To discuss the societal impacts of older parents?

[Kindersurprising]

I feel like this is a really under-discussed area, particularly as it’s now really extremely common (particularly in middle class circles) to have a first baby after 30 and in many cases 35+.

I feel like in 20 years we are going to see quite a big impact, in adults having fewer (if any) siblings due to parental age, caring for elderly parents while having small children themselves, a lack of grandparent support and I guess a smaller family circle much earlier on. I only realised today that it will be vanishingly rare for kids to have great grandparents soon - my DC have only one, through me.

The positives are often cited as more money, and more life experience.

I was 30 when DC2 was born, so somewhere in the middle and not a young parent as such. I often wonder what it would be like to have had them earlier.

How do you think this will play out in the next 20-50 years?

It isn’t though. A teen mum who needs lifelong public support doesn’t make lower taxes by having children. Not all teen mums of course are dependent on benefits their whole lives but as a group they are overwhelmingly likely to be poor and uneducated. As a group they are a net cost to the taxpayer.

And so are older people who haven’t looked after their heath.

It’s part of the reason we pay taxes to help our other fellow humans.

So do poorer people who tend to have lower life expectancies. Quite significantly lower in many communities

Poorer people are less likely to have dc today I thought?

There are a lot less teen mum's then there was twenty/thirty years ago and the few teens that became mums in the past ten years have to put up with constant nasty assumptions. Honestly the things people say about teen mum's are far worse than what they say about older mums.

Also someone said a little up thread that most people aren't actually net contributers, not everyone will become a lawyer just because they held off family life for a decade or two.

I’ve never ever seen anyone say that. People have pointed out repeatedly that teen parents are not in a good position to look after a child. As a group they overwhelmingly tend to have poor outcomes as do their children sadly

why has this turned into a argument about poor teen mum vs older rich mum and who pays taxes? Regardless of who is having dc there aren't enough dc to support the ageing population.

No I was saying there’s not an increased ‘risk’. It’s been observed that those who are poor or those who have older fathers have a small (and it’s still very small) correlation with increased neurodivergence. It’s not been proved that being poor causes neurodivergence (or being an older father), just in the sample sizes there is a slight correlation. There is no proof that being poor or being older causes it, there is proof that there is a genetic link, so maybe the discussion should be around that if we are looking at proven factors? It also depends if you see neurodivergence as a negative?

Just because someone has less money doesn’t mean they are devoid of love and devotion.

Many young people who have children earlier find it’s that which gives them the drive to become better for their children.

Perhaps some older fathers have ND hence no being able to form a relationship until later to have children. It wouldn’t have mattered what age they produced babies it was already predetermined

Statistically again, as a group teen mums have very poor outcomes and tend to be poor and uneducated. Older parents are much more likely to be net contributors to society. The main reason being older parents have time to establish a career, financial stability and finish education.

you don’t need to be a lawyer to be a net contributor. But having a child at a time you don’t have your own home or career is one way that you are far less likely to become one.

There are changes, financial, taking this into account. The opt out pension schemes, they are partly to be able to freeze the state pension in future. Or vaguely means test it.

So less tax support will be required.

There's another active thread yesterday where a poster tried to insist a teen mum should say thank you for her paying her taxes even though she hadn't even said whether or not she was on benefits. I've also seen people say a lot worse.

Yet whenever someone says anything relatively mild but negative about older mothers (like down syndrome risk etc) they take it as their god given right to shout about how rude and offensive it is

I feel as someone who had her kids by 30, OP is looking for moral superiority over older mothers.

If one of my teens was dumb enough to father a child in the next 5 years say, oh dear lord help us, we would make sure he fucking paid for his actions.

They know this.

I have a fairly small family...not because we have had older parents or only children, just literally horrible luck in terms of illness/death

Its very interesting. I often hear both irl and on here of "large family gatherings" and parties....as the only children grow and up and have their own families, the concept of having numerous aunts/uncles/cousins will die out. Families will be much more linear... grandparents, parents and child.

The conversation was about parents dying when children are young. I pointed out that yes, it’s maybe more likely if they are old but also more likely if they’re poor (poorer communities have lower life expectancy).

Oh is that what this is all about.

So displaying the me me me attitude that is part of the root cause of the social issues they appear to be concerned about?

So surely if you are in a poorer, lower life expectancy society the inclination is to have your children young?

I didn’t see that thread but the facts remain that teens will not have finished their education or be financially able to support a child without help. It’s not a trivial disadvantage- it’s a bad idea to have children as a teenager. It works out ok for some (but not for most sadly) but it’s not a desirable state of affairs

So less tax support will be required.

Even if you sort pension funding out, health costs are going to increase plus more people renting in retirement, increased defence spending. Taxes are only going up and up

Possibly but then you just almost always perpetuate the cycle of poverty and low expectations sadly.

I see it in my own community - in the council estate where I came from many of my school mates are grandmothers in poor health and circumstances. Those who had children later are doing better. But you’re right that cause and effect isn’t clear- it may be that people who would have poor outcomes anyway would have children young regardless. One is not necessarily causing the other (although common sense shows it must be contributing)

Just because someone has less money doesn’t mean they are devoid of love and devotion.

Many young people who have children earlier find it’s that which gives them the drive to become better for their children.

Who has said otherwise? But factually poorer people are less likely to have dc now. What on earth has happened to comprehension on this thread 😆😆

Is this a veiled dig at older parents?

My parents had me young but I didn't have great grandparents, they were long gone. Nor did I have any wider family as they all live abroad.

I had my kids late, me and their father were established in our careers and it meant I could afford to take a few years off to be a stay at home mum. I was still fit enough to do all the things a younger mum could do.

Yes, I'll probably die when they're in their 40s but I hope I have shown them that you can do whatever you want with your life. You don't have to follow societal norms.

a pp claimed that teen mums will save us taxes over older mums. Statistically this is untrue of them as a group because teen mums are overwhelmingly more likely to be a net cost to the taxpayer