Why doesn’t the country support having children?

[NameChangeAsICouldBeOverReacting]

Just seen an article on The Guardian about the 15 free hours for childcare for under 2’s and how the whole system is a mess.

I’m just starting to lose hope that this country doesn’t support working families anymore?

AIBU and need to think more positively, or have we screwed up massively by not supporting families?

The Guardian article which I read.

I think they do support having children.

The country doesn't have a bottomless pit of money!

Many years ago there was hardly any support.

That last post was in response to @WithACatLikeTread saying wait til the first is in school. Lost the quote for some reason.

Absolutely this!! Childcare costs are not that issue, there is so much more help with childcare than there ever was, it’s the housing costs that are crippling people. That’s the main difference, a DINKY couple didn’t need the majority of their income to service a mortgage or rent so it wasn’t such a big issue when one either gave up work or paid for childcare, just meant fewer holidays etc

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos we’re taking a gamble on trying for a second once our first is in school. I fell pregnant quickly first time around, but I’m edging ever closer to the wrong side of 35, so who knows what happens. We just can’t afford £2.5k a month for nursery.

I live in a one bedroom social housing flat Been here thirty years this year. Since 1998 each tenant living in the flat has been a single man. Its just assumed by the system that a single woman would move in with a boyfriend

It's not impossible. I just don't think it should be a necessity to be able to have more than one.

We didn't fall til I was 34. If I wait til she goes to school, I'd be 40 when the 2nd was born, providing we fell pregnant immediately. More likely I'd be 41/42 if it happened. And we'd probably need some help.

Luckily, we are happy with one. But many many people want two. And the system isn't set up for it.

I am aware of the fertility risks. My first was IVF. I started TTC at 25 and had my first at 30. We have a nearly five year gap due to clinics closing due to covid, miscarriage on one sibling round before having another round and being successful. I am not saying it is ideal and you do risk maybe not having another but better than saying we can't afford another isn't it and definitely never having another?

As an aside OP you’re also edging closer to the chances of having twins ( more likely between 36-42)
I fell pregnant with twins (I had no idea they were historically on my side of the family ) @ 37.

My boss asked me if I’d insured myself against having twins. So if it’s a possible I’d get insurance.

Good luck

Sorry that is rather a worst case scenario, most couples TTC at 27 will not struggle to have 2 summer born children 4 years apart

It's a choice. But not one that should have to be made because it shouldn't be as impossible to afford to have kids and work. Or, at the risk of sounding like I'm from the 50s, to be able to afford for one parent to stay home.

I earn well, but if my DH hadn't been a good mn and had run off on us, as happens to lots of women, I couldn't afford full time nursery and our mortgage and bills. Maybe 5 years ago I could have. But with the costs of everything escalating I couldn't now. And I don't qualify for anything other than the tax free childcare and this new 15 hours from age 2. Even on my own. So I don't know how single parents do it. And that's with one child.

In my friendship group and family, there's been many struggles. It's more common than you'd think. And so to say "well just space them out more" isn't as simple as it might sound.

We just talk about fertility challenges more these days than it used to be acceptable to.

@Justpontificating I'm not sure I really get your point. I'm not an architect and I don't earn £62k. My job pays slightly more than the average national wage. In order to work full time I pay slightly more than the current average childcare costs. I am, unlike you (a high earner, paying significantly above average nursery fees for your children 20 years ago) broadly representative of an average-ish person in society today. I could not afford to have 3 children because I would be £1470 out of pocket each month. This is true for many people my age (and those younger / older of course!).

This magical "support" you keep referring to - whatever it is, it's clearly not enough to mitigate the astronomical increase in childcare costs for families today (in fact, many would argue it's actually adding to the costs, via sustained and entirely deliberate underfunding from the government).

@WithACatLikeTread
I can tell you from my own experience that having a baby at 30 is nothing like having a baby at 18. You cannot change the human biology.

It's really sad that our society is pushing us to make these unfortunate choices to afford the childcare.

@LardyCakeAgain you think getting money for men to rape you is a privilege?
You may as well argue single men are better off than single women as they can deal drugs more easily.

Most people want proper jobs. And both single women and single men can do this kind of work.
There are plenty of single homeless women. They just tend to sofa surf, or ride buses all night, as sleeping on the streets is so dangerous for women. The chances of being raped are very high.

It pays child benefit, which is literally to support having children.

I’m in a large city in the north and as far as I know I earn more than most of those who graduated with me (I did have to play my cards right to reach this salary, it wasn’t though my employer recognising my hard work alone). I’m also in a niche sector that pays slightly better than average.

Salaries in London are a bit higher but I felt they didn’t make up for the difference in cost of living. And all the architects I knew there moved out of London when they had kids.

Salaries just haven’t kept up with the cost of living. Perhaps that’s why the extra support is required and sometimes even that doesn’t feel like much help.

I agree with you and of course it shouldn't be a choice one should be make. I am not massively keen on the age gap I have as I don't know if they will have lots in common. I would have preferred a smaller one!

My youngest loves In The Night Garden. 😊

We've had to make lots of choices based on finances that we probably wouldn't have if there was support like there is in some European countries (Germany springs to mind). And I've made peace with them for our family as it works for us, but hate that people I love are having to make decisions such as not having as many as they want or risking not having the second purely because they can't afford either option of working or staying home.

In the Night Garden is ace. DD loves Upsy Daisy and Iggle, but we're Makka Pakka fans!

1 in 3 women will conceive within 1 cycle and 90% of couples will conceive within 2 years. Yes we all know couples who have taken a bit longer than they expected and a few who needed fertility treatment but for the vast majority of couples will not struggle to have 2 children 4+ years apart. If your getting married at 40 then yes I agree it probably wouldn’t be best to plan 2 children 4 years apart if you desperately wanted 2

I’m so sorry.!
I thought you were Albatrostrike who also replied to a comment of mine.
I thought I was conversing with one MN.

So Apologies! re job change / salary comment !

We were discussing this at work today as one of my colleague wants a child but as a teacher on M3 can’t afford it currently.

My parents (no qualifications, no job) had my brother and I with no concerns about our future. They got a council house and we lived off benefits (not a great life tbh). Conversely, DH and I saved for both maternity leaves. Waited to have kids in our mid 30s when we were both UPS teachers. DS is in Yr 5 so we’re still paying for childcare - looking forward to Yr 7!

We mused at work whether our society in the future will just consist of children born to the economically inactive or the very rich feeding ever more into an unequal society.

A slow global population decline is a good thing. A population crash is not. What would happen in that scenario is that the country's infrastructure will crumble and they would eventually be invaded by a country which is having a population boom, but not the resources to look after them. The native population will then get replaced, loosing the heritage and history of the country.

I repeat: what actual people are you going to have caring for you?
Maybe you're hoping that robots will do everything if you (heaven forbid) should have dementia?

Realistically, even if they removed all government benefits tomorrow, the world isn't going to stop having children. It would be a less equal society, possibly, and migraton patterns might change, but the primal urge to reproduce will still be there for some women. So your scenario is a bit silly. Look at what happened in Europe after the Black Death - a shortage of workers actually improved the wages & lives of poor serfs and labourers as it inflated their value.

If you can't afford children, don't have them.