Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

‘It’s not a nice world to bring children into’ - Births fall to the lowest level in 50 years - BBC article

131 replies

OneBusyFinch · 03/06/2026 10:35

Just reading this article and don’t think I’ve seen a thread on it.

More people are having fewer children - and it’s not just the UK, the data shows it’s a worldwide trend. Interesting reading the different perspectives.

A photograph of Stacey Waring wearing a red top standing in a barn. She is by herself wearing dark sunglasses on her head and smiling at the camera.

'It's not a nice world out there': Birth rates hit a 50-year low

Live births in England and Wales are at their lowest since 1977, while the age of first-time mothers has also risen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzdq23xpgo

OP posts:
SparklyHam · 03/06/2026 14:28

Badbadbunny · 03/06/2026 14:15

It's different, but not easier.

Typically both parents now need to work, often both having to work full time. A few decades ago, many mothers were SAHM and many were part time. House price inflation and other inflationary pressures have caused this. Of course, being a parent is going to be harder if you're out at work for several hours per day and need things that SAHM don't such as wraparound care, driving kids to/from school, paying for childcare costs, etc.

The drain of decent jobs into London mean more than ever people need to move away from their home towns just to get decent jobs, so they lose their family backup for support/childcare, etc. Fewer and fewer people now have "Aunt Mabel" living round the corner to call on in case help/support is needed.

The requirement to work has led people to decide not to have children or to have fewer children. Of course, those living on benefits don't have this problem as they're not going out to work, not having to take/bring kids to/from school by car, getting subsidised housing etc. That's why workers are having fewer kids but benefit claimants havn't seen the same drop in birth numbers.

Gone are the days when there were local schools. Lots of smaller schools have closed down and been merged into bigger schools, typically no longer in walking distance of lots of peoples' homes, meaning car transport is required to/from, at virtually the same time as most work places start/finishing times so causing stress and extra congestion (also causing stress).

Cost of childcare is ruinously expensive. Now it's mostly private firms, they charge more for the "profit" element, whereas a few decades ago, childcare was often from the local council so was effectively priced "at cost", therefore much cheaper.

As for when kids are older, jobs were far easier to find for school kids and school leavers. There were "corner" shops everywhere, milkmen, pop vans, cafes, boarding houses, etc., all of whom would often have "Saturday" girl/boy jobs for the busiest day of the week, or early morning/evening delivery rounds, or boarding house cleaning/room change jobs during the holidays etc. Pubs/restaurants had "pot washers" and other low skilled jobs for youngsters to earn a bit of pocket money and set them up for "proper" jobs in the future. All that's gone now that everything is "big business". Supermarkets, chain restaurants, Amazon warehouses, Travelodge, etc don't take on "Saturday girls" nor school kids during school holidays. Of course, the H&S regulations make that worse as we now have age restrictions for particular kinds of work and requirements for council permission on a "person" basis before you can employ a school kid. That has led to some of the social exclusion, mental health, inability to function in a workplace, problems as having a "bit job" was a rite of passage for most youngsters a few decades ago, but now they're sat in their bedrooms isolated from human contact. In turn that causes stress/anxiety for parents and means lots don't "launch" and stay at home longer. That background leads to people having another reason not to have kids.

And that's only my first few thoughts. I could go on.! (Please don't you say!).

Typically, most WC mothers years ago were also working. Cleaning/pub jobs in the evening were common.

Or had numerous DC at home. Or were working withnumerous DC at home.

Social media has this weird idea that 'back in the day' everyone was a SAHM and women in WC families on the whole were not or if they were, it was because of the sheer number of DC.

And they spent their days dealing with numerous kids, often non-disposable nappies, no modern washing machines, no supermarkets or deliveries and so on and so on.

They weren't propped up by benefits or wrap around care by the state.

They didn't have time to post on the Internet about how annoying it was having a toddler being a toddler or how they should be sympathised with because 'Mum guilt' or had no time to themselves.

EasternStandard · 03/06/2026 14:30

Badbadbunny · 03/06/2026 14:26

Yet the incentives and support often seem to be geared more towards the ones we don't want to be reproducing!

I think politically this is difficult, on mn I assume there would be backlash but maybe enough would agree quietly.

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 15:13

If you want women to have more children, it's very simple: take away our choices. Take away access to education, contraception, employment, and control of their own money. Take away their freedom to live their own life without ostracism or worse from 'elders'. Take away their ability to say 'Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'. Make them poor, and dependent on men.

Giving us free childcare, and tax cuts for having children and all the rest simply won't work. Look at countries with all these things and you will see that the fertility rate is still plummeting.

Turns out many women don't particularly want to have children, they just had no choice in the matter in the past.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Sunglade · 03/06/2026 15:41

Part of it is choices when given the choice fewer people want to have children..another big element is cost, the majority of people can't afford to even have a good quality of life themselves, let alone give a good quality life to a child, and modern day work is very demanding mentally and timewise which takes away your ability to also support a family. It's often actually easier to have your own family if you don't work and receive government support, as raising a family is so time and energy consuming and doing it with other people's money is waaaay easier..will you have a flashy lifestyle? No, but you also won't be clawing your way through the week trying to do 30-40 hours of work on top of child rearing.

LlynTegid · 03/06/2026 15:45

I think income and housing are probably the main factors in most cases. I'd like to think that for some of those who have not had a family, it's also because of two other things- the greater acceptance in the west at least of LGBT people (so no 'lavender' marriages), and also because more women won't just accept any man but have some standards.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 15:50

Turns out many women don't particularly want to have children, they just had no choice in the matter in the past

I do think for the ones who do have dc many would have liked another but felt finances were too tight etc

footbeds · 03/06/2026 15:54

They weren't propped up by benefits or wrap around care by the state

@SparklyHam what time period are you referring to? Because in the past many of those families you are describing would have been propped up by social housing….

HenriettaHenhouse · 03/06/2026 15:57

MaturingCheeseball · 03/06/2026 13:37

Nice one. You will be gone, but are happy for millions of low-skilled net takers to be “shuffled” here.

In pre-Brexit EU immigrants as a whole were net contributors to the UK.

Not all immigrants are net takers....we've just idiotically created a situation in the UK where they are more likely to be so now.

HenriettaHenhouse · 03/06/2026 16:01

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 15:13

If you want women to have more children, it's very simple: take away our choices. Take away access to education, contraception, employment, and control of their own money. Take away their freedom to live their own life without ostracism or worse from 'elders'. Take away their ability to say 'Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'. Make them poor, and dependent on men.

Giving us free childcare, and tax cuts for having children and all the rest simply won't work. Look at countries with all these things and you will see that the fertility rate is still plummeting.

Turns out many women don't particularly want to have children, they just had no choice in the matter in the past.

@FernandoSor Turns out many women don't particularly want to have children, they just had no choice in the matter in the past.

Absolutely true. One of the biggest, if not the biggest drop in the UK birthrate was the year after the pill became freely available on the NHS.

OneBusyFinch · 03/06/2026 16:07

HenriettaHenhouse · 03/06/2026 16:01

@FernandoSor Turns out many women don't particularly want to have children, they just had no choice in the matter in the past.

Absolutely true. One of the biggest, if not the biggest drop in the UK birthrate was the year after the pill became freely available on the NHS.

Spot on - just looked at my copy of ‘call the midwife’ by the amazing Jennifer Worth and this was her quote about the pill

“The Pill was introduced in the early 1960s and modern woman was born. Women were no longer going to be tied to the cycle of endless babies; they were going to be themselves. With the Pill came what we now call the sexual revolution. Women could, for the first time in history, be like men, and enjoy sex for its own sake. In the late 1950s we had eighty to a hundred deliveries a month on our books. In 1963 the number had dropped to four or five a month. Now that is some social change!”

OP posts:
BerryTwister · 03/06/2026 16:21

Peonies12 · 03/06/2026 13:58

Good, and hopefully the trend will continue

I agree.
There are far too many people on the planet.
I never understand the belief that we need to keep having kids to support the elderly who are living longer. If we keep having kids, those kids will become elderly, and they'll need more kids too, and eventually there will literally be standing room only on the planet! Better to slow down growth now, and eventually it'll all even out.

crackofdoom · 03/06/2026 16:25

Badbadbunny · 03/06/2026 14:26

Yet the incentives and support often seem to be geared more towards the ones we don't want to be reproducing!

Classist, much?

I'm a single mum to 2 DC, and yes, I claim benefits (whilst working). I've just been talking on another thread about DS1 studying engineering in September.

So, are we deserving or undeserving? 🤔

There seems to be a school of thought on MN that any parents in receipt of benefits are only going to "pop out" future criminals and drug dealers, and are congenitally unable to raise decent human beings.

All poor people are criminals, evidently 🙄

crackofdoom · 03/06/2026 16:32

BerryTwister · 03/06/2026 16:21

I agree.
There are far too many people on the planet.
I never understand the belief that we need to keep having kids to support the elderly who are living longer. If we keep having kids, those kids will become elderly, and they'll need more kids too, and eventually there will literally be standing room only on the planet! Better to slow down growth now, and eventually it'll all even out.

It will even itself out, and in the long run could indeed be a positive development, but we need to be having an open conversation on what that looks like for society, and how to support our older people while the tax base to do just that declines.

Constantly slagging off young people and bringing in policies to their detriment (I read, for example, that the demographic most opposed to subsidies on public transport for young people is the over 65s, who of course get free bus passes themselves!) isn't going to cut it.

We need to support and value the generations on whose shoulders this burden is going to lie heaviest.

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 16:33

BerryTwister · 03/06/2026 16:21

I agree.
There are far too many people on the planet.
I never understand the belief that we need to keep having kids to support the elderly who are living longer. If we keep having kids, those kids will become elderly, and they'll need more kids too, and eventually there will literally be standing room only on the planet! Better to slow down growth now, and eventually it'll all even out.

It will only 'even out' if birthrate stabilises at replacement rate. There is no evidence that this will happen. Birthrate is below replacement rate now, and continuing to fall. The only reason that population has not decreased (yet) is because of increases in longevity and net immigration.

So here's what happens with the current scenario (assuming net immigration does not take up the slack):

  1. Birthrate decreases, which means that the population of working age people decreases
  2. Meanwhile, the population of retired people carries on increasing, lagging the decrease in working age people by at least a generation
  3. Working age people are increasingly called upon to support the burgeoning retired population - either directly, via e.g. helping elderly parents, or indirectly, via taxes. Schools and facilities for children and young people close, because there is not enough demand for them.
  4. Working age people feel increasingly unable to have children, and therefore the birthrate decreases even further.

Basically, once you get into the situation of birthrate falling below replacement rate it's a death spiral - there is pretty much no way to get back up to replacement rate.

YoBetty · 03/06/2026 16:33

I look on globally falling birth rates as a positive thing. Planet Earth can only sustain so many human beings.

Aside from that, it doesn't seem to have occurred to the hand-wringers who wrote that article that perhaps at long last many more women are now more likely to be in charge of their own destiny and whether or not they get pregnant in the first place. And they are actively choosing to have fewer children as a result. My grandmother was the youngest of 12. I don't suppose my great-grandmother had any choice in the matter.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:33

There are far too many people on the planet.
I never understand the belief that we need to keep having kids to support the elderly who are living longer. If we keep having kids, those kids will become elderly, and they'll need more kids too, and eventually there will literally be standing room only on the planet! Better to slow down growth now, and eventually it'll all even out.

Is anyone advocating for baby booms? A softer landing would be better, we already have more over 65s than under 20 yr olds. It’s not economic or progressive to have only older people in a society because it’s a dying one.

Twinklefeet · 03/06/2026 16:34

I dont have children never wanted or needed them end of story.

Monty36 · 03/06/2026 16:35

BerryTwister · 03/06/2026 16:21

I agree.
There are far too many people on the planet.
I never understand the belief that we need to keep having kids to support the elderly who are living longer. If we keep having kids, those kids will become elderly, and they'll need more kids too, and eventually there will literally be standing room only on the planet! Better to slow down growth now, and eventually it'll all even out.

Completely right. What is needed are indeed fewer people. And a readjustment of what money is spent on.
That is for both the UK and globally.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:35

Basically, once you get into the situation of birthrate falling below replacement rate it's a death spiral - there is pretty much no way to get back up to replacement rate.

@FernandoSor exactly and a society that has more older people votes for policies that benefit them which further fastens the death spiral.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:36

Completely right. What is needed are indeed fewer people. And a readjustment of what money is spent on.

We need to scrap the triple lock and means test the state pension now. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

And also move to a European model for healthcare

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 16:37

crackofdoom · 03/06/2026 16:32

It will even itself out, and in the long run could indeed be a positive development, but we need to be having an open conversation on what that looks like for society, and how to support our older people while the tax base to do just that declines.

Constantly slagging off young people and bringing in policies to their detriment (I read, for example, that the demographic most opposed to subsidies on public transport for young people is the over 65s, who of course get free bus passes themselves!) isn't going to cut it.

We need to support and value the generations on whose shoulders this burden is going to lie heaviest.

How will it even out? To stabilise the population (absent immigration) we would have to get the fertility rate from the current 1.76 up to the replacement rate of 2.1. I just can't see how that would ever happen.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:38

I just can't see how that would ever happen.

Not one single country has managed it despite fairly big incentives. There’s a culture shift when birth rates fall.

crackofdoom · 03/06/2026 16:40

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 16:37

How will it even out? To stabilise the population (absent immigration) we would have to get the fertility rate from the current 1.76 up to the replacement rate of 2.1. I just can't see how that would ever happen.

I'm talking in terms of centuries, rather than decades tbh. And anyone who thinks that they are going to be easy centuries is deluded.

We (the West) could mitigate the effects temporarily by allowing more immigration, but eventually the supply of younger workers will dry up.

FernandoSor · 03/06/2026 16:42

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:38

I just can't see how that would ever happen.

Not one single country has managed it despite fairly big incentives. There’s a culture shift when birth rates fall.

Right - that's why I called it a death spiral.

Here's an interesting fact - over 4000 schools have closed in South Korea, due to lack of demand. So even if you do want to have children, there's the additional barrier of having to relocate to somewhere that still has a school open within a reasonable distance. We are seeing the same in my county with small village schools closing - and it is a much bigger problem in London where many schools have closed or are slated for closure.

footbeds · 03/06/2026 16:47

Yes, I work with schools. The falling rolls are eye opening particularly as the funding model means other pupils are impacted.

You are correct about Korea, I was reading about a couple who wanted a child but the hospital was miles away and no playgrounds etc near them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread