I'll believe it when I see it.
Child Services would take your kids if you were raising 11 in a house that size these days... Just because people tolerated a particular hardship before does not mean that we should be aspiring for future generations to share in the same hardship. There is a reason Boomers didn't raise 11 kids in an 800 sq. ft home.
Welcome to the first home of the Baby Boomers - in Canada
My wife, number 7 of 11, was born into a house smaller than that - with two bedrooms and Mum and Dad (him of the RCNVR stoker service) taking in boarders and keeping a couple of chickens while he worked as a boilerman at the Sanitarium. Walking to work over the ice on the Saskatchewan.
Something to do with expectations, regulations and happiness.
Child Services would take your kids if you were raising 11 in a house that size these days... Just because people tolerated a particular hardship before does not mean that we should be aspiring for future generations to share in the same hardship. There is a reason Boomers didn't raise 11 kids in an 800 sq. ft home.
Also, communities don't want houses like that anywhere near them, because those homes would lower the value of their 3500 sq. ft home with a double garage.
Child Services would take your kids if you were raising 11 in a house that size these days... Just because people tolerated a particular hardship before does not mean that we should be aspiring for future generations to share in the same hardship. There is a reason Boomers didn't raise 11 kids in an 800 sq. ft home.
Also, communities don't want houses like that anywhere near them, because those homes would lower the value of their 3500 sq. ft home with a double garage.
Partly because of child mortality rates. Partly because in agriculture child labour was a real thing.Hey now. Don't throw stones at my little house.
The actual reason we stopped having large families is the move from rural to urban environments, industrialization and rising affluence.
Affluence has a big role to play in child number. Poor people have more kids.
Also some communities don’t want a 3,500 sq Ft home and double garage near them as it will devalue their 6,000+ sq ft 3 or 4 car garage home on a 2+ acre lot.Also, communities don't want houses like that anywhere near them, because those homes would lower the value of their 3500 sq. ft home with a double garage.
I'm not against small homes at all, I'm far more in favour of them than giant empty homes for two people, but I bet you wouldn't want to raise 11 kids ion your house.Hey now. Don't throw stones at my little house.
The actual reason we stopped having large families is the move from rural to urban environments, industrialization and rising affluence.
Affluence has a big role to play in child number. Poor people have more kids.
You're both spot on, and throw in the cost of raising children in the modern age. Apparently there are lots of people who would have liked to have had more than one or two kids if it was more affordable.Partly because of child mortality rates. Partly because in agriculture child labour was a real thing.
Also some communities don’t want a 3,500 sq Ft home and double garage near them as it will devalue their 6,000+ sq ft 3 or 4 car garage home on a 2+ acre lot.
*I’m the only one in my neighborhood that only has a 3 car garage, the 6 other homes have 4 car garages. But we built first so they can suck it
Some districts of my country have actually now passed laws to ensure that they are zoned so the minimum acreage to build on is 20 per home as they don’t want their multi million dollar estates devalued by riff raft living in million dollar homes. Yet locked the taxes to punish anyone with a great than 1 acre lot and one can’t get tax breaks for agricultural or conservation under 5 acres.
Solutions are to move further out to the country where one can get more land cheaper, but the schools and other institutions and services are generally worse etc.
Wow. It’s not an existence anyone would wish for, but those who came out of it ended up having a grit (not necessarily sand grit), determination and faith in the future of this country that few today can understand. That shack reminds me of my own (maternal) grandmother growing up with five other siblings literally beside the railroad tracks in Kansas and seeing her family shack literally catch fire from the embers spewed out by a passing locomotive. She somehow ended up being one of the sweetest, wisest people I’ve ever known. To all such people we owe a gigantic debt of gratitude.And for reference - here is what home was like for her Mum and Dad
Drifted sand, coal oil lamps and chop the ice on the well.
100%The Boomers aren't all at fault. Housing construction has shifted from accommodating those starting out in the market. There are few if any lower priced units/rentals coming onto the market. We have tens of thousands of immigrants cueing up for the same units as our graduating youth; driving up the prices. Those immigrants group together to purchase a unit so one house is occupied by a large extended family with a large number of incomes to cover the mortgage. Its not just two incomes but 4 or 5 and we haven't been able to adjust to this new reality. I am not advocating for less immigration but rather immigration needs to go hand in hand with housing development and job creation in the industrial sector and that means being competitive globally. Energy costs are destroying that competitiveness.
No one bats an eye that Kirkhill’s on his eleventh wife?
Welcome to the first home of the Baby Boomers - in Canada
My wife, number 7 of 11, was born into a house smaller than that - with two bedrooms and Mum and Dad (him of the RCNVR stoker service) taking in boarders and keeping a couple of chickens while he worked as a boilerman at the Sanitarium. Walking to work over the ice on the Saskatchewan.
Something to do with expectations, regulations and happiness.
No one bats an eye that Kirkhill’s on his eleventh wife?
Education - educating all women, giving them equal rights, opportunities and realising them as proper 100% citizens of a society, those are the reasons for a society to have less children.Hey now. Don't throw stones at my little house.
The actual reason we stopped having large families is the move from rural to urban environments, industrialization and rising affluence.
Affluence has a big role to play in child number. Poor people have more kids.
crap Pardon my french but schools have been open to all for over a century. My grandmother was the educated one whilst my grandfather had grade 8. Reasons: the Catholic church no longer has the influence it once did, women are working so less time to raise a family, the cost of a home is keeping many working without hope of starting a family, marriage itself is under threat as society has adopted a totally self-centred approach to life so if your significant other (hate that term) doesn't suit, find another. That approach to family doesn't leave space for kids. Rant off.Education - educating all women, giving them equal rights, opportunities and realising them as proper 100% citizens of a society, those are the reasons for a society to have less children.
As one who is in the Boomer Die Off class, Bite Me! Get a job, save , invest for about 40 yrs then we'll talk (maybe)Pretty hard to keep a house in your name when you're worm food.
But the article is right, the problem is you cant force people out of their houses because they are old. So we have to wait for the die off.