Cost of living in the UK v the birth rate

[Potterpot]

I was reading an article where a young couple living in an expensive part of the country said they wouldn’t be able to afford having kids so they’ve made peace with that decision. I can understand why, especially after seeing on another thread that some people’s full time nursery bill costs £1600 a month for one child. The UK average property price at current rates is £1300 a month. That’s £3000 gone, before you’ve even thought about council tax, utility bills, food shopping, travel, saving, disposable income.

I understand being able to make the short term sacrifice financially to afford one child.

Unless one parent can be a SAHP or have significant family help, how are people affording two? Do you have to be high earners for this lifestyle now?

I suppose it could be seen as a choice, but what about those who have a mortgage? They can’t drop to one wage just like that. No matter what other sacrifices a family might make to have children/more children, the mortgage is non negotiable.
Families where only one parent works are surely either living in social housing, have bought their house outright, or they are able to afford mortgage payments based on only one parent working either because the working parent is a particularly high wage earner or it’s a small house in a very affordable area. I’d be interested to hear of other scenarios of how people are managing to have one SAHP! I certainly would have loved to do it although there would have been consequences for my career development. I can see how this might be seen as a choice, I guess it is. But is it right to expect parents- usually women- to have to choose between their career or children?
I know this will come across as very judgemental but there are people out there who have 4, 5, 6 children and have never worked or had to make those difficult choices and I ain’t referring to high wage earners if you know what I mean. There is something wrong when a country allows this to happen yet others have to weigh up difficult sacrifices

But the people who say they cannot afford a second child or a first even look at it through the lens of how they live now, right now. They don't factor in how what gives them pleasure now or even seem minimum bog standard way of existing, could be tweaked.
So both partners could look at careers not just the mother sacrificing hers. I live in an affluent part of London and I do hear often the phrase no one in London can afford more than two...interestingly this is more often from the professional double income families; and they don't appear to me to live especially frugally, they buy nice clothes, do up their houses, pay people to do DIY, go on holiday. They enjoy life but they will say they cannot afford another, because they feel it would compromise the time and resources for the existing children...so it isnt exactly about selfishness more this works why would we rock the boat?
And tbh I blame the men who are usually overly cautious, in most cases the women would love another but the men are not prepared to tweak their careers or their lifestyle.
It's a biological urge to have kids. This may be unpopular but I think men tend to apply rational logical over ride to what is a natural instinct on the part of women. I have witnessed this sort of talk from many many men.

Yes @Nettleskeins you’ve described me and my partner as we are in London and a professional double income family. I would not say we cannot afford a second, more like I do not want to rock the boat as you say, and reduce quality of life (financially, energy etc) for my first. Funny enough the couples in my area who do want a second, usually it’s the man and the woman is not so keen.

Maybe SHE knows the man isn't going to help enough...

It's also a generational hangover, our parents might also think it "feckless" to have too many or even get pregnant in the first place, too early, not enough resources in place, get a career in place etc, and this is instilled to such an extent it's difficult to shake off. Then you get the surreal point at which the "grandparents" are suddenly desperate for grandchildren and disappointed there arent more, why have you left it so late etc.? I could tell anecdote after anecdote, some extremely sad, on this subject.

The repercussions for the wannabe parents in this generation were sad, I mean.

I think women are right to feel complete rage that they have somehow been made responsible for this situation, made to feel they have to deliver on both wages, childcare, personal development and for some reason lost in the mists of time men are being hard done by and forced to "provide' for unnecessary extra children and lose leisure time/downtime.

I also feel that the financial buffer that you need these days incase things go to s*it is greater than it would have been I'm previous generations... Our mortgage payments are higher and then there's the higher cost of utilities/food etc, and the job market feels more precarious due to AI and shifts in the economy after Brexit. DH and I survived layoffs at our employer by a whisker during COVID and it really gave me the willies...

In a different economy I would have felt more comfortable financially winging it and being a bit broke for a few years in order to have a larger family (I have one DC, ideally would have liked 3) or using credit cards more liberally, or being a SAHM with a little bit of freelance work here and there. But today it feels like things could unravel like a house of cards much faster.

As it happens, we are managing ok and we will be able to afford a holiday this year, and I can afford to get my hair done now and again and buy new work clothes etc. people probably look at me and think I've only got one child so that I can continue to enjoy a certain "lifestyle" but it's really not that simple. I would happily forgo those things for a few years in order to have a bigger family. But I don't want to put myself in a financially precarious situation to have more kids. I don't think financial stability is a luxury or something self-indulgent.

And yes, we could leave London and live somewhere cheaper but our jobs are here, as are our extended family. If either DH or I lost our jobs we could pretty easily bounce to something else in our respective fields in London, but even with remote working I feel like we'd be taking a punt if we left London altogether. A lot of jobs in our fields DO still require you to show your face at least twice a week in the office. There is an illusion of choice with remote work on a lot of industries. The idea you can just leave high cost areas and go remote with your career doesn't work for all people in all industries, although I am sure it works out really well for some.

Who you have kids with is the most important decision in having kids.

Get the right and you can usually work things out together.

DH and I survived layoffs at our employer by a whisker during COVID and it really gave me the willies...

Lack of employment stability is also a factor I feel - DH HE sector seems to expects them to move round till mid 30 when permanent jobs start to become possible. These days that two careers and possible kids being catered round combined with a high work load in first few years.

I do get what PP means about parents generation - my IL who ad DH young were horrified when we had first at 28/30 as we hadn't bought house - though we saved a substantial deposit in few years after education finished - they though we wait another decade.

I think given economics a decade later we may have had none at all and as kids were a drive to get settled and get on housing ladder we'd have likely been in a worse economic position and running out of fertile years. Plus kids financial independence would be very close to our retirement years.

How can you work it out though?

High housing costs are really screwing this up for people at the moment. And also the lack of housing - it's not necessarily possible for people to choose cheaper housing which would be one way to economize.

That being said, I also think people need to realize that the idea that having kids should not mean that they will have to make some level of sacrifices in the career of one parent is unrealistic. For some careers, usually ones that are less demanding, that might work, but chances are that a family will not be able to have two high input careers and maintain exactly the same career progression, or pension outcomes for both careers, if there are kids. If they are set on that they will have to be paying out for significant childcare expenses, maybe even a nanny.

No one can do everything, so people have to decide what is most important to them.

The only way for this to work is one partner being WFH and look after the little one.

Most companies don’t allow it

And how are they going to know? Personal life is none of their beeswax. Also I don't think this is true, my ex MIL worked from home while her LO was about.

I think that part of the hesitation people have is that they don’t realise that their spending will change significantly after having kids - my bank statement now reads like a directory of supermarkets and soft play centres. Gone are the regular meals out with friends, eating out at lunchtime at work, new clothes several times a month, expensive make up, nails, salon visits etc. Spending on myself is now very minimal. We have three young kids, born 2.5 years apart so that the older had finished in paid childcare by the time the next one needed to start. My husband works shifts, his mum also helps a few days a month and I work part time to accommodate school hours. Our childcare bill is approx £300 a month. Cars are more focused on practical needs rather than street cred.

it’s a financial juggle but I have no regrets!

That’s true.

DH and I (together 20 years) have consistently never wanted kids, save for a few rare weeks here and there where we've briefly thought it might be nice to have just 1.
Were now 40 and 42 and absolutely won't be having any.
The costs of it all have definitely contributed hugely to keeping us on the
'No' side of the fence. We've been so careful to keep our outgoings low - doing up houses and relocating to make sure we don't overstretch ourselves. As such, our mortgage payments on our 4 bed detached house are only £500 a month.
It would therefore make us both physically ill to spend double-triple that on childcare a month for YEARS. And, as we don't live near family, we would need ongoing wrap around care and paid support through all school holidays - all the way until the child was 11. Fuck that!
Honestly, the things I want, but don't buy! Having a child would have to be my ultimate life goal, leaving me profoundly empty if I didn't achieve it, for me to be remotely interested in paying those sorts of costs.

Most employers don't allow this.

And it is obvious if someone is trying to do it - not being around for meetings, noise in the background, interruptions.

They know if your work performance drops, if they hear a baby crying over a teams call etc it can be very obvious.

I WFH and DS goes to nursery because I can’t imagine trying to do both at the same time but also because company policy says children under 12 need childcare.

You can mute the mic

Deadlines - if you get a piece of work to do at 9 that has to be returned by 5, and it is a day's work, you'd have to ignore your child for most of the day.

Online meetings and video/audio calls.

weird thing to be passionately against

Is it? It’s usually women who are trying to work plus also look after a child at the same time. It should never be an expectation.

Are you doing this?!

Yes, you get people trying to hide it but our work policy explicitly states you cannot be directly responsible for a child under 12 and/or a dependent elderly person whilst WFH. It's because it's too disruptive.

People occasionally do it in the event of a child being ill (which is different and we let them flex a bit in this case) and it is really really obvious the child is there.