To think that whilst maternity & paternity leave is so crap women don’t have choice?

[guardiansofthegalaxychocs]

Read this very upbeat article in the guardian that suggests that it should be celebrated that more women are choosing to be child free. I have absolutely no issue with women choosing to be child free…. But I really struggle with the idea that women can truly have a choice whilst the cost of living is so insanely high, neither paid breaks (maternity, paternity etc) nor subsidised childcare are remotely adequate. We also know that high numbers of women experience terrible discrimination in the workplace.

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Then we can truly celebrate that women have choice.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/if-youre-childless-at-30-and-that-is-your-choice-isnt-that-something-we-should-applaud?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NjWennDmPh-zgXOWGnOdWklLz0V6Qvhic23dZzah6laqbUKeELvDpWVg#Echobox=1643540688

But not the planet’s benefit, which ultimately affects whether our country will even exist in centuries to come. It is much more sustainable in a global sense to have the current low birth rate and take in immigrants from countries with high birth rates. The ideal end result is a planet with a 2.1 birth rate (zero growth, replacement rate). We should not be encouraging extra babies while the planet has a growth birth rate.

@EmpressCixi - But surely that approach would not work as the highest birth rates are in some of the poorest regions in the world. All that would happen would be a constant stream of huge families from those places, struggling to support themselves, while people in better-off countries would be discouraged from having any children at all?

As the demographics change and we continue to fund the bow wave of boomers, more and more will be paid via corporate taxes than by taxing workers incomes.

and yet income tax is going up soon

@CounsellorTroi

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Are you saying grandparents should get paid for looking after their grandchildren?

Are you prepared to pay more tax for these subsidies, because someone will have to.

Including the grandparents as many of us pay tax too.

By global comparison, the UK ranks well for paid maternity leave.

American women have just a couple of months paid leave

Obviously financial considerations are part of planning for children. But I don’ think people
use maternity leave as a reason not to have them. I am not that bothered about having them, though did think I was pregnant a while ago and researched options. My work offers full pay for three months, I would have taken that and then gone back. Having to do this would not have put me off having the child, the fact I live I in a one bed flat was much more of a concern. Some women are financially able to take a year off-that’s very generous compared to some countries and I am not sure if it is a good idea for the tax payer to subsidise more than it does already. Child care is extortionate, however the providers do have to pay costs and make a bit of money, the only way the government could subsidise this more than they do with the 15/30 free hours a week is to raise taxes significantly, most of the electorate are against this yet expect Nordic style services from an American taxation model.

All that would happen would be a constant stream of huge families from those places, struggling to support themselves, while people in better-off countries would be discouraged from having any children at all?

plus why will all the immigrants want to come here? plenty of other countries will be desperate for them too.

I do think far more women who might, without social pressure and penalty, choose not to have children, go ahead and do so because of social conditioning and pressure to become mothers. But we can’t prove that quantifiably either.

Yes. Also years ago before reliable contraception or safe abortion many women had children because they effectively had no choice but to have them . Resulting in many unhappy and dysfunctional childhoods.n

I'm American and I had four months of fully paid leave with an additional two months of part-time leave. I am reading this thread with interest. Personally, I do not think I would have enjoyed going on maternity pay with such low benefits. We could not have afforded them at that time in our lives. I think it is good that you have that option, but I don't know if I would want to feel pressured into taking that option. I understand why this is a complex issue all around--something has to be sacrificed somewhere. Someone has to pay. The government, the parents, somebody. It's tough.

[quote lykkelaa]@ComtesseDeSpair

why do you think people aren't having dc because they can't afford them? [/quote]
I’m sure most people - quite correctly, IMO - base their decision on how many children they have on whether they afford to have the sort of lifestyle they would like with e.g. three as with two. That’s not the same as somebody who would really like children having to come decide not to have them simply because of finding maternity leave and pay too low. I genuinely don’t believe very many people at all fall into that category.

Interestingly the data shows that we're having fewer children than we want. You don't have to view that as a negative thing to think it's worth thinking critically about why.

@lykkelaa

I also don't agree that the solution to an ever-increasing aging population is to have ever-increasing numbers of babies.

@MabelsApron I think you are confused. Who is suggesting an ever increasing number of babies? The birth rate is well below replacement level. The median age is already 40. Do you really think there is no impact of having a population that is made up of only older people?

It's basic maths. The more non-working elderly people there are, the more working age taxpayers are needed to sustain them. As you say, there is a huge impact to having a population made up of only older people. We're heading into a crisis because we're all living longer, and the birth rate is below replacement level.

The answer to that, on MN, is to encourage women to have more babies - replacement level and above. It's used as a justification all the time by those who have or want large families.

That is a problem. The answer to an ever-increasing number of elderly people cannot be to increase the amount of working age people, because all that means is when those people become elderly, we will need even more working age people to support them.

We need a different way of doing things. Voluntary euthanasia is coming sooner or later (I hope - that's my plan) but in general we need to consider planet growth limits far more than we are right now.

The median age is already 40.

@lykkelaa
? That’s got more to do with increased life span than an “ageing population”. When the life expectancy is around 80yrs old (as it is), yeah the median age is going to be about 40.

The more non-working elderly people there are, the more working age taxpayers are needed to sustain them.

@MabelsApron
Not necessarily via pressuring women into having babies. We have gone through inverted demographics the periods so this is not impossible. Take for example the entire generation of young people (men) wiped out in WWI supporting the elderly of that time.

Immigration is a valid way to import more workers. Taxing corporations to pay for elder care is also commonly used.

We need a different way of doing things. Voluntary euthanasia is coming sooner or later

God I hope not. I think automation and robotics is going to help moreso than killing off our elderly Logan’s Run style.

@EmpressCixi

We need a different way of doing things. Voluntary euthanasia is coming sooner or later

God I hope not. I think automation and robotics is going to help moreso than killing off our elderly Logan’s Run style.

An increasing number of people have had the experience of seeing their elderly grandparents and parents declining with e.g. dementia in care homes, barely aware of their surroundings or who any of their visitors are, and are very clear that they don’t want that for themselves. I don’t care if we can develop robots capable of wiping my backside and spoon feeding me when I’ve lost my marbles (a pretty grim thought in itself), I don’t want to be alive like that at all.

It's basic maths. The more non-working elderly people there are, the more working age taxpayers are needed to sustain them. As you say, there is a huge impact to having a population made up of only older people. We're heading into a crisis because we're all living longer, and the birth rate is below replacement level.

I agree there is a crisis coming because the issue has been ignored &birth rates have been declining for some time.

The answer to that, on MN, is to encourage women to have more babies - replacement level and above. It's used as a justification all the time by those who have or want large families.

Recognising that we need some dc plus some other things eg immigration, automation doesn't equal quick everyone have 7 babies 🙄

@EmpressCixi

the median age of a population shows the age distribution of a population. A higher median means more older people. Hence why countries with older populations suffered more with covid.

Niger has a median of 15, fyi life expectancy is not 30!

There's many reasons women choose not to have kids and money isn't one of them - plenty of families have children on very low incomes. I think many these days don't want to change their lifestyles which having children with necessitate, not strictly money related

Honestly improving maternity pay is so far down the list of priorities that it rightly isn't on anyone's radar.

Yes, Op, I think that Guardian article is kind of stupid. It's quite typical of some of their writers though to assume that if more women are forgoing having children, it's because they are somehow preferring to be childfree, (a very horrible term which no one would apply to any other group of people, rather than because they feel they can't have children because of their circumstances.

As far as why women with partners might not have children when they really might like to, cost of living is huge, and that would include things like access to childcare of some kind and adequate maternity leave. And personally I would also add that student debt may begin to factor in, lack of job security, and even the impossibility in many areas of one parent just leaving paid employment, or FT paid employment, for a number of years, which many people would prefer over FT childcare in the early years.

But I would not expect to see that article in The Guardian.

@EmpressCixi

We need a different way of doing things. Voluntary euthanasia is coming sooner or later

God I hope not. I think automation and robotics is going to help moreso than killing off our elderly Logan’s Run style.

The whole idea of reducing population by killing off the elderly is pretty horrific - talk about Quietus!

Made me think of this:

[quote lykkelaa]@EmpressCixi

the median age of a population shows the age distribution of a population. A higher median means more older people. Hence why countries with older populations suffered more with covid.

Niger has a median of 15, fyi life expectancy is not 30! [/quote]
Do you even know what a median is versus a mean? I do not think so by your comment.

I consider my maternity package fair and reasonable. I get up to a year off, 90% of my salary for at least 3 months then a smaller percentage which is topped up by SMP. Only the last 3 months are unpaid, and you have the option to spread it over 12 months if you wish. I can also accrue and carry over all my annual leave at full pay. That seems generous?

2 weeks paternity leave isn’t much but men can top it up with AL if they wish. And really it’s the mother recovering from the birth (often a process of many months), breastfeeding, often the one getting up in the night with the baby. Daytime groups and classes for babies are generally geared towards new mums not dads.

Most people I know carefully planned when would be a good time to raise a family, worked, saved up to cover any loss of earnings through Mat leave and don’t struggle financially to raise kids.

I also know lots of couples who decided one would become a SAHP after mat leave (usually the mum unless dad was the lower earner) therefore avoiding nursery fees and living on one salary until the SAHP could find a job to fit in with free nursery hours/school. Again they planned this before having kids.

Why is it the responsibility of the rest of us to subsidise parents? Surely it is the responsibility of would-be parents to calculate whether they can afford to have children! Which often means making a choice between a family and other worldly goods.

@Jaxhog

Why is it the responsibility of the rest of us to subsidise parents? Surely it is the responsibility of would-be parents to calculate whether they can afford to have children! Which often means making a choice between a family and other worldly goods.

The simple answer is that having children isn't a frivolous hobby - it is the thing that keeps the species from dying out. As such, it should be seen as a valuable societal contribution.

One thing is for sure - something fundamental is going to have to change over the next 100 years. Nationalism and a fear of 'foreigners' seems to be built into the human psyche such that most countries have punitive barriers against immigrants (not necessarily all immigrants but there are always some that are considered 'not worthy' or 'unwelcome.') It makes sense to balance out the world population, accept a lower birthrate here and bring people over from countries with a higher birthrate that struggles to support young people. But that's not how it works in practice - despite a desperate need for workers in many industries, countries choose to make it difficult and even dangerous for people to enter the country.

The obvious answer is to change that attitude but stupidly enough I don't think it will in any meaningful way. The more likely thing is that when low population really starts to bite (lack of workers, lack of taxes, lack of people to just keep the country functioning) the (male) powers that be will first start to encourage women to have more children and eventually start coercing them to do so. They will want true-born nationals, not filthy foreigners. And the women will have to do their duty and produce them, not matter how much that disadvantages them.

People can be flippant and dismissive of having children and say it's not the responsibility of the state to get involved. But have no doubt that the state will get involved if they feel that the status and future of the country is threatened.