Almost 900,000 Canadian children living in poverty, StatsCan finds

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
And, btw, the link isn't 'wealth', the link tends to be education. The higher the degree of education women receive, the fewer children they have. It's not just the 'elites' or the 'rich' having fewer kids.

Sure, I was just thinking in terms of the Roman empire and its demise. They became so well off that they stopped having children. Within a couple of generations they were overwhelmed by "barbarians."

There is a very strong correlation between prosperity and declining birth rates. I suspect there is also a correlation between education and increased wealth.

As you said earlier, there is a big difference between our poor and what is meant by poor in other parts of the world; by that standard, even our poor are very wealthy.
 

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
Population decrease due to low birthrate is better than starving, bombing , gassing, etc them. The world is overpopulated
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
A lot of the problem is they who pull the strings are they who are so loathe to see their money being given away as "handouts" to the poor - while subsidies for industry and huge buy-out packages for errant CEO's (Ontario Hydro) and fat multiple pensions for ministers of multiple portfolio are perfectly acceptable.

Woof!
Bingo!
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
The wealthy don't generally have enough children to support a healthy population. One thing with being rich is you need to be selfish or, in the very least, it helps a great deal, and sharing ones prosperity isn't something the wealthy like too much IMO or they wouldn't be wealthy.
What would a healthy population growth be?

Also for me, there's a difference between being rich and being wealthy. Some of my friends are rich........ I never rub shoulders with those whom I would term "wealthy"because I could never afford to be in the same place as them.

I know in Germany one city had to destroy 45,000 homes because the population has dropped so much there isn't anyone to occupy them. This is happening all over Germany according to the CBC. It is easy to see this will be happening here too.
So are you saying Germans need to produce more Germans? Canadians need to produce more Canadians? What would the purpose of that be?
Someone needs to have children.
Uuuum.....why?


I personally have no problem with my tax money being used for that purpose; and yes, I have no problem with my money going to single mothers raising their illegitimate children (i.e., welfare).
That's a huge sweeping statement. I can think of many problems I have with it. Not the least of which is, it's a hand out not a hand up........ it breeds more poverty.
 

AmberEyes

Sunshine
Dec 19, 2006
495
36
28
Vancouver Island
I'm rather surprised by some of the responses some of you post. You know... if it wasn't for welfare I might not be alive. My mother was the primary caregiver of our family... my father being a lazy piece of junk who did squat. She made as much as she could, often working long hours... it was like she was a single mother. We went to bed hungry, we didnt' have heat in the house, we couldn't bathe often since we couldn't afford the hot water. Have any of you EVER lived like this??? It may not be "starving in Africa" as some of you like to define poverty, but it sure as hell sticks with you. Those memories of shivering in the dark will NEVER go away. And shame on you to anybody who thinks welfare is just a "handout." There are kids out there who need it to stay alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuggler and Kreskin

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
And shame on you to anybody who thinks welfare is just a "handout." There are kids out there who need it to stay alive.
I never said it was JUST a handout.

You need to understand the difference between a hand out and a hand up. They are vastly different.

However the way our welfare system is set up it is a handout. And the amount of the handout is poorly done and not enough to support anyone in a decent manner. Half the people on welfare need to be tossed OFF. The other half need more money and a direction that leads them out of the endless cycle of poverty.

Meet a welfare mum and see how easy it is for her to get employment after her kids leave....... NOT going to happen unless she wants to flip hamburgers. Speak to a few and listen hard ..... they are not stupid, just poor and pressed down. Thus a hand up......not a hand out.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
What would a healthy population growth be?

Something sustainable.

Also for me, there's a difference between being rich and being wealthy. Some of my friends are rich........ I never rub shoulders with those whom I would term "wealthy"because I could never afford to be in the same place as them.

That's an awfully elitist distinction don't you think? Or do you mean people that can afford 1000 calories a day and those that can't?

So are you saying Germans need to produce more Germans? Canadians need to produce more Canadians? What would the purpose of that be?
Uuuum.....why?

If we would like our civilizations to continue then obviously it would be necessary.

That's a huge sweeping statement. I can think of many problems I have with it. Not the least of which is, it's a hand out not a hand up........ it breeds more poverty.

It seems to me your making assumptions about my statement then. If you fear the children will be impoverished then welfare needs to be increased. It is more important that people have children then jobs.

Nothing is quite as useless as someone who chooses not to have children. It is selfish, conceded and they are quite worthless. The secret and meaning of life is to have children. Without children there is no point in doing anything. People that do not wish to have children should be heavily taxed so that they can contribute to society and help support it's more important members; namely those who do wish to contribute by having children.

Those people wouldn't be useless if our population weren't declining but since it is they are. Right now useful people have children. If Canada were a bee hive we would sting and get rid of the useless bees so our hive could prosper.

I realize what I'm saying isn't PC but PC isn't reality.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Amber Eyes; Good on ya.

I was hoping someone would jump in with something like your post.

Things are slowly starting to get a bit better in our section of the swamp since Mike Hairass decided to minus 20% the welfare cheques, thereby condemning a LOT of people to a life of grinding poverty.

And, as Wolf said, (paraphrase), these are the same fukkers who see nothing wrong with million dollar perks and payouts for the CEO's and other rich leeches.

Child poverty has been talked about just before every election in Ontario and Canada as a whole for years....................nada.

We do what we can to help on a local basis; but, like Karrie says, we feel like we're paying twice......

Totally un****ing fair to everyone.

And so it goes................

:-(
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I'm rather surprised by some of the responses some of you post. You know... if it wasn't for welfare I might not be alive. My mother was the primary caregiver of our family... my father being a lazy piece of junk who did squat. She made as much as she could, often working long hours... it was like she was a single mother. We went to bed hungry, we didnt' have heat in the house, we couldn't bathe often since we couldn't afford the hot water. Have any of you EVER lived like this??? It may not be "starving in Africa" as some of you like to define poverty, but it sure as hell sticks with you. Those memories of shivering in the dark will NEVER go away. And shame on you to anybody who thinks welfare is just a "handout." There are kids out there who need it to stay alive.

Children are the most important element of society. If we can't pass on what we know then our societies are pointless. I hope some of my tax money helped her and I wish she could have had more. I honestly have the greatest respect for parents.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Something sustainable.
Okay Scott so do you mean equal to now? Because the world population is multiplying at an alarming rate.



That's an awfully elitist distinction don't you think? Or do you mean people that can afford 1000 calories a day and those that can't?
Well there are different stratas within our population. There are people who are rich and there are people who have great wealth. A 1000 calories a day is not enough for an adult. AND there is a huge difference between a healthy calorie and an unhealthy calorie.

Children need "healthy" calories....... a balanced diet.


If we would like our civilizations to continue then obviously it would be necessary.
Okay, who is "our civilization". Is it white west? Just curious.


It seems to me your making assumptions about my statement then. If you fear the children will be impoverished then welfare needs to be increased. It is more important that people have children then jobs.
More important that people have children rather than jobs? Why? We're not put upon the earth merely to breed.

Nothing is quite as useless as someone who chooses not to have children.
LOL..really......well you're speaking to one.......
It is selfish, conceded and they are quite worthless.
Not too narrow in your thinking then. Wow...........
The secret and meaning of life is to have children.
Really? How many do you have?

Without children there is no point in doing anything.
How old are you?

People that do not wish to have children should be heavily taxed so that they can contribute to society and help support it's more important members; namely those who do wish to contribute by having children.
That's quite the philosophy there Scott.

Those people wouldn't be useless if our population weren't declining but since it is they are. Right now useful people have children. If Canada were a bee hive we would sting and get rid of the useless bees so our hive could prosper.
You seriously need to take some courses in morality and ethics. But I find your opinion to be quite interesting if not highly erroneous and narrow. BUT your right to hold it.
I realize what I'm saying isn't PC but PC isn't reality.
It is not only NOT "PC" it is no where near "reality", but it is none the less your reality.
 

mt_pockets1000

Council Member
Jun 22, 2006
1,292
29
48
Edmonton
Thanks for your perspective on this Amber. We need more of your comments on CC.

Me and my wife raised 3 kids and throughout the years we've had some ups and downs with respect to income. Most years have been good and we were able to house and feed everyone with relative ease. But there was a time back in the mid '80's when jobs were scarce and I had trouble finding steady employment. We had to resort to food banks in order to keep from starving. For those of you who've never been in that situation, let me say that you would not want to be faced with an empty cupboard and listening to your children's stomach's rumble with hunger before they go to bed.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
You seriously need to take some courses in morality and ethics. But I find your opinion to be quite interesting if not highly erroneous and narrow. BUT your right to hold it.
It is not only NOT "PC" it is no where near "reality", but it is none the less your reality.

I have noticed that your response lacks an argument and consists only of opinion. An opinion I might add that is rather high on itself. I'm happy that you think somehow the fact you exist and have a job makes you superior to a mother on welfare but, since you have no long term benefit to society and the mother does, and since our society is in crisis; you are, in my opinion superfluous and a waste of resources. Now if we weren't in crisis then we could maybe afford luxuries like you but right now you are killing us.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
I have noticed that your response lacks an argument and consists only of opinion..
Okay. Would that be as opposed to yours which is chalk full of stats?

An opinion I might add that is rather high on itself.
My opinion is high on itself? How's that? You are the one that has said I am worthless in your opinion due to the lack of children. Although you have no stated that you see yourself as worthy since you have a dozen or so.

I'm happy that you think somehow the fact you exist and have a job makes you superior to a mother on welfare
Okay Mr Logic.....:roll: show me where I claim superiority to anyone. Your lack of reading skills and comprehension is the problem here. Tis you you are placing value on one human being over another. No one else.

See your quote below.....
but, since you have no long term benefit to society

I want you to qualify your argument. You hold the opinion.....back it.

and the mother does, and since our society is in crisis;
Okay if you see population as in crisis mode I ask again....... would that be WHITE CHRISTIAN society? Or world population?

you are, in my opinion superfluous and a waste of resources.
Okay ovaries rule. Or would that be the great white penis? And women are merely breeding mares?
Now if we weren't in crisis then we could maybe afford luxuries like you but right now you are killing us
Honey, being left leaning, I may be one of the few who would save your white ass from the lynch mob once women find out what you really think of them.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Some of you seem to be saying more people means a healthier economy, some others seem to be saying that being poor is a choice at the same time forgetting about unforseen circumstances, etc.

So far, population growth has resulted in a poorer Earth and has only arguably resulted in better economy. As far as gov'ts go, the bigger they are the less effective they are and the more inefficient they are. Actually that goes for corporations and large companies, too. People have a tendency to make things bigger and more complicated.
Anyway, the more people you acquire, the less able you are to feed and house them simply because they like to live where food could be grown.

Developing a better form of gov't might help. But people in Canada don't seem to care about that; they like the dichotomy and big gov't that exists. Better the devil you know? BS Our gov'ts for the past I don't know how many decades have no sense of priority. Although I like the idea of helping make a secure place for women and children to live in Afghanistan, people HERE aren't living very securely. Our healthcare system is a joke in comparison to what it used to be. That's a direct result of a lack of maintenance. School systems? Another joke.

The answer is that Canadians need to quit bickering about which gov't works better and other such pettiness, group together and tell the gov'ts to smarten up and do their jobs and quit bending over backwards for companies and corporations instead of people, or get the hell out of the way. And quit listening to lobbyists and pay more attention to researchers. But that'll never happen, we are too busy bickering about the symptoms amongst ourselves. Also, we need to pay better attention to what we eat and how we treat the mechanism that feeds us.

*sheepish look* Sorry bout the rant. :)
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I've just entered this topic that started out talking about there being 900,000 Canadian children living in poverty. If 900,000 children are living in poverty then so must their parents be living in poverty.

Just a couple years ago there was an article in the Vancouver Sun that told me I was living in poverty if my income was below a certain level. My pensions and retirement income combined, are less than what was considered poverty level by the egghead who wrote the article. I own my own house, I buy a new car when I need one, I take at least one trip to a tropical climate every year. My waistline will attest to the fact that I certainly get enough to eat. Like most people, I would have trouble buying a new house in Vancouver right now starting from scratch like we did when we bought our first house but that is not poverty. Somebody once said that being broke was a temporary condition while being poor was a state of mind. I have to agree with that..
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Yeah, not all poor are living past their means. But not all poor have the same means. Younger poor are different than older poor. Poor females are different than poor males. Poor disabled are different than poor able-bodied.
Simple fact is we are selfish at the expense of others, have populated beyond sustainability, and have lessened our respect for life.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
What bugs the hell out of me are people who haven't got a pot to p--s in, and the guy is on unemployment assistance and the wife is six months pregnant with their third child. This is not only poverty. It is astounding stupidity.

I don't think we are that selfish. We seem to happily pay our taxes, a good part of which goes to pay for assistance for people in trouble. I am not any kind of genius and I've had to work hard to get what I have, but earning a living and saving for retirement is what most of us do. I know that everyone's circumstances are different, but we play the hand we are dealt and make the best of it.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Nothing is quite as useless as someone who chooses not to have children. It is selfish, conceded and they are quite worthless. The secret and meaning of life is to have children. Without children there is no point in doing anything. People that do not wish to have children should be heavily taxed so that they can contribute to society and help support it's more important members; namely those who do wish to contribute by having children.
.

Ummm... we already are. I don't have kids or a husband. My tax rate is higher than someone who does. No child tax credits, no deductions for daycare, no pretax dependent care accounts exist for people like me.

I think your premise is wrong though. Not having children doesn't make someone selfish. That assumes that the childless don't help with child bearing or child rearing. I do it in my job. I know others do it by helping family members who have children and can't manage on their own. IMO, selfish is having kids you can't take care of just because you want one.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Juan,
you wouldn't be feeling a little better with another $2 or $3 or $10 K in the bank? Why does the CEO of Exxon get $21.7M a year and some researcher only get $40K a year even though he's found a compound that inhibits a certain cancer? Why does a sports person get $7M a year and a teacher that raises your kid for a large percentage of the kid's developing years get $40K?