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
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
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
|
|
|
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708
|
posted 30 September 2005 08:25 AM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Single Father of Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10472
|
posted 30 September 2005 09:15 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 30 September 2005 10:07 AM
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
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 30 September 2005 10:19 AM
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
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
|
|
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 01 October 2005 01:50 AM
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
|
|
|