To think all of these people can afford children they just don't want them

[Surgicalprecison]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7x5kl5l8o

These articles on the BBC lately show me people's priorities in life have shifted, they don't want children enough to compromise on their current lifestyles.

@Cleanin @barbiegirl881
Hopefully others have read your comments, to understand why many are not having more children, or any.The people who made do years ago, would they really manage today.

this is pretty condescending. At no point do they say they think adopting an older child would be 'easy.' They just say they wouldn't have to pay fulltime childcare costs, which they wouldn't.

They both have PHDs, presumably they are aware that children of all ages need food, clothes, etc. But a 2 year old will also need fulltime childcare if both parents are working and a 6 year old won't. That's factually correct, not naïve. It's constantly mentioned on here 'don't worry things will be better once they are in school.' Because for many families childcare IS the biggest expense.

Yes older children might have other expenses young ones won't, like activities etc., and depending on the parents' jobs might need some wraparound care but a) these are ultimately optional and can be cut if desperate, and
b) unless child is an Olympic athlete in training, don't cost £300 p/w!

Maybe it's just easier to say " we can't afford kids" and have the conversation move on, than "we don't want them" and be subjected to the usual " you'll change your mind when you meet the right person", or " who's going to take care of you in your old age?" and other such bollox people like to spout.

I can understand that. I've stopped at one child for many reasons, the main one being I hate being a parent but I often cite chronic health condition and bad pregnancy if quizzed about it by people I don't know that well. Depends on my mood really.

Lets face it though, many people in London aren't London born and bred and the need to move out hit those Londoners way back, I am one of those and was born in grew up in part of West London and South London, DH was from what now is a very expensive part of North London. We had to move on on the 00s and excepted it, why is it a surprise if that London is unaffordable to bring up a family in 2024! DH and I both work in jobs that are pretty London centric, particularly DH who is an Architect. We had our first child quite young so mid to late 20s (DH still hadn't qualified )for a peers and income bracket and it was fine, it worked but we knew we couldn't move back to the part of North and and West London of our upbringing to do this.

Accepted not excepted.

I think the naivity comment refers to the fact that often children in these situations (ie up for adoption) have many issues to deal with, including issues from neglect, in utero damage from alcohol and drug abuse, sexual abuse etc., and are FAR harder to parent. Instead the couple here seem to be thinking of a child who is at least years old, healthy, well parented and socialised, who just happens to be ‘available’. It is highly unlikely!

Yes exactly, adopting a primary school aged child would be incredibly difficult, and they may well find one of the parents had to give up work, making it the far more expensive option too. As someone upthread said, the comment smacked of "we'll just pick up a cheap one".

I haven’t read the other responses to the OP, but it stung to read this.

We got married this year and desperately want to have kids, but we just can’t afford it.

We live in a tiny 2 bed and both work from home, so we have no space. We’ve considered properties up to 2 hours from where we currently live & still can’t afford anywhere bigger.

This is despite generally earning quite well - we run a small business. Some months are great, other months we barely scrape enough together to cover our mortgage & bills. We simply cannot afford the risk of putting a child in the mix, despite being desperate to start a family.

If we abandoned our business, we’d overall make less money between (and would have to fork out for more childcare, travel etc.).

We’re saving like mad to literally have enough cushioning to get us through the first year or so of parenthood, but as mentioned previously we realistically have to move anyway so any savings will go towards hopefully finding somewhere a little roomier so we can actually have space for all the things a baby needs.

I’m 30 & my husband is 37. This is not how either of us pictured our lives at all and it makes me so upset that despite doing everything right, and earning well in relation to our peers, we just met that little bit too late and now housing is too expensive and the cost of living has gone crazy; our earnings would have meant we would be living very comfortably this time 5 years ago. We will get there eventually I know, but it is for these reasons we are childless for the foreseeable future and not out of choice.

I can’t speak for the people in the article, but I can say there are 100% people out there who would love to have kids but simply can’t afford them.

The average income and above is approximately the top 1/3 of full time wage earners. The median is far less than that. And of course London is full of min wage workers who cannot aford anything.

Dunno - I don't think those salary are particularly good to raise children unless you own your home or how a low mortgage.

I think childbearing tends to be for the poor or the very rich. If you are poor you can support with accommodation etc and if you are rich you don't need to worry about housing cost. I think if a working person having children is a bit risky.

I’m on 54k and my partner on about 27k. Own our 3 bed in Edinburgh with a mortgage, in a nice area.
When I was exploring having a child, I did the expected calculations to assess affordability. Tbh, it was tight. Yes we could just about afford it and roughly maintain an ok standard of life. But holidays, hobbies, savings etc would mostly be nil. It’s also important to save enough for a pension.
I was also concerned that the catchment area school wasn’t the best so was exploring private education.
In the end, I decided against it all. If I’m going to bring another life into the world, I want to give them the best opportunities to have a good future. It’s not easy these days for the younger generation.

Yes, it worries me that I’ve missed out and we might be lonelier in our older age. But I feel it’s selfish and naive to ignore how difficult things can be.

Why would you say that? Success rates for eggs removed at 37 are very good (ie greater than 50 percent). I did IUI at 39 and IVF with frozen eggs from when I was 36 and both times I was successful first time. Things drop off rapidly for success rates in your 40s - but even then one of my friends had her kid at 46 after IVF (though there she really did have to go through more rounds than I would ever have stuck with it - but she chose to and has a lovely boy as a result). 37 is not an unusual age to freeze eggs.

81k between you and you can't afford a child?

Perhaps it was the age we had them so our first mid to late 20s, owned a one bedroom flat only, DH hadn't even qualified in Architecture by the time DS was born but I don't think it is 'difficult' if by difficult you mean giving up hobbies and not sending to private school. I was in a really good job and had full pay for 6 months on ML but once it was over we lived off DH's meagre income, it wasn't close to £82000. Of course, if things are important to you they are important and it is a private choice but I wouldn't say forgoing what you listed is 'difficult'.

I know that 50% is good for ivf but as someone with fertility issues, i think that it's still not great odds. Even for couples going through ivf, it's often said that there is no guarantee there will be a baby at the end, the cumulative success rate of 3 ivf cycles is 67%. There is still that 1 in 3 people who wouldn't have a baby despite going through ivf 3 times.

Given the cost of housing, especially the soaring costs of renting, and the ruinous cost of childcare, TBH I’m not surprised that so many people are choosing not to have children.

I think having to seriously consider the affordability is giving lots of couples the time and space to also seriously consider if they want them at all. Lots are concluding no!

The cost of childcare is likely a big factor, in that the alternative is (usually) the women being expected to make career sacrifices, which many women are increasingly unwilling to do.

I really don’t understand this at all - the alternative to IVF is usually no kids and with it 2/3 are able to have them (the cumulative odds are a bit better with eggs from a 37 year old I believe but the majority of people do it later). So we should stop anyone from trying because it’s expensive? If people want to spend their money on it I can’t think of many better things to spend money on - and that’s 2/3 of people who are getting to have kids they wouldn’t otherwise have including myself. That’s not rapacious greed by the providers - it’s a great medical service.

Such judgment.
When someone makes this decision, it’s not really up for debate.

We could also afford kids but don’t want them.

Yet so many people seem to think it’s their business and judge me for it! I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told “you’ll change your mind”…..(I’m 51 now, it’s a bit late 😂)

I agree that IVF is a great medical service but sadly it’s not correct that two thirds of people having IVF will have a baby. It’s really important given all the hope and money involved. The NHS has figures on it: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/

‘Chances of success
The success rate of IVF depends on the age of the woman having treatment, as well as the cause of the infertility (if it's known).
Younger women are more likely to have a successful pregnancy.
IVF isn't usually recommended for women over the age of 42 because the chances of a successful pregnancy are thought to be too low.

In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth was:

• 32% for women under 35
• 25% for women aged 35 to 37
• 19% for women aged 38 to 39
• 11% for women aged 40 to 42
• 5% for women aged 43 to 44
• 4% for women aged over 44

These figures are for women using their own eggs and their partner’s sperm, using the per embryo transferred measure.’

Nothing unreasonable about this! It is interesting. Obviously the cost of living does make life more difficult nowadays but I also wonder if our expectations are higher. We're not used to children sharing rooms, forgoing holidays etc and that's perfectly valid but so is having children and making lifestyle sacrifices.

There was an interesting article I saw today about how the one-child policy in China has left bereaved parents without care in their later years, as the country's social care heavily rests on adult children (apparently it's a legal duty on adult children in the constitution, if I remember correctly, and where care workers are hired, they don't provide the same level of care as tends to be expected of adult children).

Hopefully it doesn't need the caveat but I in no way think anyone needs to have children and there are plenty of parents / childless adults who'd be happier without children and probably not best suited to be parents either! Good it's a more conscious choice for many people. But it is interesting how our expectations have shifted. Anecdotally, I imagine it's to do with having children later as well as the higher cost of living. I'm definitely used to a more comfortable quality of life having entered my thirties than what I had in my twenties.

Given the focus of the article, it’s understandable if wider concerns weren’t discussed or reported. But if I was in her shoes, the fact that my partner is in a job that likely means he’s away from home several nights a week would be a massive factor in the ‘fuck no’ column.