Rethinking decline: why blaming migrants might miss the point

[Hearingelem]

Hi all,
I've been mulling over some unsettling trends in the UK and wanted to hear your thoughts—particularly those of us noticing fewer kids around and schools closing.
First, I’m not blaming migrants—they’re filling gaps we’ve created. But it hit me: if people who’ve lived here for generations aren’t having children, who is keeping our society going? It’s like watching your family line slowly fade.
Here’s the gist:

• Fewer families are having children, or delaying them until their 30s or beyond.
• Abortions are up—almost 30% of pregnancies end in abortion now.
• Primary schools are shutting or merging due to low pupil numbers.
• Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of migrants are arriving each year, and tens of thousands of British-born people are leaving.

It got me thinking: if we plant seeds everywhere but only the ones in the right environment grow, shouldn’t we rethink that environment—rather than blaming the plants? 🚨 Shocking stats at a glance:

• 29.7% of all conceptions in England & Wales ended in legal abortion in 2022—nearly 3 in 10 pregnancies—and up from 20.8% in 2012 (Sky News, The Guardian, Office for National Statistics).
• That’s 247,703 conceptions aborted in 2022—a 13% increase from 2021 (Office for National Statistics).
• Migrant inflows: ~1.2 million long-term arrivals in year to June 2024; 728,000 net migration (arrivals minus departures) (Full Fact).
• Emigration: 479,000 people left in that same period—including a sizeable number of British nationals (Full Fact).

I’m not here to stir division. I want people—especially those quick to blame migrants—to look in the mirror: if our birth environment is failing us, aren't we partly responsible? Let’s talk solutions: Affordable housing, gig‑free childcare, pay transparency, flexible working, serious sex-ed and contraception access… what would help you feel like having kids here and now? Curious to hear your views—especially if this hits home for you. Sources: ONS conception stats (2022) & abortion trends: [ONS Conception Bulletin] ONS net migration & emigration data: [ONS Immigration Statistics]

Is it because you don’t understand it?

Decent medical care in pregnancy and childbirth and for postnatal issues would be a start.

It used to be much easier for men to subordinate women, he would automatically be the star of the show and she had no choice but to play a supporting role, bear his children and support him so that he can earn money and if she behaves herself she'll get some of it.
Now that's all changed, men aren't prepared to play the supporting role and women aren't going to give up the opportunity to earn a good wage and have a fulfilling career.

Breakdown in family relationships must contribute as well. How many women post on these boards about their husband/partner going off with another woman whilst they're pregnant or post natal? Men can't seem to keep it together. They don't take their responsibilities seriously and can easily walk away whilst the woman is left wondering how she's going to afford housing and food for herself and however many children. Marriage isn't an attractive prospect for men anymore so they just go from one woman to another it seems. They can have it all for minimal effort.

There's no pressure from wider society either. Nobody cares if they up and leave a pregnant partner. It's positively de rigueur now.

OP, a declining birth rate among the indigenous population is a problem. But the answer is not bringing in millions of people who cannot even support themselves.

Migrants, on average are net takers, not net contributors. They will never earn enough to pay for themselves or their large families. They tend to be more in receipt of social housing also. Then they will grow old and you will need more migrants because, guess what, there isn’t enough people. So you bring in more net takers, and so the cycle continues. The net contributors, on the other hand , having more burden put upon them, are even less likely to have children, as their cost of living rises due to higher taxes. Thats not meant to be inflammatory, it’s just facts.

That’s called a Ponzi scheme. It never ends well.

We are not bringing in people who are growing the economy. In fact immigration is making the country poorer. Again, it’s not controversial, just factual.

I think any birth rate decline thread should be read after a AI one, and maybe climate one too.

Our workforce requirements in twenty odd years will be different.

A lot of people aren’t having kids because of economic factors , huge childcare costs , impossible for normal earners to get on the housing ladder and precarious employment stability . All these things are what most confided when deciding to have a child .

Surely part of the reason that migrants don't earn enough to financially support themselves and their families is that they are the ones who do the poorly paid work that no one else wants to do.
The unpleasant and badly paid work that no one else wants to do is also vital work without which the wheels will not turn and those higher up the pyramid will not be able to earn their large salaries.
The people at the bottom who do the shit jobs are actually supporting those further up the ladder.

Exactly. I never ceased to be amazed by the mathematical lackwits who think the solution to a major demographic shift towards an older population is to import large numbers of young people. Even if they were all net contributors, young people get old. You are just pouring petrol on the demographic fire, and guess what? In 20-30 years time it will be even worse.

That suits politicians of course, who are only looking to make sure that everything smells of roses for the next five years.

The solution to the demographic shift has to be endogenous - anything else is utterly illogical. In fact the solution is numerically really simple. Given that it is caused by a generational shift in life expectancy that won't, and indeed can't, continue ad infinitum, all you have to do is wait for a generation or two and the bubble works itself out of the system.

Will it hurt economically? Absolutely it will, that's why no politician will contemplate it - an utter lack of political cajones. Of course there are things you can do to minimise the pain while it plays out, but that would require insight, courage and above all honesty from our glorious leaders and there's more chance of me winning the lottery 10 weeks in a row than that.

Yep agree with you.

No, thats not the case at all.

In fact this miscalculated (literally) fawning over low paid work and making it sound virtuous is part of the problem. Doing low paid work does not make you special or a hero, nor does doing high paid work.

But importing low skilled migrants does exacerbate the problem. It creates a cycle of doom in the economy where it artificially crates a supply of labour when businesses would otherwise invest in automation. It basic business principles. Supply and demand. When supply of labour is low, cost of labour goes up. So investing in automation becomes the default position. Which then improves productivity in the economy with more output and more taxes to go around funding services for fewer people.

Higher automation = higher productivity. Higher productivity = higher taxes.
Higher taxes / fewer people = richer and better off country.

what we have is the exact opposite. Unlimited supply of imported unskilled labour. Low productivity. Leas tax to pay for services for millions more people (who don’t earn a lot in the first place and aren’t net contributors).

Proponents of immigration in this country are economically and fiscally illiterate.

Migrants, on average are net takers, not net contributors.

Can you please provide some data to underpin that statement? Because everything I have looked up and read suggests the exact opposite.

I remember having this conversation with DH post brexit. I figured the upside would be an acceleration in automation. I was wrong we went with more people. It’s actually insane.

Higher automation = higher productivity. Higher productivity = higher taxes. Higher taxes / fewer people = richer and better off country.

It's so simple yet productivity has been low for decades. 🤔

How does higher taxes/fewer people equal a richer country when the majority of those fewer people are old?

Did you not actually read the post?

Will it hurt economically? Absolutely it will, that's why no politician will contemplate it - an utter lack of political cajones.

You think the public will buy into a politician selling that?

Annual Fiscal Impact vs UK‑born Workers (MAC, 2022–23)

• In 2022–23, an average skilled worker on a migrant visa had a net fiscal contribution of ~£16,300, compared to £14,400 for a typical British worker Reddit+11Financial Times+11The National+11.
• Overall, a migrant household contributed around £12,000, whereas many native households had a negative fiscal contribution .

In 2020, there were approximately 1.6 million foreign-born individuals receiving some form of working-age benefit Full Fact+3Reddit+3migrationcentral.co.uk+3.
In 2023, households including at least one non-UK or Irish national (on settled status) received £7.6 billion in Universal Credit Reddit+7migrationcentral.co.uk+7Reddit+7.
Nonetheless, migrants—especially recent arrivals and EU nationals—are less likely to claim jobseeker’s benefits than UK-born people. In 2022, 26% of UK-born unemployed had been jobless for over a year, versus 20% of non‑EUmigrants and 15% of EU migrants

The electorate are already voting out high numbers. The last GE was an example.

Politicians probably won’t go into economics of it but will say they can lower immigration figures.

@Jennps the post doesn't tell me how things work when you have fewer people but the majority of them are older. Who pays the higher taxes?

Summary Findings (2020–2025):

1. Skilled/average migrants now outperform UK-born workers in annual and lifetime contributions.
2. Low-wage migrants remain a net fiscal cost, though they receive less in unemployment benefits than UK-born counterparts.
3. While benefit spending among foreign households (~£7.6bn UC in 2023) is significant, UBS migrants are generally less dependent on unemployment and in-work benefits.
4. Overall, the biggest pressure on UK welfare spending comes from UK-born retirees, disabled, and inactive populations, not migrants.

Politicians probably won’t go into economics of it but will say they can lower immigration figures.

I agree with that, but we won't be getting lower immigration, lower taxes and better services.

This, ladies and gentleman, is how you spread propaganda.

Notice the word “skilled” and complete omission of the impact unskilled migrants, who are the majority coming into the country.

And notice the omission of the concept of net contribution. And misleading people by comparing to contribution of those already here. The majority of people already here are net takers, so of course it’s a low bar and if you compare everyone against that low bar, it’s easy to make them look more productive.

And notice how the impact of migrants dependent has completely been side stepped. If you don’t talk about their larger families, elderly parents and non working spouses, of course it all looks rosy.

Read the others.

I certainly can't think a country with an ageing population which has a growing economy.

Our model (eg NHS, pension/benefits not linked to how much you have paid in) puts us in a worse position.

So all British women are white? You realise white people migrate here too? You realise black people can be British too?