[Figlio di Moros]

The fact that there's increased health risks associated with having children at older ages?

[yiwahikanak]

What economic reasons? It is well known that teen pregnancy is more of a problem in lower income areas, not higher income areas. Look at Europe which has a declining population of whites, while the less wealthy immigrants are having more and more babies.

I'm not talking about teen pregnancies, Oxy. I'm talking about having children in your early 20s, which has an appreciable impact on your ability to establish your career and decreases your earning ability (because of time off). Many people who have children when they are older, have done so 'to establish their careers' first and set themselves up economically.

To make it clearer...taking maternity or paternity leave has an economic impact that is difficult to recover from when you are starting out in a career. So when you say someone should have kids before 'any ideas of a career', how do you propose that a family ensure that they have the economic means to avoid living in poverty with their children?

[Oxymoron]

I'm not talking about teen pregnancies, Oxy. I'm talking about having children in your early 20s, which has an appreciable impact on your ability to establish your career and decreases your earning ability (because of time off). Many people who have children when they are older, have done so 'to establish their careers' first and set themselves up economically.

offcourse your not because it doesnt fit with your thinking...... to your point what happens is that if you dont have kids in the begining of your career, you certainly wont be that interested down the line. You will become so engrained in your career that kids and family will definately seem like something of a drag. What you are saying is an excuse not to have kids and avoid any responsiblity. Your position like all others in our debates puts selfish interests ahead of societal and family obligations on a citizen of a civil society. Unless you want to be a corporate stooge, your first loyality should be to creating a good next generation and giving back to society in some way. Moving up the ladder of your career shouldnt be top priority for women or men, taking good care and nurturing children is top priority. That is it.

[yiwahikanak]

offcourse your not because it doesnt fit with your thinking......

I have no idea what this means.

to your point what happens is that if you dont have kids in the begining of your career, you certainly wont be that interested down the line. You will become so engrained in your career that kids and family will definately seem like something of a drag. What you are saying is an excuse not to have kids and avoid any responsiblity. Your position like all others in our debates puts selfish interests ahead of societal and family obligations on a citizen of a civil society. Unless you want to be a corporate stooge, your first loyality should be to creating a good next generation and giving back to society in some way. Moving up the ladder of your career shouldnt be top priority for women or men, taking good care and nurturing children is top priority. That is it.

First of all, Oxy, you assume entirely too much about 'my position' merely from me asking you questions.

I had my children when I was 24. By the standards of my community, I was already quite 'old', but I never wanted to have children past 28. Thus 'my position' is quite different than what you apparently believe it is. I feel this was the right choice for me, despite the very real economic impact this has had on me and my children.

Secondly, you aren't answering the question. Having children early on has a definite economic impact. If you do actually care about the well being of children and families, you cannot ignore this. How do we ensure that families can afford the subsequent loss (even in part) to one of the incomes required to support a contemporary family?

How do we make child-rearing a priority in an age when two incomes is basically essential to maintain a moderate low to middle class family?

My mother stayed at home with us, but as a result, we grew up extremely poor. Is that an acceptable compromise, Oxy?

[Figlio di Moros]

All developed nation has some policy to aid poorer parents. In the US, WIC will cover the cost of a variety of infant costs, as well as Social Services providing food stamps or rent aid. The idea you'll "hurt your career" is 1) dysgenic, 2) socially destructive, and 3) more paranoia than fact.

[Oxymoron]

I had my children when I was 24. By the standards of my community, I was already quite 'old', but I never wanted to have children past 28. Thus 'my position' is quite different than what you apparently believe it is. I feel this was the right choice for me, despite the very real economic impact this has had on me and my children.
Secondly, you aren't answering the question. Having children early on has a definite economic impact. If you do actually care about the well being of children and families, you cannot ignore this. How do we ensure that families can afford the subsequent loss (even in part) to one of the incomes required to support a contemporary family?

Laws protect women from termination due to pregnancy, so after taking their short leave they can get back earning money. Obviously there are issues of baby sitters, and other child issues but they are not insurmountable. It might mean no Wii and less dining out.................

How do we make child-rearing a priority in an age when two incomes is basically essential to maintain a moderate low to middle class family?

I think investing in goverment subsidized preschool and day care. perhaps helping small businesses deal with absense of a worker, and perhaps help them create inhouse daycares, or coop daycares.

?

[Oxymoron]

My mother stayed at home with us, but as a result, we grew up extremely poor. Is that an acceptable compromise, Oxy

No I didnt say the system is setup with family in mind either. What we have is an economic/social model that is invalid and will result in majour issues down the road. I am not blaming this on women, or feminists, or any one group rather its a combination of consumer culture, sense of entitlement, and the goals of self satisfaction.

[yiwahikanak]

Laws protect women from termination due to pregnancy,

Laws protect women from termination due to pregnancy when an employer is foolish enough to leave evidence that this was the reason for the decision I've seen enough cases based on wrongful termination go south because it was not possible to prove that pregnancy was the reason to not rely too heavily on legislation.

Nonetheless it's true, improvements are being made, forgive my cynicism as it's not wholly on point.

so after taking their short leave they can get back earning money. Obviously there are issues of baby sitters, and other child issues but they are not insurmountable. It might mean no Wii and less dining out.................

Actually, what I was thinking of was the 'time off' part. You can indeed go back to earning money, but you will go back as though you have taken time off from your career which is precisely what you have done. Any opportunity for advancements you may have made during that time have been lost. This usually means you are in a poorer financial/career situation than you would have been had you chosen to delay having children...particularly if you have not yet acquired job security or benefits like employer-paid parental leave etc.

It's fairly simple...take a teacher for example. For each year you teach, you receive a certain increase in your salary. If you take a year or two off to have children and go on parental leave, that means you have lost a year or two in increases in pay. In addition there are a number of careers where taking such an amount of time off leaves you seriously behind and perhaps with a nearly obsolete skill set. These are things that you really do have to consider and be aware of when you're thinking of having children. I'm speaking from a purely practical real-life standpoint here.

I think investing in goverment subsidized preschool and day care. perhaps helping small businesses deal with absense of a worker, and perhaps help them create inhouse daycares, or coop daycares.

?

I think these are great ideas, and indeed we're seeing just these kinds of things in some areas. Quebec has subsidised daycare for $7 a child per day...I was paying $1500/month for two children in Alberta. If I'd had one more child, my entire paycheque would have gone to childcare, making it pointless to work at all.

Although, I feel the quality was better, but...not enough better that I'd want to return to that cost.

I also like the idea of keeping people's skill sets up while off where that is necessary...perhaps providing childcare and having a few one day sessions. And good lord, inhouse daycares? That would so fucking rock.

However, families need to make decisions based on what resources are available to them, and sometimes it's just not economically wise to have children too young.

I feel in my case it has worked out though, and makes me more employable as I won't have potential employees wondering if I'm going to leave on maternity leave right after I am eligible for benefits.

No I didnt say the system is setup with family in mind either. What we have is an economic/social model that is invalid and will result in majour issues down the road. I am not blaming this on women, or feminists, or any one group rather its a combination of consumer culture, sense of entitlement, and the goals of self satisfaction.

It's insane. Two incomes is hardly enough to make ends meet, even if you aren't consumerist pigs...just making a mortgage payment on a modest house in many places is going to eat up the bulk of your income.

I'm still living cheque to cheque and I pay a paltry sum in rent, have small manageable debt payments per month, don't own a car or have any other major expenses....and I don't even own a television much less new furniture or other expensive consumer goods. I have a decent income compared to most (albeit I'm a single mother so it's not a two income scenario for me yet, but still...damn!).

[Godstud]

The idea you'll "hurt your career" is 1) dysgenic, 2) socially destructive, and 3) more paranoia than fact.

Have you ever had a career where you need to spend 12 hours a day working? How conducive is this to having and caring for a family?

For one thing, taking 6 months to a year off definitely hurts your career. You take time off and co-workers replace you for a time and get promoted in your stead. Many job require you to work long hard hours, normally at the expense of your family. I've witnessed this in action too many times for it to be paranoia.

It's insane. Two incomes is hardly enough to make ends meet, even if you aren't consumerist pigs...just making a mortgage payment on a modest house in many places is going to eat up the bulk of your income.

I'm still living cheque to cheque and I pay a paltry sum in rent, have small manageable debt payments per month, don't own a car or have any other major expenses....and I don't even own a television much less new furniture or other expensive consumer goods. I have a decent income compared to most (albeit I'm a single mother so it's not a two income scenario for me yet, but still...damn!).

The 1950's way of raising children is gone. Inflation and the inability of wages to keep up with it have made the dream of white picket fences and a single income family obsolete.

The average income in Vancouver needed to purchase a home, is around $80,000+. The average household income(possibly both people working) in Canada sits around $65,000. You just can't have a single income family today, when the wages are so much lower than they were in the 1950's(by comparison).

In 1950 the average income was $3,210. A house was $8,450. A new car was $1,510
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1950s.html
Wow! No wonder everyone could afford a house!

[Oxymoron]

Actually, what I was thinking of was the 'time off' part. You can indeed go back to earning money, but you will go back as though you have taken time off from your career which is precisely what you have done. Any opportunity for advancements you may have made during that time have been lost. This usually means you are in a poorer financial/career situation than you would have been had you chosen to delay having children...particularly if you have not yet acquired job security or benefits like employer-paid parental leave etc.

Again thats against the law, many companies have been sued succesfully for this practice of holding back women who want a family and a career. More needs to be done as far as a social net for wouldbe mothers.

It's fairly simple...take a teacher for example. For each year you teach, you receive a certain increase in your salary. If you take a year or two off to have children and go on parental leave, that means you have lost a year or two in increases in pay. In addition there are a number of careers where taking such an amount of time off leaves you seriously behind and perhaps with a nearly obsolete skill set. These are things that you really do have to consider and be aware of when you're thinking of having children. I'm speaking from a purely practical real-life standpoint here.

I agree to the extend that society needs to figure a way of allowing people to be mothers and not get behind the curve.

[Figlio di Moros]

Have you ever had a career where you need to spend 12 hours a day working? How conducive is this to having and caring for a family?

How conductive is a 1 in 3 chance of having a retarded baby because you waited until you were 45 to start a family?

[yiwahikanak]

Wow, thanks Godstud, I'd missed that!

All developed nation has some policy to aid poorer parents. In the US, WIC will cover the cost of a variety of infant costs, as well as Social Services providing food stamps or rent aid. The idea you'll "hurt your career" is 1) dysgenic, 2) socially destructive, and 3) more paranoia than fact.

A single parent (and of course the child/ren) will live in poverty if he or she does not work...the social system simply isn't that good, nor is it intended to be.

Do you actually know how these services work, Figlio?

If you do not have employer topped-up parental leave, you must rely on (in Canada) employment insurance programs. You must have a minimum of 600 hours in the past 52 weeks in order to be eligible for anything at all...below that and you cannot benefit. The first two weeks on maternity/parental leave is unpaid. You will receive up to 55% of your yearly earnings up to a maximum of $468 per week (that's based on a salary of $44,200...which is unfortunately a 'high' salary). In addition, provincial and federal taxes are deducted from your weekly amount.

So. Minimum wage in Alberta for example is $8.80. A parent making minimum wage working full time earns $18,308 annually. That means he or she would be elgible for a weekly payment of $158 for a total of about $632 a month.

Figlio...you'd have a heck of time even renting a cheap apartment for you and your child on that, much less paying your utility bills and buying food.

The maximum allowable amount ($468 a week, about $1872 a month) is still below the poverty line (which, assuming a single parent household in Edmonton, Alberta is $25,867). A parent getting $158/week is seriously below the poverty line. Even if he or she is getting food from a charitable association, the situation is dire.

[Figlio di Moros]

How expensive is shit in Canada, if $25K is "poverty line"? FFS, I have a hard time with the same people saying $45K is a bad wage trying to tell me what you can and can't survive on.

[Oxymoron]

When I was making 90k together with my exy, we had trouble with all the expenses. Bigger apartment, programs for kid, extra food, baby sitters and we had help from both parents. Our society is not family friendly.

[yiwahikanak]

How expensive is shit in Canada, if $25K is "poverty line"? FFS, I have a hard time with the same people saying $45K is a bad wage trying to tell me what you can and can't survive on.

Well I am glad then that you are not telling me what a person can survive on in Canada.

An average bachelor studio (in case that isn't a common term elsewhere means there is no separate bedroom, just one room total for living/bedroom/kitchen and a bathroom) in Edmonton, Alberta (which is where I'll focus on to maintain consistency) is $709.

To keep this in perspective, that parent earning minimum wage? He or she would get $158 a week for a total of about $632 a month? Yeah. He or she cannot even afford to rent a bachelor apartment with his or her child...forget food, utilities or other necessities.

The poverty line is not some inflated amount which accommodates rent, food, clothing and an entertainment system, Figlio. It actually means 'seriously fucking poor'.

When I was making 90k together with my exy, we had trouble with all the expenses. Bigger apartment, programs for kid, extra food, baby sitters and we had help from both parents. Our society is not family friendly.

I heartily agree.

[Cartertonian]

The 1950's way of raising children is gone.

Hence...

Our society is not family friendly.

Granted, one can argue that it's our fault for having more than our reasonable allocation of children, but we know from painful experience that my wife cannot do paid work, for the simple reason that the pay for said work would be less than the cost of the childcare we would then have to pay for.

[The Clockwork Rat]

See, if you weren't having to produce surplus value then you would have more time to bring up children

[Cartertonian]

I thought my kids were surplus value...?

...or is that the gag and I'm not getting it...?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Let's just say that it isn't a bird flying overhead right now.

[Wills]

I would say as soon as you find the right mate.

I also think the child should come before any ideas of career. I dont believe in women having kids after 30 unless its additional kids.

Not to bring the boogey monster of Feminism into this....but it all plays into the same dycotomy.

Why does career come into it?

If the woman has the better job, then obviously the man looks after the kids!?

Or ideally both work part time and help out, although this isn't always achievable.