• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Seniors Benefits Discussion- split from Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

Temp lock to do a split and, just maybe, let a couple folk reflect on how proper discussion is done here on army.ca.
We like this to be were civil discussion happens.

EDIT:...now open. Thanks,
Bruce
 
Last edited:
I think you're mixing up stages of life. Grandma (often because grandpa passed away earlier) often lived on their own till they weren't able to live alone and then moved in to be taken care off.



It's very hard to design government policy around anecdotes. There's always some story in either direction.

We should be trying to establish clear and concise goals and used data to design policies that get us there.

We have gotten to where we are because the politics of all this is very difficult in an aging society where the median voter is getting older. All major parties now cater to the oldest cohort above all else. Before the last major election, the Bloc's biggest demand from minority Liberals was a top up for older seniors for OAS. You would think it would be something about sovereignty. Nope, they just wanted a bigger cut for their voter base.


And the thing is, if this isn't at least contained while the Boomers are still here, it will actually make it all worse in the next generation. We'll end up with some feudal style wealth and income inequality that will probably tear this country apart. Heck, we're already at the point where the biggest flex in society is being able to have a second kid.
This is where the issues lie. Unless there is a baby boom, every generation that follows the last will be the one holding that wealth and political power ensuring that they keep their gains.

But because of those gains it means subsequent generations have less children. So on and so forth.

The system is built to ensure that every other government expense will be sacrificed before ever touching benefits for retirees, regardless of their wealth.

The only thing that will change this is the day where financial realities butts head with demographic realities. But looking at nations like Japan, who are limping along despite having 1 retiree for every 2 working people, I won't live to see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
My wife and I have the only grand child on her side.

In our cohort of friends only 1 couple has more than 1 kid.

The collapse is coming.
Perhaps, but a lot of the discussion is confusing cause and effect in the belief that "cheaper housing -> more children".

Families are smaller because women have increasingly broad employment options and birth control is inexpensive and reliable. These two trends have been increasing for over five decades.

Housing prices are higher because families are smaller - people have more disposable income.

Housing prices got to a point at which the costs started becoming a constraint on family size also, but the fundamentals didn't go away.

Family from 20-35 and career from 35-55 is a sweet spot for those who figured it out.
 
My wife and I have the only grand child on her side.

In our cohort of friends only 1 couple has more than 1 kid.

The collapse is coming.
Same. I'm a Boomer. Married late; two careers, one kid. Daughter married late; tow careers, one (grand)kid. On my brother's side - nada. In my small lifelong circle, only one friend had more than two kids.

I don't know what data shows but, anecdotally, it seems the only group having multiple kids are immigrants. It's likely cultural but many are more inclined to live in muti-generational settings, which spreads out costs for housing, food, daycare, etc. I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.
 
Same. I'm a Boomer. Married late; two careers, one kid. Daughter married late; tow careers, one (grand)kid. On my brother's side - nada. In my small lifelong circle, only one friend had more than two kids.

I don't know what data shows but, anecdotally, it seems the only group having multiple kids are immigrants. It's likely cultural but many are more inclined to live in muti-generational settings, which spreads out costs for housing, food, daycare, etc. I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.
I think I saw somewhere that it lasts two generations.
 
I suspect as their Canadian born kids grow up, they will become more 'westernized' and trend to smaller families.

I think I saw somewhere that it lasts two generations.

Canadian raised immigrant here. My parents had two. I have one. My brother has two. Neither of us was even born in Canada and we're already below replacement. Who knows what our kids will do.
 
Canadian raised immigrant here. My parents had two. I have one. My brother has two. Neither of us was even born in Canada and we're already below replacement. Who knows what our kids will do.
Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

As we grew up struggling middle class, most of us completed the climb to secure spots there, with three of us in the upper 5% range. That means we have had the means to support a family, with the inevitable close calls and near misses along the way so that may have a bearing on our family fecundity.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

In the meantime, the country relies on immigration to maintain our birthrate, and hence the size of its captive labour and domestic consumption rates.

I definitely think that something has to give
 
See, my experience is the opposite. I'm one of 5 kids. All of my siblings had multiple kids so there are now 12 grandchildren in the family. My wife's sister had three kids as well. The three or four close families whose kids were all born at the same time all had 2 or 3 kids. Of the 30 kids my wife has provided childcare for in the last 6 years, only one was an only child, and she has had four families where she will be caring for the third child in the family. None of these are first or second generation immigrant families.
 
Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

You're also older than me. You're in the age bracket of my parents I assumes (60s/70s) which means your kids are in my cohort. The question to ask is how many of those 13 kids had 2 or more kids.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

It's amazing that people want to jump to conspiracist nonsense before admitting that money has anything to do with it.

Even American realtors are more honest:


Or you can tell this economist at U of T who looked at the relationship between American birth rates and housing costs that he's wrong and it's all about microplastics.

Couillard’s research is a matter of immediate concern. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the fertility rate in the United States is 1.62 children per woman while the population replacement rate would be 2.1.

“If rents had stayed flat since 1990, there would have been 11% more children born in the U.S. into the 2010s,” Couillard said. “I also found that the total fertility rate in the 2010s would have been 77% closer to the replacement rate if rents hadn’t increased. That’s a surprising result. It suggests that housing costs are a major driver of fertility decline. Housing abundance is not just about affordability; it’s about long-term demographic sustainability.”


 
Also an immigrant. Amongst the 5 siblings (one born in Canada) there are a total of 13 kids, and honestly I have no clue how many grandkids. Culture probably has some bearing.

As we grew up struggling middle class, most of us completed the climb to secure spots there, with three of us in the upper 5% range. That means we have had the means to support a family, with the inevitable close calls and near misses along the way so that may have a bearing on our family fecundity.

I wonder if overall birthrate decline in Canada may not also be about reduced fertility, given the surge in micro-plastics, carcinogens etc into our systems.

In the meantime, the country relies on immigration to maintain our birthrate, and hence the size of its captive labour and domestic consumption rates.

I definitely think that something has to give
The only thing I've personally come across regarding fertility is the challenges women having kids later in life causes.

I think the declining birth rate has far more to do with choice.

Canadians want 2.5 kids on average. Canadian women are averaging 1.25 kids and that number is dropping every single year without fail.

Inside that gap are the housing, career and affordabity crisis facing those who can have children.

Although if you have come across any literature pointing to environmental causes for a declining birth rate I would love to read them.
 
Back
Top