me, me and me

Perhaps this is the result of our ever increasing alienation from one another?
People are becoming more self-reliant and have less trust or dependency on another human being.
Eventually the biological clock forces the hand, so to speak.
If this survey shows anything, it is that few people care to commit to anything that includes long term involvement.

Morally superior to NOT have children?

Look at this past Tyee article: http://thetyee.ca/Life/2009/08/05/ChildfreeChoice/

People are championing a childfree lifestyle. Any reason to believe that will not have an effect on birth rates?

statistics?

"The chart above is drawn largely from data provided by the B.C. provincial statistics agency"

ha ha - that's pretty funny to post this article right next to Rafe's anti-census rant :-)

You would think that any government with control over immigration, child services, and health care would be interested to know that older women are having more children, or that the overall domestic birthrate per woman is dropping.

baby time

I am a grandmother & mother of four plus one adopted. The best time to have a baby is when your own mother is in her 30's or 40's. Waiting until you have collected scads of doo-dads & your mother is failing is...well...short-sighted.

Single mothers with over-the-hill parents have a very rough time trying to drum up some support.

It's not all about mommy. Or daddy...

"Here's a bit of interesting child-bearing news: last year, and for the first time since 1930, 40-somethings in British Columbia were more likely to give birth than were teens."

Hmmm. And do we think this is a good thing?

I don't. Watch those Downe Syndrome stats, along with foetus and other post birthing development issues.

And as for being able to "afford" to have families at more appropriate "younger" ages, I don't recall it ever being "affordable" for most, certainly working class folks. We simply had them anyway... no birth control, and never regretted it. (By the time we were 26 and 27, the Mrs and I had four kids already.)

There's something else at work here than "affordability" issues alone. I asked the Mrs what she thought it was, in part to see if her view was similar to mine, and she said immediately, "People have different expectations than they used to. They want more stuff. They want everything in place beforehand."

Which I agree with, but... I think there is a tad more to it than that.

Secondly, they can. That is, modern birth control technologies has made "delay" possible. And there is a point in the delay cycle where it stops being important I think, observing my own grand-daughters, until the alarm bells of the old biological clock start going off. Then it's panic stations time. When for many, they simply delayed too long... without artificial interventions anyway.

But thirdly, the relationship between men and women at some very fundamental level, which I am not entirely certain of, has been changed too, making secure relationships that allow for family building more "iffy", as in difficult to create. (More observations of my daughters and grand-daughters.)

And finally, who knows, there may even be other natural "forces" at work beneath the level of our consciousness, given large urban population densities etc, seeking to drive us in the direction of major population reductions. It is not unknown at least, elsewhere in nature, that population densities trigger changes in reproductivity behaviours.

What afterall, would make us think that we might not have particular spatial requirements which current population densities might be violating the comfort, or reproductive cycle zone of. (I know it's one of the things that drive me out of The City, in search of a perceived "lebensraum".

Though, if that is true, it isn't working equally as well in China or India, as two examples, for sure.

Anyway, I find it to be a slightly disturbing, even "unnatural" phenomena, that women in their 40s might be producing more babies than at least used to be more typically younger, naturally fertile women-, who might actually be around to see their grandchildren. (Kid yourself not. Grannies and grandpas are important too.)

It's not all about mommy. Or daddy.

Demand falling for single family homes?

Demand may eventually fall for detached housing, but in view of the price of houses in Vancouver, there's no waning of demand yet! Maybe if the prices drop by 60%, they'll be in line with affordability for the working class and middle class.

Ideology, consumerism and family planning...

Though I think Mrs Coyote is actually "mainly" right. It was said, by Old Karl I believe (or at least he was one who said it as well) that the "ruling" or dominant ideology, or set of ideas of any age is the ideology of its ruling class. And there is no doubt that the ideology of capitalism's ruling class, in largest measure, is "the capitalist market", which is manifest as "consumerism", and "the pursuit of self-interest" as a dominant feature of social life. All of which at least "appears" to be at work here as a central element, effecting folks "family" plans. Very often until it is too late.

the cost involved

What It Means for BC?
It means that birthing becomes a more complicated and expensive thing, particularly so if atificial insemenation is requested.
Seems that couples postpone and then rely on society to help them achieve what they should have done decades ago.

Yes, many things are possible, I am sure for instance,that I could pursue a university education now, after my retirement; but it is ego satisfaction and should not be sponsored by anyone.

What it means for me in B.C.

It means my daughter went from a health nut to a triple bypass and a stint in three years.The family plus the health thing and it's into rehab.I thought having children later in life made for better parents.Seems I should have thought back to my childhood.All the kids with older parents usually wound up with difficult lives watching their parents die very early.There are two babies out there who are wondering where mommy is,again.I guess that's how I raised her.Now we reap the whirlwind.

here come the usual finger-wagging stereotypes....

...about the "selfish DINKS" or "self-centred people who put off kids to afford a big screen TV".

"It's not all about mommy. Or daddy." This is crap, pardon my French.

It's not about the parents unless it's about mommy and daddy being forced to choose between paying the rent or paying for childcare. Or the likelihood of daddy walking out and leaving mommy a single parent with no support, because the cuts to family maintenance enforcement have rendered it unenforceable. Or the higher chances of child abuse and neglect in a situation that's high stress, or where parents are either uneducated or literally feel like they have no options because this society treats like kids like some kind of consumer luxury good. Or if having kids means that you're going to be eating from the food bank while on maternity leave, because it pays a pathetic amount - less than 55% of what you earned at $10/hour. And remember, most people who qualify for parental leave pay have been paying into it - it's not a freebie. And good luck getting any kind of assistance if you have a kid with a disability. Not to mention the complete and total lack of affordable, reliable childcare in this city.

A lot of people in the Lower Mainland delay childbearing or have fewer kids because they feel that they can't afford the NECESSITIES like food, rent and clothing on top of childcare on the average income in this city...at least not without a real financial struggle. Staying home isn't necessarily a choice when you barely qualify for maternity pay and quitting would cut the family income in half. Not exactly a recipe for family stability, which is the foundation for healthy kids. Move to the country, you say? Oh, really? And work where? If you're working retail or white collar or anything that's not government or tourism or resource based, that's pretty damned impossible. And what if it means leaving your family and/or support system here?

..continued

If you had your kids 10, 15 or 20 years ago, the cost of living was less than half of what it is now, jobs were a lot more secure, housing was cheaper, the economy was in better shape, there was actually a forestry industry...it was literally a different world in BC. I know so many people with one or two kids who are making a family income of $60K and are struggling to survive. And that's not because of financial excesses, as so many older people seem to think...these are people who are frugal, pay their bills and taxes, and basically are totally screwed because they can't afford to live in the GVRD and can't find jobs or relocate to somewhere cheaper. It's really easy to say "well, people should have more kids, after all *I* had 4 kids early and WE were fine." Your situation is no longer the norm it used to be. Get educated.

Yes, I'm sure there are people who choose to have few or no or later kids for what you might see as selfish reasons. Would it really be better for them to have kids when they aren't ready or don't want them? Really? I'd feel sorry for the kids. The people who want kids but are struggling to afford it are the ones who need help. Affordable child care would be a HUGE deal for most working parents. And a lot of people who work would love to stay home with the kids, but can't afford to. As in can't afford that food, shelter and clothing, not as in can't afford a vacation and a new car.

rant over now.