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.

There is shit medical and social care now! The world is 8 billion people and expected population in 25 years is nearly 10 billion.

The propaganda runs deep, we’ve had over twenty years of media explicitly telling us that all our problems are caused by feckless breeders who don’t want to work.
Its a shame, it doesn’t really take that much energy to look at the actual figures and see that is not where the problems in society lie.

Not helped by the career politicians who care more about themselves than the future of the people they represent.

Global population will start to shrink by the end of the century.

There are more than enough resources to feed everyone well.

Fine, only have DC's if you can afford it but only claim a state pension if you have raised at least 2 DC's for 18 years.

There is shit medical and social care now! The world is 8 billion people and expected population in 25 years is nearly 10 billion.

Yes NHS and social care are currently in crisis - only going to get worse.

I would say that the comment is not aimed at not having children but only having a brood that you can sensibly support on your salary.
Many middle earners might want more kids but make the decision not to because of the cost and the fact that tax credits, child allowance and other government support and grants are not available to them. They're also likely to pay significant tax and mortgages or private rental rates.
Others don't have to contemplate this as the government support is available to them, they are in receipt of tax credits and perhaps have capped rent in social housing.

Parents’ motives to have kids are definitely selfish, @Fluffyboo , but those kids grow up and become useful to the rest of us! My DD, for example, wants to study engineering, That skill will definitely be useful to we oldies!

There will also be a fair percentage that won't be useful. That's why I disagree with the 'we should be grateful to parents, because they make sacrifices to bring up their children' argument - people are people, some end up contributing to society, some end up criminals, others prefer to live in their parents houses in their 30s and spend all day unemployed and smoking weed.

People just don't have kids for the benefit of society, they have them for the benefit of themselves and their family, therefore they need to take responsibility for them and not purposely bring them into overcrowding/poverty

We have a neighbour who says this. They have more than 6, I won’t put the actual number in case they are on MN. Said that having x amount made them work hard to afford their family. Built their careers after having the DC, so they couldn’t actually afford the size of the family before they had the DC. They are always judging other neighbours who have much smaller families.

I also work in care, the crisis hasn’t come from people not having enough kids, it’s from the piss poor funding health care gets. No amount of new children being born will change that.

Also, its easy to say everyone’s going to need someone to care for them when they age when it’s your job and what you are seeing everyday but when I look at my life outside of work I too also only know of a handful of elderly people who did.

And?

Yes, we already don't have enough carers and medical staff...? I don't understand your point.

How is that measured though ? I’m sure someone somewhere has done the calculations?

Okay - I am trying to follow your logic here.

a family who already have three children, struggling financially, cost of living crisis biting. They shouldn’t consider as part of deciding whether to have a fourth child because in twenty years time that baby might grow up to be a career??

what about the impact an extra mouth to feed has on the three children already in the family?

surely lots of people consider money when deciding whether or not to have a baby? These are grown ups making grown up decisions - why should money not be a factor?

if you decide to have a baby surely you need to know you could feed, clothe and house that baby?

Yeah, I don't think anyone is advocating having 10 kids living in squalor.

We're talking about preachy types who think only people who can provide their lifestyle are worthy of having children. For example, those who think you have to own your own home before having a child, or a certain salary, certain house size...

For example the opinion that children should continue to be born to care for elderly is naive, and not really going to work

Sorry, but that’s not even close to what the issue is. Societies work because the young replace the elderly - regardless of what they choose to do with their time and money, if that cycle undergoes a sudden correction (sudden equalling a decade or two) then there’s a problem. It’s not about creating a society of robots assigned jobs, it’s about recognising a danger to the fabric of our (current) society because it simply doesn’t work based on what we have.

it’s been known about and discussed for at least the last twenty years.

I think the world will be a very different place in 40 years and the needs of the population will be quite different.

japan is already looking at how to manage it s growing elderly population and are working now at making radical changes to elderly care.

www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-ageing-robots-widerimage-idUSKBN1H33AB

Whilst this might seem a bit dystopian now, I do think that it is a possible solution for the future.

I also work in care, the crisis hasn’t come from people not having enough kids, it’s from the piss poor funding health care gets. No amount of new children being born will change that.
I think it's a combination of both and will be helped by a combination of both. Totally agree it's outrageously underfunded - but there is a clear demographic issue here that won't be solved with funding alone.

Also, its easy to say everyone’s going to need someone to care for them when they age when it’s your job and what you are seeing everyday but when I look at my life outside of work I too also only know of a handful of elderly people who did.
Fuck the ones who do need care and we don't have enough then?

I got a right telling off on FB for saying this. There was a woman on there saying how upsetet she was about being a single mother, having five kids and no spare money to even buy them a lollipop. I said maybe she shouldn't have five kids inthe first place.

People were saying that it's not about money, it's about how much love you give them. I replied that wasn't true, that kids never forget about being the poor one at school and that I only had two because that's all we could afford.

As someone pointed out, chronic poverty is intergenerational and so most often, poorer adults will have poorer children who themselves will most often become poor adult. Add in the psychological effects and learned behaviour of chronic unemployment (for whatever reason), these children are also more likely to do worse in school and eventually end up unemployed. Saying that everyone is allowed to have as many children as they want regardless of if they can afford to feed, clothe and house them because they will grow up to be successful, tax-paying citizens is ridiculous. Ofc nobody can police other peoples reproductive freedoms, but the less selfish thing is to consider if bringing a child into a life of abject poverty is a good idea. There is a very good non fiction book called Invisible Child by Andrea Elliot which won the Pulitzer this year and it documents the life of a family in Brookyln with 7 children who are in and out of shelters, parents are either separated or back together, intermittently using drugs and unemployed but continue having children. They have a terrible life and the children struggle with school etc because of the uncertainty.

Okay - I am trying to follow your logic here.
a family who already have three children, struggling financially, cost of living crisis biting. They shouldn’t consider as part of deciding whether to have a fourth child because in twenty years time that baby might grow up to be a career??
what about the impact an extra mouth to feed has on the three children already in the family?
surely lots of people consider money when deciding whether or not to have a baby? These are grown ups making grown up decisions - why should money not be a factor?
if you decide to have a baby surely you need to know you could feed, clothe and house that baby?

I'm not thinking about each individual case - I'm thinking about societal policies and attitudes as a whole.

We need to radically shift our values and structures to accommodate for the aging population.

I really believe anyone thinking even thinking of bringing a child into the world is coldly considering an act of cruelty.

• Stanley Goodspeed

And that we have no idea what love is.

😢

“Don’t have kids you can’t afford” is a hilariously ill-thought out comment. Especially with the cost of living and the state of the economy. Guess no one should be having any kids in the next few years.

And what does “affording” a kid mean? Don’t have kids unless you can afford to provide for them no matter your current circumstances? Kids are only for billionaires?

I could absolutely “afford” my son when he was born. Then my circumstances changed. What do these people want me to do, put him back? I agree that intentionally having more children when you’re already in a bad position isn’t the best idea, but “don’t have kids you can’t afford” is a massive oversimplification and really just sounds like people wanting to complain about the fucking Poor again.

Personally I think that having too many kids is only going to contribute to accelerated over population, pressure on food and water resources etc.
No point being vegan, and all environmental and ecological if you have a large amount if kids, it's self defeating.
A relative of mine is one of 9 children who have produced 32 grandkids who now have over 30 great grand children so far..... Astonishing that two people have over 70 dependants already.

Lol humans are the only animals that pathologise the biological urge to reproduce.

It’s not pathologising, humans have higher brain, we can (and really should) think and make choices.
It may be an ”urge”, but you can make a choice yourself.
Unless you consider yourself as an unevolved.

amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children