Handling The Baby Shortage

In what is a slight departure from the trend around here, today's article comes not from a Toronto-based newspaper, but instead from Macleans, a national Canadian publication (which in fact is published out of Toronto).  The subject comes from the May 28, 2007 issue's cover story, and discusses Canada's baby deficit in great detail, as well as looking at how other western countries are battling the same problem.

The basis for the concern about the shortage of new births centers around the fact that by 2020 there will be a 1.2 million worker shortage.  Long term studies have shown that while immigration is a solution for the short term, ultimately the rate will not keep up with that of those leaving the workforce.  The article goes on to discuss many factors that have contributed to the falling Canadian birth rate, including: fewer established professional women are willing to give up their career, the economics of adjusting to a single income when the baby arrives, the fact that older women are more likely to have fertility issues, and that many of those who are having children are having one (we need 2.1 children per woman to replace ourselves).

If the above seems to have a glaring omission, it does.  The "crisis" they are talking about isn't so much that women aren't having enough babies; it's that the right women aren't having enough babies.  In an ideal situation, argues the author, mature, educated, professional, married women would be bearing multiple children.  Instead, what we have today is that immature, uneducated, single women are having babies, and this is a less than ideal situation for building the next generation.

In Europe, tax breaks far superior to the meagre Canadian offerings are available (how many of us would consider having three children if the government waived all income tax in exchange?).  Also, publicly funded and operated creche centers for emergency, short-term care are situated around the cities.

While there is some merit to encouraging educated professionals to have babies, the belief that this is the only solution to the problem is short sighted and self important.  Post-secondary education is not publicly funded, and as tuition rates continue to rise, the percentage of those who can afford to attend drops.  Just because a woman is younger and single when she has a child does not mean her genetics are inferior to her "more ideal" counterpart.  Of course, her socio-economic situation is inferior for raising a child, but rather than dismissing her offspring and the idea of her breeding, why not consider mechanisms to improve her state?

The article goes on at length about measures to encourage women to have more children, but not just any women.  They want professional women (in all likelihood, women like the author herself) because those women are "ready" for children.  However, while they acknowledge the connundrum of older women and lower fertility rates, they never consider the idea that improving the circumstances of women who can more easily conceive, namely the younger women who are not committed to a professional career or a lifestyle that they would have to abandon in order to afford having kids, could increase the birth rate as well.

Social programs such as those implemented in Europe could be used in Canada.  The issue is funding the programs.  While tax breaks work because the voting population benefits directly, social programs are often considered "hand outs" or "charity", and as such are met with suspicion and resentment (the old "why can't they take care of themselves like I can?" argument).

The above argument in favour of creating social programs to improve the circumstances for younger, unwed, (and theoretically uneducated) mothers could be perceived to be promoting a breeder class, where some women are married professionals and others are birthing children (ala The Handmaid's Tale). This is not the case.  It is merely a suggestion to increase the birth rate by encouraging those with higher fertility rates to have children instead of viewing them as less than desirable procreators.

Ultimately, something will have to be figured out.  Maybe incentives (financial or otherwise) to encourage starting a family earlier are the answer (in other words, a "bonus" system where the financial gain is higher for a woman whose first child is born at a younger age).  Or perhaps adjusting the education system to allow people to become professionals at a younger age, subsequently getting them to that "financial comfort zone" so many of us wait for more quickly would help.  Or, as discussed above, they could support unwed mothers (maybe with education grants and free childcare while the mother studies, or some other social program).  Whatever the answer, the government (and thus the Canadian tax base) will have to spend some money to reverse this trend.

Comments

[Multi-tasking Mommy]

A very interesting article, indeed!

My question is, for the sake of our environment, etc., do we really want to be producing MORE offspring? Are the stats that over time we would go extinct? I think not--considering other countries birth rates (at least, I think!).

I would be happy to help out the situation :)
Bring on the babies!!!

[metro mama]

Great post, SFD.

I didn't see this article (we gave up Macleans two years ago, after it sucked for about a year).

[Mamalooper]

I think we need three things that take into account the biology of reproduction (i.e. that childbearing years coincide with education and moving-up-the-ladder years) for women:

- easier transitions in and out of the workforce
- more parttime paid work options
- more parttime, affordable post-secondary school options

And that doesn't even begin to take into account more flexibility for fathers who may want parttime paid work at some point during their parenting years.