In order to continue their orgiastic spending spree on themselves, Canadians have borrowed heavily from their children and grandchildren for years. But trouble seems imminent as it was revealed this week that Canadians forgot to actually have children and grandchildren to borrow from, leaving the economy in danger of collapse.
Canada’s fertility rate stands at 1.54 children per woman while the replacement level is 2.1.
Uh-oh.
According to LifeSite News:
The C.D. Howe Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, issued a study last Thursday on the problem of demographic change in increasingly-aged Canada.
The study argues that immigration alone will not offset the effects of Canada’s increasing ratio of dependant elderly to workers. The authors assert, rather, that “later retirement, higher fertility, and faster productivity growth are more powerful tools to ease the stress of demographic change on Canadian living standards.”
According to the study, “current fertility and immigration rates, moderately rising life expectancy, and historical productivity increases can be expected to depress workforce growth, boost the ratio of Canadians 65 and over to those of working age (the old-age dependency ratio) and depress growth in incomes per person.”
I repeat my Uh-oh.
Some have suggested raising the retirement age but let’s face it, they didn’t have babies because it seemed kinda’ like a lot of work while they were in the prime of their lives so now they’re being told they have to work when they’re old and tired. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn’t it? I mean like total bummer, you hoser.
Hmmm. If only there was a way to create very small Canadians who could grow up and work to support older Canadians. Then they could go right on spending. Anyone ever hear of a way to do that? Anyone?
I mean look, I’m not Canadian or anything but I’d suggest that maybe when Canadian women actually get pregnant they stop aborting their babies at such a high rate. Just an idea, eh. In Canada, there are about 30 abortions per 100 live births, according to Pro Life Canada. Man, those babies sure would’ve come in handy right about now with the economy on the brink of collapse and all. Those babies could’ve supported you hosers for years to come.
But here’s the cold hard facts. Canada needs to either start having more babies or kill off some old people. That’s it. That’s all the answers there are. Sadly, I’m pretty sure which one Canada’s going to pick.
July 8, 2009 at 9:05 am
Just yesterday we met a Korean lady in the lift and she commented that when she lived in Korea, if parents had three children, the gov't gave them a house. There is no such thing as over population when common folks are being encouraged by a free house!
July 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It's obvious they know what to do with all those long cold winter nights. It's the follwing months that pose trouble.
The problem here is that a demographic study isn't really the way to inspire parenthood. It's generally bad advice to tell girls "Just lay back and think of Chretien."
July 8, 2009 at 2:53 pm
This was a point the Pope made in his encyclical at paragraph 44:
Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity."
July 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm
"Just lay back and think of Chretien."
Are you saying there's something wrong with my fantasies?
July 8, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Take off, eh! Do we really want more little hosers in the world? When the population of "America's hat" gets too old, we can finally just all move in, since it's pretty much just all of suburb of Michigan anyway.
July 8, 2009 at 8:20 pm
We're keeping up our part. Expecting little Canuck number 6. If everyone else would just pitch in…
July 8, 2009 at 10:01 pm
There's a reason why some wags are calling it "Canadistan!"
July 9, 2009 at 12:58 am
You can probably leave government handouts out of the picture. The bigger your family, the bigger your safety net regardless of whether or not you get a dime of government money. Plus if I'm ever in a pinch, I'd trust my family over the government any day of the week.
Come to think of it, I'd bet that a big family is an even more reliable nest egg than saving up a boatload of money. We've all seen how fast investments can disappear, but your family is around forever.
July 9, 2009 at 2:41 am
Let's try a little math. 1.54 (the fertility rate) X 100/70 (babies divided by survivors) = 2.2. Replacement rate =2.1. Hmmm.
July 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 9, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Anon,
I'm not sure what your formula is trying to prove other than that you can come up with useless math formulae. It doesn't matter how you try and figure it, all the math in the world won't change one child into two. Sorry, but thanks for trying.
July 9, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Anonymous,
Replacement rate is calculated over the entire population, so I'm not certain what you are "Hmmm"ing about.
July 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm
the Mom, Dean:
Anon took the 1.54 kids/woman rate and calculated what that rate would be if, instead of resulting in 70 kids, it resulted in 100 (adding back in the 30 aborted children). The answer is 2.2 kids/woman.
(If 1.54 k/w = 70 k, then women = 45.45454545 etc. Increase k to 100 and keep w = 45.45, and the rate rises to exactly 2.2 k/w.)
In other words, based on this quick math, Canada is aborting itself out of existence. "Hmmmmmmm" indeed.
July 12, 2009 at 4:13 am
Maybe the US should be considering a leveraged buyout of Canada? It would add 33M to our population, with a doubling (roughly) of the territory. Let's not even get the natural resources into the equation.
Don't forget the novel sports–heck, hockey might finally get some love.
An even better deal if you spin off Quebec…
Hmmmm, indeed.
Just a few more years, and they'll be ripe pickin's…