For believing the drop in birth rate IS mostly because people who don't want children no longer have to have them

[CurdinHenry]

"Fertility experts" like Geeta Nargund in the news again insisting that "people still want to have children". Obviously some people wish they could have more children than they get to have. But it's never been a better world for people who are just not into it at all (or try one then realise it's not that much fun).

I don't think a survey asking people in vague terms if they'd like kids one day counts as proof of anything.

This is so true! We adopted but our DCs were placed in foster care from the hospital and with us within weeks, so we had most of the "baby group" experience.
Of our baby group friends, maybe 6 out of 7 had a second within 3 years, the other one was already a step mum to two so I am guessing at least her DH was happy with one final child. Once one of them had her 2nd at 18 months (and I happen to know after a miscarriage) four others followed.
We are in the middle of this group but that's because birth mum had another!
Of these 3 were very very upset to have two of the same sex, having openly declared they really wanted one of each. The other three (me, the first and one of the others to have a second) were openly happy with either and ended up with one of each. None of them have had a third "to get a girl/boy" though.

@Daygloboothats great but where does the tax come from to fund said robots?

@AgeingMillennialcurrently my dc want to do jobs that need degrees.

That isn't what the stats show though. The % of people not actively wanting children hasn't changed much. There has been a big rise in what they call unintentional childless. These are people who mainly wait until they are older for many reasons, ie not finding a suitable partner, not being finicaly secure, trying to secure their career first ect. But then find when they want to have children they can't or need IVF in order to do so. They end up having no children of fewer then they would have like.

This actually seems to be turning into a global problem as well which means it's not just cultural.

Are you?

With respect you have no idea what the demands of my job are and what I mean by part time, whether or not my husband works away often (he does), whether or not I am dealing with parents with chronic lifelong illnesses (I am) and whether my child is NT or not. Everyone has challenges alongside work and parenting.

All said non-goadily, clearly.

Yes. We waited until "the right time". We had married, bought a house and were financially stable. And then it took nearly a decade to conceive. If we had started earlier we may of had 2. But now its too late and I feel incredibly grateful that we have one.

I think another key thing is the lifestyle we want for our children. I wouldn't be willing to have multiple children and let it impact our current child. Considering if you could afford childcare, extracurricular activities, days out to museums and art galleries wasn't really a thing a few generations ago.

I thinks it’s multi faceted but a big part of it is the lack of village, of multi generational family support and grandparents being less willing to be involved. That was certainly our experience.

The multi-generational support was definitely younger when I was little in the 80s. My mum's mum was 20 when she had her and my mum was 27 so my grandma was 47 when I was born. I'm going to be 47 with a child still in primary school.

I think it's also the level of supervision expected. There's other factors for me but I could more easily imagine having 6 kids if I were still allowed to send them all out to play by themselves. The prospect of having to supervise loads of kids by myself or finding enough room in my house for all the toys and crafts needed to keep that many children safely occupied doesn't appeal at all. There's also all the homework they get at primary that parents are expected to help with and the increasing age before they can travel by themselves to activities.

That's just the short term, with how many people fail to launch these days the odds of being able to launch all of a bigger number of kids is less likely. Too risky for me.

I think you are right, although it's probably one of several reasons. People nowadays don't feel pressure to have children if they don't actually want them.

@WhatNoRaisinsyes the expectations on parents to supervise, entertain etc are much higher than previous generations where dc could play out

That sounds like offloading all parenting

But the women who can afford all those things aren’t having more babies… that’s the whole point.

Women in peak baby-making and baby-affordability situations are still having very few children.

I like to give the example of 90s supermodels. A group of women for whom the supposed ‘barriers’ to large families do not exist: 1) their career/earnings peaked in in their 20s and they could retire by 30 with 10s of millions in the bank; 2) they have their pick of the richest, most eligible men and indeed many married extremely rich men; 3) they have access to all the help they could want: multiple nannies, a cook, housekeeper, etc. There’s no juggling the 9-5, a commute etc. with motherhood. 4) They had children long before any COL worries, during the boom years of the late 1990s and 2000s.

If there’s one group of women who could have easily had 3, 4, 5 children, it’s this group.

Yet these are their fertility stats:

Cindy Crawford - 2
Kate Moss - 1
Claudia Schiffer - 3
Naomi Campbell - 2
Linda Evangelista - 1
Helena Christensen - 1
Christy Turlington - 2

Lower than the national average...

(If you extrapolate to the rich & famous more broadly, you see a similar trend.)

I think it's also relevant that as well as Cost of Living, there are also more opportunities available to adults and children - at a cost.

We travelled a lot pre-child, which is easy even during COL if you're willing to be flexible and to cheap out - there are no fixed costs.

Now we want to do that with our son, and to have him access clubs and experiences that hell enjoy.

In previous generations if you left education, got a little job (all in the same town you were born in), married young, you weren't especially "giving up" much - your social life would still revolve around the same people in the same place, broadly. You'd have only just left your family home therefore probably didn't think twice about relying on family or following their advice.

If you've been living an independent life in a new city, suddenly having your family give you advice as if you're a kid again would be a lot more jarring, which probably doesn't help "the village".

Certainly, those of us that I know who live further and more independently of our families have less of a family village, because this.

I dunno but I think they are already doing it partly at least in Japan. I think ppl with dementia for example have robot pets. I inagine 100 years from now old people will be living in adapted houses where most things are done for them by robots. I suppose economy of scale and not having to pay actual carers is how the money will become available. So long as it works well, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If it means old ppl's needs will be properly catered for then it's a good idea I think. They might end up being better looked after than now. And technology gets cheaper over time. If Max the Robot wants to produce a tasty slap up meal for me of an evening, I"m all for it.

@AMarkAMissionABrandAScarfair point.

Hmm, I think that female celebrities aren't a great example, because they exist in a bubble which is highly superficial, demanding of time, irregular schedules, and constantly looking for the next "it" face if you dare drop out of the race for a few months on and off. Let alone that lots of supermodels would have low BMIs and maybe not the best fertility.

The Kardashians are more of a relevant example because although just as superficial, they ARE the product, a new baby is a "storyline". And they have lots of children.

I think this is the acceptable narrative. Yes you migbt be tired and broke but also be happier than you could possibly have imagined. Most of the parents I know talk about how parenthood has given their life purpose and meaning, but why would you share that with your childless friends ?

@DayglobooI have no problems with robot carers but you cannot compare us to Japan! Japan has known about their demographic shift for years and has actively planned and prepared the population & they are still struggling with it. We have done nothing!

When the pool of workers shrinks there is less money to go around (unless we change the tax system) in the 60s there were 5 workers for 1 pensioner and now we are 3:1 but not far off 2:1. That is the problem, plus people tend to vote for issues that concern them so a larger older voter base means a reduction in long term policies.

The Kardashians are very much the exception.

Take any TV show and Google the cast. You will see far more child-free / one-and-done than the national average. To take a female-dominated example (given the debate is always focused on women’s fertility rather than men’s) where the cast is past child-bearing age, this is Desperate Housewives:

Eva Longoria - 1
Marcia Cross - 2 (twins)
Felicity Huffman - 2
Nicolette Sheridan - 0
Teri Hatcher - 1
Brenda Strong - 1

That doesn’t even make any sense!

What about

Tania Ramsey
Jools Oliver
Victoria Beckham
Kim Kardashian
Kourtney Kardashian

Shall we do models?

Miranda Kerr
Natalia Vodianova
Devon Aoki
Hedi Klum
Kimora Lee

The 90s supermodels weren’t always in stable relationships and I’m sure their careers weighed on their minds.

I am still not sure what point you are trying to make? One of the factors impacting fertility rates is that some women who have dc have fewer dc then they would like.

Of course you can find some who have lots of children, but on average? They are not the ones propping up the birth rate, as they in fact have a lower birth rate than the national average.

It’s common knowledge that affluence and fertility are inversely related.

People are starting to see more children as the ultimate status symbol

Yes, you have a point. Andy Burnham is trying to get his finger out, but...as you say, maybe it's all a bit too late. I hope not.

I thought the point was obvious? When the supposed barriers to having a large family are taken away, women on average are still having fewer children.

It’s not about not being able to afford a night nanny. It’s about wanting to preserve a certain lifestyle and freedom. It’s not difficult to imagine that 5 children are more likely to curtail freedom than 1 child, no matter how rich you are.