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.

That's far less than you're missing

I think the only people who ever say ‘we didn’t have children because we couldn’t afford them’ are ironically people who could have afforded them and don’t get that when you have kids you sacrifice lifestyle and find ways. Their choice, but I find especially here it’s said quite bitterly and I feel sad for them. Saying that as others have said if you’re having trouble keeping yourself and don’t see your situation changing then children don’t seem like the best idea

there is no population crisis of not enough people around so I dont get why you think having kids is a service when there's a lot of kids that actually need adopting or fostering.

I am amazed that there is still this amount of ignorance to the demographic timebomb of aging population coupled with low birthrates.

What on earth makes you think all these future children will fill roles in nursing or Care when they grow up?

They're not now, so why will the next generation? 🤔

OP, your argument is totally shallow. Have kids if you want to, but don’t pretend you are doing it for the good of the nation.

Also, this argument is made when people keep having children, complaining that they can’t afford the ones they have. And then are outraged that the public won’t fund them to live a lifestyle that those with fewer children live.

The op is ridiculous.

No one thinks that having children should just be for the wealthy.

There's a difference between wealth and abject poverty.

People with chaotic lives who will never get out of poverty probably shouldn't be having kids.

But human nature doesn't work like that.

Yes, only the well off are not judged for procreating. My original point stands

I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘have as many kids as you want if your rich / don’t have kids if you’re poor or you will be judged’.

Most parents understand the primal urge to pro create and understand why anyone, whatever their circumstances, would want to do it.

But there has to be some common sense and mature thinking going in, especially once you are already a parent and gave to think of your existing kids. I don’t understand why someone living in a small, rented flat with no job or uncertain employment would want to have 4 kids, no. It seems reckless.

And unfortunately, yes, if someone has a good standard of living and can give their children can afford opportunities, it IS a better environment for the children. That’s just a fact of our unfair, unequal, real world.

But no-one is saying that. It’s perfectly reasonable though to say that you should do your best to ensure that you are able to look after them before you start trying to conceive.

The children’s welfare matters, having multiple children that you can’t afford to properly care for us irresponsible and selfish.

It's a demographic time bomb because or societal and economic structures haven't changed. You think It should just continue regardless?

Something has got to give. We'll be forced to change because of climate change and the impacts of that in the not too distant future in any case.....

The population crisis can be solved with more realistic expectations about end of life.

We don't have to persevere in keeping old, sick, tired, mentally absent people alive who would rather die peacefully if given a chance.

I agree it's not good decision making in this scenario.

The fact is the reason we have an ever-decreasing birth rate is because most people are somewhat sensible and won't 'punch themself in the face' by having kids when they can't afford them.

But given the demographics and lack of 'bodies' that we are going to have in the next generation to provide taxes, care for the elderly etc etc - shouldn't society and the government perhaps try and adapt our societal values, gov policies, increase infrastructure, encourage the having of children a bit more?

If not - then what is seriously going to happen in the future as the elderly outweigh the young?

I totally agree with this by the way.

In reality I don't think this will happen. People don't want to die, and by the time they've lost all dignity and quality of life, they don't have 'mental capacity' to decide to die anyway.

@EmmaH2022 no one has children to benefit others that's irrelevant because you will be relying on other peoples children to care for you in your old age regardless.

The children’s welfare matters, having multiple children that you can’t afford to properly care for us irresponsible and selfish.

The big problem is - less and less people can afford to have children.

Back to the point though, it's possible to raise happy, well-adjusted, healthy children poor. I live in a developing country. Material wealth is not necessary to raise incredible kids. A stable home, sufficient food, basic healthcare and connected community is all that really matters.

in the developed world, poor means insecure housing. Housing is where it all unravels.

Oh goodie, the old “my children will be working to pay your pension” myth. No, they won’t. The working childless people have paid more than their fair share into the pension pot throughout their lives. They have continuously paid into the “general welfare fund” without receiving child benefit, SMP, tax credits, free school meals, or any other such benefits.

Your children will be working for their own pension. If they have a job. They could be on the dole their entire lives, in prison, unable to work through accident or illness. No one can predict the future.

Who do we think will be caring for us in old age? If we need care, and remember not every 80-year-old is in a nursing home and advances in science mean that people are living independently longer, it will be someone that we pay to look after us. Your children might be glad of the job opportunity.

The comment itself may be crass yes, but who should pay for the children then? It's tough for people who have changes in their circumstances, and the cost of living currently is making it tough for everybody. But equally, there are just a few too many people who really do have children that they know they cannot afford. The young couple down the road from me are in their late 20's, moved in 11 years ago with no children, now have 5 and have never worked a single day of that time. So it is me and you who is affording their children. I don't actually know what the answer is. And I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone claiming benefits is a scrounger - the vast majority are people who are actually working (and claiming in work benefits), genuinely can't work, or are genuinely trying to find work. But there is a rump of those who won't work, and as a country we cannot afford that.

And since there is now plenty of evidence to show that chronic unemployment is "inter-generational" - that children growing up in permanently unemployed households will have a high incidence of continuing that lifestyle - the they won't be looking after anyone in their old age, because the chances are that they will also spend a life on the dole.

And absolutely nobody has a child so that they can contribute to the workforce of the future. People have children for their own reasons, and whilst they can fall on hard times without expecting it, it is obvious to anyone that children cost money, so whining about not having the money to support your own children is senseless. It isn't anyone else's job to support your children. As a society we all contribute to their upbringing, through taxes. But we cannot and should not be expected to shoulder the whole cost. That is for parents to do.

As it’s already been pointed out, the (largely declining by up to 50% www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521.amp ) fertility rate isn’t the issue, it’s the increasing life span.

It will correct itself if current trends continue and stabilise but there’s a rocky correction period ahead and it isn’t the younger age groups that will be the one generating issues.

I didn't say parents sacrificed (their careers/time/finances) in order to have kids for others - but it DOES benefit a society with an ageing pop to have children - if they want to continue caring for the elderly that is.

Only if the children are willing and able to care for the elderly, surely?

"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*

No one has children because they feel they owe it to society to produce the next generation of workers, people have children for almost entirely selfish reasons. Why you would feel the need to put an altruistic spin on it is baffling. No one owes me or anyone else an explanation for why they decide to have children.

As someone has already pointed out no one knows when their circumstances will change and they may go from being able to afford a family to needing help but equally having four children if you have never held down a job (regardless of earnings) and don't intend to is dickish. We all know this does happen.

Surely most people calculate if they can afford children (and how many) because they want to be able to provide well for them. I'm not sure the statement you're referring to is necessarily just about people who may need their income topping up, plenty of people who are unlikely to qualify for any benefit will make the same calculations.

No, actually. I’m the eldest of four children born to dirt-poor, illiterate parents, who had far more children than they could afford — I grew up counting the days til, pay/dole day, knowing never to ask for second helpings or to bring a friend home after school because the money wasn’t there. It was an utterly miserable way to grow up. Your personal right to reproduce doesn’t mitigate the effect of poverty on your children.

I mentioned 'low incomes,' which suggests paid employment and you're on about 'dole day...'

@Jalisco the obvious, but shortsightedly unpopular) answer to that is to ramp up investment in those children to give a better chance that they will be more productive members of society than their parents.

following my post above, we need younger generations to be well educated and motivated to deal with the toppling pyramid of elderly care and lost skills we’ve built society on.

I assume that most people in this country who plan their children do think carefully about when / if they can afford them. I know I certainly did, as did my siblings and my adult daughters. I don’t know anyone who’s had children in order to look after them when they are old! So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
onviously, some pregnancies are unplanned, some people don’t think about the cost, some do but don’t care. It takes all sorts to be a parent!

Agree

For me it is not so much, the don't have ANY children, but don't have MANY children. The majority of families in poverty and therefore children in poverty, come from homes with multiple children according to the ONS.