Boom

 Was thinking about Andrew Coyne's recent piece in the Globe and Mail last night, and

thought a look at the recent evolution of Baby Boom statistics might be interesting. Yes, it

is a driver of political possibility and challenge in North America. But did find out a few things

I had never considered. 

- The BB was stongest in North America, and certain countries such as Italy and Germany

are considered not to have had one at all...

- The UK eased into its current population evolution pattern.

- Because large parts of the world are still in the demographic transition, population overall

is still projected to keep growing in many areas.

- Demography is a relatively new tool. But, oh surprise, the world went into WWI with high

birthrates in North America because we were still in our own demographic transition.

                                                          *     *     *                                                      

ANDREW COYNE:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-has-the-form-of-democrcy-but-not-the-substance/ What is the main argument of this piece

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-has-the-form-of-democracy-but-not-the-substance/ What is the main argument of this piece

reddit

Canada has the form of democracy, but not the substance - Reddit

x

Opinion: Canada has the form of democracy, but not the substance - X

publications.gc.ca

Referendums in Canada: The Effect of Populist Decision-Making on

sciencedirect

Of pipe dreams and fossil fools: Advancing Canadian fossil fuel ...

Main Argument of "Canada has the form of democracy, but not the substance"

The central argument of Andrew Coyne’s piece is that while Canada maintains the outward forms and rituals of democracy-such as free elections, peaceful transfers of power, and a lack of overt corruption-the actual substance of democracy has eroded to the point where the country can no longer be considered a healthy democracy in practice. Coyne contends that the core institutions and principles that are supposed to ensure genuine democratic accountability and representation have been hollowed out, leaving a system that is democratic largely in appearance rather than in reality1.

Key Points Supporting the Argument:

• Superficial Democratic Metrics: Canada scores highly on international democracy indices and meets basic procedural standards (free and fair elections, peaceful transitions, etc.), but these are minimal requirements and do not capture the deeper deficiencies in how Canadian democracy functions1.

• Institutional Decay: Coyne argues that none of Canada’s democratic institutions work as intended. The nomination of candidates is often manipulated, party leaders are not genuinely accountable, and elections are frequently contests of dishonesty rather than genuine policy debate1.

• Distorted Representation: The electoral system produces parliaments that do not reflect the actual division of public opinion, with many votes effectively wasted and some citizens’ votes counting far more than others. This results in “institutionalized minority rule,” where governments can be formed with a small fraction of the popular vote1.

• Power Concentration: There is an extreme concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, with party discipline so strict that Members of Parliament (MPs) have little real autonomy or ability to represent their constituents or hold the government to account. Cabinet ministers and MPs are reduced to roles with little substantive influence1.

• Parliamentary Irrelevance: Parliament has become largely ceremonial, with real debate, scrutiny, and legislative initiative stifled by party control and procedural manipulation. The government often avoids accountability through tactics like proroguing Parliament or bundling legislation into massive omnibus bills1.

• Erosion of Accountability: Traditional checks and balances, such as the confidence convention and ministerial responsibility, are routinely bypassed or ignored, further undermining the substance of parliamentary democracy1.

• Vicious Cycle of Decline: The degradation of democratic norms leads to public cynicism and disengagement, which in turn exacerbates the decline, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that threatens the legitimacy and effectiveness of Canadian democracy1.

Conclusion:
Coyne’s main thesis is that Canada’s democracy is in a state of “advanced disrepair”-the forms and rituals remain, but the substance has been lost. The concentration of power, lack of genuine representation, and erosion of accountability have produced an existential crisis for Canadian democracy, making it questionable whether the system can still be called a true democracy in anything but name1.

                                                            *     *     *

BABYBOOM STATS:

https://www.populationpyramid.net/

World:

                                                                                     

Canada:

UK:

India:

When will the baby boom effects disappear in Canada, and in the US?

The baby boom generation—those born roughly between 1946 and 1964—has left a deep and lasting imprint on North American society. In both the U.S. and Canada, the sheer size of this cohort created a demographic bulge that translated into substantial economic, political, and cultural influence for decades. This influence is evident in everything from labor force participation and pension planning to consumer behavior and voting patterns.

However, as time moves forward, the impact of the baby boom generation is gradually diminishing. In terms of raw demographics, most baby boomers have already shifted into retirement, and many are now beginning to exit the population through natural mortality. Many demographers project that by the early-to-mid 2030s, the baby boomer generation will no longer be a dominant force in the labor market or political sphere simply because they will form an ever-smaller share of the total population. By the 2040s to 2050s, as the cohort becomes significantly reduced through the aging process, the direct demographic and economic “boom” effects are expected to have largely disappeared.

That said, it’s important to distinguish between the fading of their numerical dominance and the persistence of their legacies. The baby boomers played a critical role in shaping policies, cultural norms, and even the physical infrastructure of society (housing developments, healthcare systems, etc.). Many of these influences will continue well beyond the disappearance of the cohort itself. Their legacy in social security systems, in the architecture of suburban communities, and in the political and cultural debates that continue today will likely persist for generations.

In summary, while the rapid demographic momentum of the baby boom generation is already waning—and many aspects of their direct influence may fade substantially by the 2030s to 2050s—their long-term impact on society may linger much longer. This gradual transition will see Millennials and later generations increasingly defining economic and social priorities in both Canada and the U.S., reshaping everything from political behavior to consumer trends.

One might also wonder how this generational turnover could affect issues like intergenerational wealth transfer, healthcare policy, and even urban planning. As baby boomers leave the stage, these shifts could drive major debates and policy reforms on a scale resonant with those seen during the boom period.

                                                                               *     *     *

Demography; help me find population statistics for Canada and the US in the 19th century. What was the birthrate?

Let's start by noting that measures of birth rate in the 19th century are generally expressed as the crude birth rate—that is, the number of live births per 1,000 inhabitants per year. Because record keeping then was less systematic than today, numbers are best regarded as approximations that scholars have pieced together from censuses, parish registers, and other historical documents. The overall picture, however, is that both the United States and Canada experienced relatively high birth rates compared with modern standards.

The United States

Historical demographers estimate that during the 19th century the United States’ crude birth rate frequently ranged from about 35 to 45 births per 1,000 population per year. In the early decades (roughly 1800–1830), when populations were still small and largely rural, many regions exhibited rates on the higher end of that spectrum—sometimes above 40 per 1,000. As urbanization, industrialization, and changing economic conditions began to take hold (especially in the mid-to-late 19th century), the rate tended to decline gradually, settling closer to 30–35 per 1,000 by the century’s end. This trend—high fertility combined with relatively high child mortality in many areas—helped fuel rapid population growth, seen in U.S. totals rising from around 5 million in 1800 to over 75 million by 1900.

Canada

For Canada, the picture is broadly similar, although with some regional and temporal variation. Early in the century and in many rural or frontier areas, crude birth rates in Canada are estimated to have been in the range of 35 to 45 births per 1,000 population per year. Over time, as settlement patterns changed, immigration increased, and economic circumstances shifted (particularly after Confederation in 1867), many parts of Canada experienced gradual declines in the birth rate toward figures around 30 to 40 per 1,000 by the late 19th century. Keep in mind that Canada’s vast geography and the uneven pace of its development mean that rates could differ considerably from one province or community to another.

A Few Considerations

• Data Sources: Both countries’ historical statistics come from a patchwork of data—including censuses and church or civil registers—with adjustments made by later demographers to account for undercounting, high infant mortality, and regional differences.

• Infant Mortality & Demographic Transition: Although the raw number of births was high, high infant and child mortality rates meant that the surviving population—and thus the effective fertility—was lower than the crude rates might suggest.

• Comparative Patterns: Despite some differences in timing and regional variation, both Canada and the United States underwent early stages of the demographic transition over the 19th century—a shift from a high-fertility/high-mortality regime toward a pattern that, later in the 20th century, would feature lower fertilities and longer life expectancies.

What Else Is Relevant?

Beyond just the birthrate, it might interest you to connect these figures with the overall population growth in each country. For example, while the U.S. saw its population leap from about 5.3 million in 1800 to roughly 76 million by 1900, Canada’s numbers increased from just over a million in the early part of the century to approximately 7–8 million by 1901. These dramatic increases were driven not only by high birthrates but also by sustained immigration and, later, improvements in public health.

If you’d like to dig deeper, you might explore detailed academic sources like historical census reports or works on North American demographic history (for instance, texts such as the "Historical Statistics of the United States" or Statistics Canada’s retrospective analyses). Additionally, examining the interplay between birth rates, death rates, and migration during this transformative century offers fascinating insights into how these societies evolved—and how the framework of industrialization and modernity took shape.

Would you like to explore more on how these early demographic dynamics influenced later economic or social changes, or perhaps a closer look at regional differences within each country?

What is the current 'crude' birthrate in Canada and the US?

Based on the most recent estimates from national statistical agencies and international sources:

• United States: The crude birth rate is currently around 11 births per 1,000 population per year.

• Canada: The crude birth rate is approximately 10 births per 1,000 population per year.

These figures are averages over the most recent available data and reflect the total number of live births during a year per 1,000 individuals living in the country. Remember that "crude" means these rates are not adjusted for age distribution, so factors like population aging can influence these numbers.

Both countries have experienced declines in their crude birth rates over the past several decades as societal, economic, and cultural factors have shifted. For instance, in the U.S., trends such as delayed childbearing and lower overall fertility have contributed to the current level, while in Canada similar factors are at play alongside trends in immigration and changing family dynamics.

If you're curious about how these numbers interact with other demographic measures—such as the total fertility rate or trends in age-specific birth rates—we can dive into those details next. Would you like to explore how these figures compare historically or how they relate to broader demographic trends?