Canada has been unable to naturally replenish their population since 1972. Now they have one of the highest immigration rates in the developed world which has let them stave off Japan’s problems for decades, enabling their entitlement programs to continue functioning
As for the reason for Canada’s birth rate woes since 1972, it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility). Abortion was only legalized in 1988 in Canada. Housing was affordable during that time and its economy was strong during the long period of consecutive population declines.
Of course, like many countries a large portion of Canada’s population, including liberals, are now against immigration due to a combination of housing woes and a healthcare system in turmoil. Unfortunately, Canada has no choice unless they want to see their economy further crater and not have the working adult population to pay for socialized programs such as healthcare. According to statscan, Canada’s NIST, even if they drastically increase immigration; it will only slow down the age population bomb and not prevent it i.e. Retired elderly will still eventually outnumber both working adults and children one day too soon. The speed will likely accelerate due to the Canadian public’s growing distaste for immigration.
> it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility)
Citation needed. Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime. People aren't having fewer kids because they're incapable of having kids, it's because they're making the choice not to.
There’s plenty more on the topic with differing opinions on the root cause
> Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime
That’s what defines being unable to naturally replenish the population aka the age population bomb. Countries are below the 2.1 reproductive rate. Even the US went below in 2012. Canada has hit it in 1972. None of this is new or a revelation.
You are making a big jump from biological capacity to have children to population level childbirth outcomes.
I have never seen infertility claimed as a leading cause in the scientific literature and there is vast amounts of contradictory data.
The main drivers are lifestyle choices and availability of contraceptives. 1972 does not predate most socioeconomic changes like women entering the workforce and their education levels. Sexual intercourse and marriage rates are also huge factors. you can look at child birth demographics within countries. There are several demographics or groups that have much higher reproductive rates in there are no good reasons to think that they are somehow free from that impacts of pollution.
> The main drivers are lifestyle choices and availability of contraceptives. 1972 does not predate most socioeconomic changes like women entering the workforce and their education levels.
Not true. The decline in birth rates actually started in the 1950’s before the sexual revolution. It only came to a head in 1972 ie the problems did not start in 1972, that’s the year Canada became unable to replenish its workforce with native births alone. Canada was also behind the US when it comes to the sexual revolution. Abortion wasn’t even legal there until 1988.
The root cause of declining birthrates is NOT socioeconomic
Births per woman in 1950 was 3.503 (so 3-4 kids), with a peak in 1958 of 3.882 children per Canadian woman.[1] Literally the Baby Boom, which started post-WW2 and carried through the '50s.
The decline started at the end of the '50s, with the biggest drops happening in 1963-64 and plunging all of the way through the 60s.
Further more if you track the rates of change you see the upticks at the same time as economic booms, like the mid to late 80s, and the mid-2000s up until ~2009.
It's economic. People are having kids because they can support them.
I bet if you zoomed in on just Alberta and/or Oil & Gas workers you'd see a corresponding bump during the Oil boom and bust cycle in Canada, too. Everyone I know with 4+ kids was in O&G and had them during the oil boom; ditto for everyone who bought a Ford Raptor.
>It's economic. People are having kids because they can support them.
That's one factor, but there is also a huge additional psychological component to people feeling like they can support children.
The higher a family income, the fewer children they have. This tracks every more strongly with your family income as a child. People who were raised in poverty have more children, independent of their current income.
In short, more money you have or had as a child, the the fewer children you will have.
The general consensus is that this has to do with feelings of financial readiness. People who grew up with less money are less scared of raising children without everything money can provide.
> The decline started at the end of the '50s, with the biggest drops happening in 1963-64 and plunging all of the way through the 60s.
How exactly does this contradict what I wrote? The birth rate did start its decline in the 1950's, and the sexual revolution started later and progressed slower in Canada. Your link also supports my argument.
There's also a lot more data that backs my argument. For one thing, birthrate declines are happening in places where the sexual revolution didn't happen.
This sounds like mental gymnastics as a futile attempt to preserve an anti-immigration narrative.
Going on a tangent, the only way to make ending Canada's immigration rate would work is if Canada can end its socialist programs like health care and social security. Even a lot of self identifying conservatives will balk at ending those entitlements. You can't have it both ways.
Which countries are those? AFAIK, Japan is the one leading the trend in the demographic crisis, followed by some Eastern European countries.