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.

@CrispieCake lol I already have a GF of three years who was a virgin when we met (so was I) and we are going to plan on having kids next year.

I provide, pay the mortgage, I'll help my GF with the cooking and cleaning etc. I know that both parties need to work together in a relationship and I think some men need to be more independant and help out around the house.

But I would never wife up an onlyfans woman or a woman who has a history of sleeping around, its a huge turn off for me.

If we want more people to have children/people to have more children, we need to make having children easier at the critical times.

The average age gap between siblings is apparently just over 2 years. Most people who decide to have a second or third child will do it within a few years of having their last child. So this is when crucial decisions as to family size are being made.

If families are struggling financially and parents are exhausted during the first few years of their children's lives, some will limit their family size even if theoretically they would have liked more kids.

From a cynical perspective, improving maternity and postnatal care and throwing more resources at families with very young children is probably going to do more than targeting more resources at children and families generally. A family with a 10 and 8 year old probably aren't having another baby (some may, but probably the minority), whereas a family with a 5yo and 2yo might.

And again where are your stats on this? I understand your hatred of these sites but you seem fixated that this is the issue with population numbers and it's really not.

I think you're looking for logic and reason in the wrong place 😂.

Haha very true.

It’s not going to be clear-cut - some things might need to be means-tested like prescriptions, travel, tv licence - I just think it’s not good for the younger working age generation to be unemployed.

“wife up” - is that really a phrase?!

But if there are only so many hours in so many jobs to share around we should be splitting those hours fairly so that no one is worked into the ground and no one who is physically capable of work is unemployed claiming benefits. This would also help those with chronic illness and disabilities, as well as the aging but not old enough to retire yet to continue working in a sustainable way.

Agree and i am an older person! Think everyone should pay NI, the older generation use the NHS too so need to pay for it all their lives!

I don't have children (by circumstance). I would have liked to have had them. I feel so sorry and truly guilty about it. I hope that I can contribute to society in other ways, and I would definitely be happy to accept assisted dying as soon as I have nothing more to contribute. I hate the idea of being a burden on anyone.

We will just return to a society where the grown up children will have to care for their parents as in traditional societies, as the pension system will break down, their is no way to save it.
This will incentivise women to have children to look after them in old age and the birthrate will recover.

@Londonmummy66 that's one of the most well thought out posts I've ever read on here. Completely agree.

@rriffraff You're not getting it - people are not going to give birth to have someone to 'look after them in their old age'

They will be working full time.

They will barely be affording their own housing, energy food and transport costs.

They will be far away - maybe in another country.

The elderly are going to have use their own resources to look after themselves and each other.

Their children will refuse, quite sensibly.

As parents are so often told 'build a village' - that would be the best solution - retired groups helping each other, which already happens.

The elderly also need to do things to help themselves - and this includes moving to a flat/supported accommodation well before it is necessary - and clearing out their homes/freeing up capital to support themselves. So many choose to struggle in oversized homes that they cannot maintain or afford - you could get innovative and have au pairs for the elderly - providing some basic care, shopping, company for housing or even people living together to receive care at a central hub.

As for 'traditional' societies - they were not always as caring as people like to imagine and the practice of senicide was found in several societies.

The point however
unlike pensioners of today and many people who worked for many years before 2018 at least now employers must pay in.

The Govn at least are recognising now the need for that.

Therefore
Its much better than a system of nothing before

This is entirely on the assumption that there aren’t enough jobs to go around
Yet we are employing abroad every year.

Those with chronic illnesses, age related illnesses and disabilities that affect their ability to work at all or full time obviously are not and never have been within the same category

So I think as we get to that 2067 point I believe the Govn may well start means testing.

Particularly if the welfare budget hasn’t reduced and tax money hasn’t risen
Im not saying it’s right, I’m just pointing out the consequences of a reduced population unable to pay for everything.

There’s so much talk about assisted dying but tbh we don’t even need to do that.
We just need to stop intervening quite as much when people are very old.

Examples I have personally experienced…. nursing home resident in their late 90’s went into an arrhythmia (dangerous heart rythym that left alone would have been fatal) - cardiologist bowed to family demand to insert a pacemaker, necessitating in an ICU admission.
Multiple ICU admissions of people in their late 80’s where high risk procedures have been done to try to buy a couple more years at very poor quality of life.
We’ve all got to die of something….

Well but that wealth is going somewhere.
Either (as is often the case) the house needs to be sold to pay for care costs. Fair enough. But in those cases it is increasingly likely to be bought up by Blackstone or another investment/PE. (Who then profit from the houses continuing to grow in value).
Or it doesn't need to be sold to pay for care costs. Either because the parents don't need old age care or because they are wealthy enough/canny enough with finances not to need to. In which case the children inherit and most likely the house gets sold. Again increasingly to landlords or PE. Either way the share of ordinary people able to buy a house decreases.

Yes some people will be lucky enough to inherit. Other people won't, either because there is nothing to inherit or because it goes in care costs. It's a lottery and while it's always been a lottery I think that because house prices are so high the amount of money that could theoretically be inherited is more than people can earn. It's not a great situation really. Both from a rising inequality perspective, and from a social cohesion perspective. It's not uncommon to fall out with family over inheritance but it's so much worse when, for example, your brother inheriting everything means you won't ever get on the housing ladder. It sounds horribly mercenary. But people want to have stable homes for their own children and if their own wages can't provide that it's off-putting.

Basically the housing market throws everything of. And if it's not dealt with it's going to get worse not better. And I do think it impacts birthrates.

Wow
The answer is to not treat the elderly !!! and just leave them to die. How awful this thought is

and people disagreed with my thoughts on suggesting people work full time.
Im hoping that’s clearly in perspective now

Birth and death rates are practically equal
Eg 2023
births 591,072
deaths 581,363
Population increase 706,900
The increase is down to immigration.

@DrPrunesqualer for heavens sake of course I’m not suggesting we dont treat the elderly at. I’m just suggesting that when someone who is very old suffers a terminal event, we just allow them to die in peace and dignity. Not keep them alive at any cost (and no I don’t mean monetary cost before you come at me with that) to live an ever decreasing quality of life.

This is entirely on the assumption that there aren’t enough jobs to go around
Yet we are employing abroad every year.
This is because corporations are wedded to recruiting from abroad rather than training young people who may take time and effort to train.

Often the deeper issues are things like cost of living, childcare availability, and work-life balance—not just financial incentives.