385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
385 points (98.2% liked)
Canada
7187 readers
421 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
🍁 Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Considering that if you aren't making a lot, you can get quite a bit of money every month for each kid through child benefits until they are 18, I don't think the cost of housing is the issue.
Here's a radical thought: Maybe people simply don't want to be burdened by kids.
Perhaps if we stopped pressuring mothers into believing that they NEED to have kids, or that couples can't be complete without a real family.
Maybe then we can start normalizing the fact that not everyone actually wants (or needs) kids.
EDIT: For you idiots downvoting, could you at least read the study? It agrees with what I wrote!
That's a joke, right? When I looked it was only 500 to 620 a month per kid.
You have baby items to worry about, needing a crap ton of clothes (kids grow a LOT), having adequate nutrition (growth spurts too), school supplies, and more. If you're already barely making ends meet, of COURSE you'll struggle if you add another human being. Of course, cost of living also varies by area, as well as public transportation. Without that, you'd have to hope that you live near essentials like a family doctor, or you'd have to pony up even more money for a car and child seat.
If that's not enough, you also get the fun of society looking down on your for "having kids before you were ready". Many of us heard that from adults throughout the entire time we grew up. Why voluntarily walk into that? Nah. IF I ever have a kid, it won't be untilI can guarantee that that doesn't happen.
I think they misunderstood a Stats Canada paper to get a wildly unrealistic cost estimate. I linked it and some numbers in a reply further up.
I've raised two, and they are rising their own.
If an extra 500+ a month isn't enough, then you are overspending for no good reason!
Buy second hand, learn how to be frugal with certain items, get most larger items from a baby shower (if you have one), etc., don't get sucked into blitz marketing that targets new parents, etc.
Kids become more of a financial burden when they grow up... age 10-18 and beyond, and that money is still rolling in.
That's my point from my original comment. Society is pressuring people into “wanting” kids, but a great number of people simply don't, and that's OK!
Housing is an easy example. One bedroom or bachelor's pads are, in my area, ~1200/month. Not the nicest ones at that price, but decent. You jump up to a two bed or a Ben+a den, and you're looking at 1800/month at least. At a three bed, it's close to 2500/month.
Even if you assume those are on the larger side for price jumps, if you're barely able to scrape by with two people in a bachelor's apartment or in a one bedroom, there's no way you can "afford" it solely by CCB benefits. Almost all the benefit is eaten up by housing increases alone! Then add on childcare, and CCB isn't enough to give those feeling like they're just hanging on wiggle room to raise a child.
Kids are an enormous financial burden early on, especially for the small things. Kids get sick a lot, so you need to have a job that will allow you flexibility, or else you'll lose money for unpaid days off for doctors appointments or to sit at home with them when they're puking.
Kids need daycare unless youre staying home, which is suuuuper expensive these days. They also have limited hours, which if you're stuck working a shitty job, you may not be able to make.
Even second hand, clothes are expensive, and with how fast kids grow, it's an expense worth noting.
All in all, if you're well off, yeah it may not be a big problem for you, but for the people that are already struggling, it's a large factor into why they're not having kids yet.
FYI: Stats Canada published recent data on the cost of raising a kid in Canada (how much parents spent). It's estimated that low-income homes spend around $30,000 for a child from 0 - 12 years of age ($214 / month on average).
Just throwing in some numbers in the child benefit calculator for two people making $35,000 each with around $1200 in rent a month, they'd get $207 in child benefits + other benefits (climate action incentives, etc.).
$7 out of pocket to spend on the kid... if you are overspending like people usually do.
But I do agree that there are areas where kids can be more expensive, like high-cost daycare. This is less of a concern in multi-generational families or single-income families, where the child can be watched by their parent or family member (more common in Canada, especially among immigrant families).
These are things that vary from family to family, and are ever-changing – you can't predict what expenses you'll have 10 year from now. What if the kid is born with a special need? This goes well beyond the “cost of living”.
Kids are not risk-free, and we shouldn't act like money is the only factor here.
If this is the link you're talking about, your numbers are way off - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm
That shows that even for low income families (<83k/yr), they spend an average of 14,000$/yr on each child. That's way higher than your estimated 30,000/ages 0-7, so I'm curious where you got your data from.
I don't discount that there's a societal push for people to get older and make sure they're confident in wanting kids before they have them, and with low cost birth control we've reduced accidental pregnancies, but cost is still an enormous factor.
Costs have increased significantly in the past few decades.
The only after school care available in my community costs around $400/mo. I'm in a rural area, so it's probably higher in cities.
Daycare may be cheaper now due to the $10/day thing, but I'm not sure how many spots are available.
Swimming lessons are $200-300. Sports typically run for a season, but they start around $200. We've got our kids in "cheap" sports, but even then, costs add up.
I know not everyone wants to hear it, but having a child requires sacrifice.
If it's more affordable/practical to have one parent stay at home with the child, while the other works, then that's what needs to be done. There's no shame with one parent watching their own kid while their partner works, then their partner can care for the child while the other goes to their job.
These are things that need to be planned and discussed BEFORE having a child. It's all part of the deal.
Sports have always been expensive, and prohibitive to the point of discriminating against low-income families. This is not a childcare issue, but an issue with how sports and services are being delivered. I went through the same with gymnastics for our daughter, and various activities for our son, so I completely understand how unfair that is.
Your anecdote does not exist in today’s world. They do not compare.
OK boomer
I can attest from personal experience, finances are 100% the reason me and my partner can't have kids right now. Its very hard to justify brining a kid into this world when its hard to maintain stability for 2 adults, let alone with the costs required to raise a child.
We were evicted from our last home for no other reason than the greed of our landlord. That stress would have been tenfold if we had to go through that with kids.
And government child benefits wouldn't help? If you are struggling that much (and I don't suggest having a kid if you are struggling at all), the government will pay you monthly for the next 18 years that you have a child...
I think you need to look beyond finances to make this decision, though. Do you have the energy and time for a kid? Are you willing to put all your plans on hold for the foreseeable future, potentially burden your relationship, for a child? Will you be able to quit your job to spend your entire day caring for a child with special needs? Are you willing to care for that child beyond age 18, when the financial burden of supporting them (a third adult) could jeopardize your retirement?
The decision to have a child shouldn't be made lightly, regardless of how strong society pushes for it. Neither should the decision to have pets, but I digress.
I do wish you and your partner all the best, and hope that you find more financial stability in your lives.
the amount that any government pays you when you have a child is a pittance compared to the cost of having a child… especially if you want to do more than simply scrape by and have like… christmas, birthdays…
That's another thing. Being able to afford the bare minimum isn't enough to justify having kids. People who grew up in poverty say it sucked and it's better to have fewer kids than have them live in poverty
Kids under 10 aren't expensive, especially when you're getting a few hundred dollars extra every month from the government.
What's expensive is going out to buy a brand new $800 stroller, a $400 crib, hundreds on toys that will outgrow or discard after a few months, luxury items that aren't needed. In other words, new parents are more than likely overspending when they don't need to.
Be creative and raising a kid isn't expensive... until they become teens/adults and are still dependant on you. LOL
FYI: Stats Canada published recent data on the cost of raising a kid in Canada (how much parents spent). It's estimated that low-income homes spend around $30,000 for a child from 0 - 12 years of age ($214 / month on average). Just throwing in some numbers in the child benefit calculator for two people making $35,000 each with around $1200 in rent a month, they'd get $207 in child benefits + other beneifts (climate action incentives, etc.). $7 out of pocket to spend on the kid... if you are overspending like people usually do.
So, yeah, it's not the cost of having kids that turns people off from having them. The study that the article is based on even says this!
yeah and it’s possible to live on $15 of food per day without internet, electricity, a car
… but we don’t, because it’s not comfortable
like you’re literally saying that if you think raising kids is too much of a financial burden maybe you haven’t considered giving up everything in your life to pay for one
how about no… my bar for having kids (actually i never want kids for so many reasons, but if i did) is not just survival
Also with inflation these days I'm not sure if you can actually feed a family on $15 per day, even if you try really hard. You also need internet and electricity these days, it's not even optional. Hell I think my landlord probably evict me if we let them shut off the electricity. Since this is Canada we're talking about you probably do need the car because they botched things just as bad as the Americans
I think you misunderstood... or, perhaps I'm not following you.
Do you expect that people should not have to pay for the care of their own child? Is putting in more than $7 too much?
Canadian families, according to stats Canada, are not losing money by having a child. Many in the lower-income groups might actually be turning a profit in the early years, since they'd get more money in child benefits than they'd be spending. I'm not saying this as opinion, that's what the data is suggesting.
If having kids were a cheat code to having more money we would be seeing the exact opposite thing happen than what we're seeing. Also how much does it cost to buy a rent an additional bedroom in canada? The housing market there is insane so that I will probably wipe out your meager government benefit
I'm not in Canada but childcare for our two children when they were little was $24k/year. I'd imagine its more like $30k/year now. We did not go overboard and buy the latest fad this or that, and used tons of hand me downs, but we absolutely needed childcare so that we both could work. Their afterschool, once they were old enough for public Elementary school, was around $10k/year for the two of them.
Does Canada provide free childcare? Would a couple, with each making $35k/year, qualify for free childcare? Otherwise I don't see how $30k would cover one child from 0-12 years.
I'm pretty sure they got their numbers wrong. I have linked to a Stats Canada article in a different reply with what I think are correct numbers that are massively higher than their claim.
Another thing you have to worry about is the uncertainty. Do you trust that the government will still provide free childcare for 12 years? Do you think you could afford to pay for it if they couldn't? What if the cost of something else went up. I could see myself having a kid if I was financially comfortable and stress-free but I'm barely maintaining myself so there's no fucking way I would even dream of having a kid
In Ontario, we have $10/day daycare available, but multiple child benefits and a daycare subsidy, depending on your needs and situation.
Child planning should include the cost of daycare.
Some families find it better to have one partner stay at home with their child, rather than pay for daycare. They would still get childcare benefits ($200+ dollars a month), and that wouldn't stop the partner from working part-time.
People do have to be realistic here. If they need to have both partners working to make ends meet, is a child really the best thing for them?
Your last paragraph shows you really do understand what's going on but you refuse to recognize it
Oh boy, you really are out of touch and have no idea what you’re talking about. Please stop.
...Are you high? The article literally states that a third of young canadians are doing just that.
The article is misleading.
Firstly, the stats can census really only talks about affordability, while the survey linked in the article talks about actual "factors influencing family plans", and quite literally states that:
"The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs."
The article is referring to low fertility rates, skips the survey data they linked to, and then jumps to the conclusion that it's all about costs! That's dishonest journalism.
i’m just gonna quote a couple of sections from the conclusion of the survey here that actual statisticians wrote after analysing their own data:
I saw your cost claim and found it really hard to believe. I mean I spend more than $200 a month raising two cats lol. I found this from Stats Canada from 2017 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2023007-eng.htm as far as I can see your numbers a way off. Looking at Table 2 for Predicted annual expenditures for one child in a one child family. It costs $14960 a year from 0-5 or $1246 a month which seems much more realistic. I wonder if you were assuming that total was from 0-5 rather than the total per year from 0-5. If you take the 0-17 total of $290,580 the monthly is $1424.
I'm seeing it written as “total expenses” for each age group, not yearly expenses.
$1200 a month for an infant seems outrageous! LOL
$1200/mo for literally everyone else in this discussion seems entirely what we expected
How much do you think they pay per kid per month? How much does that kid cost? Do the math
It's not a radical thought, it's just wrong.
Desired fertility is higher than actual fertility. https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-canadian-women-arent-having-the-children-they-desire
I have three kids, and if money wasn't a factor my wife and I would probably have 4 or 5
As the oldest of six, having grown up quite poor, thank you for stopping while still in your means.
From that same study, you need to acknowledge that many women also REGRET having kids or too many kids.
"“excess” births have a larger unhappiness effect than “missing” births individually,"
Also, from that same study, which basically proves my original point:
"Many factors influence Canadian women in having fewer children than they desire, but the most influential factors relate to the ideas that children are burdensome, that parenting is intensive and time-consuming, and that women want to finish self-development and exploration before having children. The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs."
Literally, the study being reported says that housing and childcare costs are NOT the biggest factor. Exactly as I said.
I wish you guys downvoting would at least read the damn study before shooting the messenger.
Much of that regret comes from cost pressures, not the actual existence of the children. Even if you can "afford" children, having to have both parents work full time to afford them doesn't make it easy to actually raise them.
If one parents was SAH and money still wasn't a problem there would be far fewer regrets.
Well, yeah, it's not saying that people hate their kids. LOL
According to the same survey the article linked to, people are less happy when they have more kids (than ideal) vs having fewer kids (than ideal). It doesn't say that cost pressures are a main factor.
If you look at the reasons why people don't want kids (original survey linked in the article), then you could assume that those same factors explain why people having regrets. No opportunity to grow as a person, the time commitment, less freedom, the derailment of their career, etc. (per the survey results).
A different study said that:
" Older parents with minor children still at home are less happy than their empty nest contemporaries by about 5 or 6 percentage points. And ... Both men and women report less personal happiness and less happy marriages when there are minor children around the house."
But I suppose happiness and regret can be different for each person. Having a child grow up to be a successful, contributing member of society would probably make parents happy.
I'd say that the vast majority of parents aren't in that situation, though. They not only have to continue to support their child into adulthood, but they never had a chance to develop personally because their child was never independent enough. I can see how that would cause a lot of regret for older parents.
"I'm comfortable, surely everyone else is then."
The studies cited in the op-ed show many people who want kids aren't having them due to the cost of living.
Definitely, that would be healthy for people and more environmentally sustainable.
The op-ed is not referring to people who don't want kids, however, it's looking at surveys where people say they can't afford to have kids.
That's not true. The study cited expliciitaly states that:
"... the most influential factors relate to the ideas that children are burdensome, that parenting is intensive and time-consuming, and that women want to finish self-development and exploration before having children. The view that parenting is demanding is a bigger factor for low fertility than is housing or childcare costs."
Fair point, but it is basing the op-ed on a survey that does refer to women who did not want kids, and when you consolidate the data, it's pretty clear that there's some reporting bias at play.
Still, to the point, cost of living is not the driving factor to low fertility.