To disagree with Phillipson's Have More Children advice

[JustASmallBear]

In various newspapers.

Bridget Phillipson is urging young people to have more children in order to try and reverse the inevitable population shrinkage from a falling birth rate.

AIBU to think at best this is short termism at its finest?

Apart from anything else, young people struggle to buy a home, let alone can afford the expense of having more kids.

I think Phillipson is deluded in believing anyone wants more children when it'll make their lives more financially difficult.

What are the incentives that will make this irresistible?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/30/falling-birthrate-bridget-phillipson-education-secretary-labour?CMP=share_btn_url

Fewer people = lower need for resources, not hard.

What exactly are you arguing for, what do you want to happen

I don't understand why it's confusing for you?

Why will fewer people but more older people mean a lower need for resources?

Economic immigration isn't problem, hence why governments talk the talk but don't do much else. No, I don't think capitalism is going anywhere anytime soon, but eventually I think it'll crash and burn because it requires growth. Not in my lifetime, so I won't see it.

Ditto can’t you answer a question? What do you prefer to see happen population up or down?

A global population which is reduced means lower need for resources, a higher one means more need.

Why is it confusing for you?

What exactly are you arguing for, what do you want to happen

I would like the government to be honest about the economic implications and realistic about immigration. They are starting to make noises but we need to plan for these changes eg we don't even have enough suitable housing or carers for the ageing population.

Why do you assume acknowledging that we have an ageing population and the associated impacts means one wants millions more babies? I don't understand the logic! Plus as I said no country even with incentives has managed it plus the shop has sailed for the UK.

I was thinking this too. Working couples often cannot afford to have more children, they cannot afford the childcare, the school holiday playschemes, the multiple mat leaves. Families who for whatever reason are not working seem to have many more children.

And (I'm sure I will get flamed), there can be generational poverty/low academic aspirations, so these children are less likely to be net contributors (which is what the country desperately needs). This isn't always the case of course, my parents both came from poverty and are now well off, and promoted a strong work ethic in us. But we cannot deny that there are patterns.

Ditto can’t you answer a question? What do you prefer to see happen population up or down?

But you didn't ask me a question, you accused me of wanting an ever increasing population....

A falling population is a good thing, one made up of largely older people? No it's not.

A global population which is reduced means lower need for resources, a higher one means more need.

There is zero nuance to this. Many Western countries with ageing populations who traditionally have used a large share of the world's resources will be in fierce competition for them from growing younger countries.

Why is it confusing for you?

I'm not the one confused because I'm not arguing a smaller but older population means more resources and economic success 😆

I mean we know the government hasn't been honest because most of the electorate is too stupid & think about population in very simplistic terms. You see it all the time on these threads.

In my country we have one of the lowest children/women ratio in Europe (something ca. 1). 1 in 3 women over 40 doesn't have any children there. And I don't blame them, cause I wouldn't like to be pregnant or give birth in one of their hospitals. But there are also other issues: children are generally not liked in that country. When you ask a childless woman there, why she never had any children, the answer is: "I don't like children". How bizzarre, right? There is a lot of negative talk related to children online or even in private conversations. My children are frown upon at the airport there, and they don't even make much noise! It's worse in the cities, where the priority is given to dogs and bicycle riders in the park - nobody is careful, everybody is supposed to take their children away from their path! The population is projected to halve in that country within 100 years and they don't want any immigrants there, so the pension/care system is definately going to collapse big time and nobody is even talking about that. I don't think this will be a problem in the UK though - they will just relax immigration policies.

We're already there. Without immigration the UK population would be falling.

UK annual deaths outnumbered births, ONS figures show - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ezy14rj8o.amp

@JustASmallBear didn't realise we are already there, the predictions seem to have happened much faster than originally forecasted.

Can you post without emojis. Yes I’m for a falling birth rate.

Are you? Or only in some countries, just be clear on that point it would help.

I read that too but couldn't find the article where it said things were happening faster!

@languedoc1 I was reading about another country maybe Korea (could be wrong) where culturally it has become so normal to not have dc that the societal norms shift and people judge those with dc and society stops catering for therm eg cafes that ban dc, no playgrounds, maternity wards hours away, etc

And he will continue to work hard on this till his last breath, LOL.

In a different way the ingrained norm in China is only to have one child, and the government seem to be unsuccessful in now telling the population to procreate.

I think this is partly because of the fear that this will suddenly change again and women will once again be in trouble for having too many. So they're not complying.

@EasternStandard I will keep posting emojis until you answer my questions. Or you can just ignore me & stop replying as we are going around in circles.

Why do you think ageing populations will have more resources?
Why do you think in a global market ageing countries will dominate?
Why do you think anyone who acknowledges the economic & social impacts of ageing populations wants millions of babies & an ever increasing population?

Are you? Or only in some countries, just be clear on that point it would help.

Am I what? In favour of shrinking populations? Yes. Ones comprised of largely older people? No

Of course it doesn’t come out of thin air - no-one has suggested it does.
My point was simply that the general population’s needs and expectations are not compatible with the government’s - largely because of the exact reasons you’ve just laid out - but also the political system doesn’t allow for it. It encourages short term thinking, not long term planning. Yes, we need workers /tax payers to pay for services, that goes without saying, but if more of that money was invested in education, in creating systems where people could raise children and live life without being so stretched, both in terms of time and money, in decent housing with decent food, and in stronger communities, perhaps we could spend less on picking up the pieces - prisons & the judicial system, healthcare, mental health, drug/alcohol rehab, benefits etc etc
Currently the people who aren’t getting these things and do value them are having less children. People who don’t need to worry about that because the government is picking up the tab are - and they aren’t generally the people raising the next generation of well- educated, high achieving workers - so the problem will get worse, not better.

I have answered, scroll back.

Overall a lower population is better for resources. Of course it is there will be fewer people.

The alternative is what? Steady or going up, the latter will crash at some point as volatility grows.

Of course there’s economic reasons we’ve kept growing until now but we’re seeing more impact on climate / resources where struggles become dominant globally. And the other major factor is AI

In twenty odd years you will not need as many entering the workforce. You can see the impact of AI now, can you envisage the impact in two decades?

I 100% agree with this. I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s. Us kids left house in the morning, we came back for lunch and we were off till sunset. No questions asked. Parents were only supposed to feed you and take you to school. Today, my life revolves around kids, even my job seems to be secondary. My mom left house everyday for her job at 6.30am and came back at 3.30 pm, leaving us alone in the house, no doubts and no concerns from her side. If we had school holidays, we just spent whole days watching Star Wars on VHS or went off to play with neighbours. There was no phone and nobody was concerned. Today SS would take those kids away. Not to mention the criticism you get here for doing your work at home when children are around. Parenthood is just an awfully expensive, demanding and really, really hard job today, especially for women - a lot of men keep finding excuses to check out of parenthood, especially in early years.

Currently the people who aren’t getting these things and do value them are having less children

I think because there is an awareness that things are declining parents who are invested in their dcs future have had to become even more invested & that is a lot of time, effort & money so naturally people are having fewer dc.

My parents are immigrants and were pushy but they never considered uni costs, housing deposits etc when deciding on family size. I have limited mine because of things like that.

edited to insert a quote from @Meadowfinch
Looking at the option of a second baby dispassionately...

• housing costs make it too expensive
• utility costs make it too expensive
• childcare costs make it too expensive
• the NHS is not a safe place to have a baby at the moment. Midwife led units have not been a success and too many mothers and babies have died
• There are too few midwives, gps, dentists
• university costs make it too expensive
• detrimental impact on career advancement
• detrimental impact on job security
• A ludicrous school system that can send siblings to different schools leaving a parent expected to split herself in two and somehow do two different school runs at the same time.
• the stress of trying to juggle the care of a child alongside a career is bad enough. With two children it would be nightmarish.

This ^ is a perfect analysis of the situation. Add to the mix that child might have a health issue or disability and the picture is very bleak.
From the article:
”to create …memories that make our lives fulfilling: having children, seeing them take their first steps, dropping them off at their first day at school, guiding them on their journey into the world of work or taking them to university for the first time.”
I don’t know if she is delusional or just too privileged. I feel so cross about this patronising f*. I have disabled child and just about manage not to go mad with all their problems and uncertainties of the future and here is Bridget talking about taking your child to university.
She is 41, she can go and invest her time and energy into having at least two more children and then come back and lecture me about choices in life.

@languedoc1 yep it's so much more demanding and so much more expectation as you say.

I have answered, scroll back.

I give up 😆

Actually I've just seen an article that says the opposite.

More than half of babies are born to middle class mothers (ONS higher tier occupations) whereas the rate is falling hard and fast for lower socio economic groups.

Makes sense. Ordinary working class people increasingly can't afford it.

I thought you might. Good idea.