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.

So only wealthy people should have kids? Excellent idea. If only we can shame poor people into not getting sick either we would have the perfect society 👍

Surely the less babies now the less pensioners in the future? I feel there's an argument that we either struggle through it now or keep perpetuating it.

Yes and that smaller population grow up hit fertility ages and has fewer children again - but on top of that there are less of them to have children every generation - it's a downwards spiral with fewer workers always supporting a bigger aged population.

I personally assume at some point it would correct - but there no data to support that happening and some fear a forever downward spiral to point it affects abilities of countries to maintain living standards and services.

Plus when you get the generation that does want more children - you end up with an hour glass population pyramid ie they have a large number of older dependents to support but they also have children to support - so they get double squeezed.

It's happening everywhere at different rates bar parts of Africa - and UK not in worst position - just another thing Governments should ideally be planning for.

Surely the less babies now the less pensioners in the future? I feel there's an argument that we either struggle through it now or keep perpetuating it.

But you keep implying the population is ever replacing. It isn’t, globally people are having less dc & this trend will increase as more women globally are educated. That isn’t a bad thing. What is bad is having a shift in demographics that is new & unplanned for. Again how does a mainly older population lead to a more productive & innovative society? There were 5 workers to every pensioner in the 60s, it is now almost 3:1 & soon will be 2:1. That is a huge change & not sustainable. The country is broke now so as I asked before where do the taxes to fund that come from @Drosera?

There already is less babies now.

Equally, in response to your incentivising comment earlier. Its not an incentive. It just helps us continue to contribute to both the survival of the species and society in the right way.

@user1497207191 said it right. Currently we are incentivising some people to keep popping out babies, but also to do that instead of working. Get the balance right and you'll have lots of working parent families, who have one child each instead of 2+ (so there's your decline in birth rates), alongside lots of people who have still chosen to remain childfree. Meaning we're still continuing the species, using resources better, providing new humans to contribute to society in the right way, and paying the taxes that we need to keep that balance right.

It isn't "pay all parents to have children" vs "stop having children". There is a happy medium.

And the birth rate is falling faster than the gov expected.
Primary schools are started to feel the impact as funding is based on headcounts, “The number of primary pupils in state-funded schools is projected to fall by more than 410,000 over the next five years”.

@Drosera

I feel like a lot of office jobs could be automated.

People have been saying that since the IBM PCs were introduced in the 1980s!

Yes, things like typing pools are gone, as have shorthand typists, and rooms full of manual data entry clerks typing data into mainframes.

But there are still huge numbers of "pen pushers", just doing different types of work in different places, i.e. lots of "admin" people work from home!

I think it's generally "up skilled" the average pen pusher as we don't need people who used to just spend all day putting bits of paper in filing cabinets or mailroom buys walking around factories and offices handing out and collecting memos and post!

At the end of the day, jobs change. We don't have chimney sweeps or farriers anymore, but we do have website designers and self service till engineers and whole armies of IT/software trainers.

I've no doubt lots of today's workers will find themselves redundant in the next 10/20 years, but by then, whole new industries will have appeared, and hopefully, far better education and skills training so that people will be better equipped for jobs of the future.

None of that is a surprise. It's well known that numbers of young children peaked around 20 years ago. Schools expanded to cope with the higher numbers of children and will have to contract as numbers reduce again. Sadly, that will mean some schools will inevitably have to close, but schools have been closing for decades due to demographical shift, so it's nothing new. We really shouldn't be encouraging people to reproduce just to keep a school open - that's madness!

The "bulge" in population had been forecast and, sadly, successive governments have buried their heads in the sand and not got on top of societal and infrastructure changes to cope with it.

Yes, when the "bulge" hit old age, we're going to have major problems, but the answer isn't encouraging higher birth rates to look after and finance it. That just causes the problem to perpetuate as the younger people would eventual get old too, and need even more young people to look after and finance them. It's just a pyramid scheme really.

We'd be better accepting the inevitable, yes, it's going to be hard, it's going to be expensive, but rather than repeat the perpetuation mistake, governments, senior civil servants, quangos, etc should be coming up with plans to mitigate the known and inevitable problems of the "bulge" as it works through. Yes, I know, it's a pipedream as none of them look more than a few years ahead, but as voters, I think it's time we grew a backbone and started to make politicians and quango bosses work a bit harder and look to the longer term!

Look at councils, “Nearly one in five council leaders in England now say they are likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months”. Now obviously there are number of reasons for the lack of cash but demographics means we will be paying more for fewer services.

None of that is a surprise. It's well known that numbers of young children peaked around 20 years ago. Schools expanded to cope with the higher numbers of children and will have to contract as numbers reduce again. Sadly, that will mean some schools will inevitably have to close, but schools have been closing for decades due to demographical shift, so it's nothing new. We really shouldn't be encouraging people to reproduce just to keep a school open - that's madness!

Where has anyone said that though? I don’t think the birth rate falls & increased school closures have been planned for, what makes you think that? For one there was talk of a covid baby boom & how maternity services would cope but we know that didn’t happen. The gov funding formula isn’t going to be implemented till 2027 which for many schools is too late. Falling school rolls impacts all pupils because of the funding model not just pupils who schools are closing.

Yes, when the "bulge" hit old age, we're going to have major problems, but the answer isn't encouraging higher birth rates to look after and finance it. That just causes the problem to perpetuate as the younger people would eventual get old too, and need even more young people to look after and finance them. It's just a pyramid scheme really.

i think you misunderstood myself & many other posters. The impact is hitting now &
we aren’t even in the bulge. It is a pyramid & i’m not advocating for that but I don’t believe an upside down pyramid is a better model. And certainly when we have a capitalist system it just won’t happen, the govs will chose immigration.

The bankruptcies are being caused by declining central government funding, although it has went up slightly in the last few years, and increasing costs for children in social care and SEN transport. SEN transport to school costs have rocketed.

At the end of the day, we don't currently need more "People", we need more "workers" to do the work needed and to pay taxes etc.

The last thing we want is more "people" who are economically inactive for whatever reason.

In the short term, we need all efforts to get those who can work, into work, whether the young, old, new parents, disabled, early retirees who could work, etc. Obviously the very young, the very disabled, and the very old can't work. But there are lots of people who could work, could work more, could pay more taxes, etc., but currently aren't doing.

That's what efforts need to focus on. Better education, better job related training, a tax/benefits systems that encourages and facilitates work, better policing of the black economy to reduce the number of fraudsters wrongly claiming benefits and evading taxes, etc.

Go back a few decades and it was "OK" for people to live on benefits because of the high unemployment. But nowadays, there are job shortages literally everywhere, in all kinds of trades, professions, vocations, etc., so it's time to stop being soft and really start to hit hard on those who could work but choose not to, and also on the fraudsters who are evading tax and wrongly claiming benefits. Alongside that, we need to have a proper review of education and job skill training, which, again, has lost it's way - what was "fine" 20-30 years ago isn't fit for purpose today!

@alltootired increased social care costs for the elderly is also a factor. But my point is the demographics means the councils will increasingly need more money.

At the end of the day, we don't currently need more "People", we need more "workers" to do the work needed and to pay taxes etc.

The last thing we want is more "people" who are economically inactive for whatever reason.

lots of pensioners & future pensioners are economically inactive though. Many haven’t saved enough for their retirement & we don’t even have enough suitable housing.

Take the Silver Exodus. “The number of people aged 50-64 who are economically inactive in the UK has shot up to 3.6 million”. “The total of 375,000 over-50s on unemployment benefit is also 173,000 higher than five years ago”. Much of this has been driven by ill health.

In the short term, we need all efforts to get those who can work, into work, whether the young, old, new parents, disabled, early retirees who could work, etc. Obviously the very young, the very disabled, and the very old can't work. But there are lots of people who could work, could work more, could pay more taxes, etc., but currently aren't doing.

That's what efforts need to focus on. Better education, better job related training, a tax/benefits systems that encourages and facilitates work, better policing of the black economy to reduce the number of fraudsters wrongly claiming benefits and evading taxes, etc.

The gov hasn’t invested in much since the crash, artificial low rates just masked a lot of the problems. There’s a lot more nuance to the job shortages & higher rates of economically inactive people. Geographically there are higher levels of inactivity where there aren’t many job shortages & we also have job shortages in industries where we don’t have enough of the right type of skills. Personally I don’t think targeting benefit fraud will have any impact on the economy.

Why would well off people who have retired early go back to work? I can not afford to do this, but anyone I know who has would not dream of going back to work.

@alltootired Im confused? What well off people are you referring to?

Does ‘supporting families’ just mean supporting those parents who want to work full time and have their children in nursery? There’s a lot of evidence that young children do extremely well at home with engaged caregivers. I don’t think only supporting the first is necessarily supporting families although it is possibly supporting the economy

"Supporting the economy" is pretty fundamental as it's the economy that pays for public services via taxation etc. The country's current problem (and that of many other Western countries) is that their economy isn't large/active enough to support so many people to a high enough standard, hence the ever increasing national debts of most Western/developed countries.

Enjoyment of the job or some aspect of it and greater flexibility with hours or more money?

Quiet a few of DH ex bosses - who retired very well - picked up jobs post retirement either p/t or on a consulting basis - kept their hand in and kept them in with their work community.

FIL even now will do skilled section of a job for mates - for cash or barter - but he won't do the carrying or grunt work - just skilled bit he enjoys - some of his peer in industry do same - do the skilled bit post retirement - but only if it's made easy and just that bit. DH uncle retired as a gas fitter - got bored and took up p/t driving job even though he doesn't really need the money - it's just useful and get him out the house and interacting with new people.

I think one of the plans to deal with NHS waiting lists is hope they can entice some retired surgeons and consultants back for a short period. If they deal with waiting lists there may be section of 50+ workforce who is then well enough to work again.

This is more info about the silver exodus. The problem is they aren’t rich retirees

https://theconversation.com/over-50s-are-resigning-en-masse-new-research-explains-who-and-why-181895

@bessytedsy thanks for the article. Sounds like one of my colleagues who retired early. Not a high earner but had just had enough and decided she could manage with her savings until state retirement age.

@TripleDaisySummer you are talking about professionals who enjoy their job. I am in the demographic of the article and have had enough of work. I am sick of pointless meetings, boring work, and although my job is okay, it is not something I would do for anything but money. Maybe those in fun professional jobs do not get what it is like to do jobs like mine? Added to that I have seen a few friends die in their fifties and you do end up thinking is this how I want to live my life? Maybe I can withdraw from my pension and quit work now?

That's interesting - especially those sectors because I know several women in their 50s who left those sectors to do childcare for their grandchildren and often elder care as well.

I know more unusually DH maternal uncle step out of the workplace - warehouse work - in his 50s to look after his parents - lasted a decade and then he struggled to get back into work post 60.

I know my pwn parents health decline in 50s partly due to demands of elder care on them - and mum found her retail employer very unsympathetic and basally forced her out.

Unfortunately the government don't do either! The options can be boiled down to:
A. Stay in work = soak up enormous childcare costs.
B. Stay at home = can't pay the bills. So revert to A.
C. Just be rich and do whatever.

@alltootired my point was people do go back even if they can afford not to because they enjoy their work or because their skill are in demand so they can dictate more flexible working.

You seem to say no-one would ever go back - that what I was responding to - people do - either because they need to for money or because they get something else out of it like satisfaction.

I think we'll want to carry on working - health dependent but would probably enjoy greater flexibility or p/t older we are so we have time to do more of what we want. Almost certainly won't want to do long commutes we do now - so will probably downsize as kids leave home.

I think it's unreasonable for people to just work say 30/35 years, i.e. early/mid 20s after Uni and then retire in their 50's. People living for say, 70-80 years on average who've only worked for less half that time is clearly unsustainable. Go back a few decades and most started their working lives in their mid/late teens and retired typically in their early 60s, so many would have worked 40-45 years and then typically didn't live as long in old age so didn't need as much pension/health/care.

I think with entering the workplace later, people need to be incentivised to work into their 60s. Whether that's by making pensions less attractive or tax incentives or whether workplaces will have to become more amenable and flexible.