UK fertility rate drops by 18.8% in 12 years

[MidnightPatrol]

The UK has the fastest falling fertility rate in the G7.

2022 saw the lowest number of births for 20 years.

The current TFR is 1.49 births per woman.

What do you think the reason for this is, and what could be done to reverse the trend?

news.sky.com/story/amp/britains-fertility-rate-falling-faster-than-any-other-g7-country-with-austerity-thought-to-be-a-principal-factor-13232314

We need a balanced population. With people living longer we could end up with a massive population of elderly and not enough young people working and paying taxes to care for the old people and pay taxes for their state pensions, NHS care and other care costs.

I had mine late, by the time she started sleeping through I was still knackered, plus had HG with and it was genuinely horrendous. However I just don’t want another one. She’s lovely but it’s a lot of work. Also I know that with one I can support her if anything happens to DH. If i had started earlier I may have had a second so I think once average age of first birth goes up families tend to get smaller. It takes longer to feel established now and I do think childhood seems to be extending.

Of the childree/childless women I know the majority just didn’t meet someone in time to have a very much wanted child. A few just flat out don’t want any which is understandable really. Parenting and working is not easy at all.

I do think we need to provide free good quality childcare for women who do want more.

I fully agree with the previous posters that it is largely a combination of high house prices (couples where financially possible prefer the security of their own home when starting a family) along with the high cost of childcare which encourages parents to have fewer children.

That said I personally don't see falling birth rates or equally stopping as much immigration as possible (legal or otherwise) resulting in a shrinking UK population as necessarily a bad thing.

If in terms of the environment the single most effective measure is population control and in terms of the long term wealth of the economy a smaller population would equate to a higher GDP per head. In terms of quality of life then a smaller population is better.

To be clear I am absolutely not advocating some lemming type mass cull of the population or some Chinese one child policy but rather a gradual reduction through voluntary lower birth rates and reducing immigration.

Sure there is the argument about growing the numbers of workers to support the ageing population but this is effectively promoting a pyramid scheme where you have to keep increasing the workforce to keep paying for the pensioners and then more people for when that workforce retires and so on. It also assumes everyone in the workforce is actually in employment and a net contributor of tax revenue (ie put in more than they take out).

This is is not sustainable and quality of life, infrastructure, environmentally or economy I don't think the country could handle another 40% increase from 75 million to 100 million (UK population increased from 50 million in 1955 to 70 million in 2024)

Yes. The inconvenient truth of climate change is that there are too many of us on the planet. This is a major contributor to my not wanting children. I realise that, in the great cosmic oneness, my effort is insignificant, especially when other countries are expanding their populations at an increasing rate. In my view, not having children is far more effective than most other means of protecting the planet.

I realise that there are differing views, and that some reproduction needs to take place to procreate the species, etc etc, and I am also not meaning to criticise those who have had children. This is my view though, and several of my friends feel the same.

Most people will not be relying on state pension though. It may had a few extra coins but the bulk of retirement in the future will, for most people, be from private pensions funds.

I always found this a weak argument to uphold the Ponzi scheme that is ever growing population sizes.

Agree with this, the Ponzi scheme does have to end one way or another, because even if infinite growth were possible, it's obviously not desirable. We have to come up with a different way of redistributing wealth and managing retirement and elderly care.

It's not feminism, it's capitalism.

It's not just paying pensions, it's having enough working people to pay enough tax so we can have public services and a functioning society- health being one of them, well-used by pensioners.

The post I referred to was specific to pensions.

But what you describe just sounds like a ponzu scheme as the population will have to keep growing and growing in order to manage that.

We need to find new ways of funding as populations will continue to age and you cannot force people to have [more] children.

Feminism is about equitable treatment irrespective of sex.

It has nothing to do with creating dual income households.

We certainly have a problem.

• Capitalism requires constant economic growth.
• Economic growth requires the right kind of skills and labour.
• We don't have enough people to carry out the labour required for growth.
• More people means more homes and services need to be built, whether it's from immigration or babies being born.
• More homes and infrastructure means more carbon use and severe impact on the environment and climate.

But no-one is suggesting an alternative model, this is all we have to work with.

Maybe because rental prices are out of this fucking world? Where are people going to live? Salaries are also too low. Having children would be like willingly shooting yourself in the foot. And I say that as a parent of 2

Ponzi scheme demographics are not a great idea for very obvious reasons. But the cliff edge situation in South Korea where you lose 80% of the population over two generations is also very problematic.

We should be able to cope with a gradual population decline, eg with a fertility rate of 1.8-2. But fertility rates below 1.5, let alone below 1, are stoking up serious problems for thirty or forty years time.

And despite what some people think, it's not a temporary problem that we'll have to live with for a bit before things "level out". If fertility rates continue below 1.5 then the same unbalanced inverted demographic pyramid continues indefinitely - it won't fix itself naturally unless people start to have more babies again. Release on housing pressures might motivate that to some extent but it's difficult to foresee - the delays inherent in the process mean that another two generations will have made their childbearing choices by the time that housing stock pressures are released. It'll all sort itself out in the long run maybe, just as European society did after the Black Death, but over a much longer timescale.

The South Korean example is extreme but also an unavoidable consequence of their gender politics (and cost of living).

I just don’t see how the issue can be fixed. Birth rates always fall with greater female autonomy and education. Maybe it can be made easier for couples to afford the family size they want but that still needs money from…somewhere.

More women are getting educated and seeing that there is more to life than just being a mum.

I’m ok with that plus by the time dc born today reach the workforce it’ll likely be a very different landscape

Maybe we won’t want the same number graduating to fewer jobs as tech ramps up

Agree. We’re entering a phase of increased volatile over resources and always increasing is unsustainable

I agree that it's financial.

I know a few couples who have waited until their mid 30's to start trying as they have spent their 20's and early 30's saving for a house deposit.

It's responsible to not bring a child into the World while you are struggling financially, I think.

Yes - it's only a few countries in the world now which are driving the high birth rates, as soon as they are able to have more equal opportunities and better education in those countries then the global population will start to decline.

We may still have a problem of an imbalance in young and old though. I don't know what the solution is.

I think it’s quite simple. People are joining the workforce quite late. I did a UG and masters, I thought I was late to join workforce (25). The number of people who have to do phds or retrain to stand out is unreal.

Many if my friends only finished qualifying c. 27 some still going at early/ mid 30s.

I had mine right when my career was breaking through. I’m trying to have it all. It doesn’t real,y work. Everything just gets a bit shit.

Currently pregnant with my second/ last and thinking of going to top up train with a post grad on maternity.

I think that's definitely part of it - they enjoy their careers and their independence and don't want to sacrifice it all for a baby, or pay a small fortune in childcare costs.

Even if both parents are fully onboard and contribute fairly, working full time while you raise a family is time consuming, stressful and expensive - lots of people don't want to spend a good 20 years of their life like that.

It’s interesting to me how many people don’t want to have children unless they own a property.

Not saying that is right or wrong but wonder if this is class based. I was 18 before I lived in a non-rented property and growing up in my low socio-economic / underclass area having kids in rented property was the norm.

I think the instability of the rental market plays a huge part. Renting social housing is very different to being dependent on a private landlord who can kick you out with very little notice.

Yes we can’t infinitely increase the population without life expectancy reducing. Does anyone want to live in a world where people are expected to voluntarily end their lives when they reach a certain age, regardless of their health etc? Soylent Green/ Logan’s Run scenario?

The most effective means of population control is female education.

You can see the trend in countries that historically had low female education and low female education which now have higher female education and higher female employment that have then seen their birth rates fall. South Korea being a strong example.