the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

How about the people who own the care homes provide those working for them a living wage rather than taking it all for themselves? Then when our children grow up, caring will be a job which is rewarding and you can afford to live on. The issue isn’t having more children to help, the issue is paying a fair wage for the work they do, which in turn will help more people want to work in the sector.

You are right in the research though, which says that due to the current birth rate and balancing it against the amount of aged population will be an issue, however, I don’t think that having more children which you can’t afford to provide for is reasonable.

Of course, if you have committed to the children and then things don’t go well, that’s a different matter than knowing you are unable to provide and thinking “ah, f**k it, someone else will pick up the bill for me”

This 👆

Stupid mentality that only people who've never actually faced a real hardship have. Life changes all the time. You can start from the bottom, work your way up to well off and then life comes and slaps you in the face through no fault of your own and you lose it all except now you have children along for the ride. That's what happened to me.
That being said it never entered in my mind when I had my children that I need them to look after me in old age. I know an old lady who has 11 children and not one of them are interested in looking after her. Really sad.

If your issue is the welfare of the poor children growing up in disadvantaged circumstances, then surely you appreciate this is not the fault of the child and the best we, as a society, can do is to help such children out of their deprivation so that they don't repeat the same patterns?
How do you propose society help these children so that they don't repeat the same patterns? How does this actually work at the coal face, rather than an ideological concept?

You do realise that the majority of benefit claimants are in work right?

We have a whole political party that has governed this country for the last almost 13 years doing the bidding of the rich, defending tax avoidance as though it is something to aspire to - who should be paying all the tax that keeps a country running if we all found ways to avoid it? But who is doing the bidding of the poor?

Goodness, how very judgemental and prejudiced a view you hold. What exactly is your issue here? The fact that these "ignorant chavs" are claiming benefits and living off the state instead of earning their way ? If so, why arent you more enraged about the billions being lost to the exchequer from tax evasion at the top? Many multiples greater than is lost in benefit fraud! Those who think they can avoid paying their fair share but still benefit from all the advantages a state based, taxed system allows, such as the NHS, roads, schools etc.

If your issue is the welfare of the poor children growing up in disadvantaged circumstances, then surely you appreciate this is not the fault of the child and the best we, as a society, can do is to help such children out of their deprivation so that they don't repeat the same patterns?

You are totally feeding into the divisive rhetoric that blames the poor for being poor while letting billionaires off the hook. Why? If you accept that there are some who exploit the benefit system and others who exploit the tax system, then let's look first at those who are the most exploitative (the rich) but have the power to bury their exploitation, before we demonise further the powerless poor.

So you are leaching off of all us workers?

So you think it’s fine to have kids you can’t afford and let other peoples taxes pay for them. So I wait until I can afford a child but my taxes are going to irresponsible people who can’t wait. This makes me so fecking cross. How entitled are you.

Firstly, taking generalisations and applying them to an individual is wrong, but generalising over a population perfectly fine. How else would you look at things?

Most people can afford the children they have. The cost of living crisis means discretional spending will be reduced. People may struggle. But that is a world away from those who have child they cannot afford, then have another, then another.

My original post wasn't advocating anything, I was rejecting your claim that there's no correlation between money and parenting ability. There will be some correlation. Those who are bad at parenting will more likely also be bad at earning a living.

I have two children, when I had them we were stable, together and earning around 60k combined. We split shortly after DC2. My job wouldn't allow the flexibility I needed and it turned out DC1 has disabilities so I went from great to really not great.

However, with my circumstances now so different I wouldn't actively choose to have more children. It's irresponsible.

@Lunar270
Except what you're saying is a crude generalisation isn't it? I would argue that not many people on MN can really afford the kids they have. You only need to consider the increasing cost of living to see how finely balanced people's lives are.

Affordability is a tricky concept though. Children will always be a struggle because you will be spending more money than you would have previously have been. Unless you manage to time your procreation with a commensurate increase of income, you're going to face a relative struggle. There will be things that you could previously afford that you can no longer afford.

We have a benefits system and other resources which, theoretically, should scoop up the people who are beyond just "struggling" but I don't think it should be a human right to not be significantly adversely impacted by becoming a parent.

It's all a moot point anyway. There are too many rumblings in the western world for subsidies for procreation to not become a thing. The pyramid scheme is going to be propped up, much like the housing market because we will have less immigration going forward but will still have a need for people to do the jobs that middle-class parents won't allow their children to do.

‘Extended adolescence’? Lord no, wouldn’t want to extend that any longer than necessary. Quite content being a fully grown woman sans children, given that reproduction isn’t actually required for adulthood.

Any decision motivated by self interest is, you know, selfish. It’s not inherently a terrible thing to be, and I don’t ascribe moralistic judgements to the label.

anyway, I said from the beginning that I don’t think only the rich should have children, and I agree with there being a level of support provided by society. I don’t however think it should be limitless support, and that it’s sensible for people to consider what they can provide for a child before they have a child. If having a child, or another child, is going to push you into actual poverty, then maybe it’s not the best course of action. For yourself or for your child/children.

Ironically I think those who choose not to have children (the number 1 contributor to climate change) are showing as much care for the society children will have to grow up in as their parents are. Parents who argue that the environment will “be fine” and we need to keep having kids to avoid societal collapse are the ones being selfish (and deluded), because it’s their children that will have to live in a world with scarce resources and increasingly chaotic climate conditions.

Nobody owes their society a tax payer.

Ridiculous to suggest somebody ought to have a child for the sake of the future.

Ah ok. Thanks for elaborating. Not easy to interpret from a few lines and no explanation.

Except what you're saying is a crude generalisation isn't it? I would argue that not many people on MN can really afford the kids they have. You only need to consider the increasing cost of living to see how finely balanced people's lives are.

I accept that in the extreme, bringing kids into poverty can be reckless, but you're dismissing the fact that a great many people struggling have good jobs and still choose to start families. Should they not be so irresponsible?

This responsible planning you're talking about is a luxury afforded to the top 10%. Not many people planning on starting a family go into it thinking they have it all sorted financially (I certainly didn't) and almost no-one would have kids if you had to demonstrate absolute financial stability beforehand.

What you're really advocating is that poor people shouldn't reproduce. What would that threshold look like to you?

From reading the replies it seems like the people who don’t want kids come across as more selfish. The general attitude is to protect their extended adolescence by any means possible. Of course you don’t care if society collapses if you don’t have a vested interest in the future of that society. The environment will be fine, it’s whether we can still exist in it that is the current crisis. The bees and icecaps dont care about us, we observe and care about them in their relation to us. It’s naive to think otherwise and believe the people having kids are solely to blame.

I wonder if those who are suggesting that we get breeding to solve our aging population have considered that a child conceived tonight won't be a productive member of society until 2040, by which time the bulk of the population bulge known as "baby boomers" will be on their way out anyway.

If this was your plan, you should have started 10 years ago.

So be it.

We can't just keep propping up this Ponzi scheme at the expense of the planet.

It is true though that having children is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.

That is true and I can accept that, but I wouldn't give a shit about the environment had I not had children, probably. You can care about the environment without giving up on children, living like a pauper etc., that's what I think.

I'd think more (environmentally) of someone with two kids but who made other lifestyle changes than someone with no kids who just did loads of harmful stuff, there's a balance to be struck.

because it's low paid drudgery.

Define useful jobs. Most keyworkers during the pandemic,you know the ones essential to keep running the country were NMW workers from not particularly advantageous background. Even some of the skilled jobs don't actually pay enough to offer an advantageous background for a child. My last Uber driver also works as a pharmacist at our main hospital,but need the Uber job to try and make ends meet and hopefully buy a house.I mean, sure they might all be replaced by robots soon enough, but if they don't we'll be up shit creek.

Hmm, looking at my accidental son…

I don’t consider myself morally superior at all. I don’t have children because I don’t want them, parenthood is not appealing to me at all and would only negatively impact my life and lifestyle. I absolutely made the choice for myself, same as parents make the choice for themselves (at least in this country).

It is true though that having children is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that flying is bad for the environment. I know this and I still holiday abroad a few times a year. You can know something is bad and still choose to do it.