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 will be interesting to look at birth rates in another ten years I think. I can't imagine how difficult it's going to be for those leaving university to own their own homes and the reality is that's the only secure option in this country. They'll also be paying back their student loans over 40 years.

@MamaLlama123 the last point about contraception is interesting, though I'd much rather live in a time with free access to it. Especially if I had health issues that made pregnancy dangerous, so I'm quite happy having my body regulated in that regard.

I do think on that point the part of kids not being a key feature of how we think about how we shape society is a good point. I think kids are seen as a lifestyle choice more so than in times gone by they are funnelled off into their own 'kid spaces' - nursery, school, after school clubs/extra curriculars. It's unusual to see kids out and about playing alone and if they were it's a sign of bad parenting. But I think it just pushes forward decision making on public spaces to be less and less child friendly - more and more cars is the big one for me.

I think the result of this is that kids are just in your space SO MUCH it just makes parenting feel more intensive. And while so many other processes have been automated and made convenient, childcare hasn't and cannot be made easier. It's just hard, slow work to shape a decent person.

The very wealthy will probably use poor surrogates in the future.

I would disagree that none of the mothers worked in the past.
They did but around their children.
My GM had 3 cleaning jobs
Early morning 4am-6am then home to get her DH and DC breakfast and off to work and school .
Cleaned from 10 am to 2pm , children home from school and fed etc
She then cleaned in the evenings

It was never acknowledged, never.
My aunts took in ironing, one worked in a local shop.
Their DH job was referred to but never theirs.

Bit odd to say womens bodies are being controlled.
I mean who actually wants lots of children?

Yes, I think the combination of mega expensive housing and childcare is what makes it so hard.

I'd love a second but we're in a one-bed flat and can't move while paying childcare.

Life is different now though.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Kids played out then. There were other kids to play with.

Nowadays kids don’t play out and you can’t buck the trend as there are no other kids for them to play with as they are all out at ‘activities’.

If you want your kids to mix with other kids, you have to take them to the things those kids are at, which costs parents in both time and money.

So it’s not just about individuals wanting a different lifestyle, it’s about everyone’s life around you has changed and you have to adapt to that, or get left out and isolated.

I blame house prices for the cost of everything.
if housing is expensive so is commercial property, so rents have to be more. Wages have to be more (although clearly not enough to match mortgage / rent). So all the costs go up.

if chickens had gone up as much they would be £50. Arguably they should be to ensure every person in that supply change can afford housing.

This. There’s an inverse correlation between female education and family size. Did the OP’s granny have a free choice, access to free, reliable contraception etc?

Well i know for my grandma - raising her children brought her a lot of joy and fulfilment in her life. she really didn't see them as a burden.

Many women on mumsnet say they would like a child/ another child - but sadly don't feel they are able to. I read it on here often!
This is often women not wanting lots of children/ enormous families, but 1-2. i don't think it's unreasonable to desire a small family!

you can’t rely on growing your own either. Imagine discovering your potatoes had blight or you had three to feed your family. But it had cost you £15 to grow them.

I think people still have as many children as they want, regardless. We have an only but both my health, space and finances prevented us from having a second. Problems occur when people have children they can neither house properly or afford to feed, clothe properly. I love having an only now and we have been able to give gim so much in the way of time and opportunities that he wouldn't have had if shared with a sibling. You can't control birth rates but people need to consider having children /more before becoming pregnant. Unfortunately a large number of pregnancies will be mothers who know the state will help out and continue to get pregnant. That's the problem here not that you need to be to be rich as such but plan for what you can afford .

People in absolute poverty, people in war torn drought ridden countries, they have children

So no people won't stop having children

Completely agree on growing your own food not being a realistic option. I'm lucky to have reasonable sized garded and during lockdowns I went all in planting potatoes, carrots, lettuce thinking it would save a fortune. The reality was that buy the time I harvested my 20 carrots I'd probably spent over £50 on stuff when a bag of carrots at the supermarket is a couple of quid.

Like pp have said I think the issue is salaries not high enough, housing extortionate but also job security just isn't there like it used to be. I'm in a constant cycle of re orgs and redundancies whereas my parents generation were more likely to have a solid job for life.

Most people I know have 1-4 children.
So they are mostly choosing how many they wish to have.

UK has a 30% child poverty rate.

Interesting thread.

I wonder too about the impact of divorce/separation rates and how women so often end up being the financially vulnerable half of the couple, even if both parents work? Perhaps more women/men would feel comfortable being a SAHP if the laws around break-ups were more economically fair to the resident parent. I don’t have children but I despair about the laws in this country surrounding post-split financial support. CMS should cover childcare so the resident parent can work, not be forced into a benefit cycle (I strongly believe they are entitled to these benefits, this is not a shitting-on-benefits comment) while the non-RP pays a daily pittance that cannot possibly cover childcare.

Once children are involved I think a break-up should be treated legally like a divorce, and assets split accordingly.

Maybe that prospect of increased financial security down the road might encourage more people to elect to be a SAHP and thus have more children?

I don't think having a child is out of reach for most people - I don't know anyone who is childless or planning on being childless forever because they can't afford it.

If it's harder for people to have 5 kids then that can only be a good thing IMO as this planet is already hugely over populated. Pretty much any environmental issue that exists could be solved by the world having a far smaller population. The huge demand for resources by such a huge population is an environmental disaster. Literally the best thing anyone can do for the planet is to have less kids. Of course it's not good for capitalism which is a different story.

People complain about the cost of housing now but it's swings and roundabouts. In the 50's people spent a third of their income on food for example. The difference now is that people's expectations about what they 'should' be able to afford are vastly higher. In the fifties most people didn't have a tv, a washing machine, central heating, a phone, the internet wasn't a thing, only 2% of people took holidays abroad. Life is very,very different from our grandmother's time in all sorts of ways.

I think we've changed the way we live and our expectations over quality of life, which certainly don't help.

One set of my grandparents literally lived off the land - luckily they were in the countryside - grew their own veggies, meat was mainly what they killed themselves. My Grandad had a second job and when my Mum was around ten she used to go and help him as she enjoyed it, his employer started giving them extra food for it. Only heat was from cooker in kitchen, and it was a weekly bath of water share which each of the six member family getting a dip. Four shared a bed. Clothes were handed down, clothing repairs made.

When my parents bought their house, they had a break in, my Mum's coat was taken and she couldn't afford another. They bought a doer upper and couldn't afford to start doing it up for eight years.

As soon as I started work, I save 30% of my income which gave me a good deposit for a flat. How many do that now? We want more from life, heating, technology, cars, holidays, treats in terms of food/going out - it all adds up.

People can't save 30% of their income not due to life style choice but the cost of rent etc are high.

Well said!
I also think the past is being viewed with rose tinted glasses.
It was very hard, every penny was counted, as I said my GM had 3 jobs, she died at 61
The daily jobs of heating, eating and keeping everyone clean and fed was far more labour intensive than now.
There was no credit cards, buying things on " tick" was last resort and seen as shameful.
Playing out -being chucked out of the house all weathers, many young children were bullied or worse by other kids.
I think outwardly another child was viewed as a blessing but privately despaired.

I agree. High land prices have done terrible damage despite being celebrated by much of the population. And I'm a big (in theory) property winner.
Selfish NIMBYism is also having a terrible affect putting a stop to home building. What we need is an absolutely massive council house building programme, similar to post war. It would solve so many problems, misery and poverty. And despite me being a big, on paper, winner, I plan to sell my house when my children are young adults and buy a smaller one (still four bedrooms) so I can give my children 100k each. So actually, even I don’t win long term unless I’m willing to see my children struggle so much compared to my easy ride through life.

My grandparents had no choice - if you had sex you might get pregnant, you had a baby and you just had to manage. Many would have had much worse lives as a result of the number of babies. I’m sure noone ever ‘afforded’ having 10 kids - they just had to get on with it.

Today you can decide - whether that’s because of finances, career progression, house size, or something else. Evidently, given the choice women have fewer babies.

Having said all that, I thing falling birth rates overall is a very good thing for the planet. It will be very difficult for humans though (nobody to provide elderly care for example)

The expenses don't stop as they get older. I have an 18 year old and in the next 12 months I am looking at at £3k car insurance bill to get her motoring, a £1.5k laptop essential for her chosen degree course plus a top up for uni accommodation of around £7.5k. These are huge sums to us - something else might have to give.

Now imagine if I had a second child to do the same for next year or the year after?! Thankfully I had a big gap, so I don't.

Going away to uni and learning to drive used to be normal things for 18 year olds. Now for many families, already stretched to the bone, they have become entirely unaffordable.

I have three. 18 (now driving and off to uni in September), nearly 17 (will start learning next month) and 15 (will start learning next year). In years 13, 12 and 11 at school /college. I feel your pain 😀