Pondering the Birthrate Decline...

[Upsideyourhead]

Was just reading an article about this and wanted to get other people's views. The birthrate in the UK is at a record low, 1.44:

https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0745/

The Adam Smith Institute thinks the triple lock on pensions will be unsustainable by 2036, due to too few working people.

I haven't really seen this spoken about on here, in fact, it's normally the opposite: save the planet, have fewer kids, etc. Just wondering what people think about this and what they think the solution is. I'm pretty optimistic, so I'm focusing on the fact there might be more housing available for the kids we do have...

I feel like one of these three things has to happen, but can't work out which would be most popular:

1. Retired people from 2036 will have a raw deal when it comes to their pensions - they'll get far less than expected. There may be fewer workers to do, or willing to do, care work, so OAPs might physically suffer that way also. But that's the way it is, until the working age population can balance again, in a few generations time (assuming it doesn't decrease even more).
2. We will need to encourage and incentivise even more immigration, to get in workers to care for our old people (through tax and providing services)
3. Encourage more people to have children (e.g. South Korea offers cheaper mortgage rates to parents), although few countries have done this successfully.

As someone who will be retired in 25 years, I'm leaning towards 2 or 3. But perhaps the result will be a mixture of all three.

You're right I chose all of them but no one can predict if they'll have additional needs....that's down to pot luck. I am not upset he can step in. I don't have the best relationship with DM anyway...

No. 3 might work for some. Though many people i know have stopped at 1 child as they are exhausted or had a shit birth etc, or they are women who work and have the mental load as men aren’t catching up.

Personally you could not convince me to have a third child even if you paid off my mortgage, let alone just gave me a discount. We are telling people not to have kids unless they have money and lots of local support. And even then, it can be really shit.

I am also definitely for implementing assisted dying. I have no interest in being suffering in later years while tax payers pay a pension for me when I would rather leave on my terms if i get ill.

It's a turn of phrase....no need to nitpick! He has family yes in the form of other relatives ( he chooses not to visit).

If you're going to take that line on it, it's not like any of us chose to be born so that we could look after elderly parents. If you're only having kids so that they can wipe your backside when you get old, that's quite selfish and self-centred.

The other thing that irks on the paradigm is the assumption that daughters will be the ones looking after the elderly parents instead of the sons. And we're all expected to move for education and jobs, so tend not to live near parents as much as previous generations. And I don't know anyone whose parents decided to move nearer their adult children with a view to making support easier in the future. Everyone has lives, but people will young children are inevitably going to have less capacity for eldercare. Just the laws of physics I guess.

I'm finding that I'm now the generation where our parents are getting to the old, old stage. Very few people are looking at inheriting due to medical costs, the parents having been active in retirement, travelling the world and then being in care homes for years. There is nothing to inherit

Absolutely not!

We can't afford to. Our houses are smaller than theirs, we have less income than they do and quite frankly, forcing people to care for someone they don't have a good relationship with is just cruel. My parents had responsibility for me when I was a child. There is no obligation for me to look after them and there should not be.

But, raising the pension age is all well and good, but many of my friends (and me) are either unemployed, underemployed or soon to be laid off in their early 50s. It's so frustrating as we want to keep earning and contributing, but if employers are not interested, then we will just struggle for 20 years, then struggle more after official retirement because we are already considered too old to work.

Our whole economic model is messed up. We are paying a triple lock pension and most of our health and social care budget to the generation that worked the least - a young retirement age, many women barely economically productive once they married, and yet their longevity has increased exponentially so their retirement has been far longer than anticipated when the state pension was introduced and their medical and care needs are astronomical. Add to that that many in this generation were the beneficiaries of massive house price inflation and generous final salary pension schemes.

We are asking the next generation down to finance this despite knowing that for the majority of the population both partners in a couple need to work to afford the inflated house prices and will never enjoy the luxury of a final salary pension scheme. Right at the heart of this generation is the pinch point where even a higher earner can't necessarily afford children because the mortgage to house them is high, the costs of childcare are too high and the maternity pay too low. These higher earners are the ones paying a lot of tax and not getting any relief for pensions or childcare. Many of them are deciding not to have children as without children they can just about afford a reasonable lifestyle but with them they would be broke. Those that do often stop at one as the mother can't juggle any more/can't get any flex from their employers/ discovers the father is not stepping up as he said he would/worried the father with bugger off and leave her holding the baby and possibly wriggle out of paying proper child support.

Just below them are the members of the same generation who fall below the £100k cliff face and who might be able to get by with one child due to the childcare benefits etc - but that is going to be very tight so they will stop at one. Some of the mothers will have similar issues with feckless/useless fathers and inflexible employers.

At the bottom of the generation are those who haven't worked, haven't paid in and have their rent paid, childcare benefits etc - historically a decent chunk of them would have had larger families (at a significant cost to the state) except that the 2 child cap now makes them think twice about that.

The solution we are currently adopting is not to encourage the non contributors to do the low paid but essential jobs but to rely on immigration to plug the gap, The problem is that, contrary to political wisdom, those economic migrants are also net takers - the tax they pay to do the low paid jobs is not enough to cover the cost of their use of public services.

It is unsustainable to expect the two squeezed brackets to fund everyone else and then want them to have children as well.

Yeah but that really wasn't the main point was it? The point was you think it's fair that your brother shoulders the main burden of seeing to your parents simply because you chose to move away and have kids.

I agree with this.

And if her brother is anything like mine he will think its fair that the main burden of dealing with elderly parents should fall on her because she's a girl and that is girl's work.

No it's not relevant in the slightest. Your life choices don't trump his. It's also a very poor assumption to make that someone's life is 'time rich' purely because they don't have children for example I do 3 lots of volunteering but my friends and relatives are only aware of one. I work long hours which I don't moan about so they aren't aware that I work well into the evenings and don't always have a lunch break etc etc. it's an assumption that many parents have of the childless and it's definitely not always true. It's also quite a hurtful assumption as it's basically saying we don't have anything in our lives.

Full working week = more pay= reduced reliance on UC= reduction in welfare spending=gain to tax man.

Agree
I think it’s bound to happen though

I think the African population is going to double by mid-century – just as climate change is causing chaos.

We also need to remember that the world's population has exploded since 1900. In 1900 there were just a billion people. Today there are eight billion.

I think the African population is going to double by mid-century – just as climate change is causing chaos.

Yeah, there will be mass migration. Which in many senses sounds ideal because it would solve the 'declining population' issues in the rest of the world. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out it will cause lots of problems.

Nothing would persuade me to have another. Im a mid earner and dh is high earner. Its too much bloody work !

I’d like to pick 1 of your choices, but my gut thinks there is a reason our government has started looking into an assisted dying bill. Although I’m pro assisted dying as I’ve watched people suffer and have a degenerative illness myself, I think the fears people have around it might come true and unless elderly people are rich they might have themselves led down that route. I would hope that wouldn’t happen though. But we live in quite a cruel society now.

People aren't that interested as I think the average poster is older.

I asked AI to calculate how many jobs are available in the UK compared to unemployed, incuding disabled people who want to work.
The answer was 1 job for every 2.7 people.
That's assuming every job goes to an unemployed person.
My husband is employed with a good work history, he needs to change jobs, and has applied for around 6 recently, he had two interviews. The jobs went to people with slightly more experience.
How can the unemployed get into work when most jobs are taken by people already in work, looking to change jobs.
There aren't enough jobs for everyone.

@Londonmummy66 absolutely, it's a mess.

By 2067 ( based on the current pension age ) the newly retired will have had the benefit of employer contributions to pensions. So the majority of pensioners won’t be as reliant on the state pension as mush as they are now. This may lead at that point to some form of means testing ( I’m not saying I agree I just think it could happen at that point )

I thought the current pensioners have better private pensions than future generations

It was in 2018 that employer contributions became compulsory.
so those born in 2000 and after will be the first generation to have that benefit during their entire working lives

Hence 2067 ( based on current pension age )

@DrPrunesqualer but my point was pensions may be compulsory (they aren't, you can't still opt out) but contributions are low & final salary schemes don't exist anymore.

For example my company closed their final salary scheme to newer entrants whilst I was at uni.