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.

Well overpopulation trumps ageing population, on account of it will destroy the planet so YABU.

I agree it will not be pretty for the next couple generations for care of the elderly, but we will muddle through, where as we will not muddle through a deepening environmental catastrophe.

Also people will always want to come to the UK and other rich countries. Yes their home countries need them, but that’s true of a lot of immigrants now. Doesn’t stop us taking them when it suits us. I am not saying this is right, but it is true.

I agree with this.

I don’t think any government should be encouraging people to be having lots of children given the overpopulation and how fucked the planet is.

With war, pollution, climate change and the sheer volume of plastic waste, who knows how bad things will be in 50 years time? I find it bizarre how people keep breeding without seriously considering what this planet will be like for their children in 50 years time.

@Lunar270 I maintain that a more equal society would minimise the so called feckless.

But that's what we have now, we have a system that encourages the feckless to breed without regards for the consequences and it leads to more fecklessness, not less. So how would "making it more equal" (whatever you mean by that - I assume you mean more money from those who work going towards those who won't) help things?

All of human existence is incentive based. Currently there is a massive incentive to breed irresponsibly, that needs to be removed.

In the meantime we're talking about children who had no choice over their environment. Sure, people can be irresponsible but the kids are the victims of your anger. Totally shameful for one of the richest countries in the world.

This thread is about the OP saying it's unreasonable for people to think "don't have kids if you can't afford them". Not having what you can't afford is a perfectly reasonable stance and the victims you speak of exist because society enabled it. Your views actually create poverty.

The only time I tut is when I hear of people having numerous kids (I’m talking 5 or 6) and ‘moaning’ they can’t feed them or there house isn’t big enough or that they can’t get free vouchers etc etc in the holidays. It can also be that these families do not work for various reasons. It’s odd because most of the families I know who work full time with children only have 1 or 2 wains because they can’t afford any more.

«The problem is not so much the quantity of children but the quality of them. Children born to parents who can't afford to give them an advantageous upbringing are already on the back foot and are less likely to be able to do a skilled or useful job like nursing when older. This is the reason why people who can't afford children shouldn't be allowed to have them, because it's automatically means the future workforce is being skewed to lower quality workers.»

there you have it. The bottom of the barrel has been scraped 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Well over a third of the food parcels we share go to children.

We might be tempted to think “why did they have children?” but usually their need is as a result of changed circumstances outwith their control.

So often we come across mums (and dads too) who are going without themselves so that their children don’t have to.

As a society we do need children to be born quite apart from the freedom to have children being a basic human right.

If no children were born, Mumsnet would be gone in a generation or two. 😉

Don't assume your kids will take care of you
My mum is a narc and has lost 4 of her 6 kids.

Early intervention. Appropriate support. Funding for early intervention and prevention. More funding for children's centres, sure start centres, social services,mental health services, schools etc.

I had a kid start the year unable to read(and as such unable and unwilling to access most of his learning)hating reading, thinking he's stupid and useless and refusing to engage because he's stupid and useless. And repeat. At the end of the year he could read. Very basic ,simple books but the foundation is there. The interest is there. The love of reading is there. He will pick reading "his" books as a reward or when he wants to do something else. He asks to be read a book instead of wanting to play football all the time. He attempts to read other books all by himself, he asks for help etc. It was amazing to watch. Change can happen,progress can happen. As proud as I am of him (and myself slightly) it was so much hard work,trying to balance his needs with others', finding the time when I have a billion other jobs to do and always playing catch-up,building and feeding that interest and his self esteem etc. I'm hoping he now stand a chance, that he's one step closer to actually making it.

I've seen and taught (I'm a TA) so many kids like that. They're not all lost causes, and while yes , some might fall i to the same trap as their parents, many can make it with adequate interest,support and interventions. Be that academically,socially or from a safety point of view.

I have 3 children, 2 are adults, 1 is a graduate doing post grad, 1 is an undergraduate and the other still at school. I hope they don't have kids. They can make contributions to the world in other ways.
My youngest will never earn enough to buy a house or car. I love them so much, but noone can afford to live anymore and it will get worse.
Electric cars cost around £30k and houses £250k. So when my 9 year old is old enough to drive and get a house how will she pay for these if the wages stay the same year on year?

Absolutely agree with this, it pissed me off a tad when the footballer, can't remember his name now, was belabouring the point about free school meals for children during the holidays. He made the point about his mother, who worked very hard and had various jobs to support her 5 children! but found it hard to feed them out of school term.

It's awful for the children, not saying it isn't but at the end of the day her choice to have those 5 children in the first place. My DD and SIL have two boys, they would love to have another baby but despite him having his own business and her earning a decent part time wage they have realised they just can't afford another baby, it wouldn't be fair on the boys and put too much strain on the family financially..

Freedom to have children is a basic human right - correct. Where you'll find people take issue is when you expect other people to pay for and provide for others children. It's not a basic human right to expect others to pay for your child (rights cannot depend on the labour of others).

Correct in saying we do need children to be born. No one is saying that no one should ever have children (although we're hardly in any danger of that happening are we?).

Also, most people give points for those who put the effort in. People who have fallen on hard times have been repeatedly excluded in this thread, and in general.

@neilyoungismyhero Marcus Rashford was the youngest. His dad left after all those kids were already there, which is why his mum ended up a single (working)parent with 5 kids. You could've done some research really before picking him as the product of a feckless,selfish, poor breeder.

So, school...
Why isn't it working, in that case? It certainly doesn't seem to be.

Having been brought up in a poor household with an abusive alcoholic parent I couldn’t afford to have children, but I mean that emotionally not financially (though that as well). I couldn’t bear the risk of them going through what I had, and didn’t feel confident I would be a good enough parent. It was hard enough to save myself, and at the time I didn’t feel it within me to be a mum. Making that decision, that sacrifice, was the most maternal thing I’ve ever done. It pisses me off to be judged as selfish, which happens a lot, just because I don’t have kids. I feel a lot of people don’t put enough thought into having kids and whether they can give those kids a good life and love them as they deserve. I have a very good life now, happily married, alcohol and drug free for 23 years, great job. I regret not having kids but it was the right decision.

I know someone who is about to have baby number 6 - lives in a council house and lives off benefits - got no time for that as nobody needs 6 children especially as they aren't supporting themselves (am friends with her sister so not just hearsay).

But on the whole l agree with you op - circumstances change and just because you can afford them before they are born, doesn't mean you always can

Some grim visions of the future on this thread - only the top 5% allowed to have children and over 65s to be executed to free up resources!?

@Johnnysgirl because of the lack of auxiliary services and support,in it's many forms.
Because schools are stretched ridiculously thin and we're supposed to be teachers, counsellors,social workers , SEN experts etc with no extra funding or support. So we fuck up,or come up short.

For example it doesn't matter how much progress I made with Jimmy and how much social and emotional regulation I taught him, etc. if it took SS two years to remove him from his abusive home. That kid was fucked and no matter how hard I tried I couldn't fix it.

It doesn't matter how much talking I did with Sarah, and how much research I did and how much advice I asked from others better equipped than me to help her with her MH and self harm issues. It took a year and a half for CAHMS to even see her and then quickly drop her due to the pandemic. She was quite an academic student, but she never made it back to school. I'm hoping homeschooling is working for her and she'll reach her potential. I couldn't "fix" her.

It doesn't matter that Hannah is actually making progress and learning and has a chance when both her parents have learning difficulties and her sister is disabled. They have no support, and SS are considering "grooming" Hannah into handling her sister's needs because she's the only one who can. Hannah is only 8. I can't fix that and I doubt that she'll be able to take that on, and still thrive academically.

The truth is there's no real interest in helping these kids, or improving their lives and outcomes. All made easier by the single mum to 7 kids on benefits and flat screen tvs propaganda. It's hard to care and fight for change when you resent their parents and the fact they exist to begin with.

Then again, I'm just a TA so I probably shouldn't have had kids(1) either since I can't show her the world and what not either.

I suppose the 65 could be allowed to change to the ever increasing pension age.

Then off with their heads right before their first payment. We'd save billions.

I feel like people who think like that only think of affordability in terms of money .

so many wealthy people I’ve nannied for literally never see there own kids and that’s just heartbreaking

personally I think the only currency that actually matters is time so if you have time for your children, then that’s what’s important

China originally reversed their one-child policy to a two child policy due to a gender imbalance (more males than females because parents aborted/abandoned females as preferences were boys - which is appalling), nothing to do with ageing population at the time.

They have recently confirmed families can have up to 3 children due to increase in pension age and decrease in working age children BUT this is because people are choosing not to have them, even when allowed to have 2, still choosing 1 or none, because they can't afford them - why would anyone encourage people who can't afford to have children to have them. Poor children - find other solutions and not make children suffer through poverty.

In response to your previous posts, some are ridiculous, recent low birth rates is nothing to do with the NHS/care sector not being good enough - so many other factors play a part in this including under funding, more people taking out with less people paying in, and many reasons that the government are at fault for. You've just used a daft reason to try and justify people having kids when can't afford. I don't think any stable family (by stable I mean secure, both working, not popping kids out to different men every year when never done a days work in their life etc) should need top ups to have a small family (any bigger is desirable, and we all have to fund desirables ourselves and not ask other people to pay). However the piss poor wages, diabolical rent/housing costs and current cost of living mean it's necessary, and as those working MW jobs are crucial to our society then I believe they should be given the help to be able to have a small family as why should they be penalised for piss poor "liveable" wages. Same for if circumstances change when you could afford to have them when you did. My issue is when people don't work, have children knowing they already can't afford to feed themselves or the ones they have, never pay in to the system but always expect to be able to take out of it/like they're owed it.

Well, we saw how well that worked for China. Murder or abandonment of baby girls so the father could try for another son. A generation of entitled "Little Emperor's" who have never had siblings and expect the world to wait on them.

We are already seeing the relocation of people to prop up western nations. But the people that the governments are resettling have different values to the nations they are being settled in. Different views on the number of children a family should have, how families should live, and different views on the culture they are settled into.

@naffusername

Yep. It’s only Western countries who they’re expecting to abide by this I’m sure.

Er well the reason we have an ageing crisis at the moment is because of all those kids people had in the post war boom. When does it end when these new kids we should be popping out are old? To cope with the increasing extremity of climate

@cockandball Plus a better standard of living and huge advances in medical science.

Thinking about it, we might not be in such a pickle in a few decades. Living costs are skyrocketing so people’s. standard of living will drop and the NHS is crumbling. So perhaps middle-aged people like me won’t live as long and need looking after, we’ll die earlier than our parents.

In a way none of the debating matters anyway as in my experience most parents think there’s a huge societal benefit to them having kids and the government will continue to fund them doing so, which perpetuates that viewpoint. Taxpayers are always going to have to pay for kids so whether or not we agree with the amount people have in their circumstances is irrelevant.

It’d be better environmentally if we were paid not to have them but it’ll never happen in a capitalism system so we might as well get used to people breeding exactly as they please, being paid to do it, and fucking up the climate for everyone else including their own children.