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

[YZT580]

Doesn't help the countries losing people. If demographic shrinkage is going to be a problem, it'll be an international security (as in, avoidance of conflict) problem. We need solutions that don't involve robbing other countries of their population, and particularly skilled parts of their population, even if we think that for now they have a "surplus" of people. While overall it's probably a net gain (skilled industrious people generally achieve greater lifetime potential and output in prosperous, relatively free countries), the gaining and losing nations are winners and losers, respectively.

Families with 2 or more children were common when I grew up (many with 3 or 4), when "family planning" had been well established, so birth control can't be entirely blamed. What's changed? Most of the basic elements of a middle class life are relatively cheaper. An outlier is housing. Transferring money to individuals using other excuses is just a band-aid. We need to fix the underlying problem, and if we get it fixed, we'd need to remove the band-aid so we can fix other problems.

more women with career aspirations along with feminists encouraging careers and ridiculing mothers.

 

[Rudburg]

That is what makes it political when it shouldn’t be. Again, if you promote pro natalist social policies you’ll actually have a better chance of actually reducing abortion rates since people will want to have children.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? While it seems logical at first glance, as a casual observation, in North America from 1960 onwards, we have created many incentives for birth or child care, but birth rates have been declining over the same period. I'm not sure Singapore's experience is necessarily relevant here, but it certainly doesn't support the case.

Furthermore, any practical government policy is going to be political. Even if there is total agreement on the objectives (which is unlikely at best), there will be reasonable grounds to disagree on the costs and benefits of any particular policy.

That is only one part of the argument you have chosen to focus on.

The core axioms that drive disagreement are fundamentally moral ones. Don't confuse the logic that is used (ie the arguments that support a position) with the underlying axioms that are the start point for the disagreement itself. Advocates may bring in other pragmatic points to augment their position, but they will never convince the other side because the two sides of the abortion debate aren't pursuing the same objectives. They are actually arguing past each other.

You are the one that is reducing to a single point of debate (the moral one) and are not looking at the overall issues.

It isn’t black and white or one issue over another. It’s multi faceted.

You have suggested one particular party to the debate was guilty of an underlying hypocrisy. That's not a multifaceted argument, it's an ad hominem. I'm claiming that you can oppose abortion on principle without favoring any specific government-run social programs.

In general, I favor pro-child policies, but I can understand why somebody might reasonably disagree.

 

[TacticalTea]

Fair enough. But plenty don’t support universal child care either.

Like I said it creates a glitch in social conservative minds

Universal child care is an anti-natalist policy, for the record.

 

[Remius]

What evidence do you have to support this claim? While it seems logical at first glance, as a casual observation, in North America from 1960 onwards, we have created many incentives for birth or child care, but birth rates have been declining over the same period. I'm not sure Singapore's experience is necessarily relevant here, but it certainly doesn't support the case.

That’s not what I said. I said you have a better chance of lowering abortion rates. Not necessarily increasing birth rates. You can go and look at declining abortion rates in developed nations and in many cases it’s a combination of strong social programs and admittedly strong anti natalist policies (education, access to contraceptives etc). The Lancet has a paper on it and I’ll try and dig it up. Edit: from the Lancet study:

High-income countries where abortion is broadly legal had the lowest unintended pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion. Among middle-income and low-income countries, there was not a clear relationship between legal restrictions and abortion rates, or the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion. These findings could reflect differences in the quality and capacity of national health systems in low-income and middle-income countries, and show the need for additional investment in sexual and reproductive health care. Research is also needed for obstacles people face (eg, social and economic obstacles) to exercising their reproductive autonomy, and the policies and programmes that can most effectively ensure all peoples’ sexual and reproductive health and rights.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext

Furthermore, any practical government policy is going to be political. Even if there is total agreement on the objectives (which is unlikely at best), there will be reasonable grounds to disagree on the costs and benefits of any particular policy.

Then let’s go with “partisan” vs political. Things of this nature should be bi-partisan. I know that is likely impossible though.

The core axioms that drive disagreement are fundamentally moral ones. Don't confuse the logic that is used (ie the arguments that support a position) with the underlying axioms that are the start point for the disagreement itself. Advocates may bring in other pragmatic points to augment their position, but they will never convince the other side because the two sides of the abortion debate aren't pursuing the same objectives. They are actually arguing past each other.

Not disagreeing. The statement you said was exclusively though.

You have suggested one particular party to the debate was guilty of an underlying hypocrisy. That's not a multifaceted argument, it's an ad hominem. I'm claiming that you can oppose abortion on principle without favoring any specific government-run social programs.

Pointing out the hypocrisy or contradictions or fallacies in one’s position, belief system or opinion is not ad hominem.

I said it was a multifaceted issue and not an exclusive one as you stated. Not that my point was a multifaceted argument.

As to your claim, go back and read my previous posts where I state the exact same thing. That isn’t in question.

In general, I favor pro-child policies, but I can understand why somebody might reasonably disagree.

 

[Remius]

Universal child care is an anti-natalist policy, for the record.

Explain and show us for record.

 

[TacticalTea]

Explain and show us for record.

Getting rid of your kids as soon as possible (right as your maternal leave runs out) to fork them over to the government is not conducive to centering life around the family or creating the best relationship between mother and child.

Rather, it is yet another form of commodification of children/humans. The message it sends is that you'll find greater meaning in life from spreadsheets rather than in your kids; that to serve your boss is more respectable/important than to serve your family.

I have not seen data that showed it to have any substantial positive effect on fertility rates.

 

[brihard]

Getting rid of your kids as soon as possible (right as your maternal leave runs out) to fork them over to the government is not conducive to centering life around the family or creating the best relationship between mother and child.

That’s not what he said though. The question was about pro-natalism, not family dynamics.

Rather, it is yet another form of commodification of children/humans. The message it sends is that you'll find greater meaning in life from spreadsheets rather than in your kids; that to serve your boss is more respectable/important than to serve your family.

I have not seen data that showed it to have any substantial positive effect on fertility rates.

Alternatively, it recognizes that a decent standard of living for a family is much more reliant on two incomes, and that this can be an inhibitor to growing the family. My generation, and the one coming up behind me, very much have cost of living as a major barrier to growing families. And we work really hard to balance the work and family obligations- work life balance has grown as a concept, and I think this is part of it.

Plus, simply, many women just don’t want to be stuck at home in perpetuity when other models work, whether it’s Grandma, the local child care center, or when our kids start going to school- it’s no coincidence that school scheduling and work schedules are in most cases very related to each other.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why do you assume that women are the ones being “stuck at home”?

I am not trolling, but I am currently the primary care giver in my family.

 

[Remius]

Why do you assume that women are the ones being “stuck at home”?

They are generally the majority that do.

I am not trolling, but I am currently the primary care giver in my family.

Respect.

 

[brihard]

Why do you assume that women are the ones being “stuck at home”?

I am not trolling, but I am currently the primary care giver in my family.

Because of how much of an exception you are. Props to you though, and I’m glad Canada’s getting better about parental leave beyond just maternity. I don’t think anyone here will argue that it’s not usually the mom taking the bulk of the time off work, even though it’s shifting a bit.

 

[Remius]

Getting rid of your kids as soon as possible (right as your maternal leave runs out) to fork them over to the government is not conducive to centering life around the family or creating the best relationship between mother and child.

That is another argument. It does not show that it is anti natalist at all.

Rather, it is yet another form of commodification of children/humans. The message it sends is that you'll find greater meaning in life from spreadsheets rather than in your kids; that to serve your boss is more respectable/important than to serve your family.

Again a different argument.

I have not seen data that showed it to have any substantial positive effect on fertility rates.

There is data.

Here is a comparative study between Ontario and Quebec, dealing with fertility, workforce and surprisingly increases in coupling.

Fertility rates and labour force participation among women in Quebec and Ontario

Using data from the Canadian Vital Statistics Birth Database and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), this study examines the relationship between fertility rates and labour force participation among women aged 15 to 44 in Ontario and in Quebec between 1996 and 2016, two provinces that followed...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

The conclusions indicate a variety of things from women increasing in the workforce, staying in couples (as common law benefits are better than in Ontario, and diverging fertility rates that seem to increase in relation to child care benefits and cost differentials.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Because of how much of an exception you are. Props to you though, and I’m glad Canada’s getting better about parental leave beyond just maternity. I don’t think anyone here will argue that it’s not usually the mom taking the bulk of the time off work, even though it’s shifting a bit.

It usually is the Mom taking the bulk of maternity leave for obvious, practical and biological reasons.

After that, I am starting to see (at least in my area) that the primary caregiving duties are falling on the parent with either the lower income or the more flexible work schedule. That is just pragmatism.

 

[TacticalTea]

That is another argument. It does not show that it is anti natalist at all.

What?

Again a different argument.

Can you at least explain your rationale?

A policy that dehumanizes children and trivializes family is NOT anti-natalist?

There is data.

Here is a comparative study between Ontario and Quebec, dealing with fertility, workforce and surprisingly increases in coupling.

Fertility rates and labour force participation among women in Quebec and Ontario

Using data from the Canadian Vital Statistics Birth Database and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), this study examines the relationship between fertility rates and labour force participation among women aged 15 to 44 in Ontario and in Quebec between 1996 and 2016, two provinces that followed...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

The conclusions indicate a variety of things from women increasing in the workforce, staying in couples (as common law benefits are better than in Ontario, and diverging fertility rates that seem to increase in relation to child care benefits and cost differentials.

The data shows a .1 difference, and Quebec remains well below replacement.

Utterly inconclusive.

Nothing points directly to universal childcare either. Could be just as easily explained as the traditional coattails of a province that has always been more natalist, going back generations.

 

[brihard]

It usually is the Mom taking the bulk of maternity leave for obvious, practical and biological reasons.

After that, I am starting to see (at least in my area) that the primary caregiving duties are falling on the parent with either the lower income or the more flexible work schedule. That is just pragmatism.

Absolutely, and that all makes sense. Economic reality is still that women, on average, earn less, and so on average if one parents needs to take time off work, the mom will be the lesser financial hit. Along with lower income is a greater proportion of women working more service sector/part time jobs where flexible or less than full times hours may be more readily available- or where they can more easily walk away from the job for a few years and then go back to something similar. Lots of economic and labour force history at play here.

Setting aside exceptions and putting my comment back in context: more women want to be more economically participant these days, and so older approaches that relied on the expectation of mom staying home continue to be less attractive and less viable, for this and a host of other reasons.

If we lived in a society where you could have a safe and comfortable family lifestyle off a family income we would probably see more of exactly that. But this rabbit hole just pops us back out in one of our other costs of living/housing costs threads.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Absolutely, and that all makes sense. Economic reality is still that women, on average, earn less, and so on average if one parents needs to take time off work, the mom will be the lesser financial hit. Along with lower income is a greater proportion of women working more service sector/part time jobs where flexible or less than full times hours may be more readily available- or where they can more easily walk away from the job for a few years and then go back to something similar. Lots of economic and labour force history at play here.

Setting aside exceptions and putting my comment back in context: more women want to be more economically participant these days, and so older approaches that relied on the expectation of mom staying home continue to be less attractive and less viable, for this and a host of other reasons.

If we lived in a society where you could have a safe and comfortable family lifestyle off a family income we would probably see more of exactly that. But this rabbit hole just pops us back out in one of our other costs of living/housing costs threads.

That’s fair.

 

[Remius]

What?

Your argument hasn’t shown that subsidized or universal child care is anti natalist. It only shows your position on family dynamics. One of the biggest barriers to having children is cost. Reducing that cost incentivizes having children.

Can you at least explain your rationale?

You are arguing family dynamics and societal states. Find me one source that indicates that childcare is anti natalist. That makes no sense. If you want to argue that it erodes family cohesion and traditional family upbringing that would be something to explore in that context. Lack of childcare is also a barrier to having children.

A policy that dehumanizes children and trivializes family is NOT anti-natalist?

That’s really pushing it. Dehumanizes? See above.

The data shows a .1 difference, and Quebec remains well below replacement.

Utterly inconclusive.

Only if you didn’t read the conclusions. I’d didn’t say anything about replacement numbers only we see a divergence between the provinces in and around the same time QC introduced certain policies. While it may not be increasing, the drop is slowing. It would likely be lower without them and in line with Ontario.

Quebec’s higher total fertility rate largely reflects increased childbearing among women in their twenties. In turn, that pattern partly reflects the fact that women in their twenties are more likely to be part of a common-law couple in Quebec than in Ontario—stemming from greater social acceptance about living common law as an alternative to marriage in Quebec. Scandinavian-inspired family policies implemented in Quebec beginning in the late 1990s may also have resulted in increased fertility at younger ages insofar as they reduce the opportunity costs of having children and/or the price of child care, which in turn facilitate a better combination of earning and caring roles.

Nothing points directly to universal childcare either. Could be just as easily explained as the traditional coattails of a province that has always been more natalist, going back generations.

I didn’t say it did, just that it is a factor. Again, I question if you read the report critically or not.

 

[TacticalTea]

Setting aside exceptions and putting my comment back in context: more women want to be more economically participant these days, and so older approaches that relied on the expectation of mom staying home continue to be less attractive and less viable, for this and a host of other reasons.

It doesn't matter what anyone wants. The current culture tends towards extinction and will be replaced. Either by foreign cultures coming in and taking over, or by homegrown natalist counter cultures.

Basic math.

If we lived in a society where you could have a safe and comfortable family lifestyle off a family income we would probably see more of exactly that. But this rabbit hole just pops us back out in one of our other costs of living/housing costs threads.

There's a bit of cause and effect inversion at play here.

Much of that is downstream of policy choices.

In reality, lifestyle inflation tracked with female workforce participation, then "economic disenfranchisement" and real estate unaffordability came from globalization.

Objectively, the vast majority of humans in the vast majority of past generations had much less wealth, yet many more children.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

An interesting factor is that rural and remote (including first nations) families tend, by observation, to be much larger than urban families. Economic factors can’t be the only thing at play- there have to be cultural and group dynamic factors at play, too.

Interesting debate, nonetheless. Keep up the good, respectful work!

 

[TacticalTea]

Your argument hasn’t shown that subsidized or universal child care is anti natalist. It only shows your position on family dynamics. One of the biggest barriers to having children is cost. Reducing that cost incentivizes having children.

It doesn't. Read my last paragraph to my reply to Brihard.

Alternatively, provide source convincingly showing substantial effect of natalist policies you've alluded to so far.

(It doesn't exist)

You are arguing family dynamics and societal states. Find me one source that indicates that childcare is anti natalist. That makes no sense. If you want to argue that it erodes family cohesion and traditional family upbringing that would be something to explore in that context. Lack of childcare is also a barrier to having children.

You gave me that source. Quebec has universal childcare and below replacement fertility.

This is the context. People will have kids when the family is elevated above career.

Your - and bureaucrat types' - failure to see that is why none of your so-called "natalist policies" ever work.

You're here touting female workforce participation as a win in a conversation about natality. Out to lunch, man.

That’s really pushing it. Dehumanizes? See above.

Yes. I very simply stated that. Commodifying children is dehumanizing.

Only if you didn’t read the conclusions. I’d didn’t say anything about replacement numbers only we see a divergence between the provinces in and around the same time QC introduced certain policies. While it may not be increasing, the drop is slowing. It would likely be lower without them and in line with Ontario.

I didn’t say it did, just that it is a factor. Again, I question if you read the report critically or not.

I've read many such reports because I see this as the primary and most critical issue gripping our society. I already know all the mainstream opinions. They're unimaginative, ineffective, and wrong.

 

[suffolkowner]

lots of funny things going on with fertility and sometimes counter productive

How Cash Incentives Can Affect Childbearing Among Low-Income Women

The study analyzes how a guaranteed income program that significantly increases work incentives affects childbearing among previously unemployed women. Results from previous research indicate that improving individuals’ financial circumstances could increase fertility by compensating for the...

su.figshare.com