Dear Mr. Veldhuis:
Some time ago, I had concluded that the financial burden imposed on the Canadian family is onerous enough to see young couples limit the number of children they have to one, or worse, none.
This is a huge problem for the Canadian economy because even a small drop in population, most importantly the working population, represents a drop in the tax base. That in turn, has huge repercussions on the infrastructure.
This is a huge problem for the Canadian economy because even a small drop in population, most importantly the working population, represents a drop in the tax base. That in turn, has huge repercussions on the infrastructure.
After years of consideration (including the articles I've added at the end, and attached), I concluded that the problem was a dishonest assessment of the cost of raising kids, complicated further by the onus placed on the parents, who the government assumes are the parents' luxuries. I explained this in the following essay.
The Generational Debt |
A Proposed Option If Population Rates Keep Declining In Developed Nations |
In the future, we will need to identify 'The Generational Debt.'
This isn't anything new, it's simply a means to identify something that has been largely assumed in the past.
Presently, we assume that all viable people will procreate on a one-to-one basis, so once they die, there will be a child filling that void. This is less and less the case today.
There has always been viable individuals who've died without leaving children. But now there is a whole subculture, the gay population, who are very viable, but completely unfruitful. If that wasn't enough, there is a growing segment of heterosexual couples who are also childless.
Finally, there are many couples who top out at a single child. None of this helps to maintain the current population.
But then, isn't the world coming close to being overpopulated, if it isn’t already? Why should we want to maintain the existing population?
Let us consider how the human population has managed to accelerate as it has at present.
Originally, primitive man was ruled by nature. The human couple spent much of their time foraging and occasionally they would supplement that with game.
The natural niche that our species thrived in took advantage of a largely un-prewired brain that allowed us to learn about our environment. This allowed us an adaptability that the rest of the natural world could only envy (If they could envy). However, this ‘largely un-prewired brain’ had also reached a critical mass in processing power that allowed us to develop symbols and languages, and subsequently consciousness.
Having attained language and consciousness, the social manifestation of this development was agriculture and civilization. With language/consciousness and agriculture/civilization, we attain the rudiments of our existence today.
As a consequence, a primitive farmer and his wife would have many kids because they could count on the land to feed them all. In return, they would be generating their own workforce to help them with the many jobs on a farm. This was true for North America as recently as a century ago, and is still true in many poor countries around the world.
Let us fast-forward to today: What happens in more affluent nations like North America and Europe? At least two things; agriculture is no longer the labor intensive work it once was, so the few modern farmers remaining no longer need or want large families; and two, urban couples can comfortably settle for one child, occasionally two kids.
The population in affluent countries is going downward, so they must supplement their numbers from the poorer countries where many kids are still the norm. Frankly this is shameless poaching of poor countries talent: by the time a person possesses the means to consider emigrating, they usually possess some schooling or other abilities that allow them passage into an affluent country.
Those poor countries really can't afford to lose those people because they would represent the middle class that largely drives economies. The affluent countries make a point of skimming for the cream of the crop, and do very little in return for those poor countries they've poached. They may have foreign aid programs, but too often these grants or loans don't have the value of the manpower they have lost.
To answer the question about overpopulation: we may still be increasing in number for awhile, but the reasons for doing so are being undermined by the gradual increase in personal wealth. Yes, this may yet take awhile, but we will top out. The third world is already reported to be on its way: there is now a global problem with obesity, including them. This presupposes that they have enough wealth to get obese.
Enter 'The Generational Debt.'
More than anything, this is a means to track the cost of our having finite lives.
There is a traceable cost for what it takes for a pregnant mother to give birth to a child, all the way to a point where that child is no longer a child, but an employed member of a society.
Likewise, once a person retires, we can easily track what the cost of that person's life is until s/he dies. Government pension plans do this routinely.
These two expenses PER PERSON represents the Generational Debt of that person.
So everyone has a Generational Debt simply because they were born into a society. Most people will manage to be financially viable for their working lives, and be able to cover their generational debt, assuming that they don’t have children.
This generational debt has never been identified as such. It includes all specialized child healthcare, childcare, and schooling all the way to gainful employment, and other expenses. Presently, only the parents and governments see these bills, and they pay them on the assumption that that child will do so in turn. As I'd mentioned, this is getting to be less often the case.
We have never identified this expense on a per person basis, and so many have bailed on it. The result is that this debt hasn't been paid for. A couple with two children are lumbered with onerous costs of housing/mortgage, childcare, schooling, child upbringing/discipline, concerns regarding child security (i.e. pedophiles, etc), post secondary school financing, and a raft of incidentals.
Given the average income, this will leave little room for that couple with kids to pamper themselves or each other. Finally, they can count on being on the hook for about two decades.
It is no wonder that the divorce statistics continue to get worse; this kind of load would cause stress in even the best mannered couple.
It is true there is no more a rewarding project than raising kids, but if you don't mind forgoing this (you wont understand why it’s as rewarding as it is until you do have kids anyway), then you can keep your cash and spend it on yourself.
Many couples suspect that they are in for a massive pill in having kids, so they opt for a single one. Normally, as a parent, this can be a very big, emotional gamble: you will be spending a great deal of time and energy and your emotional investment will be to the max, and should that one child die before you do, you will never know a more crushing feeling.
The safety net against this was to have more than one child. However, with the great strides in medicine, and the safer societies that we enjoy, the death of that single child is becoming less of a concern. So the population dwindles.
The population will eventually dwindle everywhere except in the poorest areas. Gays, childless or 1 child couples will continue to lumber their kids as they grow old, and there will come a time where societies will have to address this problem directly, not by simply liberalizing immigration policies.
It will be at this time you'll be presented with your Generational debt. Everyone will be equally on the hook for this debt. If you have the prescribed 2.1 children, then you wont actually pay money; if you have no kids, you'll need to cough up.
In order to make this ‘bill’ palatable to the general public, it probably wont be presented as a new bill to be paid. It would be much easier to present it as an identified component of your taxes, in a manner similar to the property tax ‘mil rate’: it would be the Generational component.
This is the only way childless people can understand why they need to pay for all the costs that go toward ensuring a stable population. While I'm presenting this Generational Dept as the solution to a dwindling population, the matter is much more complex: I address only the overall mechanism.
For example, a couple may opt to produce two kids, but go to no effort or expense to raise them. This requires other supporting social mechanisms. Then there’s the matter that child-rearing is probably the most demanding of ALL aspects of a parent’s personality – ‘problem parents’ are most likely to raise ‘problem children’, even if the corrective social mechanisms are all in place and working (which they aren’t).
Another concern is that we are beginning to witness the post war baby boomers move into retirement, and suddenly the second part of the generational debt is taxing the public purse, even with all the focus on Registered Retirement Savings Plans. Our governments have attempted to pre-empt this load with pension reserves and by offering tax incentives for savings. All of these are embryonic forms of this Generational debt.
Eventually, the money amassed from the collection of this debt will allow the birth/death process to be transparent to economic concerns, and will enormously simplify government policies that forever attempt to juggle generational priorities with economic ones. A government will be able to say, ‘We need to stabilize the population’ and set a Generational Debt (tax) rate that will allow stable funding for family focussed programs.
While this dept would be paid regularly and consumed regurlarly, a portion of it would need to go into a pension reserve. This reserve would be paid out as required to pensioners, but would be invested in mortgages to families and family-supporting infrastructure (i.e. health centers, etc.) that could also be profitable charging for non-family usage.
The mortgage rate would be based on inflation and administration alone, as in not-for-profit, so that housing for families would be uncoupled from business and non-family loans. Like this, a family could afford a house big enough for that family, instead of being fiscally penalized and left to live in less desirable (and more affordable) housing. There is a philosophical elegance to this mechanism: we would not be charging compound interest, a form of taxation on the future, on those who would chose to generate the future. This should find acceptance even with Muslims who eschew usury.
Finally, while the Generational debt would serve to keep children from living in poverty, in order to avoid seeing some couples turn into ‘baby factories’, there could be criteria to establish a couple's suitability as parents. Should they prove to be model parents, they could make this a quasi-full-time occupation that would be further financed by the government. Unsuitable parents would still be supported to the 2.1 kid level (2 kids per family with 3 kids for one in 10 such families). This should allay any fears of genetic predominance for any reason.
Whether this Generational Debt is accepted or not, it exists nonetheless. This essay only tries to identify it and make it work for those who need it, the family.
Thank you for your patience.
Joe Egerszegi
Toronto, Canada
Published march 14, 2007Metronews.ca
Birthrate stalled below death-replacement rate
More families stopping after single child
Aaron Harris/Canadian press
Nine-year-old Graham Ritchie-Newbigin, centre, plays a game with his parents Iain Newbigin, left, and Sally Ritchie at their home in Toronto. The Toronto couple’s decision to stop after one child isn’t unusual in Canada, according to the recent census.
Sally Ritchie is the youngest of eight children, but when it came time with her husband to start their own family, she had no illusions about repeating the pattern of the stereotypical big happy family.
"It was either one or two, but after I had one, that was that," says Ritchie, whose son Graham is nine. "Nowadays, it’s very, very difficult to have more than one child and be sure that you’re going to be able to put them through university and provide them with the home."
The Toronto couple’s decision to stop after one child isn’t unusual. Statistics Canada’s latest census figures released yesterday show the country’s fertility rate, the average number of children a woman will have between age 15 and 49, stalled at 1.5., far below the 2.1 per woman it takes to replace the dying population.
Better contraception, career women who delay marriage and babies, and a divorce rate of almost 50 per cent are keeping the birth rate down.
November 16, 2009 5:08 a.m.Struggling to find a home
Vince Talotta/TorStar news service
Colleen Richards and her family — husband Phil and children Justin, 18 (not in photo), Jesse, 17, and Josie, 14 (not in photo), have moved five times in five years due to job loss and high rents in Brampton.
After five moves in as many years due to high rent and utility costs, the roof — literally — fell in on Brampton mother Colleen Richards and her family.“It actually fell on my head,” says Richards of the day last spring when the soggy living room ceiling in the family’s mouldy two-bedroom apartment finally gave way.
“After all these years of struggling, it really struck me. We shouldn’t have to live this way,” says Richards, who has been slinging coffee at Tim Horton’s since 2001 when her husband was laid off from Chrysler. He has since retrained as a chef and is working in a restaurant.
“We’re hard-working people. We don’t mind working hard. We’d just like a fair shake.” But in communities such as Brampton, where subsidized housing is scarce, the Richards and their three teenaged children — like so many other low-income families — have few options.
“We were nearly homeless. But there are so many different levels before you become truly homeless,” says Richards, whose family was featured in a documentary film about homelessness in Toronto released last month by the Sky Works Charitable Foundation. “What is so troubling, is that ours is not a unique story.”
Some 647,000 Ontarians pay more than 30 per cent of their income on rent; more than 129,000 households are waiting up to 20 years for a social housing unit where rents are geared to income.
Why living alone at 30 isn’t just for lonely spinsters anymore
I will always cherish the brief couple of years that I lived entirely on my own; it was a beautiful period of independence, self-actualization and cereal for dinner. And while I have no desire to be romantically unattached again, I do find myself occasionally craving the single lifestyle.
I miss the lack of accountability that comes with living alone and the ability to indulge in all of that secret, single-girl behaviour I feel obligated to hide from my boyfriend like painting my nails in bed while watching very bad reality television.
Worldwide, the number of adults living alone has tripled in half a century. For the first time in Canadian history there are now more single-person households than couple households with children. In major cities, we are increasingly alone together: domestically separated but profoundly connected by our communal urban experiences — in restaurants, bars, gyms, museums — and through social-media platforms.
In the new CBC documentary Flying Solo, producer and director Scott Harper examines the dramatic shift in our culture towards living alone — its origins, influences and the repercussions for our society at large. The documentary, which premieres Thursday on CBC’s Doc Zone, follows a diverse variety of individuals living alone in cities across Canada and the United States.
The major benefit of independent living is the selfish autonomy it provides; when you have your own space to come home to it can be “me time” all the time. It’s the freedom to do as you please that appeals to single dwellers, says Harper: “To go to bed and get up on your clock, to eat what and when you like, to travel and to spend time with whomever you want without having to check in with anyone.”
Of course, flying solo does have its downsides. Single-income households are inherently more expensive and can lead to feelings of isolation. Without roommates or a spouse, solitary residents can risk feeling alienated if they don’t take proactive measures to remain socially active.
But Canadian cities aren’t full of lonely spinsters and incorrigible bachelors. Instead, we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of people in their 20s and 30s who aren’t rushing to settle down and procreate but are instead focused on nurturing their own individuality and spending time with their extended social circles of friends and co-workers.
We’re creating new urban tribes and debunking the traditional nuclear family model in the process.
“As a group, solos are reshaping the economy, politics, the environment and of course the future of the family itself,” says Harper. “I think that there still is — and probably always will be — a desire for partnerships and kids — it’s just that now the stigma over opting out of being a part of that, and choosing to live on your own, is over.”
Now if you actually got this far, and you've considered what I've written here and you find NO validity in my arguments, even a short "Sorry, you got it all wrong" is welcome.
I've been watching this issue for years and have yet to see how it would be unworkable, but then these are the efforts of a single person, and it's possible I may have overlooked something.
Again, thank you.
1 comment:
Hey Joe, glad to see you're still kicking too. Haven't had any time for blogging in awhile, been busy working and building projects of various sorts and spending time with the family. Hit me up any time you wanna chat.
Justin
Post a Comment