Demographic and social

Includes aging, dependency, divorce, single-parenthood, poverty.

An unspoken part of the concept of ‘Affordability of Home’

Posted by

0

Lately, we have been reading a lot about the grave crises of owning a home for Canadians between the ages of 25 and 45. Since prices of houses are skyrocketing relative to the sluggish growth of their incomes, owning a home for these people is becoming beyond their reach.

To help these Canadians own a home, the federal and provincial governments have been hard at work developing measures to facilitate homeownership – varying from a single detached to a garden home to a condominium in a high-rise building. A potential buyer’s choice of the type of house purchased depends, besides other personal considerations, on how much money that buyer can pay as a down payment and how much of the mortgage he/she is qualified to have.

Current affordability test

In Canada, a potential home buyer must qualify the initial two-layered test of affordability of a home: first, a buyer spends no more than 30 – 32 percent of the household’s gross income on the mortgage payment, property tax, and utilities, including heat, hydro, and water; and second, a buyer can maintain spending the same percentage of gross income if the interest rate on the mortgage were to increase by another two percentage points.

Government incentives to potential buyers and developers

To further help potential buyers in Canada, the federal government, in its latest annual budget/economic statement, announced a few new measures: first, a mortgagee can pay off the mortgage over a span of 30 years instead of the standard 25 years – in other words, increased the so-called amortization period; and second, a buyer can have mortgage insurance (to protect the lender’s money) on a home worth up to $1.5 million – raising it from the previous limit of one million dollars. To cap it all up to facilitate home ownership, the government has further removed its share of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the purchase price of a home bought by first-time buyers. These measures were in addition to the incentives already in place that allowed a potential buyer to use funds from his/her Home Ownership Savings Plan and/or a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP). Any funds a buyer withdraws from RRSP are to be put back in the plan within ten years after buying a home.

To help developers, on the other hand, federal, provincial, and municipal governments are providing land, financial help in land development, construction costs, and rapid license approvals, besides other requirements to expedite the construction or supply of new housing units. The emphasis is on constructing multi-unit high-rise buildings or stacked dwellings (considering the scarcity of habitable land).

All such incentives for potential buyers and builders are meant to provide expeditiously a roof over the head for the younger households or those newly arrived in Canada. A household has a perfect choice to own or rent a unit. To own a unit, a household can either pay the unit’s full price or take a fixed or variable-term mortgage at a given interest rate, amortized over a conventional 25 – 30 years. And, if a household opts to rent, it signs a lease stating monthly rent and other terms and conditions of living in that unit.

Owning a home requires a significant investment and long-term legal and financial commitment. For most Canadian households, their home is their primary asset – an asset that requires a large sum of money to acquire and a good amount of income flow and savings to maintain it, i.e., paying not only for utilities and property tax but also its furnishings and equipment, insurances, repair, renovation, in/outside care, installation of security – to name a few relevant maintenance expenses that some homeowning families are not that comfortable to handle. These families may have passed the core affordability test, on or near the borderline of buying a house. However, after its possession, they will have a problem maintaining it. Such families are also termed as ‘asset rich but cash poor.’  

The unspoken part of the affordability concept

The current concept of affordability is misleading as it lacks vital components, such as a potential buyer’s net income flow, expenditure pattern, and savings to lean on or meet unexpected expenses. The current concept uses the buyer’s household gross income before income tax and other deductions and guesstimates of utilities. Since the mortgage and all other regular and unexpected expenses are paid out of the net income and savings, a potential buyer fails to see the exhaustive nature of expenses he/she would incur on the home from the household’s current financial capability. A borderline buyer is too enthused to consider the future potential expenses and sign the purchase agreement.

The outcome of this financial miscalculation

The outcome of this miscalculation is calamitous. The shortage of cash and likely no personal savings compel a household to rely more on debt, including excessive use of credit cards, line(s) of credit, if available, and other borrowings from banks and other institutions, relatives, and friends. Since this debt is in addition to the mortgage debt, a household is now heavily indebted and is obligated to make additional debt payments from its net income, leaving less to pay the regular bills and other unexpected or unplanned obligations. Over time, this home-owning household is overburdened with colossal debt and must put the house on sale or receivership.

An inability to pay this excessive debt load may cause several health issues for the borrower (s), including physical and mental stress, insomnia, and heart disease. On the personal side, it may cause disharmony in a household with a couple arguing and blaming each other for the financial mess they find themselves in. So much so, that they may eventually decide to part ways and dissolve their household unit.

The house a couple in love entered with all the pride and happiness one day now exits the house on separate ways with anger, frustration, remorse, and blaming each other – all because of their financial inability to afford a home. A couple could have avoided all such misfortune if they had taken a realistic view of the expenses involved in owning and maintaining a home, even if they had qualified for the current two-layered test of affordability.

Current affordability test

In Canada, a potential home buyer must qualify the initial two-layered test of affordability of a home: first, a buyer spends no more than 30 – 32 percent of the household’s gross income on the mortgage payment, property tax, and utilities, including heat, hydro, and water; and second, a buyer can maintain spending the same percentage of gross income if the interest rate on the mortgage were to increase by another two percentage points.

Government incentives to potential buyers and developers

To further help potential buyers in Canada, the federal government, in its latest annual budget/economic statement, announced a few new measures: first, a mortgagee can pay off the mortgage over a span of 30 years instead of the standard 25 years – in other words, increased the so-called amortization period; and second, a buyer can have mortgage insurance (to protect the lender’s money) on a home worth up to $1.5 million – raising it from the previous limit of one million dollars. To cap it all up to facilitate home ownership, the government has further removed its share of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the purchase price of a home bought by first-time buyers. These measures were in addition to the incentives already in place that allowed a potential buyer to use funds from his/her Home Ownership Savings Plan and/or a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP). Any funds a buyer withdraws from RRSP are to be put back in the plan within ten years after buying a home.

To help developers, on the other hand, federal, provincial, and municipal governments are providing land, financial help in land development, construction costs, and rapid license approvals, besides other requirements to expedite the construction or supply of new housing units. The emphasis is on constructing multi-unit high-rise buildings or stacked dwellings (considering the scarcity of habitable land).

All such incentives for potential buyers and builders are meant to provide expeditiously a roof over the head for the younger households or those newly arrived in Canada. A household has a perfect choice to own or rent a unit. To own a unit, a household can either pay the unit’s full price or take a fixed or variable-term mortgage at a given interest rate, amortized over a conventional 25-30 years. And, if a household opts to rent, it signs a lease stating monthly rent and other terms and conditions of living in that unit.

Owning a home requires a significant investment and long-term legal and financial commitment. For most Canadian households, their home is their primary asset – an asset that requires a large sum of money to acquire and a good amount of income flow and savings to maintain it, i.e., paying not only for utilities and property tax but also its furnishings and equipment, insurances, repair, renovation, in/outside care, installation of security – to name a few relevant maintenance expenses that some homeowning families are not that comfortable to handle. These families may have passed the core affordability test, on or near the borderline of buying a house. However, after its possession, they will have a problem maintaining it. Such families are also termed as ‘asset rich but cash poor.’  

The unspoken part of the affordability concept

The current concept of affordability is misleading as it lacks vital components, such as a potential buyer’s net income flow, expenditure pattern, and savings to lean on or meet unexpected expenses. The current concept uses the buyer’s household gross income before income tax and other deductions and guesstimates of utilities. Since the mortgage and all other regular and unexpected expenses are paid out of the net income and savings, a potential buyer fails to see the exhaustive nature of expenses he/she would incur on the home from the household’s current financial capability. A borderline buyer is too enthused to consider the future potential expenses and sign the purchase agreement.

The outcome of this financial miscalculation

The outcome of this miscalculation is calamitous. The shortage of cash and likely no personal savings compel a household to rely more on debt, including excessive use of credit cards, line(s) of credit, if available, and other borrowings from banks and other institutions, relatives, and friends. Since this debt is in addition to the mortgage debt, a household is now heavily indebted and is obligated to make additional debt payments from its net income, leaving less to pay the regular bills and other unexpected or unplanned obligations. Over time, this home-owning household is overburdened with colossal debt and must put the house on sale or receivership.

An inability to pay this excessive debt load may cause several health issues for the borrower (s), including physical and mental stress, insomnia, and heart disease. On the personal side, it may cause disharmony in a household with a couple arguing and blaming each other for the financial mess they find themselves in. So much so, that they may eventually decide to part ways and dissolve their household unit.

The house a couple in love entered with all the pride and happiness one day now exits the house on separate ways with anger, frustration, remorse, and blaming each other – all because of their financial inability to afford a home. A couple could have avoided all such misfortune if they had taken a realistic view of the expenses involved in owning and maintaining a home, even if they had qualified for the current two-layered test of affordability.

Keywords: Homeownership, First-time home buyer, Affordability, Two-layered affordability test, Household gross income, Household net income, Mortgage debt, Household total debt, Household expenditure, Savings, Home maintenance expenditure, Bankruptcy, Receivership, Household disharmony.

Does the adage “The opposites attract” last?

Posted by

0

Choosing the right partner to marry or live as a common-law or cohabitate is a tough decision for both a man and a woman in their twenties and thirties (the age when a majority marries). An educated man would usually choose a woman he loves and cares for, besides considering, for instance, her education, elegance, health, and social skills, among umpteen other personal traits. Similarly, a woman would choose a man she is in love with over her heels, besides his education, health, current and future earnings potential, and ambition, in addition to several other factors.

Besides looking for these conventional attributes in choosing a potential partner in crime, a man and a woman also look for some vital personal and social traits in a partner that he or she doesn’t possess to lead a more balanced, fulfilled and successful life. For example, an introverted man with his nose in work may be attracted to a partner with better people and social skills to counterbalance his deficient social skills or isolation. On the other hand, a professional woman with no time to run and maintain a home or care for newborn infants may gravitate to a man who is more organized and adept in these tasks to keep their life running smoothly. This fulfillment of one another’s deficiency is what the concept of opposites attracting is all about. A couple in this situation may lead an enriched and harmonious life. This is a win-win situation.

The question is: how long can this win-win situation last? It depends on how the spouses respect one another’s boundaries, interests, ambitions, and other personal norms. If they continue to be mutually supportive and respect each other’s needs, interests, and pursuits, they can continue their journey on a peaceful and flourishing path. However, if and when either spouse begins to exploit, hinder, or obstruct the pursuits and ambitions of the other, the relationship between the spouses suffers and, in extreme situations, may even force them to separate. The bottom line for a lasting win-win situation is how elastic spouses are in letting each other pursue their individual goals.

On the other hand, this concept of the opposites attracting no longer holds during the sunset years. By this time, views of couples, likely empty nesters and retired, are closely convergent, so much so that each begins to think and speak alike. Most persons at this stage of life live alone because they have either lost their spouse, divorced, or separated. The issue of conflict of views doesn’t exist here.

However, when these old singles look for a person, mainly of the opposite sex, as a lasting friend or companion, say through dating apps, the companies match profiles of persons, ensuring their interests, personalities, activities, and needs are as closely compatible as possible. The greater the similarity of profiles, including interests and needs, the better the likelihood of success in bringing together the right persons. Here, any attempt to bring together persons of opposite traits is totally futile.

So, how good and lasting is the adage “The opposites attract”? Based on the above observations, it’s a transitory concept that just holds when people choose their mates. The concept loses its significance after the choice of a mate.

Tags: Opposites attract, Couples, Personal traits, Convergence of views, Dating apps, Matching profiles, Live in harmony.

Are dating apps meant for older men?

Posted by

0

One of the breakthroughs of internet technology has been to enable people to find a short/long-term friend, or a partner of their liking including, their sexual orientation, or look for a person for a one-night stand, by visiting one or more of these so-called digital dating apps. Companies or franchises that run such apps globally may or may not be able to help their clients find a perfect match as per their wants, but these do make a lucrative sum of money by charging a fee to their clients for services rendered. Finding the right connection or a compatible match costs money. A Google search showed that globally, the revenue of the online dating industry amounted to US$ 9.65 billion in 2022, and upwards to US$10.49 billion in 2023.

How do these companies make clients pay for their services? On the surface, almost all companies, including eHarmony, Match.com, Tinder, Plenty of Fish, and Bumble offer clients a free membership. While surfing the site and enrolling as a member, one has to fill in details on his/her demographics like sex and date of birth, city of residence or postal code, gender of the person being sought, and acceptable geographic proximity for the search of that person of interest, besides filling details on one’s likes, dislikes, hobbies, activities, and some desired characteristics of a person being sought, and finally, one’s recent photograph(s). A company uses all this information to compile a client’s profile. A company would match this profile of the client with that of a profile of the person being sought to check the compatibility, full or in part, of the two. In industry’s terminology, the profiles of a seeker and that of a person sought are matched for fair compatibility to maximize the likelihood that they would successfully connect and happily move on.

Once a company has completed a profile of its potential client, it would show the client photos of his/her potential matches available on its site. A person is free to look at the pictures placed on the computer screen and may opt to say ‘hello’ or write a few words of salutation to introduce him/herself to the person of interest. The company would not allow the message to go through (some companies, however, let it go, but would block replies). Once the company senses that the client is interested in certain potential matches and wants to communicate with them, the company informs the client that the communication between the two parties is available only to the paid, or so-called premium, members. In other words, the free membership is over at this point; it is time to pay up if one wants to send and receive messages from the potentially chosen matches of one’s liking. That’s how a dating app company allures and coerces a client to pay. Join a site for free is just a sales pitch. A company capitalizes on a client’s strong human desire to meet and communicate with his/her chosen matches.

Almost all companies offer a monthly, 3-monthly, 6-monthly, and 12-monthly (or annual) membership plan, payable mostly in US dollars. The longer the term of the plan, the lower the rate charged. Men pay the full membership fee for their chosen plan whereas women usually don’t pay or pay a discounted membership fee. A company would enroll a wide selection of women of different ages, ethnicities, shapes and sizes, and sexual orientations to attract more male clientele – its paid membership – that contributes the lion’s share of a company’s revenue.

Reasons people use dating apps by gender and age

People use dating apps mostly to find love, a romantic partner, a short/long-term companion, or a casual one-night stand hookup. According to the paper titled “Online Dating by the Numbers” by Matt Seymour (updated to November 18, 2023, and available on Google), 84% of all online dating app users looked for a romantic relationship whereas 24% a sexual relationship (the sum of these two percentages exceeds 100% because some users, looking for both romance and sex, have been counted twice).

Men more than women are more likely to use online dating apps. Again, one out of every five male users looked for a hookup compared with one out of twelve females. Nonetheless, both men and women are likely to search for more than one date. The failure rate, i.e., the search for the desired match is not successful – for one out of four women users compared with close to one out of six men – indicating that women are likely more selective in choosing their dates than men.

The key reasons for using online dating apps, i.e., to find romance, a friend, companion, or sex-mates are very much age-dependent. When one is young between the late teens and twenties, one looks for romance, a partner, or a friend not only for companionship but also for sexual hookup or lasting physical gratification. The same is true when one gets divorced, separated, or loses a partner between the thirties and the sixties. If users of online dating apps in the United States are any example, those 18-29 years old accounted for 26% of all users in September 2023 whereas those 30-49 years for 61%. The remaining 13% were 50-64 years old (Google search).

Put simply, 87% of all online dating app users in the U.S. in September 2023 were 18-49 years old. Presumably, a similar breakdown by age holds for dating app users around the globe. It is evident from this statistical evidence that this game of finding a friend, partner, or sex mate is primarily meant for young and middle-aged persons. It’s not designed for the older folks in the seventies and eighties, who likely have the same or even greater desire to find a companion or sex mate as their younger counterparts.

No dating app company refuses a client based on age. A company would gladly enroll a client in the seventies and eighties and accept his/her membership fee. However, how successful that client would be in finding a compatible match or matches hardly concerns a company. It simply shows pictures of potential matches of all ages to a client and what that client does or how he/she approaches to communicate with matches is left on him/her.

For example, an old man may see pictures of women in their twenties, thirties, or even more than eighties, living in/outside the proximity of the search requested. What good are geographically inaccessible and/or mismatched by-age matches for a client unless one is looking for May-December relationships, or is willing to play the role of a sugar daddy? Such relationships are far from ideal, especially for older and lonely men looking for a steady long-term relationship. Such vital issues of concern to older men clients mean nothing to a company, concerned only with making money by accepting their fees.

The older men may not only get frustrated by a lack of support from dating app companies for not providing the appropriate matches but may also feel constrained by some personal reason(s) – be it poor health, physical immobility, lack of money, lifestyle, and the extent of willingness to adapt to the potential match’s lifestyle. After all, both men and women have ingrained lifestyles and habits developed over the seven or eight decades. Also, almost all persons at this age are likely to be a victim of one or more lasting health ailments which, in turn, may likely take away all the fun of dating.

There are, nonetheless, dating app sites for older men and women under different headings like dating for persons 50 years old and over, 60 and over, for seniors, for widows/widowers, and so on. One would think that it should make it easier for older persons to find a suitable match by joining one of such groups. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out as men find more or less the same women matches they found on other sites without any success. So, joining any dating site with a different name is equally futile for older men. They are not only doling out more money to companies but also getting more frustrated and disappointed in their pursuit to find a match of their choice.

As mentioned earlier, men are more likely to use dating app sites than women, especially older men who live alone and want to have a long-term friend or companion. Since most men are not that naturally endowed with social skills compared to women, they look for ways and means (including online dating apps) to develop their friendly circle (especially starting a new circle after the death of their spouse) whereas older women including widows could easily socialize with their group of old friends or spend time with their children and other family members on a phone, skype, or personal visit. No wonder, a widow feels much less lonely than a widower and as a result, relies less on using dating apps for any friendship/companionship.

Conclusion

For older men in their seventies and eighties, online dating apps are really not meant to find a friend or a short/long-term companion of their choice. These clubs, on the other hand, serve well the needs of persons 18-60 years of age. For older persons, especially men, paying membership fees to such clubs is a total waste of money. To find a compatible companion of choice, men have to look elsewhere including a gym, library, church, social club, shopping mall, or voluntary organization, where they can meet a suitable woman. Finding a companion in such places may take time, unwavering patience, and persistence, but it is all worth it in the end. One would eventually have a companion of their choice.

Keywords: Finding a match Online dating apps Older users Apps success rate Romance Sexual hookup Social endowment

Canada is aging – Some long-term implications

Posted by

0

Canada’s population has grown from 25.8 million in 1985 to 35.9 million by 2015. The province of Ontario constitutes the largest share of Canada’s population – 36% in the mid-eighties to 38.5% in the mid 2015 (Chart 1). The saying that “young man go west” seems to have been working over the last thirty years as each of the two western provinces – Alberta and British Columbia – has increased its relative share of population by two percentage points. On the other hand, a province that lost its relative share doesn’t mean that its population didn’t grow over time. Indeed it did, but not that substantive to raise its share.

Chart 1. Provincial shares of population of Canada, 1985 and 2015

What’s the source of this growth in population, and where are these additional ten million persons living? How have they contributed to the demographic mix of provincial populations? And, what are some of the economic implications of demographic changes?

This post, first, looks at the change in provincial demographic mix by age, and then dwells on some key economic and financial implications of such changes, including provincial and federal budgets.

Change in the source of growth of population
According to Statistics Canada’s CANSIM Table 051-004, more than two-thirds of the growth in population over the 1984/85 year was due to the net natural increase, i.e. the number of births less deaths. Thirty years later, i.e. over the 2014/2015 year, the net immigration (i.e., the number of immigrants less emigrants) rather than the natural increase accounted for a similar proportion of growth in population. Canada’s low birth rate is no longer contributing that much to its population growth. Canada is now depending heavily on immigration as its key source of population growth. Evidently, a good majority of these immigrants are in the 15-64 age group – potential labour force participants, and spenders, contributing to governments’ revenues in terms of income, consumption, and sales taxes. In other words, these are the potential consumers whose spending is vital to the growth of the both the provincial and national economies.

Where these additional ten million persons settled?
According to CANSIM Table 051-0001, 96% of these persons settled in four provinces namely, Ontario (44.9%), Alberta (17.9%), British Columbia (17.1%), and Quebec (16.0%). The remaining four percent were in other six provinces and Northwest territories. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province that actually lost population between 1985 and 2015 – just by 0.5%. All other provinces gained.

In terms of the rate of growth in population over the 1985-2015 period, Alberta topped at 74.5%, followed by British Columbia at 57.4% and Ontario at 48.4% (Chart 2). With Newfoundland showing a drop of 8.9%, the province of New Brunswick experienced the smallest growth at 4.2%.

Chart 2. Population growth by province, Canada, 1985-2015

Canada continues to age
Canada is aging. The elderly (i.e., persons aged 65 and over) constituted 11.6% of the total population in 1985 compared to 16.1% in 2015 (Chart 3). Consequently, the median age of Canadians has risen from 31 years to 41 years (Chart 4). Put simply, one-half of Canada’s population was under 31 years of age in 1985, rising to 41 years by 2015.

Chart 3. Persons 65 years old and over as % of total population by province, Canada, 1985-2015

Chart 4. Median age of population by province, Canada, 1985-2015

The national picture portrays the situation across provinces. Although the proportion of the elderly population varies among provinces – anywhere between 7.5% and 12.0% in 1985 compared with 11.6% and 19.0% in 2015. The increasing spread in the provincial proportions of the elderly shows that some provinces are aging more rapidly than others. Alberta remains the province with relatively younger population as its proportion of the elderly is still the lowest. The median age of Albertans has risen from 29 years to 36 years compared with 30 years to 45 years for New Brunswickers – their proportion (19%) of the elderly was the highest of all provinces in 2015.

The aging process is also tilting the sex ratio as the proportion of women rises as one moves from 65-74 to 75-84 to 85+ years groups. For example, women accounted for around 55% of all persons in the 65-74 group, compared with around 70% of those aged 85 years and over (Chart 5). This isn’t surprising as women live longer than men – statistically speaking.

Chart 5. Women as % of total population in older age groups, Canada, 1985-2015

Population shrinking at the lower end
The proportion of population under 15 years of age has dropped considerably over the last thirty years. At the national level, it fell from 22.8% in 1985 to 17.1% in 2015 – a drop of 5.7, or roughly, six percentage points (Chart 6). The chart shows that the central and western provinces with relatively bigger in-takes of immigrants experienced smaller losses in their proportions of persons under 15 than the four eastern provinces that experienced losses anywhere between eight and thirteen percentage points. This is again due to the low rate of birth in Canada. Canadians seem to prefer having smaller families or voluntarily restrain to have more children because of the rising costs of raising children in an uncertain economic environment.

Chart 6. Persons <15 years of age as % of total population by province, Canada, 1985-2015

Largely because of immigration, the core of the age distribution, i.e., the 15-64 group’s proportion, has remained in tact. Nationally, this group comprised two-thirds of the total population at both points of time, whereas across provinces, the proportion ranged between 62% and 69%. In fact, the two larger central provinces have experienced a drop in their respective proportions of the 15-64 population – Quebec losing 2.7 percentage points while Ontario about one percentage point. This could be largely be due to the shift in immigrants’ desire to settle in Alberta and British Columbia rather than in Quebec and Ontario, for better job prospects and associated economic gains.

There is a cost to bear for losing population. Under the Canadian federal system, federal government gives social and/or equalization transfers to a province and the amount of this transfer is based on the number of persons in a province – or, on a per head basis. So any province losing population would get a reduced transfer as well. For those not familiar with the Canadian federal system, this federal transfer is meant to ensure that Canadians across the land receive similar services. The delivery of most of these services is administered by  provinces.

Some economic implications of changes in the age structure of Canada’s population
Let’s first look at the consequences of the shrinking proportion of those under fifteen years of age. The first and foremost is its potential long-term effect on the primary and secondary schools, the number and types of employment these offer. If we didn’t have a stable and rising flow of home-grown students, we would not have enough of schooling population, and hence, educated and skilled workers needed for a healthy, productive, and competitive economy. Granted, we could fill the void at post-secondary institutions by having more students from abroad, but we can’t do the same to fill the primary and secondary schools.

The shrinking number of children also means lesser expenditure on schooling, child care services, as well as lesser child/family benefits to families, which in turn, implies lesser spending by families as well. Such consumer spending is essential for a growing economy.

On the other hand, the rising segment of the elderly would call for private and government measures to provide adequate incomes for the elderly, their living arrangements in retirement, nursing, or community care homes, medical and hospital facilities to care for the chronic and long-term ill with debilitating or terminal disease, home care, mobility, etc. What it all means is that both federal and provincial governments would have to spend more on the care of older persons.

Since the expenditure on education and health primarily falls under provincial jurisdiction,the changing demographic mix would enforce provinces to spend more on health than on education. Since these two expenditures account for the lion’s share of the total expenditure of each provincial government, the share spent on health is likely to grow considerably for years to come.

Another consequence of the rising number of older persons is the way they could impact lives of their family members including children. Those married with children, already in the throes of balancing home and job life, would have additional responsibility to care for their older parents or relatives. This is the so-called ‘sandwich generation’, who is not only responsible to attend to the needs, including financial, of their children, but also to those of their older parents/relatives. This added responsibility is likely to stress out many young and middle-age families, some culminating in separations or divorces – adding more social problems.

Again, from an economic point of view, the rising proportion of the elderly means lesser consumer spending – as older people no longer need any heavy duty items. They may have more wealth, but they remain frugal spenders.

Conclusion
Canada’s population is not only aging, but also due to its low birth rate, losing population under 15 years of age. That means, more spending on health to look after the needs of older persons, and less on education – especially on elementary and high school. This changing demographic mix would likely keep federal and provincial governments to keep adjusting their budgets on education, health, and other social services – designed strictly for children and the elderly. For any province losing population would also mean lesser transfers from the federal government.

In economic terms, both the shrinkage in the number of children and the rising number of older persons are detrimental to the overall consumer spending, and that, in turn, means dampened future growth of the nation’s economy. Considering the constrained spending of the majority of the 15-64 group, who is already carrying financial obligations on mortgages and other debts, and with little or no change to spare or save, the future of consumer spending in Canada, vital to is economy, doesn’t look that rosy.

Tags: Canada’s population, Canadian provinces, Population by age, Consumer spending, Economic/social implications of aging, Statistics Canada