Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

Birth rate hits record low - 1.49 children per woman

453 replies

MidnightPatrol · 23/02/2024 10:46

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:46

@rubyredknowsitall exactly, the recent numbers re GDP per capita were shocking. they won’t be improving!

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:48

I'm assuming the people who say good are particularly insulated from massive financial and social instability?

I do wonder…

EasternStandard · 23/02/2024 11:50

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:48

I'm assuming the people who say good are particularly insulated from massive financial and social instability?

I do wonder…

Or maybe they can see the massive instability caused by a growing population

It’s not easy if we keep going and need more resources in an unstable world

Added to that people need to think about the workforce when these dc get to 18. It’ll likely be very different with replacement of many jobs

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:51

@rubyredknowsitall its more evident in London because so many families have left due to housing costs & fewer dc, less social housing, less families coming due to Brexit & covid which had a general trend of families leaving. It’s happening across the country though.

“England’s school population is set to shrink by almost a million children over the next 10 years,”

Reugny · 23/02/2024 11:51

Flippingflamingo · 23/02/2024 11:24

Society/social media leads us to believe we need to constantly strive to do more. More holidays, more activities, more days out.

When I was growing up I didn’t know anyone who went skiing. Now over half my kids school class have been!

These things cost money and people need to have less children to be able to afford it.

More women work that ever before (cost of living and above mentioned quality of life assumptions) mean there is less time to have children.

40 years ago having one more child was no issues, mum would be at home anyway, no-one holidayed abroad, you were funding kids through uni etc.

For a lot of people the life styles are very different now.

My mum and lots of mums worked 40 years ago.

However their childcare was cheaper as it was unregulated. It was another mother who either worked different hours or didn't work at all for various reasons.

Basically women in the community helped other women.

Also families went on holiday .

40 years ago was the 1980s.

Now if you were talking about the 1960s you may have been correct.

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:52

@EasternStandard what economic stability do you think a country has when the demographics are an upside down pyramid?

creativebetty · 23/02/2024 11:54

Are there particular reasons people are having less children?

Among my group of female relatives & friends the reasons are cost or just not wanting children.

ThreeFeetTall · 23/02/2024 11:54

Listened to an interesting radio programme this morning on this issue. It ended on a hopeful (ish) note- that a lower population was good but the transition was going to be difficult

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct4q82

EasternStandard · 23/02/2024 11:55

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 11:52

@EasternStandard what economic stability do you think a country has when the demographics are an upside down pyramid?

It won’t be easy but we will have tech coming in pretty comprehensively soon which could help lessen the impact. What do you think the workforce will look like in 18 years?

Other than that if you want the standard pyramid you’ll have to say how people will secure resources without huge amounts of instability and volatility across the world

Reugny · 23/02/2024 11:55

rubyredknowsitall · 23/02/2024 11:46

Wow, is it falling that quickly? Is that because London is particularly expensive to raise a child - so the effect is more pronounced there than say Hastings?

Yep nurseries, primary schools and secondary schools in inner London boroughs are closing because there are simply not enough children.

On the other hand some outer London boroughs like Havering do not have enough nursery and school places.

MidnightPatrol · 23/02/2024 11:56

rubyredknowsitall · 23/02/2024 11:46

Wow, is it falling that quickly? Is that because London is particularly expensive to raise a child - so the effect is more pronounced there than say Hastings?

There has been a 17% decrease in the birth rate in London in the last 10 years.

It's just so expensive people are either leaving to have families, not having them, or having very small families.

The cost of housing is probably the major one, before you look at the £2k+ a month childcare cost.

OP posts:
Desecratedcoconut · 23/02/2024 11:57

And when all countries are competing for an ever decreasing working population to keep their elderly afloat and others are left to rot.

Tourmalines · 23/02/2024 11:58

Reugny · 23/02/2024 11:51

My mum and lots of mums worked 40 years ago.

However their childcare was cheaper as it was unregulated. It was another mother who either worked different hours or didn't work at all for various reasons.

Basically women in the community helped other women.

Also families went on holiday .

40 years ago was the 1980s.

Now if you were talking about the 1960s you may have been correct.

yes , you are correct . I certainly worked 40 years ago and everyone I knew did too .

Missingmyusername · 23/02/2024 11:59

Do we need to do anything about it? I don’t think we do. We’ve stopped evolving, we just rape the planet. I think it’s brilliant there are less humans.
I think there euthanasia should be controlled and legal. Why can’t I make a plan now, whilst I’m sound of mind to press the delete button. I don’t want to live with cancer or dementia.

We will just increase immigration to address it. I doubt it’ll be a problem.

Whilst everything else is fracturing, there’s no structure to support hordes of humans.
We’ve ruined this planet, I dread to think what it’ll look like in another 100, 200 years. There will be war, famine and god knows what else. We’ll probably all have an AI headset and live indoors! What will the planet look like in 200 -500 years time?

Barleysugar86 · 23/02/2024 12:00

Desecratedcoconut · 23/02/2024 11:57

And when all countries are competing for an ever decreasing working population to keep their elderly afloat and others are left to rot.

I see the advances in things like AI and think the long term changes on the workforce might be immense with 'thinking jobs' replaced by machines. It may be there is a shift back towards care work out of necessity. But the tax/ income burden this may create with pensions is worrying.

anotherchancer · 23/02/2024 12:00

Long term this is a good thing if we want a sustainable future for the planet.
If AI and industrialisation remove the need for Labour then the population will need to decrease?
Short term yes there will be a generation or two (including mine) which will be hit, it will be hard, but the bigger picture for humankind and the planet & biodiversity I personally think it's a good thing.

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 12:03

It won’t be easy but we will have tech coming in pretty comprehensively soon which could help lessen the impact. What do you think the workforce will look like in 18 years?

While i think there will be more AI involved in caring for the elderly as they are doing in S Korea I think there are huge privacy & autonomy issues. I think the workforce will follow the path of the last few decades, more tech with some industries dying & new ones spring up. More remote, flexi, agile working & a more globalised work force. What do you envisage?

Other than that if you want the standard pyramid you’ll have to say how people will secure resources without huge amounts of instability and volatility across the world

I don’t want the standard pyramid, I just don’t think an upside down one is a better alternative. And I don’t understand why an upside down one won’t impact resources?

EasternStandard · 23/02/2024 12:05

anotherchancer · 23/02/2024 12:00

Long term this is a good thing if we want a sustainable future for the planet.
If AI and industrialisation remove the need for Labour then the population will need to decrease?
Short term yes there will be a generation or two (including mine) which will be hit, it will be hard, but the bigger picture for humankind and the planet & biodiversity I personally think it's a good thing.

@lemmefinish this from @anotherchancer sums it up well for me

I feel the same way

user146990847101 · 23/02/2024 12:06

There are probably twice as many humans on the planet than is sustainable so good thing, hope it carries on!
100 years ago we needed people to work the land, manual jobs etc, there has been such a massive shift in the last 100/150 years…AI will mean lots of low paid, low skilled jobs will disappear and quickly, probably the next 15/20 years, so maybe, just maybe this is our planets chance to survive.

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 12:06

And when all countries are competing for an ever decreasing working population to keep their elderly afloat and others are left to rot.

realistically there will be more of a move to legalised euthanasia

TheABC · 23/02/2024 12:09

If you are interested in this issue, I suggest reading Empty Planet by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson. It's five years old and a lot of their predictions are proving prescient.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empty-Planet-Global-Population-Decline/dp/1472142950

The low birth rate here is a mix of things. Expensive cost of living, female education and (crucially) culture. There's no stigma in being childfree and 1 or 2 children is seen as the norm for a family. 4+ is seen as large. This is not unique to Britain; you can see the same all over Europe, as well as South Korea, China and Japan, where education and maternity costs has made children even more of a pipedream.

Now, compare and contrast that to Niger, which has the world's highest birth rate. This article is a few years old, but it does a good job of showing the cultural pressures on women over there. Put bluntly, the minute you give women more attractive options than pushing out babies, they take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger#:~:text=Niger's%20population%20challenges%20are%20compounded,doesn't%20provoke%20religious%20backlash.

In many ways, our low birthrate is a success. As is our ability to attract migrants here. Our failures stem from a lack of planning for the elderly population we have and a lack of management for our migration. We need high-paid young workers. Instead, we've seen a massive migrant expansion in low-paid social care jobs (which are important but don't do much for our tax take), as well as student visas and irregular migrants who disappear into the black economy (so, no tax).

We need to radically rethink our society. Japan has demonstrated that getting old is not necessarily a problem: the trick is to age healthily and stay as fit and independent as possible. Britain is crap at that - high obesity levels, bad housing, not enough disabled or sheltered housing, not enough joined-up thinking behind our lifestyles.

Why have four children when you could have seven? Family planning in Niger

With the world’s highest birthrate, Niger’s population is set to double in 17 years. NGOs are providing contraception, but what if women want more babies?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger#:~:text=Niger's%20population%20challenges%20are%20compounded,doesn't%20provoke%20religious%20backlash.

Foxblue · 23/02/2024 12:09

Child free by choice here. So in order to have a baby, I need to:

  • Choose a man who will be a good partner and dad, and an equal parent, and is willing to go into the minutiae of how this will work beforehand
  • Have a good career and earn enough that I can afford to take time off work for maternity, but ALSO be in the right kind of job at the right pay that means that if the mam fucks off and doesn't pay child support, I will be able to raise a child financially and practically by myself, without going part time or giving up work (therefore fucking my pension and long term career prospects and therefore my child's long term prospects, because if they want to go to university I need to contribute heavily)
  • Actually get pregnant
  • Be pregnant, which permanently injures women on a regular basis.
  • Give birth, which regularly injures women for life and leaves them with lifelong trauma - oh and my local hospital is one involved in a maternity care scandal.
  • Get through the first year without my relationship or mental health breaking down
  • pay for astronomical childcare costs so I can continue to work, or give up work and damage my career/pension
  • probably not sleep for at least 2 years
  • get myself through the early years where a child is sick constantly, risking myself and my partners jobs
  • somehow keep my relationship together during this
  • child hits pre teen years and we then have to battle against societal conditioning, social media algorithms, peer pressure, bullying.
  • also have i bought a house in the right place for them to go to a decent school, because lots of our schools are being dragged to hell
  • better not have a child who is ND or disabled because there's no funding or support, and if there is you need to fight like hell
  • teenage years seem to be a pot luck
  • University, wildly expensive - where the f is the money meant to come from??
  • try and help them buy a house, presumably it will be 500k for a 2 bed terrace in a remote Welsh mining town with no running water by this point
  • then I will worry constantly about this human being forever, because I love them (I am naturally a worrier)

... i am biased, as childfree - but this is just scratching the surface and its NOT sounding great. I know there are good bits, and they sound lovely - but my god the cost started outweighing the good a while ago

lemmefinish · 23/02/2024 12:11

Long term this is a good thing if we want a sustainable future for the planet.

Are people really that altruistic that they won’t have dc & are prepared for decades of hardship because long term it’s better for the planet? I’m sceptical & think people who say this usually expect others to not have dc or suffer.

If AI and industrialisation remove the need for Labour then the population will need to decrease?

The UK population growth has only been driven by migration & people living longer for years. If you want the population to decrease you would need to kill off people.

Short term yes there will be a generation or two (including mine) which will be hit, it will be hard, but the bigger picture for humankind and the planet & biodiversity I personally think it's a good thing.

Maybe i’m selfish but I don’t want a lifetime of more & more taxes & reduced qol because biodiversity. I don’t think the electorate will go for it either….

BridieLand · 23/02/2024 12:11
  • cost of childcare
  • cost of housing
  • wanting to balance having children with pursuing your own interests/career
  • wanting to give the child/ren you have lots of attention/resources
  • climate concerns
Lillygolightly · 23/02/2024 12:15

I honestly despair of how many have such a one dimensional view of such a multifaceted issue, as well as a lack of understanding on just how soon we will be seeing and feeling the impacts of this and indeed what those impacts are.

I am sick of hearing how great for the planet and environment this will be. Yes great, less people for the planet but have you sat and genuinely thought about what that will mean for you, for your children etc. I mean yes this could indeed be better for ecological reasons, but you will be feeling the impact of societal shift, economic shift in negative ways long before you will see any long term positive benefits.

The lower birth rate is not just about people choosing to have less or no children, it is also brought about by a sharp decline in fertility, both male and female (though male factor infertility is on the rise) so many people are ending up childless and not through choice. That’s all before you even consider that generally less people even want to have children due to the huge financial, or those delaying parenthood trying to get themselves in a decent position before starting a family.

If the lax, delayed and erratic response by government to covid, climate change and a whole host of other issues is anything to go by we will be knee deep in the midst of this before any real direction or action is taken, we are already deep into it and yet you hardly hear of it.

Taking accountability is not something the government does well, it’s hardly likely they are going be holding their hands up and saying: yeah sorry we haven’t been paying attention to the UPF’s in food, the chemicals in our drinks, the pesticides our crops are treated with and the micro plastics things are packaged in and oops sorry because we’ve only just noticed this impacting your health, well-being and fertility. It’s not like they are going to hold their hands up and say sorry we’ve been on the side of big business for far too long and have helped them to keep wages low and employ cheap labour and all the while we’ve been moaning about the benefits bill. Sorry you all can’t afford to live, can’t afford housing, food, heating, let alone have a child or two because we are too lazy to tackle government funded affordable childcare for those who need it. Or be bothered to have a proper system that adequately ensures absent parents remain financially responsible for their offspring and that the resident single parent is properly supported instead of being punished financially and economically and treated like a stain on the economy because they are forced to rely on benefits.

I also hate spouting all of that and pointing it out because it makes me sound like some kind of conspiracy theory loon, I am not I assure you, but this is going to be like watching a slow motion car crash and when other people are just like ‘oh yes less people, how fantastic for the planet, this will be good’ just makes me eye roll HARD!