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?

Ultimately, we need to encourage middle and high earning women to have children. These are the women who are more likely to raise net earners as well.

Low cost childcare is the only solution along with wrap around care provided.

Of course you don't need to have 5.

The birth rate isn't declining because families are getting smaller. The range of family size remains constant. It's the numbers who are childless that is increasing.

The 80% is women who have not had children but not through choice. It's from a book referenced earlier in the thread can't recall the author right now.

That in itself never mind the societal impact is heartbreaking. To have wanted children and not had them is a hard blow. There are many heartbroken women in this position. In the studies quoted and frequently on Mumsnet.

Where are we going so wrong that so many women find themselves in this position.

People seem to be rolling eyes or whatever but they surely they can see an increasing pyramid has major resource issues and instability

And the workforce will change dramatically in next 18 to 20 years when these dc are adults

If its any consolation, it's almost exactly the same debate over in China. They are staring down the proverbial black hole of one-child families across three generations, low pension age, low pension funding and no appetite amongst the young to get married and have more kids because of a housing and jobs crisis (sounds familiar). Because they are so big, they've used internal migration from the country to the city to plug the gap, but they are still on track to see their population halve. What is interesting is that they are very family orientated (look after you parents), with a centralised state, so they might come up either solutions we have not thought of, here.

Got one and probably sticking at one. Would have had 2 without expense of childcare. Here full time care is £1.5K a month for one child. We both earn about £40K, take home £2.4K each. Not sure how to survive on £4.8K when childcare and mortgage alone would come to £4K. One of us would have to become a SAHP, after training for over 8 years for an industry where any time out basically blacklists you from any further career progression. An £80K household cannot afford to have 2 children in childcare as too expensive, that's above average. Could wait and have a bigger gap, but time not on side and tbh I'd have liked them closer rather than doing early stages twice! Free hours will help but not enough. More like take the sting out of having one in childcare rather than being able to afford two! If had grandparent help 2 would be doable but that's becoming less common. They are either working themselves still or want to enjoy their retirement without taking on that responsibility. Fair enough, but means one grandchild is all they're getting no matter how much they lament about it!

This, shortage of working age adults is rapidly becoming a problem

@MalagaNights Plenty of religions allow you to use contraception if you want to.

Also even if you are religious you are unlikely to have children when you are 16/17 now due to being in education, but more likely to have them if you are in your 40s.

This is why studies and research has shown that people of parent/parents born abroad lifestyles mimic their peers, rather than their parents. This also covers things like alcohol consumption and exercise.

That’s my understanding too, @TheSeasonalNameChange. The Economist had a in-depth article on global population a few weeks ago. I can’t remember the details, but the overall conclusion was that even in countries with high birth rates, the numbers are dropping, I.e., whereas the average woman had six children 30 years ago, she’s now having three.
So eventually, the global population will shrink significantly.

Probably not a bad thing, but it could be a bumpy ride for a few generations unless technology can replace human services.

@Bagpussnotbothered you just reminded me of the "Lie flat" generation. Also the fact that China is suffering from not enough factory workers.

I find it interesting that the age of having children is never really mentioned. If everyone in a family tends to have kids in their early 30s then, realistically, only 3 generations are in existence at any given time and only one of them might need care - either the babies or the oldest generation. However, in a family where people have kids around age 20 there might be 5 generations in existence and both youngest and oldest (or maybe even the 2 oldest) might need care at the same time.

I also think that western countries raising pension age is false economy. By the time people finally retired they are exhausted whereas previously they would have been more willing and able to help out in unpaid roles like childcare and local volunteering and also probably be in better health longer in life.

Well that will stop soon as the UK goes bankrupt

It's not about contraception it's about the cultural value put on family and children. And the traditional roles of women which supports larger families.

I'm not advocating we should all be doing this. I'm just saying those communities are the only outliers in the west in birth rates.

It's not necessarily linked to immigration. Many orthodox Jews and Mormons have been in the country for a few generations.
Although I think Mormon birth rate is beginning to decline too?

I'd need to check the stats for different groups in the book and most of it is USA based but you can see some UK relevance

@GooseClues not all Western countries are the same. I remember foreign friends and acquaintances being surprised that some many people in the UK happily give up their time to regularly do something like staff a charity shop, drive a mini-bus, etc for years.

However I do agree with your sentiment. If everyone has to work full-time until they are 70, then who is around to do that level of volunteering that makes communities function?

Not read everyone's responses on here, but here are my possible explanations:

1 - Cost of living crisis. People simply can't afford to have a bigger family even if they want one.
2 - Environmental reasons. People don't want to have children in an effort to reduce their carbon footprint.
3 - People realise that having children isn't the be all and end all of life. They can enjoy childless lives.
4 - Women not staying in loveless marriages and pumping out children because they feel they have no other choice.
5 - The state of the world these days - wars, famine, homelessness, crime. People don't want to bring children into such a scary world.
6 - More and more women choosing to prioritise their careers over having more children.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but can't think of them off the top of my head right now.

These communities aren't large enough in the UK to make up for the rest of us.

There was a similar thread just recently:

birthrate hits 20 year low www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4874926-uk-birthrate-hits-20-year-low

Quite interesting responses.

I agree with this I think men are also more reluctant to commit to having children because they know that women will expect them to pull their weight.
There may be men who want to be fathers but few of them are willing to do the menial low status stressful boring drudge work that comes with having children.

They want the kudos and status that comes with being a father and having a lineage but they don't want to do the work or make any sacrifices, that's what the woman is for! However women have other options now and are able to be economically independent of men.

I agree that long term this is a good thing but short to medium term it is a problem.

Surely it would be far better to focus our energies on ways to manage the negatives as the birth rate declines, rather than encouraging more births? Since a) it seems agreed that decline is a good thing long term and b) otherwise you’re just kicking the problem down the kerb for a later generation to deal with.

No they won't make up for the rest of us.

But if the trend continued they would end up larger more culturally and politically significant groups.

You only have to look at what happened to abortion rates when the 2 child limit came in to see that people went from thinking they could cope with a surprise 3rd, to no way.

The families continuing to have many children are Muslims and Mormons. White Christians are going to be a minority. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just what will happen.

6 - More and more women choosing to prioritise their careers over having more children
Women are choosing to invest in themselves, just like men have always done.

Mormons are generally white Christians and we don't really have many in the UK.

Muslim population is likely to grow proportionally in the UK though.
Which has consequences.

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. People are living in a fantasy land where our problems are "too many people." They need to realise that we have a huge population imbalance with no-where near enough young working age people to support our aging population.

Even if people in their late teens/20s/30s started having babies right now, it would be 20 years before they could fill the current job gaps. I was reading on the Saga car insurance site that not having enough qualified mechanics since Brexit is one of the reasons why car insurance premiums have gone up so much!

Good. Why would this be a problem? There are far too many people on the planet for it to be sustainable. Very glad to see this drop.