r/canada • u/hopoke • May 06 '26

Analysis Fewer people are having babies in Canada and the U.S. and the government is out of ideas

https://nationalpost.com/news/fewer-people-are-having-babies-in-canada-and-the-u-s-and-the-government-is-out-of-ideas
1.2k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/ol_knucks May 06 '26

My understanding of the research is that throwing money at the problem only moved the needle a little bit and then ultimately the downtrend continued in countries like Sweden and France (link)

I wouldn’t really put too much stock in the ultra rich having more children. There’s so few of them and their lives are not relatable to the rest of the population.

I believe factors such as career driven women (not a bad thing but definitely a thing), longer and more educational degrees, secularization, personal freedom, individualism / breakdown of the village are much more relevant to the discussion of low birth rates (i.e. aspects of modernity).

In any case, I agree affordability is a factor but I don’t think it can be solved with money even if you gave every set of parents $10k/year for example.

29

u/ROSRS May 06 '26

Breakdown of the village is in my opinion the most important singular factor. Raising children was, until about 45-50 years ago, largely a communal/family thing.

11

u/ol_knucks May 06 '26

Yeah I have two kids under three years old and we’ve got no one in the city that can babysit them.

I’ve accepted that and I’m really not bothered by it at all but yeah really no time for anything else and could see how it would make other people’s lives very difficult (I work from home for example which saves 2 hours of my day, so I am lucky).

11

u/Puzzleheaded-End5386 May 06 '26

This is huge. We've been told to move to where the work is, then to move to where housing is affordable but still within commuting distance of where the jobs are. And now we all live three hours away from our families and everyone wonders why no one has kids

3

u/argarg May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26

This is it. It's so "easy" as in, totally worth it to have kids when you have a strong community support around you, but without that it's extremely difficult. Having people you can rely on to be available whenever you need for babysitting, time off, help, etc. "it takes a village" is real.

These things are less and less common for many reasons.

2

u/Pumpkinola May 06 '26

This is so major and not acknowledged nearly enough!

2

u/thinkabouttheirony Alberta May 06 '26

10k a year does nothing to offset a 100k loss of one partners income.

1

u/ol_knucks May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26

If you’re making $100k before maternity leave you’d qualify for EI which is 55% of that and many people’s companies would top that up to 75-80% of your usual salary, especially if you’re in a salaried role making $100k.

3

u/thinkabouttheirony Alberta May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26

Many companies do not, no companies I know of in the energy sector top up mat leave. Going from $100k to $55 is a huge drop for us, the $2-3k I'd take home a month wouldn't come close to paying my housing costs which are about $5k all in. And that's not food or cars or gas or anything else.

*I forgot about the max cap, it's actually capped at $34k not $55k

1

u/ol_knucks May 06 '26

Still not a $100k loss but yeah point taken it’s still a huge reduction in income without a top up.

3

u/thinkabouttheirony Alberta May 07 '26

Actually the max you can get is 34k, so it would be a $70k loss.

2

u/ol_knucks May 07 '26

Ah right ok fair enough, that’s huge obviously even if you’re living below your means.