So Kids are Expensive

September 7, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

Granted, kids are expensive. On average, Canadian parents spend close to $300,000 per child, according to Statistics Canada. But if we think the financial cost is what’s driven down Canada’s fertility rate to a historic low, we’d be wrong. The issue is cultural more than it is economic.

We know intuitively about the cultural drivers of fertility regardless of what Statistics Canada says about costs. Bank accounts don’t tell the whole story. There’s the emotional energy, time, and prayers that go with wanting the best for your kids, and the pain that bruises your heart when your kid is hurting. All of these are both priceless and immeasurable.

Still, regardless of cost, I don’t know many – even those whose kids have strayed from their parents’ ideals – who would not count the privilege of parenting among the most meaningful things life can offer.

To be sure, the choice of having or not having kids (insofar as it is a choice – many feel the deep pain of infertility or child loss) is deeply personal. But these choices have social consequences.

The issue has taken on public urgency in Western democracies. It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman for a society to maintain its population. In the past fifty years, the average fertility rate in OECD countries has dropped from 3.3 to 1.5. In Canada, it’s down to 1.4 children per woman. A Cardus report by demographer Lyman Stone showed that if Canadian women had as many kids as they actually wanted, our fertility rate would be around 1.9 children per woman. So why does every second woman have one less child than desired? The primary factors relate to cultural reasons such as implications for career, desire to save money, or having a suitable partner with whom to raise the child. Dollars are part, but certainly not the main driver, of the explanation.

Still dollars (whether provided through a subsidy or favourable tax treatment) are among the few policy levers governments have to deal with this challenge. Recently, much of the discussion has focused on the question of government support for daycare. Quebec’s introduction of a heavily subsidized childcare system in 1997 sparked many of the modern debates on this issue. The pressure to make this a defining national program (notwithstanding that childcare constitutionally is under provincial jurisdiction) resulted in the 2005 Martin Liberal government’s five-year, $5 billion national childcare framework. After the 2006 federal campaign, the Harper Conservatives replaced it with a $100 monthly taxable child care benefit. The Trudeau Liberals increased the scale and scope of that benefit after winning power in 2015. In 2021, the same government committed tens of billions of dollars for a new framework to phase in “$10 per day daycare” by 2026. The effect of all these policies on Canadian fertility has been negligible.

Meanwhile, in the American presidential campaign, government support for raising children has emerged as an issue. It’s a very different system there, with much more limited paid maternity leave than is available in Canada. Both Republicans and Democrats are campaigning to increase the current $2,000 child tax credit to either $5,000 or $6,000, while some argue that the federal government should make even more significant changes to the system of government support for parents.

Discussing any policy relating to incentivizing fertility quickly gets muddled. Tax policy is always complicated and difficult to explain. These issues are obviously intensely personal. While cumulative individual decisions have social consequences, the question remains how much public policy can affect these choices. Hungary is an example in which the government introduced significant financial and tax subsidies (it’s complicated but a newly married couple that has three kids is about $80,000 USD ahead) which has raised fertility rates from 1.2 a decade ago to 1.6 today. Still, the overall consensus remains that policy is limited in influencing birth rates.

Let’s also remember that parents have the primary responsibility for children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects a self-evident natural reality, namely that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.” Whatever programs of support, whether they be using the tax code, subsidies, or other policies to promote having more children, it’s essential to prioritize the equipping of parents to carry out their responsibilities.

Although families have their primary sphere of responsibility, they do not operate in isolation. Some abuse the proverb “it takes a village to raise a child” in order to justify intrusion into the family sphere. Properly understood, the proverb simply acknowledges that the raising of children rightly involves almost every social sphere. The roles of education, religion, and economics are obvious but arts, health, and the volunteer sector also have a kids focus. There is good reason for us all to help our neighbours’ kids become well-rounded and equipped to become good citizens and neighbours in their own right. The argument against providing any support for families – “you choose to have kids, you pay for them, not me.” – is naïve in not recognizing that society not only benefits, but needs an ongoing supply of future citizens to survive.

When politics complicates fertility and care for kids, it is helpful to keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity. Push for decisions to be made as close to the front line as possible. Recent politics have pulled in the opposite direction. Federal daycare funding is biased towards institutional care. Consequently, for most middle-class workers involved in the service and retail sectors, there are no suitable spots. In fact, the number of available private-sector spots has shrunk, being replaced in some cases by government-sector spots; government intrusion into a marketplace always has ripple effects. For 70% of Canadians, including the families who need child care help the most, the federal daycare program provides nothing more than access to a waiting list.

So, yes, our governments need to think about our demographic challenges and consider appropriate family-friendly policies. But we need to recognize that at best these policies will only nudge the needle, not fundamentally change things. Ultimately, politicians must cope with demographics. They cannot really “solve” it. Having kids isn’t first at all about money, as expensive as kids are. 

To be sure, all spheres of society need to be conscious of the problem and do their part. The village supports the family but it does not replace it. Politics can’t fix families and neither will dollars. In fact, too much politics often makes a bigger mess of things. Once governments get involved, the primary thing often doesn’t remain the primary thing. If child care is the care of a child, regardless of who does it, most of the current government priorities miss the mark. Even the most typical metrics of the national system don’t focus on childcare. Female participation in the workforce, the availability of institutional childcare spaces, and the mix between profit and non-profit settings – this is the currency of the current debate. They’re all valid things to measure, but none of them should come before actual caring for children.

As a new school year starts and the budgets of most households with children adjust to the ever-changing circumstances, we’d all do well to be conscious of the real costs it takes to raise children in our culture. We’d also do well in all of our functions, as extended family members, neighbours, work communities, religious communities, and yes, political communities, to be attentive to the ways we can organize our structures to encourage and help parents in their responsibilities regarding their children.

The fertility challenge, and the demographic consequences it produces, is a problem for all of us. But it’s one that culture, not politics, needs to solve.

WHAT I’M READING

Political Gravity

Last week, the BC United Party decided to fold up its tent six weeks before a scheduled election. It’s hoping to ensure that right-of-centre votes aren’t split and that the more competitive Conservative Party might defeat the incumbent NDP government. This week, it was federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh announcing that his agreement to support the minority Liberal government in exchange for certain policy priorities was over. Both were unprecedented moves in light of history, but in reality, they are evidence of politics catching up to reality. The polls indicated the BC United Party was heading to a historic defeat. While Leader Kevin Falcon announced he was quitting before rather than after the election, the inevitable result is the same. Similarly, politicos of all stripes agreed that as long as the federal NDP continued to support the Liberals, even while continuing to critique them, the political consequences were not going to be positive. Creating separation was a political imperative for the NDP. Mind you, so is avoiding an election in the near future while they are still underfunded and likely to lose half of their seats.

The news that the Liberal campaign director has submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister, breaking as I draft this, illustrates political gravitational forces at work more consequential than what the NDP chooses to do. As I’ve noted earlier, the essence of the Westminster Parliamentary system is maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons, starting with your own caucus. These signals from the Liberals are something worth noting.

Senate Scufflings

The appointment by Prime Minister Trudeau of new senators who are more fiercely partisan (yet not officially so) has rekindled the debate that Howard Anglin and I provoked a few months back with an essay suggesting the current formula is a recipe for a constitutional crisis. John Ivison writing in the National Post suggested that if the Senate flexes its muscle against a potential Pollievre Conservative government, it would provoke a referendum on the Senate’s existence. John Ibbitson in his Globe and Mail piece allows there are fair questions and concerns but urges goodwill and good behaviour to see us through. Jamie Sarkonok argues in her National Post column that the best way forward is for Poilievre also to appoint ideologically committed senators, but of the conservative kind.

Vetting for Perception

The recent hiring and subsequent dismissal of a chief human rights commissioner by the federal government highlights the significance of vetting in the hiring process. Quite apart from the debate over anti-Semitism that is particularly relevant to this position, the appointment raises questions regarding the vetting and review process that took place in the appointment process. This blog by the Institute on Governance helpfully reminds employers that “anything you’d (de facto) fire for, you should vet for.” Furthermore, “Potential candidates should also take this to heart – in an age of intense and often hostile scrutiny, it’s futile to hope that no one finds out about the things you’d rather they didn’t.”

Artificial News

“Fake News” has become a thing in recent years and discerning between what is real and fake is becoming increasingly difficult. A report released by the Canadian Digital Media Research Network found that a July bot campaign that allegedly had the Conservatives falsely promoting their rally was actually just an experimenting individual with around $1400 to spend who was unconnected to the Conservatives. Similarly, the Trump campaign made allegations of the Harris campaign using AI to portray crowds in a picture when none were present. We are just at the beginning of election campaigns in which misrepresentation is being used in a manner that is increasingly difficult to detect. It’s a reminder to us all to verify the sources before we assume something to be true just because we see a picture of it online.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

That Will Be at Least a K., Sir

I don’t make a habit of four-figure hotel room rates. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never paid anything close to that. Although I will admit that along with anyone else who uses hotels for regular business travel, the post-COVID price points have wreaked havoc with travel budgets as the “normal” hotel room (along with rental car) rates have surged. This Wall Street Journal piece explains why: increased demand; wealthier travellers whose net worth has risen substantially due to a changed housing market; and increased attention to the “status” level of luxury hotels. The graph above shows the result of a survey of travel buyers, noting that more than half are expecting continued above-inflation rate increases and less than 10% expecting rate decreases in the near future.

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Pun Contest

I thought my last Take It To-Go regarding the theft of the Mona Lisa was a masterpiece, only to receive an email from a regular reader: “Those of us who enjoy your weekly puns will definitely mona with your lack of a punny ending.” Ouch. So the pressure’s on. Rather than putting all my eggs in one basket, I figure my odds of leaving you with a prize-worthy yoke increase if I pass along a few of the wordplays that I’ve come across in past weeks.

1. The World Chess Hall of Fame’s “Match of the Matriarchs and Clash for the Crown" geographically convenient) to be from Missouri on this one, but it is what it is.
2. I spent the week in Nashville which is the home of the Country Music Hall of Fame. So I have to admit that the chess puns I’m pawning off (admittedly none of the rook and roll variety, which would require me to be in Ohio), make me wonder if my ten-pun move this week might just be a blunder.
3. To be honest, I’ve found Nashville to be a strumming place in tune with the times, a major city with lots of acts to choose from, and an inspiration for honky-tonk proposals.
4. Let me also include this recycled one that came up on social media again this week. “A truck loaded with thousands of copies of Roget's Thesaurus crashed yesterday losing its entire load. Witnesses were stunned, startled, aghast, taken aback, stupefied, confused, shocked, rattled, paralyzed, dazed, bewildered, mixed up, surprised, awed, dumbfounded, nonplussed, flabbergasted, astounded, amazed, confounded, astonished, overwhelmed, horrified, numbed, speechless, and perplexed. Meanwhile, those waiting for the shipment were at a loss for words.”
5. I get it. Puns make us numb. Mathematical puns make us even number.
6. Seven ate nine.
7. OK, I’ve made it to ten. Time to upload this file from my hotel room, but the wifi here is kind of sketchy. Does this mean I need to head to the lobby for reception? 

That’s all I’ve got. Hopefully, this week’s offerings satisfy the pun fans. I’ll await the email from Mark to confirm. We’ve gone from Da Vinci to da sketchy. I concede it’s entirely possible no pun in ten did it for you. I’m just going to quit while I’m ahead. 

Hope you all have a great week. Until next Saturday.