Toronto child poverty rate at "epidemic levels"

[DarnDirtyApe]

Yes, "midtown and North Toronto elite" is more apt than "downtown elite."

Yeah, but "midtown and North Toronto elite" don't ride bicycles while sipping lattes, they are merely more successful versions of other suburbanites, and therefore less foreign to "folks". The thinking (I think) is that "downtown elites" believe themselves to be morally superior, if not actually financially superior.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Yeah, but "midtown and North Toronto elite" don't ride bicycles while sipping lattes, they are merely more successful versions of other suburbanites, and therefore less foreign to "folks". The thinking (I think) is that "downtown elites" believe themselves to be morally superior, if not actually financially superior.

I also think part of what's at play with this stereotype is that 'downtown' is an elastic term based on where you live. I live in the Annex, and I'll tell people I'm 'heading downtown' if I take the subway to Union, even though the Annex is technically considered downtown (at least by the City of Toronto for planning purposes).

To some people in Scarborough, the north parts of Etobicoke and in the 905, anything south of Hwy 401, west of Victoria Park and east of the Humber River may be what they consider 'downtown'.

 

[King of Kensington]

To some people in Scarborough, the north parts of Etobicoke and in the 905, anything south of Hwy 401, west of Victoria Park and east of the Humber River may be what they consider 'downtown'.

And that's just ignorant, no matter how many people truly believe it. How many other cities have a 50 square mile "downtown"?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

re: blackbee - it's a spambot.

MoD

 

[diminutive]

The problem is that people like the woman in the article are acting rationally in a sense, because our social safety net actually encourages women with few job skills to have multiple kids instead of staying in the workforce. They can often make more (and qualify for more subsidy) as a "welfare mom" than by working a minimum wage job. What we need to do is fix our social safety net so that it actually helps people to get out of poverty, rather than keeps them in it!

It's not so easy to just blame the safety net for creating "welfare moms." The link I posted to was in Brazil where they have no safety net to speak of. Globally, fertility rates are highest amongst those with the fewest safety nets.

I'd hesitate to say these women are acting either rationally or irrationally. If you changed the welfare net around it's possible that some women would be incentivized to avoid having kids, but it's equally possible that others would feel like they have even less opportunities and therefore turn to 'status' symbols like having kids.

Consider that the reason most educated people don't have kids frequently or early is because of the calculation around lost future income. If you're a recently graduated doctor you're reasonably confident that within 10-20 years you'll be earning a high income and will be better equipped to handle kids then. Why would you risk the start of that career? If you're 17, no college & no qualifications, there's no expectation at all that in 10-20 years you'll be doing anything but low-wage stuff. So, if you don't think your income will ever go up why not just have kids early?

Even in the article in question, although the women obviously made some horrible life decisions, it also suggests that once she got some financial stability and wealth (via a subsidized apartment) she was able to improve her life by quitting drugs and such. She's still probably not parent of the year, but it seems like an improvement.

 

[EvanGalea]

I wonder what we can do to stop this.

 

[Torontovibe]

The problem is that people like the woman in the article are acting rationally in a sense, because our social safety net actually encourages women with few job skills to have multiple kids instead of staying in the workforce. They can often make more (and qualify for more subsidy) as a "welfare mom" than by working a minimum wage job. What we need to do is fix our social safety net so that it actually helps people to get out of poverty, rather than keeps them in it!

And how exactly would you do that?

 

[Torontovibe]

Government programs implicitly encourage poor people to have families by reducing the marginal cost of having a child - subsidized housing, cash payments, tax credits, subsidized day care. In contrast, middle class families pay through the nose for a "family sized" 3 bedroom house and have to pay full freight for day care and everything else.

If that's the case, why is it countries with the best social programs, like Sweden, have some of the lowest rates of welfare moms? (and high education/employment rates)

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

If that's the case, why is it countries with the best social programs, like Sweden, have some of the lowest rates of welfare moms? (and high education/employment rates)

Sweden is actually a very socially conservative country - only about 3% of children are born to single mothers because there is a huge social stigma against it. Along similar lines, it's still a very ethnically and socially homogeneous country with about 80% of the population being ethnic swedes.

Here's a blog post that's not directly related to the topic, but does illustrate some of the differences between (in this case) the US and Sweden that aren't captured by a surface reading of the issues:

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/11/krugman-misunderstands-sweden.html

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

And how exactly would you do that?

I think a combination of carrot and stick would do wonders to 'nudge' people in the right direction - we need to help people who are in trouble without enabling those who continue to make poor choices:

- For starters, don't claw back benefits if a woman lives with the father of her children or her working income goes up
- Make benefits dependent on finding either paid or volunteer work
- Boost funding for addiction and mental health programs, and force people to participate if they want to get benefits
- If a woman or couple have additional children while in subsidized housing, don't increase their benefits accordingly

 

[King of Kensington]

Sweden is actually a very socially conservative country - only about 3% of children are born to single mothers because there is a huge social stigma against it. Along similar lines, it's still a very ethnically and socially homogeneous country with about 80% of the population being ethnic swedes.

Sweden is not a particularly "socially conservative" country at all. Weekly church attendance is about 4%. And Sweden has one of the strongest commitments to gender equality of any country.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sweden is not a particularly "socially conservative" country at all. Weekly church attendance is about 4%. And Sweden has one of the strongest commitments to gender equality of any country.

Unless those are both recent phenomenons, who's to say that gender equality and low church attendance are socially traditional or conservative ways of life in Sweden. It would appear you're trying to view A Scandinavian country through a North American lens.

 

[King of Kensington]

The problem is that people like the woman in the article are acting rationally in a sense, because our social safety net actually encourages women with few job skills to have multiple kids instead of staying in the workforce.

That's a popular talking point, but there's little actual empirical evidence that shows that the welfare state encourages extra children.

 

[aquateam]

+1.
I don't think people should just have any number of children they want without being able to afford it, just because "they like kids". The society should offer some help, but most of the financial resources need to come from the parents themselves. You can't barely make minimum wages and have 8 kids. It is not fair to the kids, nor to the taxpayers who are forced to support them.

Honestly, I think that 90% of the world's problems can be attributed to people having more kids than they can support. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Too many kids -> parents have less time/energy to work, reducing income and causing poverty
Too many kids -> less resources (food, education, parental time, etc.) spent on each kid, causing the cycle to perpetuate by ensuring the kids will be in a low-education environment/not learn how to succeed/ not learn long-term planning/more likely to have kids themselves earlier
More kids -> younger population -> more conflicts/wars/radicalism (middle east and sub-saharan africa are political hotspots and both have some of the world's youngest populations). Middle-aged men with kids, careers, and mortgages don't go off and wage jihad. Political instability also causes more poverty.

China acknowledged that overpopulation was a big problem for its economic development. A few decades after the 1-child policy and its growth has been explosive. More countries should follow its example, there's no way that the planet can support 10+ billion people.

Not that this really applies to developed countries, which already have sub-replacement fertility rates.

 

[ksun]

Yeah, but "midtown and North Toronto elite" don't ride bicycles while sipping lattes, they are merely more successful versions of other suburbanites, and therefore less foreign to "folks". The thinking (I think) is that "downtown elites" believe themselves to be morally superior, if not actually financially superior.

Why do you care if downtowners think they are morally superior to start with? Don't suburbanites feel they enjoy a superior lifestyle because they have their large house, deck and yard, not the 575sf "shoeboxes" in the sky?

Downtowners mostly rely on transit, walk to places, consume much less energy, cause less pollution and GHG, and are not chained to their car, why can't they feel good about their lifestyle?

As to financially superior, do some basic research and find how many of Toronto's top 1%, or even top 5% live south of Bloor. The prices in downtown's condos can't start to compare with prices in midtown and north Toronto.

And what exactly is wrong with "sipping lattes"? What makes latte so special compared with the coffee almost all white suburban Canadians drink every day?