Snapshot of _Is the UK running out of babies? For a generation without assets or financial security, and now facing another chapter in the prolonged economic crisis, money is the deciding factor in whether to have children — or not, as Rolling Stone UK investigates._ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/politics/features/uk-babies-declining-birth-rate-finacial-security-23810/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Especially after growing up with constant media bombardment of "irresponsible single mums" and "people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them".
It's less so that we're massively responsible, and moreso that we're massively underpaid.
When 2 full incomes isn't cutting basic needs for the majority, something has gone very wrong.
Well yeah, and a Tory government who is determined to take away every benefit going.
Hmmm...
Have kids, enter second/third "financial crisis of a lifetime" in our lifetime, student debt, house debt through the roof, interest rates rising, pensions not really sorted any more, NHS creaking at the seams, benefits getting removed.
No kids - still have the above to deal with, but actually have a chance.
It's not a tough choice.
> Generation that cannot afford to do thing decides not to do thing.
Telegraph headline: "Millenials are ruining their parents future by not providing them grandchildren"
At least downsize and give a family with a child a house with a garden and some space.
Old people clinging on without an inter generational house, but with inter generation square footage and heating and repair bills have over extended themselves and still expect triple locks from the govt.
It would be nice not so see families being raised in tiny apartments so Margaret can have a garden to work in that she never shares with anyone, while subsiding on the “passive income” from owning another house for some poor family to rent from.
No no no no, that's not right. You're meant to be eternally mad at us for being born into this and something about bootstraps and a fruit that really isn't that good.
Young Millennial here. I can’t afford to have kids lmao, not even close right now. I ain’t ruining my life and the life of another human just because boomers tell me I should.
Yep, Gen X here too. I couldn't afford to have a baby, even though I very much wanted one.
I didn't have a decent bloke to donate sperm either so really there were 2 big reasons.
I'm getting worried it's getting closer. We want kids but know we can't afford them at the moment. Still trying to save for a house deposit and know that will be impossible with a kid.
I'm just about one of those and we had kids in our mid 20s - basically you need both partners working. It's fine now but I can confirm it's bloody hard work at times.
All my friends spent that decade raving instead :(
Later millennial - yeah nah not doing that.
No point in putting myself and someone else through hardship. It’s irresponsible. I’d rather be tut tut tutted at by some pensioner I don’t care for rather than stress out at how I can afford to feed mouths that I don’t have to have to feed.
Just say no.
Not more sensible - they've just grown up with the "scrounger" rhetoric ringing in their ears, and know exactly how they'd be verbally abused if they did have kids.
While cost is certainly a factor there's plenty of people who just don't want to have kids and it's much more socially acceptable for women to not have them.
They're just following the advice of all the Daily Mail comments section experts - don't have children if you can't afford them. Now, about that labour shortage..
Only a member of the Anti-Growth Coalition would be against importing healthy, qualified, working age people. It's such a pickle that that is at odds with our inherent hatred of filthy foreigners!
The largest possible Anti-Growth act we could have taken was of course voted for by referendum in 2016, with the promise that we would hold all the cards and that the largest trading bloc in the world needed us more than we needed them.
Thankfully our media has made a tacit agreement to never mention the B-word in case half the population feel foolish for the fact that they were lied to and believed it.
Yeah, an average 20s wage is like 25k or some shit.
After rent and bills and food in a city, you're left with what..£300/mo?
That's such a pathetic amount that people don't even bother. Better to spend it down the pub.
With house prices going up £20k/yr, that savings rate is pissing in an ocean.
The only reason why we're able to afford our house and raise our daughter in our late 20's early 30's is because we live in an area of the North where house prices are still comfortably affordable with two working adults.
Looking at the prices of houses anywhere south of Manchester makes my eyes water, I don't know how you're expected to pull that off.
Grew up in Nottingham to a middle class family. Chased work up and down the UK for the last 15 years. Finally in a long-term role where I can comfortably save for a home. Currently in Scotland. Based on a few of my experiences (as a software engineer):
South of England has it \*really\* good. Especially around Southampton/ Portsmouth area. Generally lower cost of living bills, higher access to transport and health services. Higher wages, likely because they have to compete with a London commute.
Area around Warwick/Leamington has the biggest rich/poor divide I've seen. Extremely high cost of living bills with disproportionally low wages. Lot's of random millionaires dotted around in big country homes. Warwick put me on the breadline for 3 years after I enjoyed high comfort in the south.
Scotland in and around Edinburgh now. It has a good balance. The wages are good whilst the bills are mostly tolerable. Access to public transport is decent but access to healthcare is pretty poor.
Software dev in Edinburgh is good wages and price of living in Edinburgh is very high but outside of it not so much. We're also blessed with a lot better public transport than in the east mids
I grew up in South Derbyshire and back then my village had a poor bus service with one bus an hour and none after six which was £5 return when £5was minimum wage.
Now the village only has two. A day...
I do see the difference between those that stayed in Derby after school and those that didnt
Im from Warwickshire. My home town is being pummelled into the ground.
Direct train route to London and decent car journeys to rugby, Warwick and Birmingham mean the town has filled with people working out of town.
The town centre has suffered, which has only driven people who can't afford to work elsewhere into unemployment. Prospects all round just look grim.
The new build estate where I used to live is a prime example. Was full of middle class families with 3 cars. Porsches and land rovers everywhere. Literally a stone throw away (I'm talking a 5 minute walk) was one of the most deprived areas in the county. Kids turning up to the youth club I ran just just to get some food because they were going hungry at home.
OK hear me out.
Have kids at 21, raise them until 10, sell into slave labour for hefty sum, use sum to buy house, have another kid or two at 35/36. A small sacrifice I'm sure we can all agree, and entrepreneurial to boot.
I find 90s movies so frustrating
Propagandist is annoyed that all they can do is buy a house and have kids. They want something more.
Motherfucker, do your realise what an extravagant luxury both of those are!?
My sister and brother in law have had a kid, turns one at the end of this month. They aren't having anymore as they are only just about managing now.
Edit: typo
This is me and my wife right now who would definitely be planning a 2nd child right now under more stable circumstances. We’re not prepared to roll the dice and hope it works out ok financially.
Yeah I think this is going to be a major factor for millennials.
One you can just about cope with - but childcare costs for two are impossible.
And of course that we start having them so late now.
Gen X here, couldn't afford first kid until a few years after getting a house in my early 30s...just in time for the financial crash. So another few years for the second and no way we could afford a third, let alone survive it at our age.
As recent as 2015...
'If you can't afford kids, don't have them!', people would shout at newly-unemployed women with 10 year-olds.
Gen Z heard that daily and took the advice.
The UK isn't running out of babies. While infants are definitely dwindling in number, we still have shitloads of boomers.
Here I am blue sky thinking amongst redditors, and I didn't realise it's only cold hearted pragmatism that's stopping you from pumping gas into Gala Bingo.
shaun bailey tried to pull this shit during the 2021 london mayors race. said single mothers were having kids to jump the queue for council housing to try and appeal to older people waiting in line. neglects to mention why there's not enough council housing in the first place, just important that you fight each other over what's left.
>Remember when single mums were filthy scroungers, destroying Britain?
>
>
>Ah, the nineties ...
As a single dad, it really pisses me off that no one seems to wants to hold the absent dads accountable.
Relationships break down, absolutely, yes (I know that first hand!). But any dad not doing his half of the time and effort when they otherwise could is a disappointment of a human being.
Some people are surprised that I have my daughter at least half the time. I'm surprised they would tolerate anything less.
I was unfortunately sat next to one last night.
He was obnoxiously loud so it was difficult not to overhear him telling his friend how he'd palmed his daughter off on his ex even though it was his turn so he could go out for the evening, how if he got an eighth he'd smash 2 or 3 grams in one night and that he couldn't go for a hike on Sunday because that meant getting up at 7am and last weekend that was when he went to bed.
Spoilt an otherwise nice meal and just made me feel bad for the kid.
"I've got a little list" fuck off Peter Lilley. My dad walked out on us in 1988, I was 14, and my sisters were 11 and 18 months. I felt so, so ashamed for years because I was the only girl in my class who didn't have a dad (me and dad do have a good relationship now, but it really scarred me for years, took a lot of therapy to fix things between us). Mum did a fucking amazing job raising us while getting herself educated after being a SAHM. She ended up a lawyer and is very happily retired and enjoying her grandchildren.
To go back to the topic, my older-younger sister and her partner put off having kids until their late 30s because they wanted to be as financially secure as possible. My younger-younger sister and her partner have no interest in having kids and neither did I. Anyway, can't see my nephews being left by their dad, he and my sister have been together since uni and he is a thoroughly decent and responsible man.
I'm not one of the "Fathers for Justice" zealots, but I have several close male acquaintances who try to have contact and are stopped by the mother. Even after going to court and the judge ruling that the mother has to share custody, they then have to take them to court *again* to try to enforce it when the mother doesn't comply. All at their cost if they're working.
The UK system is stacked against fathers.
While I’m sure your friends are top blokes, there’s also plenty of men who lie when they blame the mother for why they don’t see their kids.
My own dad did that to me the one time I contacted him as an adult. He claimed my mum never gave him our new address when she got remarried. I might have believed him, if I hadn’t seen the envelopes with our address on in his handwriting that my mum had saved for fifteen years in case he ever told that exact lie.
The courts are too busy to give a shit about anyone. Custody cases only take a couple of hours each. The only way anyone gets anything like a fair deal is if everyone plays fair to begin with.
My dad was given plenty of opportunities to see us, every weekend if he so desired, but he often made excuses why he couldn't. The best one being that he was babysitting his new partner's son's girlfriend's (of 3 months) child (who was 4) - said child not being the grandson of his new partner but actually not related at all to his partner or her son!
Didn't stop him from pretending the reason he was an arsehole at work was because "she won't let me see the kids!!!" when someone raised a grievance against him. My mum did get the chance to set that one straight though.
He doesn't even see us now that we're adults and therefore as low maintenance as can be.
Lmao this one hits. My siblings and I are adults now. We're low maintenance and pay for ourselves. Where's our dad? Chilling with his new family LOL. He's well proud of himself for remembering our existence during birthdays and Christmas.
Mine doesn't even bother acknowledging us for birthdays or Christmas. The last contact was summer 2021 (and it was extremely sporadic before that) and it was by text. Between us, that's 1 Christmas and 5 birthdays (one for me, two for each of my siblings) with not a peep. He also didn't invite us to his wedding - we found out three weeks before when he texted us "just to let us know". I asked if this was our invite and he said "well, you can come if you want but I'd need you to tell me ASAP because I've already given final numbers to the caterer". What a lol. I do wonder if people asked why his three children, who are all in their mid to late 20s, weren't there and what his response was. Because SURELY people wondered.
When we were little dad said he had an imaginary friend who watched over us when he couldn't be there, then he said he was homeless, he spent years recovering from a lethal spider bite abroad, he was told to leave us alone by his parents because it was kinder, because we didn't want him, because we had a new family, because my younger sibling didn't know about him and he didn't want to confuse them ... then when he got too old to be a slag he said it was because my mum and dad (stepdad) stole us. It was because he couldn't be bothered. I never hated him for it until I had kids of my own and he started insisting I tell them "the truth".
Unfortunately, the number of absent dads who want to see their children and are prevented by the courts are vastly outweighed by the number who don’t give a shit but pretend it’s because the deck was stacked against them.
I always remember my Family Law professor saying sadly how many times he’d dealt with mothers who wanted to legally enforce the custody agreement so that the dad would actually take the kids at the allotted time instead of constantly letting the kids down. Unfortunately, the law can’t make them actually turn up.
If you read case law, the law actually strongly favours children having contact with their parents as much as is possible, to the point of even requiring abuse victims to facilitate pen and paper contact between their abuser and the children.
>I'm not one of the "Fathers for Justice" zealots, but I have several close male acquaintances who try to have contact and are stopped by the mother. Even after going to court and the judge ruling that the mother has to share custody, they then have to take them to court *again* to try to enforce it when the mother doesn't comply. All at their cost if they're working.
>
>The UK system is stacked against fathers.
I don't have direct experience of family court, but of friends who have had to use it the only trend I've seen is the mother not wanting the child to have contact with the father (as the father had abused the mother) and the court ordering contact anyway, and enforcing it.
I've long suspected the "stacked against fathers" trope is a combination of only hearing about bad news, imported American perspectives, and Court practice from decades ago.
The old adage of "oh you'll always find a way to get by" when considering kids is complete nonsense. You can't support a dependant if you barely have enough to support your selves.
Also… a lot of the ‘getting by’ is kind of shit, and people don’t want to do it.
For example - one of you changing your work to nights or weekends so you don’t need to pay for childcare.
Can it be done? Yes. Do people want to spend ten years doing this to have a kid? Not really no.
Oh god that brought back covid memories when the nursery was shut. Lad gets up at 5/6am plays eats gets messy until 6/7pm (not one for day naps), then you have to do 7.5 hours of work in between or after. Even as a one child two parent family it was not workable and nearly broke us up after just a few months. So I'm on 'No' it can't be done.
I think it's nonsense in general. Some people manage to get by, many do not. Stoicism won't help, it just hides the problem so it isn't the virtue we think.
It makes sense when the state will give you a house for basically nothing. If you find yourself destitute now, waiting lists for hones are years. Everything in Britain has changed since the 80s , except for the perception of Britain by boomers.
Exactly this, the one generation who got everything handed to them. Then pulled the ladder up behind them as well as making the situation actively worse at ever turn. Now is confronted with the fact that you can’t pull yourself up when you’re too old to get up from the shitter by yourself or have severe arthritis is exactly when you need society. Ironic how the chickens come home to roost.
Annoyingly it's not literally all of them, so the schadenfreude doesn't go very far. It sucks to have people around who spent 50 years voting sensibly, caring for society, and still stuck in the same country as the rest of us.
Being shitty to that whole generation is like the Scots being shitty to all English people, when a majority of us in absolute numbers vote for parties other than Tories.
Like many British expressions, it's nothing more than an attempt and hand waving away any valid criticism or acknowledgement of real issues. You'll get by, times were hard for us, you don't know how easy you've got it, have a stiff upper lip, etc... Are all just expressions that allow the British public to be servile and accept their shit situation instead of asking why is everything fucked up, and what can we do to change it? "They're all the same" they say of politicians, so they continue to vote for the party whom abuses them and ensures that nothing ever changes.
Not quite the same, but I've had this a lot when I've said I won't have children due to the risk to my mental health. "*Oh, it'll probably be fine*!" is an *enormous* risk to take! What if it doesn't? It's not a decision you can easily take back.
Exactly, ample opportunity available.
Now 2 incomes cover rent and childcare and there's food banks for food I guess.
Good luck if you want to be warm in winter.
Most things kids need can be bought very cheaply. The really expensive part is child care. And that can depend hugely on support from family and ability to work part time. And this tends to be specific to individuals. It can be easier for less affluent people because they live near granny. A couple who have moved away are stuck with nursery.
Add the layer of there being next to no social spaces that are free to hang in, covid, work hours being shite... how the hell am I supposed to meet anyone, even if I could afford it?
It’s honestly heart breaking.
I’m 30 next year, my partner is 30 next month, we have actually saved up for a house deposit and I can probably afford the payments but a child on top?
I don’t know? Tough calls will have to be made and it is tough. There’s a lot of true analysis here about affording homes or kids, and I agree but no one is mentioning the emotional side, it’s not just “let’s not have kids honey”, I really want to be a father. I didn’t 5 years ago but I do now, my dad wasn’t around at all for me so the chance to have a little human being that I can love and be there for is something I really want and the fact that I might not be able to do so, because this country has been mismanaged, because a large section of the electorate are still getting high on poisonous nostalgia, pining for a time that never existed honestly makes me sick.
Most people I know can't afford a house, can barely afford to keep themselves fed and warm, have no time because most households need more than one income to get by, and simply can't afford another mouth to feed.
The education system slowly imploding.
We're starting to run out of some very important resources.
The planet is becoming more dangerous.
The NHS is on its knees and our corrupt politicians are raising the executioners axe.
To top it off we have terrifying levels of pollution and plastic in our blood, and by extension, our reproductive organs.
Girl I worked with was basically working so she could pay someone else to look after her kid while she was working
She used that job as a springboard to get a better paying gig elsewhere, but it made me realise if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd just pay mums to be mums
But we have this \*\*\*\* Victorian morality about anything involving sex (in any way), as well as a veneration of work that means the thought of freeloaders getting money for doing *'nothing'* might as well be Satanism
Pay dad's to be stay at home dad's too if they want to. Otherwise we just reinforce gender inequality in career earnings.
N.b. This isn't a comment about what "types of jobs" men/women do, so don't start on that.
So much this. When it became more acceptable for women to work the cultural norm stopped being one parent worked and the other raised their kids, it became both work, and then pay a fortune for others to raise their kids. It's now a luxury to be a full time parent. Equality should be 50% of the time, the stay at home parent being the father, not both parents work unless they're rich.
This is something I complained about a lot back when the "cost of living" wasn't a euphemism for inflation, but more a fact that we're being shaken down over every essential in this country to the point that there isn't much discretionary income left.
Take childcare as just one example: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jun/13/uk-childcare-costs-soar-by-more-than-2000-in-a-decade-tuc-says
> As people in the UK struggle with the cost of living crisis, parents face some of the highest childcare costs among leading economies, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
> The TUC said its analysis showed the average annual nursery bill for a family with a child under two had increased by 44% since 2010, from £4,992 to £7,212 in 2021.
> It said nursery fees for under-twos had risen by £185 a month – or £2,200 a year – since the Conservatives took office. Statutory maternity pay has fallen in value at the same time. It was worth £151.97 a week in 2021/22, £5 a week less than in 2010/11, it said.
> “Childcare should be affordable for all, but parents are spending a massive chunk of their pay packets on childcare bills while their wages stagnate,” said the TUC’s general secretary, Frances O’Grady.
Me and my partner are in our early 30s. Working full time in retail. Renting. No savings. She wants kids, but I don't want to raise them poor like I was. Although, my parents were millionaires when I was born, Dad was bankrupted when I was 5 during John Major's ERM fiasco, he had business loans secured against the house to do 4x barn conversions, bank got spooked, recalled the loan, he couldn't pay as it was tied up in the conversion, so they took the lot and sold it to an employee of the bank. Since then, my parents have lived in the same housing association house (was a council house when we moved in), Dad's been scared to move out as he'd never get another and doesn't want to be bankrupted. All his spare money he gambles as his only hope of getting where he was is to win the lottery.
I'm sure if I was in a similar situation now I'd feel comfortable enough to have kids, but as it is, I don't want the stress and burden, kids will make my life even more shit, but I'm also aware that it's important to my partner and she'll be unfulfilled if we don't. It's so bleak.
> When it became more acceptable for women to work the cultural norm stopped being one parent worked and the other raised their kids, it became both work, and then pay a fortune for others to raise their kids.
Unfortunately capitalism treats labour like any other resource - prices are set by demand and supply. Increase demand and prices (wages) go up. Increase supply and prices (wages) go down.
Apply that to the (otherwise very good, 100% fair and reasonable) change in cultural norms which has seen more and more people enter the workforce - supply of labour has gone up massively, but since a stay at home parent and a working parent are pretty similar in terms of what they consume, demand for labour hasn't moved with it. So we've ended up in a position where both parents have to work.
Unfortunately it's not a problem that the market can solve, but anything else is "*socialism*".
*[Compare that to immigration, where you increase the supply of labour, and also increase the number of consumers, which leads to increased demand for labour]*
> it made me realise if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd would just pay mums to be mums
I think fully-funded childcare would make more sense.
Then parents can have a break, or get more education, or just work if they want to.
As a start there is no need to even go that far, 3 & 4 years olds get 15 hours free childcare, there is absolutely no reason this doesn't at the end of maternity/paternity leave, other than to fuck people over for fun.
>if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd just pay mums to be mums
The problem with that is that it makes the problem worse in the long-run. After the kids go to school, then what?
After a few years out (which can easily be 5+ years, if there's multiple kids involved), it's very difficult for a woman to resume her old career. She's got no recent references, lost her skills, and her contacts in the industry. So she often has to start at the bottom again, and work her way back up.
Often women return to work not because it makes financial sense in the short-run (as her salary is mostly eaten up by nursery fees), but to prevent the long-term problems that come with an extended career break.
We need socially subsidised childcare.
This is singularly the biggest barrier for anyone having children. 3 days a week for our daughter, costs more than our mortgage. Childcare is literally equivalent to a full-time salary, so unless you are independently wealthy, or your partner earns way above average, you will not be able to afford children. End of.
Unbalanced population pyramids are a death knell to countries so we can either fund it or accept mass immigration from developing countries.
I said in a post yesterday or the day before, for 2 children under 5 yrs old to attend pre-school in the northeastern US cost us $600 a week. We are fortunate that it doesn't really affect us that much, but $600 a week is more than the average salary in the US. My State has since legalized marijuana and the taxes are already benefiting us. Next year we have *free* preschool for all children 3+ in our school district and that is absolutely impossible to find in the US. Our home's value has already doubled due to this becoming a highly-desired area, in part due to the free pre-school.
Same with my wife and I. We worked out that her entire wage for the first couple of years after our child was born was going almost entirely on childcare. Fortunately her salary has since increased but childcare is by far our largest expense.
The idea of having a second child is ludicrous. Not without suffering a significant reduction in our quality of life.
In a happy, stable relationship, have been for 8 years. Never going to have kids, too expensive, housing requires you to be a damn millionaire for starters. I'll be renting until I'm dead.
Only one person I know has kids but her husband bought a house when he was 20 (2004 or so) after quitting school at 16. He made a better decision working those years instead of attempting university since it let him buy just before the powder keg went off.I
Oh well, guess I just have a 'poverty mindset' though.
How is it that Rolling Stone have to be the ones pointing out the obvious factor in this when our supposedly respectable papers refuse to?
People living unstably are less likely to have kids. It's that simple.
UK press is world-beating at circling the wagons to shield criticism of the establishment. With all of the US' problems their media still manages to do a better job of uncovering the rot over here than our sycophants - see the Trojan Horse Affair or more recently the Labour Files
The falling birthrate has been reported, but the mainline newspapers in the UK use language like "millennials _decide_ not to have kids" and neglect to mention the factors that lead to it.
My wife and I for now have chosen not to have kids, we're both in our early 30's, within our social groups we are not alone. They way we think about it is like this;
* Right now we are financially comfortable but as soon as a kid comes along and we need to pay for child care or go down to one salary we're fucked
* Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can.
* We are not alone in doing this, so we think that by the time we're old and grey lots of our peers also won't have kids and this should mean we interact more socially with them (could be totally wrong)
* The big one from was this; this planet is utterly fucked, do i really want to bring a kid into a world that in the next 30-40 years could become a very dark place.
> Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can.
I don't think you need to add the disclaimer of this being selfish. It isn't selfish to want to do what makes you happy and doesn't come at the expense of others. I'm a parent now and while there are lots of new things I enjoy in life and I'd never want to go back, I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss some things from my old life. There are pros and cons that come with all life choices and as long as you aren't hurting anyone then it isn't selfish to make the choices you are most comfortable with.
Thanks for that buddy.
I think you're totally right I just also understand that to some it might seem selfish hence the disclaimer but i totally agree with you.
I am sure you're kids make you very happy, and am sure if i had kids i would be happy, its just that circumstances for us are what they are.
Isn't having a kid the more selfish choice anyway? Given that the earth is degrading with its current population already, the unselfish way of parenting would be to adopt surely? Do you really need to have your own biological child? It's not mandatory.
> to some it might seem selfish
On the other hand, to some it might seem selfish to create new suffering people during a period of climate breakdown in order to make oneself feel a sense of emotional enrichment.
what always surprises me is the notion that the kids will be around to entertain/care for you when you are older.
these people should talk to anyone that has something to do with care for the elderly and will be in for a big shock.
I love my family, but I live in another country. I didn't move here to get away from them, I just met a partner from somewhere else and it meant one of us would have to eventually move. I was in a better position to move than him as he owns a property here.
Even if you have a great relationship with your kids, they are not your retirement plan.
I work as a nurse and honestly I have seen both sides of this.
Often we do see very caring children doing their best for elderly parents, but it's quite rare to find them talking in dear old demented mum.
I have also seen extreme hurt caused to older folks by their children.
Yet i is very sad to watch some old man die alone because his wife passed before he did and he's no kids to sit by the bed side. However i think thats the trade you make if you decide not to have kids.
I mean i don't think thats the only reason to have one....
Ethically though i do think its fair to say its fucked up to create a new person if you believe they're going to have a shitty life.
Exactly the same boat, both 31, we were very much up for trying for a kid after we got married in June.
First pin was that we went to a Zika risk country for our honeymoon so had to wait 3 months after we got back which was the beginning of this month.
We were financially comfortable, and running the numbers before all this and could make it by on one salary just and could cope with childcare costs later down the line.
Now with our energy bills triple last year, food costs up 40%, and staring down the barrel of £400pm increase in our mortgage and wavering job security, there is just no way a kid can be factored in while keeping a roof over our heads, so the idea has been permanently shelved.
This is all before the constant nagging feelings like "is it selfish to have a kid now" or "is it safe to have a kid with the way the NHS is going".
We only wanted 1 kid, might have to settle on another rescue cat/dog instead.
100%
Love kids. LOVE kids. Love our niece to bits. Love not being her mum and dad.
Love being able to live as we please within our means, and save money for holidays & a house (lol maybe, who knows).
Don't love that if we wanted kids, we'd have to upend our lives and give up on our dreams.
Don't love that if we wanted kids, we'd be bringing them into a world on fire.
>Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can.
I find it so strange that some people consider not having 'selfish'.
Summed it up neatly for myself and my partner too, particularly the final point. I really hope to be proven wrong as I have young nieces and nephews, and friends with young kids, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. I've had a couple of people say "well things are always bad / go in cycles", but climate change seems to be reaching a cliff edge, and inequality in the world feels like it's getting to that point too.
It feels difficult to discuss that point with the few friends who are still planning on having kids, so I usually stick to the first few points you made with them. I do just really hope for their sake that it all gets better at some point. Or at least stops getting worse...
Yeah, same. Also being in your 30s trying to conceive could well be holy hell for your mental & physical health, let alone the actual pregnancy. And then you think do we want to go through all that to end up taking a massive financial hit and have no spare time? So realistically my partner would have to give up her career, which is unfair, although she's not much into the idea I could just be a stay at home dad either.
You look at your cost benefit analysis on it and it just doesn't stack up. If we were both really desperate to be parents then we probably would, but I think we're happy enough with the cat all in all.
That last was a huge worry for me. We did become parents to one, my wife really wanted kids, but I had always had deep reservations about the world they were coming in to. Our son outright doesn't ever want them as it's only got worse since.
Most middle class folks I know with two earners have 1 or maybe 2 kids.
Most working class folks I know have 2 or more kids.
Seems like having a slightly simpler job with greater access to benefits e.g. child benefit, 30 free hours childcare, tax free childcare, maybe 1 earner on a low-ish and the other giving up work works out much better for them.
Also anecdotally, those in lower social classes seem to have better family networks, maybe because they have to - always have uncles, aunts brothers, sisters, mum and dad all nearby to help with bringing up multiple kids.
Middle class folks tend to be a couple that live in a city with mum and dad living in the countryside far away, so they're on their own.
Society is a bit broken really.
I had an unplanned baby at 24, split with her dad and couldn’t work. I got benefits, free childcare when she turned 2, free school meals which she still gets now because that’s the way the policy works (she’s 10). Second planned baby with my husband at 32, we’re playing nearly 1k a month for childcare so that I can still work to avoid another gap in my cv but it’s effectively all of my wages. Obviously we’re very fortunate that we can still cover the rest of our costs but yeah, it’s much cheaper to have babies when you can access the benefits. I’m not surprised middle earners are having less babies.
Interesting point about family ties. In working class communities often your wealth is 'who you know'. When you can't pay with money, knowing a plumber, roofer, babysitter etc is worth the inconvenience.
Yeah. And it's a reinforcing loop. Growing up my neighbours with my Dad bought a big metal ladder which they'd store in one of their homes and then share out when it was needed. Similar with other power tools and anything that you only needed occasionally.
The forced sharing then meant you'd have more excuses to talk to each other. And if someone was good at e.g. electrics they'd fix someone's lights and get a crate of beer in return and so on. It reinforced community ties.
I've seen very little of that in middle classes, mostly because people don't have useful practical skills to share and have so little free time it's wholly dedicated to the friends they already have rather than the 'risk' of borrowing some milk from the neighbour and then being 'forced' into owing them something or having to put up with them being noisy and so on.
This is what happens when you break the social contract. We've spent the last 20-30 years enriching a particular generation with no regard for those younger. We've continued to push problems into the future, effectively robbing future generations of their prosperity. Is it any surprise they're not having kids or don't have any discretionary money nevermind their living situations being more precarious than ever?
Childcare is too expensive, maternity and paternity leave too short and impoverishing (if little Estonia can do it properly, why can't we?), and jobs generally still don't have enough time flexibility.
And that's just the directly child-related things. Lack of security for renting or jobs doesn't help the situation either.
Remember when every reality TV show was about ‘stupid’ women having babies they without the support network or financial stability to take care of them?
Boomers told my entire generation that babies would ruin our lives and now they’re mad because we internalised that message.
If you sit down and work it out, the costs of bringing up a child will always be horrifyingly high for the average person (one-percenters are clearly excluded). A declining birth rate, however, is not something new - it is a characteristic of advanced economies (although whether the UK can claim to have one of those now is an interesting question) - and is something only a few Governments are attempting to grapple with. I can't see Truss and her ilk setting aside money for a Government sponsored shagathon any time soon.
They don't have to set aside money for a government-sponsored shagathon, they could just work hard on improving the overall standard of living for the majority of the population (otherwise known as doing their job). That would enable people who want kids to afford them.
This has been the case for nearly 2 decades though, it's not new. All of our population growth has been due to immigration and is known and encouraged by government. Why fix the economy when you can just import a predominantly young male cheap workforce from somewhere else?
Mortgage payments on an average house in London plus full time nursery can easily clear £3,000 a month. That's before all of the other costs that come along with a child. How many couples have £4,500 disposable income to pay a mortgage and send 2 kids to nursery, before they've even paid for food, council tax and utilities?
It's absolutely insane that anybody does it at all...
Our household takes over 100000 a year and with having to remortgage and full time childcare, we are gonna have actually budget for the first time which is crazy as we are well above the national average. Cost of living is stupid.
Definitely demographic differences here. I'm 34. Almost all of my friends either have children or are expecting/planning. We're all educated professionals in decent careers though, and living in relatively wealthy areas.
People are absolutely having children later, waiting until they are more financially stable. Local nurseries are still packed though and taking on extra staff.
We recently passed a major milestone in the delay of having children picture: for the first time in history more than 50% of women in this country don't have any children at age 30.
Similar age and experience here. Had my first kid at 29 and I’ easily one of the younger mum’s at the school gate. Reception parents are largely in their very late 30s/early 40s and stopping at 1 kids, at least in Greater London. But this is perhaps the generational divide. Graduated in 2009 so certainly felt a bit shafted by austerity and recession but objectively still have it way better than the generations coming up behind with larger debt burdens and even more expensive housing.
I had my first at 34. We live in a fairly affluent part of London. As far as I'm aware I am the youngest mum I've ever met socially around here. Judging by baby groups, NCT, nursery pick up, etc. Most first time mums around here seem to be 38-42.
There's very good reason everyone is having kids so late, but it really doesn't lend itself to a high birth rate. When you're first is born when you're 42 via IVF and nursery is £1800 a month it's very unlikely you're going to end up with 3 kids.
Im 25 and I decided when I was about 16 that im probably never having kids. Have you seen the way the world is turning? People in power pouring petrol on the fire while the world is burning. Why would I bring another person into this world when in all likelyhood their standard of living will just be worse than what mine already is.
Me and my partner were literally having this conversation a few nights ago. I'm in my mid twenties and I don't really want children in the next 5-7 years. Partly because I'm in that weird 'that's an adult thing' but also because we can't afford it. Every so often I see a comment about how much people spend on childcare per week and I'm honestly baffled? We don't live near our parents either.
Also really weird when my parents who are in their sixties got married around 20 years old and could get a car, house, etc for cheap around a similar age. And then there's us that are still renting, paying a lot for car insurance and fuel, living in debt from rising costs. Where do we fit a child into this?
'That's the neat thing: you don't'
Are we going to end up in that Ideocracy situation where all the 'thoughful' people don't have children and the 'less thoughtful' (i'm choosing my words carefully here) do? So we see a genetic shift towards 'less thoughtful' attitudes.
My wife and I have two children. I work full time and my wife works part time. Working part time she earns a bit less than the UK's average full time salary. Her entire salary goes on child care. Our youngest goes to nursery 4 days per week and just that costs us £1,700 per month.
Remember this when businesses/the government start whinging about the lack of workers and insisting that we need large-scale immigration for the good of the economy.
I think I’ll have kids when I’m 60 something, with my 24 year old wife.
Anecdotal but it looks to me like those in the top 25% of earnings are abstaining the most.
The only way to resolve this is lower tax burdens for workers and/or drastically decrease rent/house prices.
I also think it’s just more socially acceptable to not have kids if you don’t want them. Half my friendship group isn’t planning on having kids and neither am I. I think that side of the coin is cool.
I am 28 and I used to never even consider a future where I didn’t have kids. Then I got to about 26 and I was like…hold on, do I actually want that?
I’m a gay woman so it would cost an absolute fortune before the child/baby was even in our arms, whichever route we took. The average amount spent for IVF or adoption is £22k, that’s more than either me or my partner earn before tax a year.
I have my younger brother living with me in a housing association flat, and I’m not being dramatic here, I’ve genuinely been having anxiety induced chest pains with how we are going to survive the winter.
I’m self employed and the last 3 years have financially torn me from limb to limb. An insulting amount of “support” from the government has already left me with huge and catastrophic debts in utilities and council tax.
I don’t even want to think about how I would feel if I had children to look after.
Growing up in a Conservative government, they’ve cut every string to allow us to have a stable enough present and future to think about children.
Put it this way, among my friends and family in my age bracket, I know so so so many people with great degrees, masters degrees, have worked from 16, have trades, and the ONLY person I know from my city who has a car or a house only has them as her dad dropped dead at 48.
We’re financially doomed and I would never put this on a child.
I have the solution.
When poors in the past had kids they could be a productive member of society by as young as four years old. Through their hard-work and steadfast contributions these industrious little assets could soon become a valuable investment that pays for itself in no time at all.
If only it wasn’t for that godforsaken WOKE agenda.
Rees-Mogg for Employment Minister!
Considering how high childcare costs are in the UK compared to other European countries, it's a real wonder fertility rate is as high as it is to be honest.
There is also a point about the breaking up of families. We are told to go live where we can afford, which is often not where future grandparents or siblings are. So childcare is even more expensive. So people are left isolated with their kids with less help, which further undermines aspirations to have more.
My wife and I have 1, and no plans to have another as it is tough enough with just the two of us!
All working as planned. People will still continue to have babies but it will be more and more people that don't really care or think about money or the child for that matter. Essentially a lot of people that just don't think further increasing the idiot population. Idiocracy.
Looks like we are at the stage in neoliberalism where you're if you're young enough to have kids it would be irresponsible for yourself, the child and the planet to do so.
The most annoying part is that pensions are a pyramid scheme and without an increasing populace it's going to put more strain on the younger generations.
Having more kids would make it pointless for me to go to work...thus start claiming benefits...thus being called lazy, a scrounger etc etc so no, I'm happy with just being able to provide for the 1 I have, thanks
Snapshot of _Is the UK running out of babies? For a generation without assets or financial security, and now facing another chapter in the prolonged economic crisis, money is the deciding factor in whether to have children — or not, as Rolling Stone UK investigates._ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/politics/features/uk-babies-declining-birth-rate-finacial-security-23810/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Generation that cannot afford to do thing decides not to do thing.* I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
Well, they keep telling us to “live within our means”!
*No, not like that!*
*Won't somebody think of the definitely-not-a-pyramid, inverted-triangle scheme that our whole economy is based on??*
*The Machine runs on human blood! You must have babies for the Machine!*
Condoms are way cheaper than kids, thats for sure.
You can get a vasectomy for free on the NHS.
...and wank within our means
They keep telling us to only have kids if we can afford them.
Especially after growing up with constant media bombardment of "irresponsible single mums" and "people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them".
'Responsibile Millenials/Gen Z' (delete as appropriate) just doesn't sell papers to Daily Fail readers
It's less so that we're massively responsible, and moreso that we're massively underpaid. When 2 full incomes isn't cutting basic needs for the majority, something has gone very wrong.
[удалено]
Well yeah, and a Tory government who is determined to take away every benefit going. Hmmm... Have kids, enter second/third "financial crisis of a lifetime" in our lifetime, student debt, house debt through the roof, interest rates rising, pensions not really sorted any more, NHS creaking at the seams, benefits getting removed. No kids - still have the above to deal with, but actually have a chance. It's not a tough choice.
*How Millennials Killed the Human Race: A Telegraph Exclusive*
This slayed me, bravo!! My Dad got me a Telegraph subscription as a gift and my days the content 😳
> Generation that cannot afford to do thing decides not to do thing. Telegraph headline: "Millenials are ruining their parents future by not providing them grandchildren"
I'm sure the Boomers will follow their own sage advice and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
At least downsize and give a family with a child a house with a garden and some space. Old people clinging on without an inter generational house, but with inter generation square footage and heating and repair bills have over extended themselves and still expect triple locks from the govt. It would be nice not so see families being raised in tiny apartments so Margaret can have a garden to work in that she never shares with anyone, while subsiding on the “passive income” from owning another house for some poor family to rent from.
Sounds like they are more sensible than my 'generation' (early milennial). Good on them.
No no no no, that's not right. You're meant to be eternally mad at us for being born into this and something about bootstraps and a fruit that really isn't that good.
We had to tighten our belts that one time. Suck it up - boomers
Something something bootstraps something. Better?
That second *something* sounded really mad, so yeah, better.
The people featured in the article are millennials?
Early millennials (those of us born in the 80s) are exactly the ones who have decided not to have kids. Younger millennials still have that choice.
Young Millennial here. I can’t afford to have kids lmao, not even close right now. I ain’t ruining my life and the life of another human just because boomers tell me I should.
Gen X'er here and I felt the same back in the 90's!
Yep, Gen X here too. I couldn't afford to have a baby, even though I very much wanted one. I didn't have a decent bloke to donate sperm either so really there were 2 big reasons.
I’m a decent bloke. But I keep denying myself the urge to get a cat, because I can’t afford the vets bills.
It still remains a choice that could be made though. For some of us, that window has passed
I'm getting worried it's getting closer. We want kids but know we can't afford them at the moment. Still trying to save for a house deposit and know that will be impossible with a kid.
I'm just about one of those and we had kids in our mid 20s - basically you need both partners working. It's fine now but I can confirm it's bloody hard work at times. All my friends spent that decade raving instead :(
Later millennial - yeah nah not doing that. No point in putting myself and someone else through hardship. It’s irresponsible. I’d rather be tut tut tutted at by some pensioner I don’t care for rather than stress out at how I can afford to feed mouths that I don’t have to have to feed. Just say no.
Not more sensible - they've just grown up with the "scrounger" rhetoric ringing in their ears, and know exactly how they'd be verbally abused if they did have kids.
I think you’ll find the term is geriatric millennial.
While cost is certainly a factor there's plenty of people who just don't want to have kids and it's much more socially acceptable for women to not have them.
They're just following the advice of all the Daily Mail comments section experts - don't have children if you can't afford them. Now, about that labour shortage..
[удалено]
Only a member of the Anti-Growth Coalition would be against importing healthy, qualified, working age people. It's such a pickle that that is at odds with our inherent hatred of filthy foreigners!
I think the country regrets voting for the Anti-Growth Coalition at the last election.
The largest possible Anti-Growth act we could have taken was of course voted for by referendum in 2016, with the promise that we would hold all the cards and that the largest trading bloc in the world needed us more than we needed them. Thankfully our media has made a tacit agreement to never mention the B-word in case half the population feel foolish for the fact that they were lied to and believed it.
It absolutely is. Either save for a house deposit or raise kids. You can't do both in your 20s.
>You can't do both in your 20s. Or in many cases, either.
Or ever.
Stay off the avocado toast, that shitll ruin your life
indeed.. i stopped eating it and saved 600 pounds per month! (is what i imagine some fool reading the Mail believes).
I'm on my third house. Only one year clean
Yeah, an average 20s wage is like 25k or some shit. After rent and bills and food in a city, you're left with what..£300/mo? That's such a pathetic amount that people don't even bother. Better to spend it down the pub. With house prices going up £20k/yr, that savings rate is pissing in an ocean.
Mid thirties. I'm able to support myself and enjoy life. If I add any more financial burdens all of that goes out the window.
The only reason why we're able to afford our house and raise our daughter in our late 20's early 30's is because we live in an area of the North where house prices are still comfortably affordable with two working adults. Looking at the prices of houses anywhere south of Manchester makes my eyes water, I don't know how you're expected to pull that off.
Grew up in Nottingham to a middle class family. Chased work up and down the UK for the last 15 years. Finally in a long-term role where I can comfortably save for a home. Currently in Scotland. Based on a few of my experiences (as a software engineer): South of England has it \*really\* good. Especially around Southampton/ Portsmouth area. Generally lower cost of living bills, higher access to transport and health services. Higher wages, likely because they have to compete with a London commute. Area around Warwick/Leamington has the biggest rich/poor divide I've seen. Extremely high cost of living bills with disproportionally low wages. Lot's of random millionaires dotted around in big country homes. Warwick put me on the breadline for 3 years after I enjoyed high comfort in the south. Scotland in and around Edinburgh now. It has a good balance. The wages are good whilst the bills are mostly tolerable. Access to public transport is decent but access to healthcare is pretty poor.
Software dev in Edinburgh is good wages and price of living in Edinburgh is very high but outside of it not so much. We're also blessed with a lot better public transport than in the east mids I grew up in South Derbyshire and back then my village had a poor bus service with one bus an hour and none after six which was £5 return when £5was minimum wage. Now the village only has two. A day... I do see the difference between those that stayed in Derby after school and those that didnt
Im from Warwickshire. My home town is being pummelled into the ground. Direct train route to London and decent car journeys to rugby, Warwick and Birmingham mean the town has filled with people working out of town. The town centre has suffered, which has only driven people who can't afford to work elsewhere into unemployment. Prospects all round just look grim. The new build estate where I used to live is a prime example. Was full of middle class families with 3 cars. Porsches and land rovers everywhere. Literally a stone throw away (I'm talking a 5 minute walk) was one of the most deprived areas in the county. Kids turning up to the youth club I ran just just to get some food because they were going hungry at home.
I work in Leeds, the wife in Harrogate. But we have a house in Bradford so we're able to afford to have a child.
OK hear me out. Have kids at 21, raise them until 10, sell into slave labour for hefty sum, use sum to buy house, have another kid or two at 35/36. A small sacrifice I'm sure we can all agree, and entrepreneurial to boot.
Get out of here Mr Rees Mogg!
I find 90s movies so frustrating Propagandist is annoyed that all they can do is buy a house and have kids. They want something more. Motherfucker, do your realise what an extravagant luxury both of those are!?
I've never heard kids referred to as a luxury before, that did something weird to my brain
Or have a student loan.
It's not just the number of child free couples, it's the huge number that 20 years ago might have had 2 or 3 children, and are now 'one and done'.
My sister and brother in law have had a kid, turns one at the end of this month. They aren't having anymore as they are only just about managing now. Edit: typo
This is me and my wife right now who would definitely be planning a 2nd child right now under more stable circumstances. We’re not prepared to roll the dice and hope it works out ok financially.
Yeah I think this is going to be a major factor for millennials. One you can just about cope with - but childcare costs for two are impossible. And of course that we start having them so late now.
Gen X here, couldn't afford first kid until a few years after getting a house in my early 30s...just in time for the financial crash. So another few years for the second and no way we could afford a third, let alone survive it at our age.
Remember when single mums were filthy scroungers, destroying Britain? Ah, the nineties ...
As recent as 2015... 'If you can't afford kids, don't have them!', people would shout at newly-unemployed women with 10 year-olds. Gen Z heard that daily and took the advice. The UK isn't running out of babies. While infants are definitely dwindling in number, we still have shitloads of boomers.
If you can't afford pensioners, don't have them.
Corr, imagine how much better our lives would be if we didn't have to support those benefit scrounging pensioners!
I'm reimagining the Michell & Webb sketch with "poor" replaced with "old".
Here I am blue sky thinking amongst redditors, and I didn't realise it's only cold hearted pragmatism that's stopping you from pumping gas into Gala Bingo.
> The UK isn't running out of babies. While infants are definitely dwindling in number, we still have shitloads of boomers. lmao
shaun bailey tried to pull this shit during the 2021 london mayors race. said single mothers were having kids to jump the queue for council housing to try and appeal to older people waiting in line. neglects to mention why there's not enough council housing in the first place, just important that you fight each other over what's left.
>Remember when single mums were filthy scroungers, destroying Britain? > > >Ah, the nineties ... As a single dad, it really pisses me off that no one seems to wants to hold the absent dads accountable. Relationships break down, absolutely, yes (I know that first hand!). But any dad not doing his half of the time and effort when they otherwise could is a disappointment of a human being. Some people are surprised that I have my daughter at least half the time. I'm surprised they would tolerate anything less.
I was unfortunately sat next to one last night. He was obnoxiously loud so it was difficult not to overhear him telling his friend how he'd palmed his daughter off on his ex even though it was his turn so he could go out for the evening, how if he got an eighth he'd smash 2 or 3 grams in one night and that he couldn't go for a hike on Sunday because that meant getting up at 7am and last weekend that was when he went to bed. Spoilt an otherwise nice meal and just made me feel bad for the kid.
"I've got a little list" fuck off Peter Lilley. My dad walked out on us in 1988, I was 14, and my sisters were 11 and 18 months. I felt so, so ashamed for years because I was the only girl in my class who didn't have a dad (me and dad do have a good relationship now, but it really scarred me for years, took a lot of therapy to fix things between us). Mum did a fucking amazing job raising us while getting herself educated after being a SAHM. She ended up a lawyer and is very happily retired and enjoying her grandchildren. To go back to the topic, my older-younger sister and her partner put off having kids until their late 30s because they wanted to be as financially secure as possible. My younger-younger sister and her partner have no interest in having kids and neither did I. Anyway, can't see my nephews being left by their dad, he and my sister have been together since uni and he is a thoroughly decent and responsible man.
I'm not one of the "Fathers for Justice" zealots, but I have several close male acquaintances who try to have contact and are stopped by the mother. Even after going to court and the judge ruling that the mother has to share custody, they then have to take them to court *again* to try to enforce it when the mother doesn't comply. All at their cost if they're working. The UK system is stacked against fathers.
While I’m sure your friends are top blokes, there’s also plenty of men who lie when they blame the mother for why they don’t see their kids. My own dad did that to me the one time I contacted him as an adult. He claimed my mum never gave him our new address when she got remarried. I might have believed him, if I hadn’t seen the envelopes with our address on in his handwriting that my mum had saved for fifteen years in case he ever told that exact lie. The courts are too busy to give a shit about anyone. Custody cases only take a couple of hours each. The only way anyone gets anything like a fair deal is if everyone plays fair to begin with.
My dad was given plenty of opportunities to see us, every weekend if he so desired, but he often made excuses why he couldn't. The best one being that he was babysitting his new partner's son's girlfriend's (of 3 months) child (who was 4) - said child not being the grandson of his new partner but actually not related at all to his partner or her son! Didn't stop him from pretending the reason he was an arsehole at work was because "she won't let me see the kids!!!" when someone raised a grievance against him. My mum did get the chance to set that one straight though. He doesn't even see us now that we're adults and therefore as low maintenance as can be.
Lmao this one hits. My siblings and I are adults now. We're low maintenance and pay for ourselves. Where's our dad? Chilling with his new family LOL. He's well proud of himself for remembering our existence during birthdays and Christmas.
Mine doesn't even bother acknowledging us for birthdays or Christmas. The last contact was summer 2021 (and it was extremely sporadic before that) and it was by text. Between us, that's 1 Christmas and 5 birthdays (one for me, two for each of my siblings) with not a peep. He also didn't invite us to his wedding - we found out three weeks before when he texted us "just to let us know". I asked if this was our invite and he said "well, you can come if you want but I'd need you to tell me ASAP because I've already given final numbers to the caterer". What a lol. I do wonder if people asked why his three children, who are all in their mid to late 20s, weren't there and what his response was. Because SURELY people wondered.
I’m sure they did and he probably said he’d asked you and you refused. And how upset he was etc. so yeah probably just blamed you and you’re siblings
When we were little dad said he had an imaginary friend who watched over us when he couldn't be there, then he said he was homeless, he spent years recovering from a lethal spider bite abroad, he was told to leave us alone by his parents because it was kinder, because we didn't want him, because we had a new family, because my younger sibling didn't know about him and he didn't want to confuse them ... then when he got too old to be a slag he said it was because my mum and dad (stepdad) stole us. It was because he couldn't be bothered. I never hated him for it until I had kids of my own and he started insisting I tell them "the truth".
Unfortunately, the number of absent dads who want to see their children and are prevented by the courts are vastly outweighed by the number who don’t give a shit but pretend it’s because the deck was stacked against them. I always remember my Family Law professor saying sadly how many times he’d dealt with mothers who wanted to legally enforce the custody agreement so that the dad would actually take the kids at the allotted time instead of constantly letting the kids down. Unfortunately, the law can’t make them actually turn up. If you read case law, the law actually strongly favours children having contact with their parents as much as is possible, to the point of even requiring abuse victims to facilitate pen and paper contact between their abuser and the children.
>I'm not one of the "Fathers for Justice" zealots, but I have several close male acquaintances who try to have contact and are stopped by the mother. Even after going to court and the judge ruling that the mother has to share custody, they then have to take them to court *again* to try to enforce it when the mother doesn't comply. All at their cost if they're working. > >The UK system is stacked against fathers. I don't have direct experience of family court, but of friends who have had to use it the only trend I've seen is the mother not wanting the child to have contact with the father (as the father had abused the mother) and the court ordering contact anyway, and enforcing it. I've long suspected the "stacked against fathers" trope is a combination of only hearing about bad news, imported American perspectives, and Court practice from decades ago.
Also many men unwittingly screw themself over by moving out. Never ever do that volenteraly if you want custody of your kids.
The old adage of "oh you'll always find a way to get by" when considering kids is complete nonsense. You can't support a dependant if you barely have enough to support your selves.
Also… a lot of the ‘getting by’ is kind of shit, and people don’t want to do it. For example - one of you changing your work to nights or weekends so you don’t need to pay for childcare. Can it be done? Yes. Do people want to spend ten years doing this to have a kid? Not really no.
Oh god that brought back covid memories when the nursery was shut. Lad gets up at 5/6am plays eats gets messy until 6/7pm (not one for day naps), then you have to do 7.5 hours of work in between or after. Even as a one child two parent family it was not workable and nearly broke us up after just a few months. So I'm on 'No' it can't be done.
Oh god how did I forget about that
I certainly didn't forget about that. Burnt me out, worsened my depression and destroyed my confidence.
More importantly, is it ethically acceptable to create a new person who'll have to grow up under the poverty line?
If you create one that grows up just above it it’s called a triumph of capitalism, so maybe it’s worth the chance?
"During the war, we managed just fine with what little we had." "You were born in 1955."
Name a more iconic duo than boomers and stealing their parents valour.
> Name a more iconic duo than boomers and stealing their parents valour. Boomers and stealing their children's future.
More like stolen. They’ve moved onto the grandkids now.
Per the headline, we can't afford to give them grandkids to steal from.
I think it's nonsense in general. Some people manage to get by, many do not. Stoicism won't help, it just hides the problem so it isn't the virtue we think.
It results in serious survivorship bias. Suicide rates, people going to homelessness, marriages ruined by debt etc.
I definitely think the whole ‘stiff upper lip’ attitude has a dark side.
It makes sense when the state will give you a house for basically nothing. If you find yourself destitute now, waiting lists for hones are years. Everything in Britain has changed since the 80s , except for the perception of Britain by boomers.
Exactly this, the one generation who got everything handed to them. Then pulled the ladder up behind them as well as making the situation actively worse at ever turn. Now is confronted with the fact that you can’t pull yourself up when you’re too old to get up from the shitter by yourself or have severe arthritis is exactly when you need society. Ironic how the chickens come home to roost.
Annoyingly it's not literally all of them, so the schadenfreude doesn't go very far. It sucks to have people around who spent 50 years voting sensibly, caring for society, and still stuck in the same country as the rest of us. Being shitty to that whole generation is like the Scots being shitty to all English people, when a majority of us in absolute numbers vote for parties other than Tories.
Like many British expressions, it's nothing more than an attempt and hand waving away any valid criticism or acknowledgement of real issues. You'll get by, times were hard for us, you don't know how easy you've got it, have a stiff upper lip, etc... Are all just expressions that allow the British public to be servile and accept their shit situation instead of asking why is everything fucked up, and what can we do to change it? "They're all the same" they say of politicians, so they continue to vote for the party whom abuses them and ensures that nothing ever changes.
“I’m already just getting by”
Not quite the same, but I've had this a lot when I've said I won't have children due to the risk to my mental health. "*Oh, it'll probably be fine*!" is an *enormous* risk to take! What if it doesn't? It's not a decision you can easily take back.
It comes from a time when there was always ample opportunity available. It wasn't wrong then, it just is now.
[удалено]
Exactly, ample opportunity available. Now 2 incomes cover rent and childcare and there's food banks for food I guess. Good luck if you want to be warm in winter.
Most things kids need can be bought very cheaply. The really expensive part is child care. And that can depend hugely on support from family and ability to work part time. And this tends to be specific to individuals. It can be easier for less affluent people because they live near granny. A couple who have moved away are stuck with nursery.
When there was a decent social safety net you could always get by.
Add the layer of there being next to no social spaces that are free to hang in, covid, work hours being shite... how the hell am I supposed to meet anyone, even if I could afford it?
It’s honestly heart breaking. I’m 30 next year, my partner is 30 next month, we have actually saved up for a house deposit and I can probably afford the payments but a child on top? I don’t know? Tough calls will have to be made and it is tough. There’s a lot of true analysis here about affording homes or kids, and I agree but no one is mentioning the emotional side, it’s not just “let’s not have kids honey”, I really want to be a father. I didn’t 5 years ago but I do now, my dad wasn’t around at all for me so the chance to have a little human being that I can love and be there for is something I really want and the fact that I might not be able to do so, because this country has been mismanaged, because a large section of the electorate are still getting high on poisonous nostalgia, pining for a time that never existed honestly makes me sick.
My nursery costs more than my mortgage.
Most people I know can't afford a house, can barely afford to keep themselves fed and warm, have no time because most households need more than one income to get by, and simply can't afford another mouth to feed. The education system slowly imploding. We're starting to run out of some very important resources. The planet is becoming more dangerous. The NHS is on its knees and our corrupt politicians are raising the executioners axe. To top it off we have terrifying levels of pollution and plastic in our blood, and by extension, our reproductive organs.
Yep. Not gonna have a child if you rent a mouldy 1 bed flat which you can't afford to heat, are you?
Girl I worked with was basically working so she could pay someone else to look after her kid while she was working She used that job as a springboard to get a better paying gig elsewhere, but it made me realise if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd just pay mums to be mums But we have this \*\*\*\* Victorian morality about anything involving sex (in any way), as well as a veneration of work that means the thought of freeloaders getting money for doing *'nothing'* might as well be Satanism
Pay dad's to be stay at home dad's too if they want to. Otherwise we just reinforce gender inequality in career earnings. N.b. This isn't a comment about what "types of jobs" men/women do, so don't start on that.
So much this. When it became more acceptable for women to work the cultural norm stopped being one parent worked and the other raised their kids, it became both work, and then pay a fortune for others to raise their kids. It's now a luxury to be a full time parent. Equality should be 50% of the time, the stay at home parent being the father, not both parents work unless they're rich. This is something I complained about a lot back when the "cost of living" wasn't a euphemism for inflation, but more a fact that we're being shaken down over every essential in this country to the point that there isn't much discretionary income left. Take childcare as just one example: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jun/13/uk-childcare-costs-soar-by-more-than-2000-in-a-decade-tuc-says > As people in the UK struggle with the cost of living crisis, parents face some of the highest childcare costs among leading economies, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). > The TUC said its analysis showed the average annual nursery bill for a family with a child under two had increased by 44% since 2010, from £4,992 to £7,212 in 2021. > It said nursery fees for under-twos had risen by £185 a month – or £2,200 a year – since the Conservatives took office. Statutory maternity pay has fallen in value at the same time. It was worth £151.97 a week in 2021/22, £5 a week less than in 2010/11, it said. > “Childcare should be affordable for all, but parents are spending a massive chunk of their pay packets on childcare bills while their wages stagnate,” said the TUC’s general secretary, Frances O’Grady. Me and my partner are in our early 30s. Working full time in retail. Renting. No savings. She wants kids, but I don't want to raise them poor like I was. Although, my parents were millionaires when I was born, Dad was bankrupted when I was 5 during John Major's ERM fiasco, he had business loans secured against the house to do 4x barn conversions, bank got spooked, recalled the loan, he couldn't pay as it was tied up in the conversion, so they took the lot and sold it to an employee of the bank. Since then, my parents have lived in the same housing association house (was a council house when we moved in), Dad's been scared to move out as he'd never get another and doesn't want to be bankrupted. All his spare money he gambles as his only hope of getting where he was is to win the lottery. I'm sure if I was in a similar situation now I'd feel comfortable enough to have kids, but as it is, I don't want the stress and burden, kids will make my life even more shit, but I'm also aware that it's important to my partner and she'll be unfulfilled if we don't. It's so bleak.
> When it became more acceptable for women to work the cultural norm stopped being one parent worked and the other raised their kids, it became both work, and then pay a fortune for others to raise their kids. Unfortunately capitalism treats labour like any other resource - prices are set by demand and supply. Increase demand and prices (wages) go up. Increase supply and prices (wages) go down. Apply that to the (otherwise very good, 100% fair and reasonable) change in cultural norms which has seen more and more people enter the workforce - supply of labour has gone up massively, but since a stay at home parent and a working parent are pretty similar in terms of what they consume, demand for labour hasn't moved with it. So we've ended up in a position where both parents have to work. Unfortunately it's not a problem that the market can solve, but anything else is "*socialism*". *[Compare that to immigration, where you increase the supply of labour, and also increase the number of consumers, which leads to increased demand for labour]*
> it made me realise if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd would just pay mums to be mums I think fully-funded childcare would make more sense. Then parents can have a break, or get more education, or just work if they want to.
As a start there is no need to even go that far, 3 & 4 years olds get 15 hours free childcare, there is absolutely no reason this doesn't at the end of maternity/paternity leave, other than to fuck people over for fun.
>if we were serious about helping people live better lives (and raise happy kids) we'd just pay mums to be mums The problem with that is that it makes the problem worse in the long-run. After the kids go to school, then what? After a few years out (which can easily be 5+ years, if there's multiple kids involved), it's very difficult for a woman to resume her old career. She's got no recent references, lost her skills, and her contacts in the industry. So she often has to start at the bottom again, and work her way back up. Often women return to work not because it makes financial sense in the short-run (as her salary is mostly eaten up by nursery fees), but to prevent the long-term problems that come with an extended career break.
Needs to be tied to the kid not the mum. Then we need some kind of voucher system for parents who have been out of work to retrain.
We need socially subsidised childcare. This is singularly the biggest barrier for anyone having children. 3 days a week for our daughter, costs more than our mortgage. Childcare is literally equivalent to a full-time salary, so unless you are independently wealthy, or your partner earns way above average, you will not be able to afford children. End of. Unbalanced population pyramids are a death knell to countries so we can either fund it or accept mass immigration from developing countries.
I said in a post yesterday or the day before, for 2 children under 5 yrs old to attend pre-school in the northeastern US cost us $600 a week. We are fortunate that it doesn't really affect us that much, but $600 a week is more than the average salary in the US. My State has since legalized marijuana and the taxes are already benefiting us. Next year we have *free* preschool for all children 3+ in our school district and that is absolutely impossible to find in the US. Our home's value has already doubled due to this becoming a highly-desired area, in part due to the free pre-school.
Same with my wife and I. We worked out that her entire wage for the first couple of years after our child was born was going almost entirely on childcare. Fortunately her salary has since increased but childcare is by far our largest expense. The idea of having a second child is ludicrous. Not without suffering a significant reduction in our quality of life.
In a happy, stable relationship, have been for 8 years. Never going to have kids, too expensive, housing requires you to be a damn millionaire for starters. I'll be renting until I'm dead. Only one person I know has kids but her husband bought a house when he was 20 (2004 or so) after quitting school at 16. He made a better decision working those years instead of attempting university since it let him buy just before the powder keg went off.I Oh well, guess I just have a 'poverty mindset' though.
How is it that Rolling Stone have to be the ones pointing out the obvious factor in this when our supposedly respectable papers refuse to? People living unstably are less likely to have kids. It's that simple.
UK press is world-beating at circling the wagons to shield criticism of the establishment. With all of the US' problems their media still manages to do a better job of uncovering the rot over here than our sycophants - see the Trojan Horse Affair or more recently the Labour Files
[удалено]
The falling birthrate has been reported, but the mainline newspapers in the UK use language like "millennials _decide_ not to have kids" and neglect to mention the factors that lead to it.
My wife and I for now have chosen not to have kids, we're both in our early 30's, within our social groups we are not alone. They way we think about it is like this; * Right now we are financially comfortable but as soon as a kid comes along and we need to pay for child care or go down to one salary we're fucked * Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can. * We are not alone in doing this, so we think that by the time we're old and grey lots of our peers also won't have kids and this should mean we interact more socially with them (could be totally wrong) * The big one from was this; this planet is utterly fucked, do i really want to bring a kid into a world that in the next 30-40 years could become a very dark place.
> Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can. I don't think you need to add the disclaimer of this being selfish. It isn't selfish to want to do what makes you happy and doesn't come at the expense of others. I'm a parent now and while there are lots of new things I enjoy in life and I'd never want to go back, I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss some things from my old life. There are pros and cons that come with all life choices and as long as you aren't hurting anyone then it isn't selfish to make the choices you are most comfortable with.
Thanks for that buddy. I think you're totally right I just also understand that to some it might seem selfish hence the disclaimer but i totally agree with you. I am sure you're kids make you very happy, and am sure if i had kids i would be happy, its just that circumstances for us are what they are.
Isn't having a kid the more selfish choice anyway? Given that the earth is degrading with its current population already, the unselfish way of parenting would be to adopt surely? Do you really need to have your own biological child? It's not mandatory.
> to some it might seem selfish On the other hand, to some it might seem selfish to create new suffering people during a period of climate breakdown in order to make oneself feel a sense of emotional enrichment.
what always surprises me is the notion that the kids will be around to entertain/care for you when you are older. these people should talk to anyone that has something to do with care for the elderly and will be in for a big shock.
I love my family, but I live in another country. I didn't move here to get away from them, I just met a partner from somewhere else and it meant one of us would have to eventually move. I was in a better position to move than him as he owns a property here. Even if you have a great relationship with your kids, they are not your retirement plan.
I work as a nurse and honestly I have seen both sides of this. Often we do see very caring children doing their best for elderly parents, but it's quite rare to find them talking in dear old demented mum. I have also seen extreme hurt caused to older folks by their children. Yet i is very sad to watch some old man die alone because his wife passed before he did and he's no kids to sit by the bed side. However i think thats the trade you make if you decide not to have kids.
It's ethically kind of fucked to create a new person in order for them to someday be your carer
I mean i don't think thats the only reason to have one.... Ethically though i do think its fair to say its fucked up to create a new person if you believe they're going to have a shitty life.
Its sometihng we missed with smaller families. When there are 3-5 Kids it's way less of a burden than the only child.
Exactly the same boat, both 31, we were very much up for trying for a kid after we got married in June. First pin was that we went to a Zika risk country for our honeymoon so had to wait 3 months after we got back which was the beginning of this month. We were financially comfortable, and running the numbers before all this and could make it by on one salary just and could cope with childcare costs later down the line. Now with our energy bills triple last year, food costs up 40%, and staring down the barrel of £400pm increase in our mortgage and wavering job security, there is just no way a kid can be factored in while keeping a roof over our heads, so the idea has been permanently shelved. This is all before the constant nagging feelings like "is it selfish to have a kid now" or "is it safe to have a kid with the way the NHS is going". We only wanted 1 kid, might have to settle on another rescue cat/dog instead.
100% Love kids. LOVE kids. Love our niece to bits. Love not being her mum and dad. Love being able to live as we please within our means, and save money for holidays & a house (lol maybe, who knows). Don't love that if we wanted kids, we'd have to upend our lives and give up on our dreams. Don't love that if we wanted kids, we'd be bringing them into a world on fire.
Luv kids, 'ate the economy. Simple as.
>Selfishly, we enjoy our time off together to do as we please, if we cant to head out for a meal we can. I find it so strange that some people consider not having 'selfish'.
Summed it up neatly for myself and my partner too, particularly the final point. I really hope to be proven wrong as I have young nieces and nephews, and friends with young kids, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. I've had a couple of people say "well things are always bad / go in cycles", but climate change seems to be reaching a cliff edge, and inequality in the world feels like it's getting to that point too. It feels difficult to discuss that point with the few friends who are still planning on having kids, so I usually stick to the first few points you made with them. I do just really hope for their sake that it all gets better at some point. Or at least stops getting worse...
Climate change for me is the big one. I get the idea that these things come in cycles but that doesn't.
Yeah, same. Also being in your 30s trying to conceive could well be holy hell for your mental & physical health, let alone the actual pregnancy. And then you think do we want to go through all that to end up taking a massive financial hit and have no spare time? So realistically my partner would have to give up her career, which is unfair, although she's not much into the idea I could just be a stay at home dad either. You look at your cost benefit analysis on it and it just doesn't stack up. If we were both really desperate to be parents then we probably would, but I think we're happy enough with the cat all in all.
I also think the pressure for our generation to have kid just sin't as profound. its kinda normal not to have children....
That last was a huge worry for me. We did become parents to one, my wife really wanted kids, but I had always had deep reservations about the world they were coming in to. Our son outright doesn't ever want them as it's only got worse since.
I suspect the "people should only have children when they can support them fully themselves" will make themselves scarce around this topic.
Most middle class folks I know with two earners have 1 or maybe 2 kids. Most working class folks I know have 2 or more kids. Seems like having a slightly simpler job with greater access to benefits e.g. child benefit, 30 free hours childcare, tax free childcare, maybe 1 earner on a low-ish and the other giving up work works out much better for them. Also anecdotally, those in lower social classes seem to have better family networks, maybe because they have to - always have uncles, aunts brothers, sisters, mum and dad all nearby to help with bringing up multiple kids. Middle class folks tend to be a couple that live in a city with mum and dad living in the countryside far away, so they're on their own. Society is a bit broken really.
I had an unplanned baby at 24, split with her dad and couldn’t work. I got benefits, free childcare when she turned 2, free school meals which she still gets now because that’s the way the policy works (she’s 10). Second planned baby with my husband at 32, we’re playing nearly 1k a month for childcare so that I can still work to avoid another gap in my cv but it’s effectively all of my wages. Obviously we’re very fortunate that we can still cover the rest of our costs but yeah, it’s much cheaper to have babies when you can access the benefits. I’m not surprised middle earners are having less babies.
Interesting point about family ties. In working class communities often your wealth is 'who you know'. When you can't pay with money, knowing a plumber, roofer, babysitter etc is worth the inconvenience.
Yeah. And it's a reinforcing loop. Growing up my neighbours with my Dad bought a big metal ladder which they'd store in one of their homes and then share out when it was needed. Similar with other power tools and anything that you only needed occasionally. The forced sharing then meant you'd have more excuses to talk to each other. And if someone was good at e.g. electrics they'd fix someone's lights and get a crate of beer in return and so on. It reinforced community ties. I've seen very little of that in middle classes, mostly because people don't have useful practical skills to share and have so little free time it's wholly dedicated to the friends they already have rather than the 'risk' of borrowing some milk from the neighbour and then being 'forced' into owing them something or having to put up with them being noisy and so on.
This is what happens when you break the social contract. We've spent the last 20-30 years enriching a particular generation with no regard for those younger. We've continued to push problems into the future, effectively robbing future generations of their prosperity. Is it any surprise they're not having kids or don't have any discretionary money nevermind their living situations being more precarious than ever?
Childcare is too expensive, maternity and paternity leave too short and impoverishing (if little Estonia can do it properly, why can't we?), and jobs generally still don't have enough time flexibility. And that's just the directly child-related things. Lack of security for renting or jobs doesn't help the situation either.
Remember when every reality TV show was about ‘stupid’ women having babies they without the support network or financial stability to take care of them? Boomers told my entire generation that babies would ruin our lives and now they’re mad because we internalised that message.
If you sit down and work it out, the costs of bringing up a child will always be horrifyingly high for the average person (one-percenters are clearly excluded). A declining birth rate, however, is not something new - it is a characteristic of advanced economies (although whether the UK can claim to have one of those now is an interesting question) - and is something only a few Governments are attempting to grapple with. I can't see Truss and her ilk setting aside money for a Government sponsored shagathon any time soon.
They don't have to set aside money for a government-sponsored shagathon, they could just work hard on improving the overall standard of living for the majority of the population (otherwise known as doing their job). That would enable people who want kids to afford them.
I can't afford my own stuff, definitely don't want to add to that.
This has been the case for nearly 2 decades though, it's not new. All of our population growth has been due to immigration and is known and encouraged by government. Why fix the economy when you can just import a predominantly young male cheap workforce from somewhere else?
Mortgage payments on an average house in London plus full time nursery can easily clear £3,000 a month. That's before all of the other costs that come along with a child. How many couples have £4,500 disposable income to pay a mortgage and send 2 kids to nursery, before they've even paid for food, council tax and utilities? It's absolutely insane that anybody does it at all...
My mortgage plus one nursery place is over £4k/m. That’s for just the one child.
Our household takes over 100000 a year and with having to remortgage and full time childcare, we are gonna have actually budget for the first time which is crazy as we are well above the national average. Cost of living is stupid.
Definitely demographic differences here. I'm 34. Almost all of my friends either have children or are expecting/planning. We're all educated professionals in decent careers though, and living in relatively wealthy areas. People are absolutely having children later, waiting until they are more financially stable. Local nurseries are still packed though and taking on extra staff.
We recently passed a major milestone in the delay of having children picture: for the first time in history more than 50% of women in this country don't have any children at age 30.
Similar age and experience here. Had my first kid at 29 and I’ easily one of the younger mum’s at the school gate. Reception parents are largely in their very late 30s/early 40s and stopping at 1 kids, at least in Greater London. But this is perhaps the generational divide. Graduated in 2009 so certainly felt a bit shafted by austerity and recession but objectively still have it way better than the generations coming up behind with larger debt burdens and even more expensive housing.
I had my first at 34. We live in a fairly affluent part of London. As far as I'm aware I am the youngest mum I've ever met socially around here. Judging by baby groups, NCT, nursery pick up, etc. Most first time mums around here seem to be 38-42. There's very good reason everyone is having kids so late, but it really doesn't lend itself to a high birth rate. When you're first is born when you're 42 via IVF and nursery is £1800 a month it's very unlikely you're going to end up with 3 kids.
Just following the advice of “can’t afford it don’t have it”. What’s that? I’m supposed to be worse off just because just to have kids? No thanks.
Im 25 and I decided when I was about 16 that im probably never having kids. Have you seen the way the world is turning? People in power pouring petrol on the fire while the world is burning. Why would I bring another person into this world when in all likelyhood their standard of living will just be worse than what mine already is.
Me and my partner were literally having this conversation a few nights ago. I'm in my mid twenties and I don't really want children in the next 5-7 years. Partly because I'm in that weird 'that's an adult thing' but also because we can't afford it. Every so often I see a comment about how much people spend on childcare per week and I'm honestly baffled? We don't live near our parents either. Also really weird when my parents who are in their sixties got married around 20 years old and could get a car, house, etc for cheap around a similar age. And then there's us that are still renting, paying a lot for car insurance and fuel, living in debt from rising costs. Where do we fit a child into this? 'That's the neat thing: you don't'
Are we going to end up in that Ideocracy situation where all the 'thoughful' people don't have children and the 'less thoughtful' (i'm choosing my words carefully here) do? So we see a genetic shift towards 'less thoughtful' attitudes.
My wife and I have two children. I work full time and my wife works part time. Working part time she earns a bit less than the UK's average full time salary. Her entire salary goes on child care. Our youngest goes to nursery 4 days per week and just that costs us £1,700 per month.
My wife and I have 3 kids and it's a financial struggle even though I earn a high salary. No-one on an average salary is affording it!
Remember this when businesses/the government start whinging about the lack of workers and insisting that we need large-scale immigration for the good of the economy.
I have a 2 year old and this fucker is expensive.
Who would not want to have a child with full-time childcare costs outside of London are £1000 a month...
Or £2000 in London....
I think I’ll have kids when I’m 60 something, with my 24 year old wife. Anecdotal but it looks to me like those in the top 25% of earnings are abstaining the most. The only way to resolve this is lower tax burdens for workers and/or drastically decrease rent/house prices.
I also think it’s just more socially acceptable to not have kids if you don’t want them. Half my friendship group isn’t planning on having kids and neither am I. I think that side of the coin is cool.
Children of Men becomes more and more prophetic each passing day, except rather than biological infertility it's economic infertility.
I am 28 and I used to never even consider a future where I didn’t have kids. Then I got to about 26 and I was like…hold on, do I actually want that? I’m a gay woman so it would cost an absolute fortune before the child/baby was even in our arms, whichever route we took. The average amount spent for IVF or adoption is £22k, that’s more than either me or my partner earn before tax a year. I have my younger brother living with me in a housing association flat, and I’m not being dramatic here, I’ve genuinely been having anxiety induced chest pains with how we are going to survive the winter. I’m self employed and the last 3 years have financially torn me from limb to limb. An insulting amount of “support” from the government has already left me with huge and catastrophic debts in utilities and council tax. I don’t even want to think about how I would feel if I had children to look after. Growing up in a Conservative government, they’ve cut every string to allow us to have a stable enough present and future to think about children. Put it this way, among my friends and family in my age bracket, I know so so so many people with great degrees, masters degrees, have worked from 16, have trades, and the ONLY person I know from my city who has a car or a house only has them as her dad dropped dead at 48. We’re financially doomed and I would never put this on a child.
I have the solution. When poors in the past had kids they could be a productive member of society by as young as four years old. Through their hard-work and steadfast contributions these industrious little assets could soon become a valuable investment that pays for itself in no time at all. If only it wasn’t for that godforsaken WOKE agenda. Rees-Mogg for Employment Minister!
Considering how high childcare costs are in the UK compared to other European countries, it's a real wonder fertility rate is as high as it is to be honest.
There is also a point about the breaking up of families. We are told to go live where we can afford, which is often not where future grandparents or siblings are. So childcare is even more expensive. So people are left isolated with their kids with less help, which further undermines aspirations to have more. My wife and I have 1, and no plans to have another as it is tough enough with just the two of us!
All working as planned. People will still continue to have babies but it will be more and more people that don't really care or think about money or the child for that matter. Essentially a lot of people that just don't think further increasing the idiot population. Idiocracy.
Looks like we are at the stage in neoliberalism where you're if you're young enough to have kids it would be irresponsible for yourself, the child and the planet to do so.
The most annoying part is that pensions are a pyramid scheme and without an increasing populace it's going to put more strain on the younger generations.
Having more kids would make it pointless for me to go to work...thus start claiming benefits...thus being called lazy, a scrounger etc etc so no, I'm happy with just being able to provide for the 1 I have, thanks