kids get a 35k downpayment assistance. And the government has fertility clinics they run to encourage child making.

But those are good incentives. But the political will won’t be there for that in the west.

The problem with Hungary, is that Orban has been chipping away at democratic values and institutions and is pushing a much more autocratic rule over that country. The current increase in births is still way overshadowed by the masses leaving Hungary for freedom elsewhere.

Those seem like a good start. We are throwing money and basically everything else, might as well spend it on something that will actually benefit Canada.

 

[dimsum]

You can say people shouldn’t pressure women to have children, but by the same regard society is currently pressuring them to not have kids. ‘Have to finish school’, ‘don’t settle down to quickly’, ‘what about your career’, ‘a child will ruin your life’, etc.

Your idealistic stance of no pressure one way or another is a ideal, not a reality. The government should be providing some pressure towards what is beneficial for society. Pressure doesn’t mean forcing, it simply can be portraying in a positive light or providing incentives towards having children.

Given that so much of the immigration is from the Indo-Pacific, I can say on pretty good standing that Asian parents (by and large) do not say that.

The complementary uncomfortable question is the negative impact that having children has on a career, especially for the woman. Even if the cost of childcare wasn’t a factor (e.g. family can take care of the kid), how many women have to give up their F/T career once they had a child?

Not sure how one could fairly survey this but how many employers would have an unconscious bias against hiring someone with no children vs one with small children, or one with school-age children?

ETA: I would just like to point out that while this is good discussion, this particular thread has shades of “CAF picture of white men talking about women’s issues” - unless I’m mistaken, I haven’t seen a woman comment yet

 

[TacticalTea]

Your idealistic stance of no pressure one way or another is a ideal, not a reality.

Exactly. Tremendously important point.

Something people will have to realize is that the neutral State does not exist.

I absolutely agree with you about incentivizing it. But as you have seen here, some are none too keen on that. Which went to my original point. TTs position that subsidized daycare is “commodifying children” (a ridiculous position), and that it is anti natalist (despite just about every pro natalist policy includes childcare options and programs).

If half-measures could solve this problem, it would've been solved already. Refusal to dig deeper to analyze the sociological and psychological elements is a good way to preserve one's social capital, as you wouldn't have to entertain uncomfortable thoughts or question liberal orthodoxy. Safe. Understandable. Not a good way to reveal the truth or actually solve the problem, though.

We already see the consequences: a Western youth that is increasingly influenced by Islamo-Arabic views and language, and increasingly hateful towards Israel. Hence the campus protests. And, the popularity of Andrew Tate types and their views.

 

[Remius]

Exactly. Tremendously important point.

Depends on one’s “reality”

Something people will have to realize is that the neutral State does not exist.

Right. And the point is?

If half-measures could solve this problem, it would've been solved already.

Yes. Again, to my point about resistance to pro natalist policies from socially conservative types. I said it before and I’ll say it again, it takes a much broader approaches and should not be divided on political spectrums. But that won’t happen.

Refusal to dig deeper to analyze the sociological and psychological elements is a good way to preserve one's social capital, as you wouldn't have to entertain uncomfortable thoughts or question liberal orthodoxy.

And failure of the past on outcomes and quality of life for children and women does the same thing. Mortality rates, child labour, indentured servitude etc etc.

Safe. Understandable. Not a good way to reveal the truth or actually solve the problem, though.

See above.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Given that so much of the immigration is from the Indo-Pacific, I can say on pretty good standing that Asian parents (by and large) do not say that.

The complementary uncomfortable question is the negative impact that having children has on a career, especially for the woman. Even if the cost of childcare wasn’t a factor (e.g. family can take care of the kid), how many women have to give up their F/T career once they had a child?

Not sure how one could fairly survey this but how many employers would have an unconscious bias against hiring someone with no children vs one with small children, or one with school-age children?

ETA: I would just like to point out that while this is good discussion, this particular thread has shades of “CAF picture of white men talking about women’s issues” - unless I’m mistaken, I haven’t seen a woman comment yet

Children are not a “women’s issue”. They are a human being issue. Men had better have a huge stake in it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Children are not a “women’s issue”. They are a human being issue. Men had better have a huge stake in it.

Profoundly financial, if nothing else..

Thinking about having a kid? Here’s how much Canadians spend to raise one​

According to new data released by Statistics Canada on Sept. 29, a middle-income family with two parents and two children spends on average $293,000 to raise one kid till the age of 17.

For lower-income families earning less than $83,013 per year before tax, this spending comes down to roughly $238,190.

Higher-income families — making more than $135,970 gross yearly — would spend about $403,910 per child.

If the children live five more years in the family home from the age of 18 to 22, that would mean an additional $68,000 to $117,000 spent per kid, and that varies depending on the family size and how much they earn, StatCan said.

Thinking about having a kid? Here’s how much Canadians spend to raise one - National | Globalnews.ca

According to the data released by Statistics Canada, a middle-income family with two parents and two children spends on average $293,000 on one kid till the age of 17.

globalnews.ca

 

[YZT580]

And that problem, is that we'll never get out of this mess as long as we see children as burdens.

this summarizes the entire problem. If you start from that point in the discussion, maybe it is possible to find a solution. Pardon my interjection into what is proving an interesting debate. I will go back to standby

 

[Remius]

this summarizes the entire problem. If you start from that point in the discussion, maybe it is possible to find a solution. Pardon my interjection into what is proving an interesting debate. I will go back to standby

Sure. But children as burdens isn’t novel or new to modern developed societies. Or societies in general. Wanted and planned children are not viewed as burdens. Unwanted and unplanned is another issue though.