Canada's Aging Population

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't actually see that as "a problem".

In terms of equality, no. In terms of realistically raising a family, absolutely. Like it or not, at some point, most women are forced to choose which one will suffer. It's extremely hard to be great at both....not impossible, but definitely tough to do.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ummm.... This isn't what goes on anyway? In my office the only difference is the guys over 55 make about 10 times what we do not triple.

I said triple what we are earning now...that would make us about 30 times more than what you earn...and deservedly so.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by habernac

and people like you are lining up to adopt unwanted babies, right?

My cousin's been on the adoption waiting list for three years.

[Glenflame]

I am immigrant so I look at everything from different point of view.

Solutions:
1. Encourage local Canadians to have more children (allowance, extended E.I. like Germany, etc.). Thereby, you won't see many Latin family or asian family getting bigger and bigger while the families of you people are getting smaller and smalller (like today's CA, 20% latin people, 15% African Americans, 10% asians).

2. Expend Guest Worker Program. Set up some barriers to not let them become immigrants.

3. Delay the retirement age (to 70)

For me, I am on the way to becoming an Engineer after 4 year's brutal challenge including three most tough courses(the actual tech exams have higher level of difficulty. I borrowed some final exam paper from grads so I know that). I am not complainting about APEGGA however I appreciate this enforcement as it pushes me to study local engineering knowledge, which does help in the works.

[CaptainCrunch]

excellent this can only mean that there are less stinkin teenagers crowding the doors at my local 7-11.

And my lawns will never look better.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

My cousin's been on the adoption waiting list for three years.

If I'm allowed to take my own thread off topic, I always found that interesting. That there is a huge waiting list for parents wanting to adopt and yet there are 30,000 kids (see http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...-vp-dueck.html ) waiting to be adopted.

There just seems to be a huge disconnect there.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

There just seems to be a huge disconnect there.

Most people are looking to adopt a baby; so they can bring them up as their own. From that CBC article, over 1/2 of those 30K kids are over 13 years old.

That is an etirely different social issue where we have so many older kids that need homes.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I accidently hit a link to the CFRA web site. CFRA is the ultra-right-wing "news" station here in Ottawa. But they had an interesting poll question today.

The question was, given Canada's aging population (see http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories ) what should be done to keep the country running? There will likely be too few skilled workers to keep the country running and there won't be enough money to cover health care and old age pension. The options on the poll were:
(1) Encourage families to have more children
(2) Increase immigration
(3) Increase taxes to cover the increased costs
(4) Other

About 80% picked option 1. Which I think is horrible. I don't like Quebec subsidizing large families with extra money to those with more children. We've discussed in other threads the problems with ever expanding population problems in India and China (despite the one child law). I don't think MORE people is the right answer to any of our problems. Now I realize that the other choices given forced the typical conservative on CFRAs site into a corner.. there was no way they would want MORE immigrants or MORE taxes. But there was an OTHER option, or they could have skipped voting at all.

If you don't have more people, you're going to have less people.

Japan's population starting rolling over to the negative a year or so ago.

China's population is going to do the same thing, believe it or not.

Europe is going to see a significant population contraction.

Russia is seeing a population contraction right now.

Immigration is the answer to simply MAINTAIN the current population level and, hopefully, weed the bubble out of the system and balance things across all age groups.

Aggressive immigration would increase the population.

There are vast areas of the world with the opposite problem . . . . . a gigantic percentage of their populations under 30.

Cowperson

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

1,010,586 abortions between 1970 and 1987 in Canada. Another 1,811,707 reported abortions in Canada between 1988 and 2005. I say "reported" abortions because when the Supreme court struck down the last of the legal restrictions against abortion(1988) they also disallowed manditory reporting. In the last decade there has been less volunteer reporting to Stats Canada from Abortion clinics. Still there is about 100,000 abortions in Canada a year. That means the potentual loss of 100,000 educated workers coming into the economy each year. Canada lost about 3,000,000 tax payers from 1970 to 2005 and eventually will be loseing about a 1,000,000 a decade.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue you can't look at our country's declining birth rates while ignoring the big white elephant in the room.

Without getting too deep the ethical/moral abortion debate I have to agree with you here. The sheer number of abortions is shocking and any discussion about birthrates should include a discussion about the impact that on-demand abortions have on it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Without getting too deep the ethical/moral abortion debate I have to agree with you here. The sheer number of abortions is shocking and any discussion about birthrates should include a discussion about the impact that on-demand abortions have on it.

Yeah, you have to wonder, but all morality aside, at the same time, you would need some demographics on the people who have these abortions.

Most studies would agree that these aborted people are likeliest to be the ones who receive welfare and have criminal records. So would we be further ahead or further behind had these millions of aborted babies been born and rose to adulthood?

The question is, how many of these potential births were aborted by capable parents and what can be done as an incentive for capable parents to have/keep children?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yeah, you have to wonder, but all morality aside, at the same time, you would need some demographics on the people who have these abortions.

Most studies would agree that these aborted people are likeliest to be the ones who are receive welfare and have criminal records.

The question is, how many of these potential births were aborted by capable parents and what can be done as an incentive for capable parents to have/keep children?

Without a doubt there's more to talk about here. However when the ratio of abortions to live births gets that high, something tells me it's not all drug addicted, unfit welfare collecting criminals that are aborting their pregnancies.

I know plenty of girls who have had one or more and in my estimation do not fit the mold of unfit, criminal, welfare recipients.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Without a doubt there's more to talk about here. However when the ratio of abortions to live births gets that high, something tells me it's not all drug addicted, unfit welfare collecting criminals that are aborting their pregnancies.

I know plenty of girls who have had one or more and in my estimation do not fit the mold of unfit, criminal, welfare recipients.

Girls who don't fit the mold before pregnancy, but would you say they are capable of supporting themselves and a child at a reasonable level and exempt from falling to that level? Probably more than a few, but enough that seriously questions the rate? Who knows. Plus, when its a rate that high, who's to say its not a lot of the same people.

Its kind of like having a divorce rate that mirrors a 50% ratio. It doesn't necessarily mean half of everyone's marriage will fail... there's a lot of multiples. Even with that, there's a ton of poor decisions, but also a substantial amount of cases where there's reasonable circumstances.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Girls who don't fit the mold before pregnancy, but would you say they are capable of supporting themselves and a child at a reasonable level and exempt from falling to that level? Probably more than a few, but enough that seriously questions the rate? Who knows. Plus, when its a rate that high, who's to say its not a lot of the same people.

Its kind of like having a divorce rate that mirrors a 50% ratio. It doesn't necessarily mean half of everyone's marriage will fail... there's a lot of multiples. Even with that, there's a ton of poor decisions, but also a substantial amount of cases where there's reasonable circumstances.

In my own anecdotal conversation we're talking about peolpe that have jobs that make above the median Canadian household income.

The Globe and Mail did a huge research project into abortion and the demographics behind it last summer. I don't have a link, but one thing that they were trying to hammer home is that it's so wide spread that it essentially is common in all demographic classes (Of course with overrepresentation from the expected groups, but a wide distribution non the less).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Girls who don't fit the mold before pregnancy, but would you say they are capable of supporting themselves and a child at a reasonable level and exempt from falling to that level? Probably more than a few, but enough that seriously questions the rate? Who knows. Plus, when its a rate that high, who's to say its not a lot of the same people.

I think what was being said is why not have some of these unwanted pregnancies go to term, and have the baby adopted into a family that wants a child; and has proven they are capable of supporting one?

I am pro-choice, but years ago I had a friend who got pregnant at 16. She was going to have an abortion, but instead had a directed adoption of her child. She got to interview and choose the future parents, and is evn in the child's life as an "aunt." I ran into her about 10 years after the fact and she told me it was the best decision she had ever made.

Maybe options made available to people might prove to benefit everybody.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

In my own anecdotal conversation we're talking about peolpe that have jobs that make above the median Canadian household income.

The Globe and Mail did a huge research project into abortion and the demographics behind it last summer. I don't have a link, but one thing that they were trying to hammer home is that it's so wide spread that it essentially is common in all demographic classes (Of course with overrepresentation from the expected groups, but a wide distribution non the less).

Demographics done by a newspapermight be a little misleading. Not only are there a lot of people who would refuse to disclose (or refuse to disclose how many). As well, when it comes to socioeconomics, you likely see a lot of young women citing their family income, rather than their own.

I do think there are far too many superficial abortions, but I don't think we want to live in a society that refuses to allow people to make their decisions.

However, ken0042 brings up a good point about adoption. However, I was under the impression there are already more babies available for adoption than eager parents. Of course, with the allowance of same sex couples to adopt, that could change a little.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Demographics done by a newspapermight be a little misleading. Not only are there a lot of people who would refuse to disclose (or refuse to disclose how many). As well, when it comes to socioeconomics, you likely see a lot of young women citing their family income, rather than their own.

I do think there are far too many superficial abortions, but I don't think we want to live in a society that refuses to allow people to make their decisions.

However, ken0042 brings up a good point about adoption. However, I was under the impression there are already more babies available for adoption than eager parents. Of course, with the allowance of same sex couples to adopt, that could change a little.

Would you? or would you see not-so young woman lie about their income downwards to make it appear like they had more 'legitimate reasons.' I will accept that the demographic study would be hard to accept as being entirely accurate, but I think it would be even more speculative to imply that its bias would trend one way or another without anything to base that on.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Would you? or would you see not-so young woman lie about their income downwards to make it appear like they had more 'legitimate reasons.' I will accept that the demographic study would be hard to accept as being entirely accurate, but I think it would be even more speculative to imply that its bias would trend one way or another without anything to base that on.

Its going on the typical practice that our generation makes (as well as those a little older and younger) that presumes their family's income is their income. While it makes a lot more sense to downplay it, often that tact isn't a consideration since its more than likely an anonymous survey.

Its speculative for sure, but a flawed survey requires speculation.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its going on the typical practice that our generation makes (as well as those a little older and younger) that presumes their family's income is their income. While it makes a lot more sense to downplay it, often that tact isn't a consideration since its more than likely an anonymous survey.

Its speculative for sure, but a flawed survey requires speculation.

It wasn't one survey, but rather a mashing of many studies/surveys done over the years. It would take some digging to even really understand the process of how questions were asked and in what way to formulate a comment on what direction a bias (if there is a heavy one) would take on.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It wasn't one survey, but rather a mashing of many studies/surveys done over the years. It would take some digging to even really understand the process of how questions were asked and in what way to formulate a comment on what direction a bias (if there is a heavy one) would take on.

I think we can agree that a study like that really only tells a small story, but there's definitely a trend with abortions and youth, poor societal/economic status, and unfit/unready parents. Are there others who don't fit there? for sure. I don't think we want to pursue any social engineering policies that put more children in the hands of those three groups.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

(1) Encourage families to have more children

How do they go about doing this anyway? Does it work? I doubt it.

The people who want kids are going to have them despite what the government offers or doesn't offer.

The people who don't want kids aren't going to have them despite what the government offers or doesn't offer.

If there are parents out there who were motivated to become parents by an extra 6 months of EI or a monthly pittance/allowance, I'd prefer they were sterilized and not motivated to have more children.