To think it’s obvious why the birth rate is falling

[workidoos]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro.amp

Life is prohibitively expensive in this country. We earn the UK average income each and can’t foresee being able to comfortably have a second child without the financial impact being too great. I understand sacrifices can be made but in addition to extortionate childcare and the essentials we want to be able to afford extracurriculars, birthday parties, Christmases, trips away for us and DD and some basic savings for her future. I’m not talking private school or extravagant holidays either. With another this would be harder, I’d have to definitely work full time and for longer to afford it and thus losing out on work life balance for what’s likely to be increased mental load and stress in some way or another.

On a local group someone was saying it’s over £100 for two adults and a child to enter a festive park nearby and see Santa. Mind boggling. As a family of 3 it then feels like the natural choice to stay that way, despite the fact we always saw ourselves with a bigger family.

Does this sound like anyone else’s situation? AIBU to think this news shouldn’t be a surprise?

Children can't just plod along in the middle any more if they are to have any chance in the working world of the future.

@ObelixtheGaul I'm really seeing this play out at the moment with DD and her peers. She's actually the 'only only' in her class, which I think is fairly unusual nowadays, but our wider area has a plummeting birth rate. Lots of respectable but 'just about managing' families, in our school, and several of her classmates with 2/3 siblings are crammed into one and two bedroom flats. I do wonder what their parents' expectations for them are, but then when I was growing up they would probably have been able to afford a decent three-bedroom house on the same income.

DD meanwhile is getting all the music lessons, modern languages classes and other 'extras' that lots of these kids aren't, and they won't be getting them at our lovely but extremely strapped for cash state primary either (or our local zero tolerance, entirely focused on exam outcomes academy secondary). Social mobility in general seems to have ground to a halt, and state education has become more and more utilitarian and focused on exam hoop-jumping.

We're actually planning to relocate for secondary, partly because with one child we're more 'nimble' than other families and will only need one school place to come up (plus can make do with a slightly smaller house than many).

Unfortunately I think nowadays you do have to jockey for position and be quite cynical and strategic if you want your child to have the same longer term life chances that we had as children. And it's much easier to do this with a single DC.

Sadly, I agree. When I was young, growing up rurally, the extra-curriculars just weren't there, but they weren't so needed. We wouldn't all be competing for uni places where you need that edge as grades are no longer enough.

We knew there'd be work we didn't have to be qualified for, and we would be able to live reasonably on it. I had a nice three-bedroomed mid-terrace in a nice area by the time I was 22, no help from parents, bought with my husband, neither of us massive earners. I worked in a factory. That just isn't do-able now.

We have one child we’ve rented for the entirety of their life. It’s depressing. They will be off to uni soon. They’ve never had a decorated room of their own, they’ve never been able to have a pet dog, dig the pond and watch the wildlife, grow the apple trees they wanted.

as we move on to the next stage, I know we will have issues with them renting a room at uni and being a guarantor

it’s very much a first world problem, as they are warm and fed. It doesn’t stop it being depressing, it doesn’t stop it feeling like I’ve let them down.

we also have no real pension to speak of either let alone one able to support us in paying private rents. We’ve spent over £300,000 in rent now over that period.

Thats why we have one. House prices.

Maybe previous birth rates were artificially high, and only normal when women don't have a choice, their own money, and access to education. Perhaps the new birth rates are more normal now women have more autonomy than they did in the past.

I agree. Even if I won the lottery I wouldn't have more kids so it's not just about money.

My DS and DIL have just bought their first home in their 40s they have been saving since their 20s. They are not having any children. They said it would make their lives too hard and they can't see the benefit. I only had one, it was all I could afford as a single woman. Most of their friends are childless too. It's getting worse by the year. People would rather have pets.

It’s also much much more acceptable to say you’re not having children now. Even 10/20 years ago you’d be judged, faces pulled and criticised.

I imagine it's because women in those countries do not have autonomy over their own bodies, don't have equal rights and are not educated. Health care and infant mortality has a big impact too.
As soon as women are allowed access to the same education opportunities (which leads to earning power and more equality) as men the birth rate falls.

It's not about 'priorities' when salaries won't even cover a one bed flat and nursery costs and you need both incomes for the mortgage. This is not about foreign holidays and luxuries! Renting is also astronomical at the minute.
I think you had a point 15years ago but there are parts of the country now where the basics are out of reach.

I agree with the poster who said that only the very rich or the benefit class can afford to have children.
We are not going to wake up tomorrow and find 2 bedroomed terraces houses for sale at £20,000 or a 3 bedroomed semi at £35,000. Those days are gone.
It’s also true that these are not the people paying into the system, so bleating on about encouraging women to have children is stupid. These groups contribute the least in terms of paying into the system.

I agree with this.

I don't think that things are more unaffordable nowadays, people just have much much higher expectations of what they should have & are very vocal about how 'unfair' things are.

Not true, big costs like housing are multiple times more expensive now compared to wages.

They were in the 70s & 80s too @lavenderlou - both my parents had full & part time jobs to cover our bills (with no holidays or clubs or any luxuries) but we still had a great childhood.

I don't think that things are more unaffordable nowadays,

😆😆 yep there’s been change to wages vs house price ratio.

Agree. It means childcare costs are much more expensive, as they have to cover bigger housing costs themselves in either commercial rent or purchasing.

if we are talking about 70’s/80’s/early 90’s
you could just ask Doris down the road to mind the kids after school for £25 cash in hand. more community nursery’s that were cheaper - although, less were around for taking babies)
You also were more likely to have relatives locally that could help with childcare. You didn’t have to move away so far for work or housing costs.

The multiples of rent and mortgage is obscene now

but there is an expectation for kids now, they can’t play out on the streets now they do play and interact online. You do need to facilitate that some how or they will be left out from friendship groups. Schools expect them to have access to devices at home for homework etc.
the childhoods are just not comparable

The 70s were very different

Once the children hit school age parents didn't take time off for the holidays or child ill health

Housing is much less affordable
Everything else is much more accessible to working classes

I can't make sense of this message. Nobody is saying that Boris Johnson has a mistress and this is making the birth rate fall? What??

Totally agree. It’s obvious!

People generally want to give their children the same or better standard of living that they had growing up.

I grew up in the 90s with one stay at home parent (never spent a single day in childcare) and one parent working (as a deputy headteacher) with a salary that would probably today be equivalent to about £65,000. That salary sustained a family of 4, two dogs and a cat in a large 4 bedroom semi detached house with a big garden and two decent cars. We had a holiday every year, to the seaside in the UK and to France or Italy around every 3 years. My sister and I had hobbies such as dance classes, music lessons and brownies. Trips to the theatre or zoo 2-3 times a year. We weren’t extravagant, but we wanted for nothing really.

A household income of £65,000 just couldn’t afford all that these days.

We are thinking of just having one because of the cost. It breaks my heart as I would love more - but cannot see how we can make the numbers add up without having to sell our house.

The cost of living is extremely high - there are plenty of areas in the country where you can't live in a family house and make ends meet without two salaries. If two of you are working then the cost of having more than one child is additional childcare costs, which are astronomical - even with free hours.

I find it infuriating that people simplify it by suggesting that in order to have another you need to have a simpler lifestyle...the cost of childcare is so significant that unless you are enjoying a substantial amount of disposable income it is not a cost that can simply be offset by doing without some of life's luxuries!!!

I have a large family and we haven’t struggled financially at all BUT I can see why others would when I look at our circumstances and where we’ve made massive savings :
-no car so didn’t need car seats
-used a carrier so never needed to purchase big items like pram or pushchair
-co slept so no cot needed

The big one was free childcare from family - I think nursery fees are the main issue for people as when we looked it was impossible we wouldn’t have managed .

We also moved before having dc to a much cheaper area of the country as rents in south are extortionate.

I can see why people are put off as it’s very expensive if you aren’t lucky enough to have help sadly

It’s always been expensive having children, regardless of what decade or century.

The differences now:

• women are staying longer in education
• women having children much later on average.
• women having fewer children but also far fewer infant mortalities. So women are having fewer pregnancies
• teenagers are no longer a major section of the workforce and are expected to stay in school to at least 18.

This means we will continue to have large numbers of immigrants regardless. It’s just the way the world is. I can’t see that changing. In the end, it will happen to many counties. We are just seeing happen in the West first.

It can’t work both ways. You can’t have a declining birthrate and keep immigration low.
Convincing women to have more kids, hasn’t worked in counties like China, South Korea- so I doubt it would happen here. This is the new normal.

I had my 1st at 40, wish I’d done it sooner as being a mum is by far the best thing I’ve ever done despite having a masters degree and good job. My husband won’t entertain the idea of a 2nd child due to cost whereas both my brothers had 3 kids the decade before and I can’t help thinking if we’d started having kids a decade ago as well we’d have had more than the ‘1 & done’ we have due to finance reasons.

There was somewhere in America decades ago that put photos on the milk cartons of men who were delinquent in child support! 😂😂😂

DD meanwhile is getting all the music lessons, modern languages classes and other 'extras' that lots of these kids aren't, and they won't be getting them at our lovely but extremely strapped for cash state primary either (or our local zero tolerance, entirely focused on exam outcomes academy secondary). Social mobility in general seems to have ground to a halt, and state education has become more and more utilitarian and focused on exam hoop-jumping.

DH and I learnt how to swim via of primary and secondary schools it was surprise to find that wasn't going to happen for our kids then have to fork out for swimming lessons for years. That's harder now for parents as one of local pool closed.

Education wise I caught up having fallen behind due to dyslexia - my kids years those who caught up had some form of external help - family or paid - as there's just not the time or resources to help them in school.

My nephew just started school Dsis single parent who has to work full time - he's tired from school day but has to go into childcare - they get in 6 and need to eat he's exhausted but had 20-30 minutes of homework a night but they go so fast he can't afford to fall behind.

It's more pushed onto parents and as fewer people have kids and resources tighten that becomes more socially acceptable and contributes to smaller family sizes.

Also we were a decade older than IL when we had our first child - 28/30 they thought is too young. When we hit our late 40s they suddenly wanted us to have another child - we were thinking existing kids out the door get retainment and other saving up - IL had 25 years child and mortgage free were will have fewer. They pointed to older parents in media - oblivious to many using IVF and donner eggs. DH older cousins were parents in the 20s - his younger cousins nearer 40 - even in lower social economic areas there's been a slow rise in parental age.

It's another example of economic necessity slowly impacting social norms - economics drags parental age up and up and that becomes the new social normal even desirable ages for parenthood.