Is our society heading towards the point where having children is an unaffordable luxury for the average couple?

[MamaLlama123]

Is our society heading to the point where having/ raising children is becoming a luxury?

Thinking about my family as an example - My grandmother had 5 children - she was working class and a SAHM. Despite not having much, my grandparents were able to house, feed and raise their children well. They were not in poverty. They had small treats like fish & chips every Friday and a few days at the seaside every year etc. I don't think family size for this generation was any kind of luxury but children was just an inevitable outcome of life

Comparing this with today, I read so many threads on mumsnet about women who are in a much stronger position than my Grandma. They are not SAHM but actually have extensive qualifications/ careers and resulting in 2 incomes within the household. Despite being so much better off, women seem unable to confidently go forward in planning even a small family 1-2 children (comments from a recent thread about delaying 2nd child due to nursery fees comes to mind)

Are children becoming disproportionately more expensive compared to previous generations? and do you think that having children will be an unaffordable luxury/ unrealistic goal for todays children?

It's not that that's the problem. It's people wanting absolute perfection rather than "this will do" before having children. There is a strong sense of "I want 2 children and I can't have anything but a 3 bed home in an affluent area" among people rather than slowly going up the ladder. Leaving home to a bedsit to a 1 bed to a 2 bed etc.

People used to do this age 19/20, I had my first flat at 23, house at 29
If the average buyer is late 20s / early 30s then what's the point in buying a bedsit if you need a house?
In addition stamp duty/ solicitors fees etc are expensive

We are in a 2 bed . I’m not willing to have 3 children share a bedroom. I don’t want to struggle and watch every single penny. Yes we could stretch to 3 children but we would have zero money . No holidays , no clubs, no new clothes for the kids. I’m not saying you have to give children everything but I don’t want to be spread so thin I can’t buy the children an ice cream at the weekend. So we stick to 2!

I don't even consider that perfection, especially as many people are unable to afford things even later in life so starting out at even a 1 bed at say 30 is even a stretch. I think it is fine to say I don't want kids except in x, y or z circumstances.

Then that is an active choice and one that shows children aren't a priority to them. Children are an expensive and disruptive part of life and you'll never ever have them in ideal circumstances and we need to stop kidding ourselves that it's something we can delay until we get those conditions. Everything but our biological clocks can be worked around and obtained later.

I think considering what kind of life you want your future children to have is the most important thing not satisfying a biological clock. But it may just be a difference of values.

Life is such a competition these days and with the impact of climate change and immigration I fear it will only be more competition, I’d want my children to have a great start and chance and to me that means resources with everything else. Also an enjoyable life is important to me, I don’t exist just to make more consumers and wage slaves for a capitalist system.

No, in the past, most of us made do with little, muddled on, and just dealt with it.

Kids have never been affordable.

For a lot of people the prospect of raising children in less fortunate circumstances than they themselves grew up in is very daunting.

Don't know if it's just me or this is common but I'm not very inspired by hearing about other people's struggles, I mostly just feel sympathy and think how I'd hate to have to do that myself.

This and from personal experience I did not enjoy growing up poor so I have no intention of intentionally inflicting that on someone else.

As well as high childcare costs, affordability of housing vs income plays a role.

From ONS “In England a home typically cost an average of 9.1 times earnings – up from 7.9 times earnings in 2020. In 1997 the figure was about 3.5.”

So basically, homes cost nearly 3x more than they did a generation ago.

@Userob I'm afraid that model of the property ladder is massively outdated - in London it probably hasn't worked for a couple of decades if not more - you need house prices to be about 4x average earnings for that model to work and in London you're looking at a factor of 10X. This guide from the FT is a good explanation of why your thinking doesn't work any more and that those not looking to buy before a family home are being sensible and reconising the market rather than spoilt and entitled. https://www.ft.com/content/5c49931e-9ddd-3db3-8a67-3fc2bc18f0d2

I think you'd be pretty messed up to actively choose to raise a child/ren in worse circumstances than yourself, that seems counter-intuitive to being a good parent and wanting the very best for them (and more than what you had)

But for every person who is upwardly mobile, there is another downwardly mobile. It is part of life and many people in this situation have children.

It does seem though like the downwardly mobile are increasingly choosing to not have children. I think more and more people have moved on from seeing having children as something that "happens" to something you actively choose or don't.

I agree that more people see children as something you actively choose, but that is good. Every child should be really wanted.

A lot of people my age (early 30s and younger) are choosing one or none.

Yes! I was talking to my Turkish neighbours recently. The parents are first gen immigrants with five kids. None of there kids (youngest 21, oldest 36) have kids. The oldest kid said to their dad when he asked why they didn't have kids: 'you had us so we could help you out. But there isn't anyone to help us out. Having kids is too expensive.'

I have two DC who are now nearly 17 and 12 and I am mid 40s my DH is early 40's. Arguably we didn't have the same circumstances, particularly for our eldest as we both had growing up. I was brought up in a detached house, big Garden in South West London, DH was brought up in what is now considered a very desirable part of North London in a period property. We bought a one a one bedroom flat not in these areas but in a desirable location and it has worked out fine. DH was still training to be an Architect when our first was born. We had some financially challenging times when he was a baby as I didn't return to my well paid job in London but I couldn't as DH was working in the day, studying in the evening and the weekend. We couldn't distribute the childcare responsibilities and we lived an hours commute away from London. We have a house now and it is small compared to our respective homes growing up but even on a good combined income we couldn't afford that type of house in the areas we grew up in.

I have no regrets about having our DC relatively young compared to our peers without the house in place. Our DS is now in 6th form and bright and doing really well. Both our DCs have had an amazing childhood, parks after school with friends, being part of a community that is open minded, we have kind of grown up with our eldest. Both of my DC have had much more fun and enrichment from where we live, even in a small house than we had growing up. I'm not convinced housing size is a barometer for Happy Childhood!

Oh and definitely a choice, we adored/adore each other and saw having a child as a testament to that love, we'd only been together for 2 years.

@Kendodd that is true. We helped my FIL out financially when he was older as he did not have much income. Now many young people expect to stay at their parents for free and save for a deposit. So parents no longer get any financial help from their adult children, but they are actually still paying for them even when they have a decent job.

I wonder whether there's a bit of memory bias though. I have had my children in a house, for instance, that is smaller than the house I lived in from a pre-teen age. But bigger than the house I lived in as a young child, and much bigger than the flat I was born in.

When people think of their parents' circumstances, I wonder whether most think of what those were when they were in their teens, more than when they were tiny. If you want to be in the position your parents were in when you were 14 before you have children, that could be a problem.

You can have a brilliant career and still have multiple children. I know a couple of women who were married at 16-18 had their 4th or 5th child by the time they were still early 20s so by late 20s they had children in school and then embarked on their degree and by early 30s they had their whole working life ahead of them with no need for maternity leave or high nursery costs or missing out on promotions

I think that still really depends on your support network though. My sister had her two kids at 16, they're at school now and she's fully thrown herself into building her career. She's now in her 30s and utterly dependent on my parents providing the in between childcare for sick days, strikes, after school pick up etc. If she didn't have that then it wouldn't be possible for her to work as much as she does and she'd not be able to cover all her bills paying for childminding. I think this type of set up worked years ago because childcare costs were much lower (as were overall living costs) and people retired earlier meaning grandparents weren't working as late in life and were perhaps more physically able to babysit grandkids?

On the other hand me and dh are late 30s, have just had one child and my inlaws (my family aren't local to us) are both still working full time so can't really help at all with childcare so we have to pay for it which wipes out the equivalent of half my wage monthly. We have no backup for days our nursery is closed or our son needs collected or kept off because he's unwell. Dh and I have to juggle that between us and that's a MAJOR factor in why I'm in my current job even though I'm highly qualified and could earn more elsewhere I need the flexibility and family friendly approach my current employer offers to allow me to crisis parent. Going elsewhere would help us massively financially but it feels like a huge gamble as I can be at home when I need to be in my current role.

I would love to see a recent example of this. I agree with the previous poster that everything is a lot easier if you have grandparent or family support. It's incredibly difficult to do it all and keep climbing that career ladder with two parents working and no family support, only paid for childcare.

therainneverbotheredmeanyway

But both parents aren’t working.
There is no need for gps help (gps are still working)
It is when youngest goes to school that the mums return to “school” and then it is full steam ahead with no stopping for maternity leave and babies