babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Australia: Patriotism for more babies. What about Canada?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Australia: Patriotism for more babies. What about Canada?
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472

posted 30 September 2005 05:44 AM      Profile for Single Father of Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9509847/

quote:
Treasurer Peter Costello urged Australians to “do their patriotic duty” and have more children but it seems they were doing it anyway, just for fun. A new study shows the birthrate hitting its highest level in seven years.

Make sense, who's going to take care of the old if there is not enough young people? Immigration isn't going to last forever either, because countries where people are immigrating from are improving, and eventually people will wish to stay there and enjoy the flourishing economies over there (Ex: India/China).

Canada has had a steady decline of birthrates since the 70's. Canada was only able to survive through immigration.

The big question is: If Canada's society does not encourage families/babies...then what good is it? I'm not saying that women should have babies for the sake of it...but why are so many people choosing not to have babies in this country?


From: St. Catharines | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 30 September 2005 08:08 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In May, Peter Costello pushed vigorously to have IVF services cut throught the Federal health system, making it accessible to only the very wealthy.

One move he has made to the "have a baby" effort is to make our once-free tertiary education unaffordable. Oh, and another one is to start the process of repealing the unfair dismissal laws. If you do have a job, given your lack of tertiary education, it'll be at a "working poor" rate, because he's working tirelessly to have minimum wages dropped. And there'll be nothing you can do about it after he's finalised his plans to restrict union activities and ban strikes.

No education, no job, no money.

Perhaps his rationale is that with no education, no job and no money, what the hell else is there to do to pass all that spare time for no cost than to.... make babies?


From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465

posted 30 September 2005 08:22 AM      Profile for Southlander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Australians, and nobody else either, is having babies for the sake of the nation. Don't start believing everything you hear from politicians!
Not since the 1800's when young English women were given the following sex advice by their mothers on heading out into the antipities: Lie back and think of England.
This doesn't happen anymore.
If you want people to have more babies the best option is give them more money. Either that or seriously research why the Aussie birth rate has gone up, and see if it can be applied in Canada.

From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 30 September 2005 08:25 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's the stuff they put in the water here.. *wink* *wink*

Oh, and pictures of Peter Costello get me in the procreating mood, too, and it seems I'm not the only one:

(For the benefit of those mindful of the upcoming exam, Pete's the one facing the camera, the Prime Minister is the one facing away.)

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Suzette ]


From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472

posted 30 September 2005 08:38 AM      Profile for Single Father of Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Southlander:
Australians, and nobody else either, is having babies for the sake of the nation. Don't start believing everything you hear from politicians!
Not since the 1800's when young English women were given the following sex advice by their mothers on heading out into the antipities: Lie back and think of England.
This doesn't happen anymore.
If you want people to have more babies the best option is give them more money. Either that or seriously research why the Aussie birth rate has gone up, and see if it can be applied in Canada.

Interesting points brought up, thank you for your comments.

From what I read on CBC/CTV and other websites, the main reason why industrialized nations have a declining birth-rate is due to long-standing initiatives to have more women in the workplace. In every respect, this has been a good thing. Society simply could not of progressed to this level of prosperity without women in the workforce.

The negative however, is that corporate culture (From a CTV article I read) postulated that maternity leave is simply too much for Companies to handle. Thus, the incentive for a married woman to have children radically declines. Either she quits her job and have children, or she keeps her job and keeps taking the pill. Companies simply have no incentive or desire to allow the several weeks/months to allow a mother to birth her child/raise.

Another interesting point (brought up in an interview), is that with more money/affluence...a lot of couples are basically forgoing the idea of having children and to simply spend their excess money on other pursuits (traveling, nicer home, fancier car, etc).

With so many things in the world to explore, see and experience...what incentive is there left to simply raise children, and 'squander' the better years of your life for the sake of a child? Why not enjoy the best years by having as much fun as possible with the success you've generated via your career?

One further point to consider, Alberta has been a fairly staunchly conservative base for awhile now. Along with the billions it will generate in oil revenues, unlike Ontario, Alberta is reversing it's own downward birth trend and returning towards higher birthrates.

The more births you have, the more citizens of that province you will have, ultimately the more electoral districts will be created. What does this mean? Basically, shifting the federal balance of power from the 'left' which is basically Ontario, to the 'right' which is Alberta.

As time goes on, Ottawa will wish to have more access to the billions Alberta will be making via it's oil sales. Alberta might make a few concessions on the count that Ottawa gives more Federal power to Alberta.

All what it takes then is for a 'Mike Harris' of the right to galvanize the solid-core right-wing Western provinces, and basically win over Canada. The National Post article of "Is Conservatism dead?" has seriously been 'greatly exaggerated'.

These are but my theories, I'm not trying to play politics here, I'm just pointing out some facts. Without children, you have no future. Immigration alone can't save Canada as we know it.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Single Father of Two ]


From: St. Catharines | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sub lite
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8918

posted 30 September 2005 08:58 AM      Profile for sub lite   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Single Father of Two:
The more births you have, the more citizens of that province you will have, ultimately the more electoral districts will be created. What does this mean? Basically, shifting the federal balance of power from the 'left' which is basically Ontario, to the 'right' which is Alberta.

A major problem with that theory is that it takes a minimum of 18 years for fruition. That, I think, is beyond the attention span of your average government.

From: Australia via the Canadian Wet Coast | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472

posted 30 September 2005 09:08 AM      Profile for Single Father of Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sub lite:

A major problem with that theory is that it takes a minimum of 18 years for fruition. That, I think, is beyond the attention span of your average government.

Alberta's prosperty has been rising since the early 90's. Therefore the median age of the next generation of voters are in their early teens.

A whole new generation of Right-leaning voters will come to the polls sometime in 2009-2015. This isn't too far away. Look how fast this summer alone has gone!


From: St. Catharines | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 30 September 2005 09:09 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
SF2, Alberta is not growing nearly as fast as Ontario. Also, in Alberta, as throughout the whole country, there is a clear shift to the left. The demise of the CPC, and the implmentation of many NDP policies we have seen recently serve as proof of this.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472

posted 30 September 2005 09:15 AM      Profile for Single Father of Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
SF2, Alberta is not growing nearly as fast as Ontario. Also, in Alberta, as throughout the whole country, there is a clear shift to the left. The demise of the CPC, and the implmentation of many NDP policies we have seen recently serve as proof of this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050929.wceri0929/BNStory/Business/

quote:
The oil sands are a $1.4-trillion bonanza, according to a study that forecasts the economic impact generated by the world's second-largest deposit of crude in the 2000-2020 period

With declining oil finds/reserves in the mid-east, the world is going to look towards Alberta to fill it's needs. Alberta is only second to oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia.

What does Ontario have besides industry which can create such of a 'bonanza'? What can prevent manufacturing companies to move to Alberta and enjoy the low-taxes and strong ties with U.S. trade?

Also, if Alberta is shifting over to the left, why is their PM a longstanding Conservative?

I'm just bringing up what I read, I believe that politics can change over something as evident as declining birth-rates (we all agree that Canada is have a loss in birth rates, no?)


From: St. Catharines | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 30 September 2005 09:48 AM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh MY GOD Suzette where did you get that photo from?! Although the tables have somewhat turned of late have they not. Not too long ago it would have been Johnny Howard on the receiving end, so to speak.

Of course Howard's had a lot of practice with GWB.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 September 2005 09:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Suzette, that's pretty funny. But, um, ah...even leaving the genders of the participants out of it, that's not a very good way to "procreate".

Also, is anyone else really annoyed by the premise of the first post of this thread? Brought to you by the guy who claims that his daughters' role in life should be to find a man and make babies for him?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472

posted 30 September 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for Single Father of Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Suzette, that's pretty funny. But, um, ah...even leaving the genders of the participants out of it, that's not a very good way to "procreate".

Also, is anyone else really annoyed by the premise of the first post of this thread? Brought to you by the guy who claims that his daughters' role in life should be to find a man and make babies for him?


Since you have strong opinions. Why not share your views on the topic in this post? What is your take on Canada's low birth-rate? Immigration won't solve it, and we will have a major labour shortfall in the near future.

I also never said I wanted my daughters to grow up and simply be 'baby machines'. They want to get married someday and have children (their words not mine).


From: St. Catharines | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 September 2005 10:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My opinion is that you're trolling babble with sexist posts, and I don't like it. How's that?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 September 2005 10:07 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, but what is the essential difference between a population that grows through birth rates or through immigration? I'm suspecting the thought behind that is that we're not getting the right kind of population growth (*wink* *wink*, nudge nudge).

The decision to have children is highly personal and if I were procreating, the last thing I'd be thinking about would be my duty to the nation.

It's all nonsense.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 September 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly, Hinterland. Why WON'T immigration solve it? I think we all know the reasoning for that one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 September 2005 10:19 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just love that 22 Minutes episode where Cathy Jones did a sketch lampooning the PQ's initiative to increase birth rates (she's one of the few anglophones who can do a non-insulting francophone accent). It had to do with the PQ provincial government proposing to provide tuition support if the student got pregrant during university. The sooner and under the more wanton circumstances the student got pregnant, the higher the subsidy:

If you get pregnant during Frosh Week, we pay the whole shot

It ended with her lasciviously saying: "Vote PQ. Lower tuition...and a lotta sex!"

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 30 September 2005 11:01 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Walker:
Oh MY GOD Suzette where did you get that photo from?! Although the tables have somewhat turned of late have they not. Not too long ago it would have been Johnny Howard on the receiving end, so to speak.

Of course Howard's had a lot of practice with GWB.



Ha ha! I was hoping you'd see it, Walker. That did the rounds last year. I snuck it onto the notice board at work, but it mysteriously dissappeared a week later.

I suspect your "Oh MY GOD" stems from the shock of it being anyone other than George W Bush receiving the Prime Ministerial attentions.

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Also, is anyone else really annoyed by the premise of the first post of this thread? Brought to you by the guy who claims that his daughters' role in life should be to find a man and make babies for him?

That's why I gave it the respect it so richly deserved.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Suzette ]


From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 30 September 2005 12:28 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Exactly, Hinterland. Why WON'T immigration solve it? I think we all know the reasoning for that one.

oh don't even get me started on immigration...

if those bureaucrats could just get their act together, the rate of people immigrating here would be so much faster. people wouldn't be waiting 5-7 years to enter the country.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 30 September 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'd be there by now if my legs weren't cramping up from hurdling so much red tape.
From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 October 2005 01:50 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Single Father of Two:

quote:
Since you have strong opinions. Why not share your views on the topic in this post? What is your take on Canada's low birth-rate? Immigration won't solve it, and we will have a major labour shortfall in the near future.

My opinion of our low birthrate is that we should just leave people alone and allow them to make their own choices. People should have children because they want to build a strong family unit where children will be well-nurtured and not as some sort of social engineering. There are challenges and benefits to high birth rates, and we should respond accordingly. There are challenges and benefits to low birth rates, and we should respond accordingly.

Kevin Laddle:

quote:
SF2, Alberta is not growing nearly as fast as Ontario. Also, in Alberta, as throughout the whole country, there is a clear shift to the left. The demise of the CPC, and the implmentation of many NDP policies we have seen recently serve as proof of this.

Is there really evidence of a leftward shift in Alberta? I know that the Libs and NDP gained in last year's provincial elections, but will that shift make any noticable impact?

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca