Stats put together be redditor
You must log in or register to comment.
I think it’s because life is not affordable for us folks. Jobs don’t pay much and are harder to come by, rents take like 50% of our income. The govt has specifically catered old folks so that’s why you don’t see a lot of new growth from younger Canadians. And that’s true if young immigrants that come here as well
This is because of an aging society, and Canada is among the majority of countries that will experience such a shift.
Globally, the number of people aged 60 years and older outnumbered children younger than 5 years already in 2020, according to the World Health Organization. Between 2015 and 2050, the proportion of the world’s population over 60 years will nearly double from 12% to 22%.
Among the larger economies, China is among the most effected by an aging society (far more than Canada). The number of people over 60 years will reach 28% by 2040, the WHO says. Some experts fear that China gets old before it gets rich, stating that in 2019, around 75% of older people (aged 60 years or older) in China suffered from noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and hypertension.
In 2050, 80% of older people will be living in low- and middle-income countries, according to the WHO forecast.
[Edit typo.]
- 3 days
Currently, China has about 11.9 % of its population over 65, way down the list at 21 in the world. Japan has the highest with 28.2 % of its population over 65.
Yes, currently. But China’s population will age faster than in almost all other countries. China has one of the world’s lowest fertility rates. The number of working-age people peaked already in 2015 and has been decreasing ever since. By 2050, there will be fewer than 2 working-age individuals for every person ages 65 and older (for comparison: in the U.S., there will be 2.5 working-age adults per for every person 65+ in 2050).
The problem is that China is still not a high-income country. Unlike many other countries, China hasn’t benefited from what is called a demographic dividend—a time of economic growth driven by a large working-age population compared with smaller numbers of dependents ages 65 and older and younger than 15.
It is true that China experienced unprecedented economic growth during its dividend period in the 1980s and 1990s, but this growth started later than in countries like, for example, Singapore and Japan, and its fertility rate decline has also been faster since. As a result, it exited its demographic dividend era with quite relatively low income per capita, and this threatens to leave the country with fewer resources to care for an aging population.
Simply speaking, countries like Japan, Singapore, and the U.S. got rich before they got old, China got old before it got rich.
- 3 days
I didn’t find the WHO article, but Wikipedia says that Japan will have 36 % of its population over 60 by the year 2040. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Japan_Age_Makeup_1920-2010_with_Projection_to_2060.png
- 3 days
It’s weird though because my parents generation were raised in poverty. Many of my parents generation were sleeping 4 kids to a room and there was 9 person family’s.
- 3 days
It wouldn’t have been much of a baby boom if, 60 years later, there was more babies than during the boom. They’ve been the largest demographic every year they’ve been alive, and now that demographic is “old”
- Auli@lemmy.caEnglish2 days
But they are not the largest demographic. They had kids. There kids are not having kids.
- 3 days
Canada has about 17.2 % of its population over 65 years old, ranking it at 15th in the world. https://www.prb.org/news/countries-with-the-oldest-populations-in-the-world/
- 4 days
Corporate canada sold the myth its poor or middle class brown people’s fault instead of their insatiable appetite for endless profits even if there isnt productive growth to match it. Galen Weston testifying to parliament during covid that he deserves to pursue profits even amidst a pandemic is exactly the problem.
- 4 days
Immigration isn’t an answer either.
Allowing the middle class to actually exist, and flourish, is how you correct for a lack of children. You don’t do it by taking adults (and potentially their kids eventually) from someplace else. That just isn’t an actual solution at all.
Taxing corporations and making housing both attainable and the middle class existing is how you get people to decide they actually want kids. No one that looks at the state the world is in is likely to choose to bring more children into it if they have any thoughts other than “I want kids.” I have a kid, but I’d never choose to have another because the world is in upheaval.
Immigration is a bandaid on a limb that has been lost. It’s not helping.
- Auli@lemmy.caEnglish2 days
I mean if people could afford to live have a nice life. Maybe they’d have jkids both parents working 40 plus hour weeks. Then the xist of child care how can people afford kids.
- nyan@lemmy.cafeEnglish3 days
Governments aren’t building houses anywhere, they’re trying to get the private sector to do it. Which isn’t working very well most places.
- 4 days
This is a chart of people’s economic expectations for the future. They’re largely pesimistic. I’ve been at the upper half of the K economy and I found the cost of housing, child care and otherwise cost of living high enough to debate whether to have 1 child. Now I’m contemplating how long till I get flipped to the lower half of the K by AI. Back in 2011 I had no doubts I’d be able to have several kids without much trouble.
- 4 days
Let’s just start taking their 2nd and 3rd houses. They’re to old to fight back and the cops can’t put us all in prison.
