To think parents are being screwed over here?

[Bumpitybumper]

I was reading an article today that was discussing how population growth fuels economic growth and how our low birth rate is negatively impacting our economy. They also make the point that productivity is being hugely harmed by growing numbers of young people being economically inactive and often citing mental health issues that were present from childhood. There was an interesting paragraph in the article that made me stop and think:

'We have socialised the cost of old age – everyone is entitled to pensions and healthcare, regardless of whether they have “replenished” the economy by having children of their own – but privatised the cost of parenthood, removing entirely the link between bearing children and future economic security'

I think the journalist has a real point. It is in everyone's interests to make sure that we have an abundant, healthy workforce for when we hit old age and yet this burden is being disproportionately being carried by fewer and fewer people who are choosing parenthood. Surely you either socialise both elements properly (parenthood and care for the elderly) or none? Otherwise more and more people will opt out of having children in the full knowledge that they can skip expensive nursery fees and other costs, with the full knowledge that this doesn't in anyway invalidate their entitlement to assistance as they age.

I think you are being over-dramatic

My ds may have been at a childminder from 2 and in ASC from 5-10, but he spent every moment beyond that with me, has never wanted for anything, has been loved, protected and supported, and is a happy, well balanced teen.

We live in a comfortable rural home, eat home cooked nutritious food, including home made bread. We eat together, cook together and he will head off to university fully competent and able to care for himself. He knows I am always here for him.

Nothing in his life bears any resemblance to farm breeding or the practices of North Korea/China.

I look around my community and do not recognise your description at all.

It was approved by parliament in June and will be available in the UK within 4 years (assisted dying).

I think the expectation that women need to sacrifice their entire personal and professional life to commit to their children is part of the driver in the low birth rate.

Having children is just very difficult when the expectations on parents (and particularly mothers) are so high.

Go to work and you’re failing them. Stay at home and you’re failing them. Earn money and you’re neglecting them. Don’t earn money and you’re vulnerable.

The ‘couple of mornings a week at preschool while mums at home with the kids’ model was only feasible for a minor period in history. Parents have always had help and worked.

Totally agree. Women were sold that they could have it all, and that simply isn't true. Now they are getting smarter and know that there are other options and ways to have a fulfilling life and it doesn't involve kids.

What a load of bollocks

supporting future older populations doesn’t even make the list of reasons why people are having fewer babies

we can import a workforce if need be

It's not a competiton. Those of us who don't have children will ofte pay more tax as we don't take so much time out of the workplace (I have worked full time with no break since I was 21, I am not 47) We pay taxes to fund the cost of education, childbirth on the NHS, child related benefits, childcare support and health care for children. All of which I gladly do, but don't act like the child free don't help fund stuff for those who choose to have children.

Depends who is having them costalcalm. I have 5 and am still very much a net contributor and am educating them in way that means its probable they will be too. People need to be encouraged to be as productive as possible - then living standsrds go up for everyone. The area i grew up in looks like a complete shithole now - everyone waiting for someone else to pick up the rubbish blowing past their front door. Society is completely broken without personal responsibility.

Yeah OP, you are right.

In the "old days" and still in many countries, children take care of their parents in old age. It's necessary, and expected, and there is a lot of moral value placed on that.

People who find themselves without kids in those societies are at risk, and often need to rely on nieces and nephews or even cousins. Or they have no one and really suffer.

We have created a society where elder care is commercialised and financially speaking, socialized, and the people doing the hands on elements are not usually your own children, they are other people's children. Chances are that even if you have no children other people's children will keep society running, pay taxes, and manage your care.

So compared to other societies, there is little risk to being without kids. And in fact you may be better off, because you will have saved a lot of money by not having children.

You will, however, still be dependent on other people's kids to wipe your bum and grow your food and deliver your groceries.

We have socialized some elements of child-rearing, particularly education. But I would argue that it's not really balanced out now. It's still a massive expense for parents, without the security that historically would come from having children. And it's a significant impact on why people don't, and often can't, have children.

Long term it will be a problem and in fact we see that already.

Population growth doesn't necessarily mean economic growth in a meaningful way.

Sure more workers will generally = more GDP (assuming productivity per worker doesn't decrease) and hence more tax (for a given average effective tax rate per capita). But that is meaningless if the rate of increase of national costs equals or exceeds GDP growth.

That is what has been happening for the past 20+ years hence the mess we find ourselves in. GDP has been increasing, but cost growth has vastly outstripped that, hence increasing national debt and debt repayments.

What matters is GDP per capita (and hence tax) vs costs per capita. It doesn't matter if we have a population of 2 million or 200 million if on average we generate more income than we spend.

A the thing that very few people ever consider when thinking about this kind of thing is the system efficiency vs size problem. Bureaucratic systems (and I don't mean bureaucratic in a pejorative sense simply an organisational one) have a habit of becoming more expensive per unit action as they get larger, often exponentially so. In other words for example, processing pension payments for 20 million people instead of ten million people doesn't double in cost, it more than doubles.

This effect is incredibly hard to avoid. It's one of the reasons that as companies get large they tend to either split into smaller autonomous units/companies, or sell off non-core operations etc. It just gets incredibly hard to efficiently organise. It is also why the NHS as a single enormous monolithic entity is pure lunacy. Any efficiencies of scale become dwarfed by complexity costs after a certain size.

Global fertility rates are falling. Even India is below replacement rate at 1.94. We aren't going to import immigrants

As a new parent of a 10 day old, my dh got a vasectomy when I was 6 months pregnant so we are stopping at 1. We knew it would be too difficult to have more and have known that for around 10 years since I married at 22. I am 32 and so have been sure for a long time so after I got pregnant after years of infertility we made arrangements for permanent contraception. A lot of people would say this is due to finances or housing or female participation in workforce since we own a small 2 bed flat in London (purchased with 2 incomes in our 20s) but that doesn't explain the fall in birth rate in Saudi Arabia or India or Turkey

The only rich country where birth rate isn't falling off a cliff is israel where childbirth and family is celebrated. Housing and prices are insane but it doesn't stop people.

Yep Having it all really means doing it all. I decided not to have kids when i was 21 Im now 52 and dont regret it at all. I was an outlier then, Im not now.

The article is bang to rights.

im 26, working, paying national insurance contributions and I will never get a state pension. However ill have to work until my mid 70’s, because I was supporting this generation of pensioners.

@pourmeadrinkpls

Totally agree. Women were sold that they could have it all, and that simply isn't true. Now they are getting smarter and know that there are other options and ways to have a fulfilling life and it doesn't involve kids.

Im mid 40s and no children. I look at the mothers who I work with - all stressed, all do the majority of things at home too. Not for me thank you. Also, I’m not having a child just to support society later down the line!

Childfree ppl are always being told on here other ppls children will be caring for you when you are older , when we ask those same parents "oh so care work is the profession you will be encouraging your kids into then" .................radio silence!

Which proves that people who HAVE kids will also expect other ppls kids to care for them. Its not exclusive to the child free.

Are you saying infertile people shouldn't get a pension?

We can, but it's not exactly non-contentious.

I doubt you are who the poster is referring to, as your child was lucky enough to go into childcare at the relatively late age of 2 where they would begin to have some social benefits of a nursery setting.

i look around and see babies put in full time nursery (8-6, every single day) at 8 months old due to insufficient maternity leave. Bills need to be paid, but there is no universe where this is ideal for a baby.

this will be the case for the majority of dual income households.

we have insufficient parental leave and there are going to be even less grandparents around to help provide some care or support with drop offs and pick ups as the retirement age climbs.

Ive just watched a debate on Loose Women where they were talking about the possibility of it going up to 74

You're missing the point OP that child free people are more likely to be net contributors.

They pay more tax and take fewer benefits.

So they have already paid for their right to elderly assistance.

Do child free people pay more tax?

Well, given that so many young people are economically inactive these days, I'm not totally clear that many parents have particularly contributed to the economy by raising a generation in which so many seem to be incapable of work.

Plus parents and their children take more out of the system than those who are child free, so I think it all balances out in the end.

We will all be relying on technology in the future, I imagine, with AI and robots doing a lot of the work. So we will need to re-think how we organise our society and pay for essential services in any case.

I've always thought there is something spectacularly creepy about right-wing male politicians who are up for supporting women in having children but not by subsidising childcare. VOMMMM.

Of course you should be working until your mid seventies. The generation you denigrate (my parents’) quite regularly started working full time in labour intensive jobs in their mid-teens. A good decade before most people start working properly today. Even my generation was sold the lie that national insurance (‘the stamp’) was entirely for our pensions.

Address your ire to the profligacy of governments that has now resulted in taxpayers having to fund a £100 billion interest bill for their borrowing, and thank the previous generations for paying for your education/healthcare/etc etc.

Use some critical thinking, and stop falling into the trap that governments love of pitting generations against each other.

Indeed. There’s never been so many economically inactive working age young people as there is now.

Of course you should be working until your mid seventies. The generation you denigrate (my parents’) quite regularly started working full time in labour intensive jobs in their mid-teens. A good decade before most people start working properly today

Except healthy life expectancy hasn't changed...

The rest of the post is rubbish.