the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

[MermaidCheeks]

Who exactly do this lot think are going to be looking after them in hospitals and care homes when they're elderly and infirm?

If only those who could really afford to have kids had them - a decreasing well-off demographic -we'd be even more fucked than we already are.

Immigration is not a long-term solution when 80% of elderly are going to be spread across low and middle-affluent countries by 2050, either. Every country is going to need their own citizens.

Instead of resenting people who need their wages topped-up by the government in order to afford having a couple of kids - maybe embrace those who are making sacrifices to have kids at all, especially in the face of the overwhelming decrease in value that society and successive governments have placed on the role of raising children.

@DottyPeacock

Whilst it may seem like I'm gushing about Denmark, Sweden etc. I'm not at all and appreciate that they're not utopian countries and have their own problems. Nowhere is perfect and they don't necessarily need to be. However, the approach to capitalism can be changed and the size of country is largely irrelevant. The USA just has a "fuck you" attitude to people in general so you simply cannot argue that population size is a factor.

Sorry but the USA doesn't even give women maternity leave. That's seriously messed up. They hated the idea of Obama Care as most Americans just don't want to look after the poor.

Finland pioneered the Housing First homeless program AFAIK and have almost eliminated homelessness. The USA has dabbled in it but there are people actively willing it not to work.

I simply don't understand how you can't see that the fabric and quality of a society shapes our attitudes towards the system and others.

There are numerous women here who have been let down by the UK system in all areas of health, finance and welfare. I can pretty much guarantee that their attitudes would be more positive if the government looked after them properly.

Totally agree with this. I think the vast majority do. The problem comes when it's a specific mum/dad/Gran in question rather than a generic group of old people. Look at the covid lockdown response.... not even sociopath BJ could stick to the natural order because it was political suicide. Hence all that drama & effort to save the 80+ yr olds from dying. Removing even more of their dignity by not allowing visitors etc instead of allowing families to make choices that actually 95yo Gran would prefer to see her children and if she catches covid then so be it.
The rest of us will be paying for it for decades.

@turbonerd

Thanks

Sorry you had to leave the UK but glad to hear you've been looked after. I agree that this country needs some serious reform but sadly our government cow tows to big corporations and the rich.

Kowtows!

i don’t think only the rich should have children, but overall I guess my opinion falls somewhere in the middle of the two extreme. You generally do have to cut your cloth according to your means, and if having more than one or two children will push your family into poverty then you really should consider prioritizing the family you already have before adding more.

and there’s nothing wrong with deciding to wait on children until you can provide them with the lifestyle you want to provide them with (holidays, clubs etc). Most people don’t actually aspire to a wholly utilitarian existence, and I’m not one to think that struggling when you don’t need to is a particularly noble endeavor.

@TSIFT, oh, the ‘in other countries’ thing again - we in the U.K. are so selfish, and uncaring, etc.

We used to have friends in Mumbai (Indians) and I once mentioned this popular complaint to the woman - I.e. that ‘in other countries’ people invariably look after their own. She said it was rubbish. Her own very elderly mother (with dementia) was cared for in her own home many miles away by two live-in carers. As she pointed out, such arrangements were far cheaper and easier to organise in India than they would be in the U.K. And she added that this sort of thing was common.

Might add that a dd was working some years ago in Cambodia. In a poor rural village she once witnessed the care of an elderly grandmother with dementia. The woman was also incontinent. She was tied to a chair outside all day, to stop her wandering off and getting lost, or having accidents in the house, and was hosed down outside once a day.

It was evidently they only way they could cope, when no alternative was available.

In some cultures, where there is always a large extended family nearby - so often not the case in the U.K. - I dare say care of the elderly is easier, but who invariably does the lion’s share of it? The women, 99% of the time, I bet. But what if those women needed to work, to help pay the bills?

@MermaidCheeks it sounds as if you are saying that you are breeding a generation of care workers! Don't you have more ambition for your children? Nothing wrong with being a care worker but you know what I mean - low salary, bad working conditions etc. Have less children and focus on raising them to improve on the benefit culture.

And to the poster who pointed out the inequalities in Denmark : I agree.
the Scandinavian countries have their issues.

Sadly they are modeling societal and political changes on the US and UK, and I vehemently disagree with these changes!
It was a concerted effort in the 1950’s, -60’s and 70’s, often across political parties, with people working very hard to write and implement rules and policies that would benefit the majority.
now there seems to be a concerted effort to dismantle it all bit by bit.

We certainly have a much bigger gap between rich and poor that has been growing steadily over the last 20 yrs. But it benefits noone in the long run.

to say you should only have children if you can afford it, when a staggering amount of the population in the UK cannot afford basic housing BECAUSE of systemic failure, doesn’t make sense.

I meant this ☝️

How can you «cut your cloth accordingly» when it is not sufficient before you start cutting?

This too.

@SoapboxJudges

Absolutely. Can you imagine if people decided for your parents and deemed them too poor to have had six children. Mediaeval.

You're right that the biggest curse on children is a lack of love, nurturing and support. This is completely distinct from money and many middle/upper class parents are 100% guilty of this.

Of course it isn't completely distinct. It won't be a perfect correlation but there will definitely be some correlation. How ridiculous to think otherwise.

population reduction is needed to save the planet. people who decide against children should be given a financial incentive for this

That's a new one. I didn't realise you needed money to love, nurture and provide emotional support.

What correlation are you thinking of where finances relate to how much love you can give to someone?

I know of some parents who try to show their love by buying things for their kids but that's not really what we're talking about surely?

@EmmaH2022

We have a horrendous problem with overpopulation

We have BELOW REPLACEMENT RATE fertility in this country. The average rate of children is 1.6 per couple. Because in Africa women have on average 8+ children we should all sterilise ourselves?!

no one has children to benefit others

I love when childless people try to martyr themselves that they’re “doing it for the planet” you don’t want a kid, that’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s to save the planet 😂

@oiltrader

population reduction is needed to save the planet. people who decide against children should be given a financial incentive for this

Almost every European county now has below replacement rates of reproduction. Why should be sterilise ourselves because people thousands of miles away are having too many children.

its more sustainable

a western child uses way more resources than one in the third world

if you want to reproduce you like a rabbit you should be taxed accordingly

If you just want to keep pumping out a pyramid scheme of more people, we will run out of natural resources too.
We have a horrendous problem with overpopulation

I agree entirely with this.

Yes if the birth rate falls dramatically, we will have a problem with too few working age problem to take care of the elderly.

But this will be a temporary (one or two generation) problem while the larger older generations are still with us.

Far better to deal with that temporary problem and slowly adjust to a new lower population than say the solution is to keep producing more and more people.

And as a pp says I really hope we will stop keeping people alive long after they are no longer getting enjoyment out of life. I’m not sure how many people that applies to however so I’m not sure it’s a solution for demographic imbalance (and I think saying so may make people think it would be misused).

exactly

The correlation is not between amount of money and amount of love/support. The correlation will be that those who responsibly plan their families within their means are more likely to be responsible parents than those who have children without any thought to how they will support them.

I hear this 'below replacement rate' like it's a bad thing. Why is it bad? I haven't heard anyone explain why a lower population in future would be a bad thing.

Being financially stable and not constantly stressing as to whether you can afford to pay rent and/or feed yourself/ your family most certainly puts you in a better position mentally and emotionally (not to mention financially) to provide said love, nurture and support.

Indeed, look at the link between poverty and abuse:

“The international evidence about the relationship between poverty and child abuse and neglect is much stronger now than it was five years ago. From this research, we can be certain that increased pressures on family life will lead to the risk that more children will be subject to harm, abuse and neglect, unless government and service providers can respond more effectively.”

research.hud.ac.uk/media/assets/document/hhs/RelationshipBetweenPovertyChildAbuseandNeglect_Report.pdf

The majority of people accept that you must support the young. No one complains about funding state schools, for example.

What really pisses them off is people having kids for the benefits. And don't tell me that's a right-wing fantasy. Everyone on this forum knows some ignorant, violent chav with three kids who has never worked and has claimed tens of thousands in benefits. People like that know the system. They know that the more kids they have, the more fuss will be made of them, and the more goodies they will get off the state - including a house!! That would be bad enough if they raised the children to be polite, civlized and educated. But they don't even do that. They churn out exact replicas of themselves - vicious, ignorant, usless people who do nothing but harm.

Let me make it clear that I am not equating ignorant chavs with people on low incomes. Some of the finest human beings I know, people I would walk 100 miles to help, grew up dirt poor.

It's the age old problem, one we've never been able to solve - how do you help the good people without the horrible people taking advantage. Generous child benefits encourage the worst people to have lots of kids, who then grow up to be just like them. And that's not an opinion - it's a fact.