I had a roommate in university from the Cape Shore who always used to say, "Joey sold Churchill Falls for the baby bonus."
Danny's promise of the $1000 baby bonus is a bit like Smallwood's hand-out to post-depression parents with 9 or 10 youngsters. Hence, the Baby Boom.
But these days, Newfoundland is in the baby bust stage. Most families (still living here) have 2 kids, max. Last year, was the first year more of us died than were born. We need a little kick start.
So, is $1000 alone enough to make me have a third child? Likely not. I'd much rather see a child-care plan and better funded day-cares for the two I already have. But in the meantime, until we echo, there's nothing wrong with rewarding reproduction.
1 comment:
Is this retroactive? Great chat on Radio Noon. Fertility rates and births are a significant challenge for all developped countries - I found this great chart that shows that in general, rich countries have low rates... so in a way, we're not alone. I've been looking to see if Quebec's daycare policy had affected the fertility rates, but can't find the data, despite Stats Can's recent report.
Quote from wikipedia: "Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth and their individualistic culture. Mortality rates are low, birth control is easily accessible, and human beings are often deemed (by other human beings) as nothing but an economic drain, specially when they cannot produce income: because of education costs, clothing and feeding. Longer periods of time spent getting higher education often mean young people have children later in life. The result is the demographic-economic paradox."
Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate.jpg
CBC.ca story: 30-somethings responsible for highest spike in births in 7 years (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/09/21/statcan-babies.html)
Post a Comment