Birth rate hits record low - 1.49 children per woman

[MidnightPatrol]

The ONS has released its latest data on the UK birthrate.

The number of children per women has dropped from 1.55 in 2022 to 1.49 in 2022 - the lowest on record.

This is the lowest number of births in the UK since 2002 - when the population was 10 million people smaller.

Do we think this problem will inevitably worsen? Are there particular reasons people are having less children (unique to the UK vs the rest of the world?).

Should we be taking steps to increase it / stop it reducing further?

So true!

My children were easy @BruFord but we are just lucky. Can appreciate that so many teenagers are bloody hard work!

@strugglingnd I know it’s not always a bed of roses, but it irritates me when people suggest that all teenagers are horrendous, because they’re simply not! Setting a few boundaries definitely helps- taking away phones is particularly effective. 😂

I think maybe it because women of childbearing age are seeing the parenting posts on here?! 😂
It’s probably a good thing given we are overcrowded and overusing natural resources. And ruining the planet.
I’m sure it’ll pick up if needed, nature has a way of balancing things out.
I don’t have/want kids - there’s really very little appealing about it unless you have a very strong maternal urge, and as more and more women realise there is a good life to be had even without children then I think birth rates will be much less stable.

I have three children - I had one, wanted another and then got twins. I always said I wanted more than one child as I have a lovely relationship with my siblings, but twins has been such a financial shock for us.

Nursery places for both of them cost the equivalent of someone earning £50k per year after tax (which highlights what a joke the "high income child benefit tax charge" that kicks in at this point is!) and the cost of living crisis hit while I was on maternity leave. My eldest son is now at school but the savings in childcare for him have been wiped out by increases in costs elsewhere in our lives.

I went back to work with the idea that we'd weather the next few years until the free childcare hours kicked in, during which time I'd still be progressing career-wise and hopefully be able to increase my earnings later on. I work full time, as to go part time would mean taking a more junior job and then the economics of working wouldn't have worked at all. We were lucky to have had help with the childcare from family.

I see it everywhere that the main determinant of lifestyle quality is determined by the number of young children someone has. To have so much income wiped out by childcare fees is horrible. On top of that, once you get to school the system is just not set up for two working parents - after-school club places are limited or unavailable in some schools. At mine and there is a rush to book them as soon as they are released, holiday clubs run from 9am-3pm. All of this just creates more barriers to people having children or being able to work once they have them.

I don't want to sound like I'm getting my tiny violin out, I love my children, chose to have them and I'm so glad I had them, but I don't think we would have gone for the third if we'd not had twins the second time round.

As for the population demographics, I agree that the world doesn't need more people but there are going to be some painful shocks in developed nations. We're already seeing the impact of the post-war baby boom on the living standards of the economically active generations below them and as far as I know the trend is set to continue, with fewer working-age people to support the sick and elderly. It also makes me quite annoyed to see that the same people who want to discourage migration to the uk are also the first to respond with "why did you have children if you're not willing to pay for them?" If you express concerns about the cost of having children! Who do they think are going to pay their pensions...

Wow, yes I am a single mum so I thought it might be more manageable for couples where one person could still be working.

There’s also the sexual politics of taking a career break to consider, as it tends to be the woman who stays home to look after the kids and which we know tends to negatively impact their career. My friend and her husband have a good system though, they split the maternity leave 6 months each, she went back to her job (which is better paid than his), and when he went back he went part-time 2 days a week and looks after their child 2.5days, she goes to a childminder 1.5days a week (bit cheaper than nursery apparently) and grandparents help out 1 day a week. They’re not flush by any stretch of the imagination but are comfortable, I’d say, and she gets to work from home 2 days a week so still gets to see baba a fair bit. Don’t think they’re up for a second child, though!

Schools aren’t bursting at the seams, quite a few are closing due to low numbers.

….and let’s work out the connection between NHS at breaking point & people not able to work.

I'm in NZ and the birth rate here is dropping also, however I know very few people who only have one child. In the block I live in there are only two families, one has five children and the other has six, and I know a few couples who have three or four. I also don't know of many young childless couples - maybe things are different in this area.

The 'value' of family/children has changed. Previously families had lots of children - they were needed as wage earners/workers for the family and also there was a high infant death rate. As lifestyles improved so the 'value' of large families reduced. Maternity care improved, infant deaths reduced, contraception became available and female independence (financial and aspirational) improved. The pendulum continues on its slow swing though as we are now in a position where people 'value' their childfree lifestyles more. Babies are 'wanted ' but the lifestyles and society places a much higher value on careers, holidays, nice car, clothes, phone, house etc. Gov Policy wants workers, cost of living also dictates full time work so parents (both sexes) are unable to be full or part time stay at home parents. Kids are being pushed into nursery care earlier and earlier there is no 'value" attached to stay at home parents. (Does this add to the increase in poor mental health in kids). Parenting is becoming more and more outsourced...and that's also shown in policy where parents are loosing more and more autonomy over their kids. Having a family now seems more about budget/lifestyles than about family members/relationships.

Schools closing due to lack of children? Where do you live? Round here loads of children not getting their first choice as lack of places. Appeals through the roof. And we have a lot of people who, let's say, prefer not to work....

In a London, there is a predicted fall in Year 7 pupils of 4.3% and in the rest of the country 0.77%. Other than London, the fall won't have much impact on schools. Where I live, the population has increased significantly. We still have only one hospital despite the population increasing by 15% in the last ten years. The reason the NHS is not coping where I live is a lot to do with the population increase.

As I have said already, long-term, a decrease in population is a good for the planet.

Short-term it may be difficult but only if there is a rapid decrease in population, which the UK does not have.

What a silly post. You might want to read up on the history of the SAHM, for instance, in order to put a crimp in your invented narrative of ‘Women outsourcing parenting for handbag money’.

Maybe read what I've written before making your own silly post. I haven't said that at all!

Yes, it is interesting, isn't it?

As to your question of WHY the basic biological instinct to reproduce seems to have been dialled down in many people in recent times - someone upthread mentioned hormonal contraception as a possible factor, which makes sense to me. Human hormones are powerful drivers of our behaviour, and we mess with them at our peril.

I'd love to know if any long-term studies have been done on life-choices of those using hormonal contraception for many years.

I read it. Your politics are showing. And your ignorance of social history.

Along with every post on here with people saying they can't afford kids!

Lots of reasons:
-Not wanting kids. Women especially have more choice whether they want this or not.

• Cost of living
• Cost of buying a buying home
• Cost of childcare
• Mental Health
• Having children later.

I personally have 1 child. Had multiple miscarriages and lost a child. I would like another sibling for my child as company. But due to my age (over 40 now), Cost of childcare not wanting to go through the pain both physically and mentally of losing another pregnancy. There's also my husband desperately wasn't to go home at the end of the year to see his family. Its not happening if I'm pregnant about thay time. So sa to say just not convient in peoples lives. I'm only getting older and it is going to be more unlikely it happens.

So like many people around me, we are likely to only have one. For some people like myself, I feel lucky to have that.

DD is in her early 30's and I have never regretted my decision to not have anymore. I don't fully understand what you mean by more 1-child families reduces the need to interact in the “real” world? though.

Happening in London, with more predicted to close in the coming years due to the decline of families in the city.

Our local village primary now has mixed year classes for the 1st time in the 50 years it's been there. It has an empty classroom that is currently being used as a storeroom.

Half of European families are raising just one child. It wouldn't surprise me if the next generation has two or more in response.

See "The Birth Gap" documentary on YouTube parts one and two. The World has more humans in it than ever. But this is due to longer living, not children being born. Worldwide we have an inverted population. The collapse is already well underway.

I find comment like this so strange.
Out of interest, what was your stance on Covid restrictions?
Did you support any of them or did you regard all of them as unnecessary because “do humans need to be here”?

What’s the answer though, not to have people to care for/ provide services to the people already here as they age?
How is that going to work with more and more elderly people and fewer and fewer young people to support them?
If the population could at least stay at the same level, not grow but also not fall.