Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

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

307 replies

MamaLlama123 · 15/01/2024 21:45

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?

OP posts:
Fern95 · 16/01/2024 13:10

We live in London. My mum moved us here when I was 11 so she could get a better job. Im 28 now. I don't think it actually crossed her mind that her children would struggle with housing costs in adulthood. Our rent is 1300 a month. We are very lucky as it's £200 under market rate for a 2 bed flat. When we lived in Cornwall we had to move approximately 6-8 times so I'm definitely not moving again unless I can go back home to Cornwall (which also has a housing crisis!).

MyBigFatGreekSalad · 16/01/2024 13:38

Pineapples198 · 16/01/2024 12:22

Might get blasted for saying this but there are plenty of families who don’t work who have lots of children. I work in a deprived school and we have families who have a baby every 2 -3 years so that they can stay on universal credit indefinitely.
we have families with 7 or 8 children, receiving £3000-£4000 in benefits monthly. Whereas when I had my first child I couldn’t go back to work full time as it was the same cost for nursery as my wage (about £1100 a month) so I ended up working 2-3 days and asking my mum to drive a 3 hour round trip to look after him for a day. When I had another I actually then ended up qualifying as a childminder so I could work and take care of my own kids. Even before and after school care for 2 kids would’ve wiped out my wage. It’s very difficult for working families to manage paying for childcare but if you aren’t working and receiving benefits you can have as many kids as you like.
unfortunately I think this leaves having kids to the very rich and the unemployed. It’s the people in between who struggle

I completely agree. It's quite alarming how willingly unemployed households are to have child after child.

alltootired · 16/01/2024 13:39

Why do people expect to keep the lifestyle they had before having children? That really is not realistic.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

alltootired · 16/01/2024 13:42

You do not get any extra benefits for the third or more child. You get exactly the same for 10 children as 2 children. Large families on benefits are in abject poverty.

Hatty65 · 16/01/2024 13:44

It depends on the expectations, though, doesn't it? It's only a luxury to have children if you put them last on the list behind your lifestyle - ie, can we keep up this lifestyle and still have children?

My GPs had 5 children. Grandad worked in the steelworks and Grandma was a SAHM. They rented a terraced house and had:

No central heating, no double glazing, no washing machine, no fridge, an outside toilet. No tv, no car, no foreign holidays. The DC had one Sunday best outfit and one everyday outfit. No phone in the home. She cooked exactly 7 meals - they had the same thing every week. Sunday was a joint of beef, Monday cold meat and chips, Tuesday she made a hash with the remains of the meat and potato and veg out of the garden, etc. My dad remembers that he had an old army surplus greatcoat on his bed as a cover - and he shared a bed top/tailing with his brother, til his brother left home to do National Service when Dad was about 9.

I'm not suggesting anyone is unreasonable for not wanting to live like this nowadays - but that's the lifestyle that one wage provided in the 1950s.

For myself, growing up in the 1970s and 80s we had no phone at home, no foreign holidays, only got central heating when I was at secondary school. My DP did not own a VHS player until after I'd left home and I remember ONE girl in the 6th form whose parents got a Betamax player and we all were so excited about watching films at her house when they were out. I had very few clothes and remember saving up my 60p an hour wages aged 14 to buy a £10 skirt in Dorothy Perkins. A chinese takeaway was for birthdays only, not weekly. I didn't eat Indian food until I was in my 20s and there weren't any restaurants around us. I push biked everywhere, and didn't do any activities out of school other than Brownies, and later joined the local hockey club. My DF had a professional job and we would have been considered 'middle class' rather than poor. We holidayed once a year on the continent by house swapping with another family for a fortnight, but most of my friends did not go abroad til they'd left home. My parents did not have a new kitchen, or buy new carpets or new furniture. They made do with the old stuff they bought.

All of the new technology, all of the new expectations of how people should live comes from perhaps the last 20 years or so. So, no, you can't afford everything. If you want your home to look Instagram ready, to have multiple foreign holidays, to run two cars, to have the latest phone, Sky, and your DC to have exciting activities after school every night then yes, this is for the rich.

Chouxbun · 16/01/2024 13:44

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

alltootired · 16/01/2024 13:46

It is normal for your lifestyle to drop when you have children. You are supporting extra people.

Usernamen · 16/01/2024 13:55

alltootired · 16/01/2024 13:46

It is normal for your lifestyle to drop when you have children. You are supporting extra people.

Yes, but the point is many people do not want their standard of living to drop / drop drastically so they are choosing to have zero / fewer children.

Having one child seems to me to be the best of both worlds - you get to experience parenthood but you get to keep some disposable income for holidays, eating out, hobbies, weekends away etc. There is also less disruption to the parents’ careers, no need to upsize to a bigger house and take on a bigger mortgage, and the woman only needs to go through pregnancy/labour once which means a greater chance of returning to pre-baby health and weight.

I can see why more and more couples are opting to have only one child.

TwistofFate · 16/01/2024 13:57

I agree a drop in lifestyle is necessary for most people with kids because you have less disposable income, but I also think where you live plays a huge part. Me and DH have fairly average wages by national standards (combined income of just over 70k) but we live in Scotland so housing is much cheaper here, we have 2 kids at nursery so childcare is one of our biggest expenses but it's only for a few years.

Sdpbody · 16/01/2024 14:14

They need to help middle class, educated, tax paying women.

These are the women who will most likely raise adults who work, pay taxes, own home and actually contribute to life.

If they concentrated on this demographic, that would be the best start.

alltootired · 16/01/2024 14:20

Help the middle class!
I would prefer they help people who are homeless.

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 14:24

A lot of people (not all, granted) also spend their 20s living it up travelling, partying and having big weddings. Then they hit their 30s thinking about settling down to have kids and only then start worrying about how to afford it.

This extended period of doing what they want in their 20s could well be put to better use, by saving and forward thinking.

BassoContinuo · 16/01/2024 14:28

Sdpbody · 16/01/2024 14:14

They need to help middle class, educated, tax paying women.

These are the women who will most likely raise adults who work, pay taxes, own home and actually contribute to life.

If they concentrated on this demographic, that would be the best start.

Please tell me this is satire…?

Most of the women I know in this demographic are doing just fine. Plenty of more urgent needs to address.

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 14:29

MyBigFatGreekSalad · 16/01/2024 13:38

I completely agree. It's quite alarming how willingly unemployed households are to have child after child.

They might have child after child, but unless someone in the household gets certain disability benefits, they are subject to the benefit cap of 2 children. The benefit cap has been around for YEARS now.

minipie · 16/01/2024 14:30

Usernamen · 16/01/2024 11:25

Speaking for myself as a mid-30s university educated professional woman, if I were to have a baby I would definitely stick at one.

Nothing to do with affordability, I just don’t want my life to be massively disrupted with multiple children, don’t want to assume the ‘mother’ role and want to keep my identity as much as possible.

This is the same for all my female friends - either child-free by choice or have/would have no more than one child.

There are so many more options for women these days and this should be celebrated.

Just to say that for me, and most women I know, it was having the first child that massively changed our lives. I wouldn’t make your choice thinking that one child is some sort of “lite” version. If you don’t want your life to be disrupted, or assume a “mother” role, choose not to have any.

Usernamen · 16/01/2024 14:39

minipie · 16/01/2024 14:30

Just to say that for me, and most women I know, it was having the first child that massively changed our lives. I wouldn’t make your choice thinking that one child is some sort of “lite” version. If you don’t want your life to be disrupted, or assume a “mother” role, choose not to have any.

Of course having a child changes someone’s life, but far less so than multiple children. Each child brings with it more cost, and I don’t just mean financially.

As for not wanting to assume the mother role, I’ve noticed that some people don’t like the idea of a woman retaining her identity and sense of self and preserving as much of her pre-baby life as possible. Not just on MN, out in the real world as well.

Heaven forbid a woman takes shorter parental leave than her partner, formula feeds from the off, hires help, keeps her foot on the gas pedal career-wise and prioritises returning to her pre-baby health and weight. HEAVEN FORBID.

Usernamen · 16/01/2024 14:43

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 14:24

A lot of people (not all, granted) also spend their 20s living it up travelling, partying and having big weddings. Then they hit their 30s thinking about settling down to have kids and only then start worrying about how to afford it.

This extended period of doing what they want in their 20s could well be put to better use, by saving and forward thinking.

I tend to agree with this, however I know for myself and my friends that having babies was the very last thing on our minds in our 20s and early 30s and no amount of (perfectly sensible) advice to plan for a future family would have stopped us from travelling, partying, making the most of our 20s.

It would take a major, major cultural shift for this to change.

alltootired · 16/01/2024 14:44

Most do not care if the mum does not take on a mothering role if the dad does. But someone has to. And I do not think paid help substitutes for parents.

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 14:48

Usernamen · 16/01/2024 14:43

I tend to agree with this, however I know for myself and my friends that having babies was the very last thing on our minds in our 20s and early 30s and no amount of (perfectly sensible) advice to plan for a future family would have stopped us from travelling, partying, making the most of our 20s.

It would take a major, major cultural shift for this to change.

Well yes, I know where you're coming from. I didn't intend to become a mum at 21 myself, but when it happened, it put a bloody rocket up us to sort ourselves out!

If it hadn't have happened I agree I'd have been living it up with the best of them. However, all things come at a cost. If someone spends 10 - 15 years having the time of their life, they are going to struggle when they want to settle down.

minipie · 16/01/2024 14:51

I’ve got zero problems with any of that in principle Usernamen. Indeed all that was my intention, until my child turned out to have medical needs (and total refusal to sleep) that weren’t compatible with me or Dh carrying on life as before. In my case, we had to make all the big life changes as a consequence of DC1, DC2 made relatively little difference.

I am not trying to say women ought to subsume themselves in motherhood at all. I don’t believe that. I’m just trying to warn the PP that if she has a plan of having a single child without her life changing, that may turn out to be unrealistic.

Lifestooshort71 · 16/01/2024 15:01

Kwasi · 16/01/2024 11:51

I wish I'd had two.

I was 40 when I had DS (now 5) and he recently said that when we die, he'll have no family left. It broke my heart in two.

Edited

My nephew and his wife are only children and have had only one child. I'm presuming there'll be a trickle down of considerable inheritance but money isn't everything is it? They live a distance from their cousins so no relationships there to speak of.

TygerPassant · 16/01/2024 15:01

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 14:48

Well yes, I know where you're coming from. I didn't intend to become a mum at 21 myself, but when it happened, it put a bloody rocket up us to sort ourselves out!

If it hadn't have happened I agree I'd have been living it up with the best of them. However, all things come at a cost. If someone spends 10 - 15 years having the time of their life, they are going to struggle when they want to settle down.

But isn’t that a perfectly good reason not to become a parent aged 21?. To focus on being young and energetic with no ties and whatever that means to you — whether it’s travelling the world, trying to make it in a chancy career with no dependents to support, or going to med school without worrying about childcare?

I was a graduate student or living in a commune or travelling my entire twenties. I fitted in a child in my 30s, and I’m delighted I did, but I wouldn’t have swapped the days where I would just decide to go and live in a new country for anything.

Kwasi · 16/01/2024 15:05

@Lifestooshort71

So many people assume they'll inherit, until their parents need full time care.

My mum was fit as a fiddle and always dashing about. Then at 81, she got hit by a car and is likely to need full time care.

Dacadactyl · 16/01/2024 15:13

TygerPassant · 16/01/2024 15:01

But isn’t that a perfectly good reason not to become a parent aged 21?. To focus on being young and energetic with no ties and whatever that means to you — whether it’s travelling the world, trying to make it in a chancy career with no dependents to support, or going to med school without worrying about childcare?

I was a graduate student or living in a commune or travelling my entire twenties. I fitted in a child in my 30s, and I’m delighted I did, but I wouldn’t have swapped the days where I would just decide to go and live in a new country for anything.

Totally depends on what you want when kids come along I think.

I'd have always wanted to be a SAHM til they went to primary and then work PT around the kids when at school. We managed this because we saved hard from the minute we found out about DD and lived with parents to save up. Moved to cheaper area of country and got first house at 25 on one salary with a 50% deposit and overpaid mortgage. Then moved to bigger and better house when I got a PT job.

Other people I know spend yonks on their career and doing what they want, which is great, but then they have to accept there are sacrifices involved in that too. Those sacrifices might be they cant afford a decent house or their kids are in childcare all the time, or whatever.

There are very few people with enough family money to not have to make sacrifices of some sort.

Horses for courses, but if you have a society where extended adolescence is the norm, it has a knock on effect.

Lifestooshort71 · 16/01/2024 15:33

Kwasi · 16/01/2024 15:05

@Lifestooshort71

So many people assume they'll inherit, until their parents need full time care.

My mum was fit as a fiddle and always dashing about. Then at 81, she got hit by a car and is likely to need full time care.

I agree but there's plenty swilling round already. Still won't make up for no family.