Really hurt by comments about our family size

[NotaFreeloader]

On announcing my pregnancy I have comments from 4 different people 2 question have I decided to have another just so I ‘don’t have to work’
Another saying we just want a bigger house
Then someone else saying I must not have been careful with contraception- this was a planned baby

For a start yes I do intend to work once the youngest is at school. Whenever that may be and I have a Dh who works and supports us
I don’t want to move we have plenty of room
If I worked now it’d cost the government a LOT for helping with childcare so it’s not that I’m costing ‘the taxpayer’ money

Why can’t people just say congratulations and mind their own business

Ugh, fucking Mumsnet. Have 2 kids in your late 30s or early 40s, an expensive mortgage, both parents working, hate the words moist, holibobs and nom nom, have perfect grammar and spelling, call your kids Emily and James, don't stick your head above the parapet, and you'll be fine.

NotNowPlzz

Amen to that.
Nailed it.
Actually I seriously wondet why I come here, I won't let the door hit me on the way out

As intelligent adults you look at the world around us and genuinely think having 5 kids is ok?

Yes I do. Find something else to crusade about.

@MsTSwift, ideally no but it's not illegal to have a lot of kids. Also the OP is already pregnant going to have the fifth child regardless so what's the point? The only purpose I can see is to upset a pregnant woman.

@HotSince82 so what am I wrong about? I know I am not wrong in saying the world is overpopulated. Likewise that the UK is overcrowded, far too overcrowded. Am I wrong about climate change? I don't think and nor do many many people far more knowledgeable than me. Am I wrong about the bleak future with food shortages, water shortages, rising sea levels? I don't think so.

I won't be around (thankfully) to see if your ignorant remark about posters wringing their hands at how much their offspring have to pay in tax comes true. For a start, tax should be a lot higher than it is now so possibly they will have to pay more. I doubt though that paying tax will be high on their list of problems.

Far more likely will be all the posters that think having lots of children is absolutely fine realising that in fact they were wrong and the rest of us were right but it will, .obviously, be far too late.

The OP even says that she is now thinking about overpopulation and climate change which is, of course, good but people need to think about these things before they have any children certainly not 5 children down the line.

Suddenly when anyone decides to have more than 1.9 children on Mumsnet everyone is an eco warrior.

@NotNowPlzz you are only allowed to have 2 children. 1 child- child deserves a sibling. more than 2 and you are a selfish person.

@desiringonlychild yes! And according to pp not an intelligent human

Realistically, we need a 2.5 replacement birth rate in order to fund the social care and NHS for the elderly in 20-30 years. 10% -20% of young women today are not going to have children so we do need some people to have more than 3 children.

I grew up in Singapore which had a stop at 2 family planning policy in the 1960s. Today we have the world's lowest birth rate and a rapidly aging population. The government gives £8000 to each baby to no avail. The government is so worried about the aging population that it imports foreign workers (they are 40% of the population). Its actually far more ecologically sustainable for rich countries to import foreign workers (those workers from poor countries would have been born anyway so we aren't increasing the number of people on the planet, just shifting their geographic location). But I cannot imagine that the population would support mass immigration at the level required to fund public services. Its either more babies, more immigration or high tax (Japan has to increases taxes to find care for the elderly population).

In my lifetime, the UK population has increased by over 15 million. The world population has more than doubled from 3 billion to over 7.7 billion. If the same happens over the next 60 years, we would have a UK population of 83 million and a world population of over 15 billion.

I don't know if some of the people on here who believe it's fine to have as many children as you want realise that the earth isn't increasing in volume? Practically all the land that could be lived on with some degree of comfort is already densely populated. We can't just build cities in the desert or up a mountain in Nepal or on Antarctica you know.
The planets resources are finite. But hey ho, let's not give a shit about that. Lets just keep having babies without a single thought about the planet.

@Desiringonlychild

You're not correct about Singapore. It's currently 114th out of 235 in terms of world population by country, so practically in the middle. It has a population of 5.8 million with a migrant population of 27 000. That's around 0.1% of the population. It's birth rate is 5th lowest at 1.2. The average age is 42 - here in the UK it's 40, so not much difference there. It is, however, one of the most densely populated countries in the world with a population of 8358 people per sq km as opposed to the Uk which has a density of 281 people per sq km.
www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

@soontobe60 you evidently have never been to Singapore, not know much about it. Net migrants probably means the number of migrants per year. Judging from the low number, it probably refers to number of new citizens/ permanent residents. Singapore has a new tier system where 1.6 million people are non residents- this means they are on work permits or other forms of non permanent residency, most of them with no hope of achieving permanent residency which is usually the privilege of the wealthy educated. Non permanent residents usually end up returning to their countries once they are non economically active.

Many non residents live in foreign worker dormitories, 12 to a room. If you read about covid in Singapore, it's centered around those dorms.

www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/population-number-singapore-foreign-workers-new-citizens-11941034
As of June 2019, there were 3.5 million Singapore citizens, an increase of 0.8 per cent from the previous year. The permanent resident (PR) population remained relatively stable at 530,000, while non-residents – which include dependants, international students and people working in the country – rose by 2 per cent to 1.68 million.

@Soontobe60 also haven't you thought that maybe the average age of Singapore is skewed by the large number of non residents, most of whom are young. The bangladeshi workers are mainly in their 20s. But that's the direct result of mass immigration.
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/singapore-million-migrant-workers-suffer-as-covid-19-surges-back

@desiring
No, I haven't been, but I can read statistical charts. See my link above.
You've quoted a news report which seems to have some possible errors. It states a population of 3.5 million, but then states a permanent resident pop of 530 000 plus a non resident pop of 1 680 000. That adds up to 2 210 000. Where are the other 1 290 000?
My link to official world statistics has a current population of 5.8 million. They can't both be right?

@Soontobe60

Singapore citizens: 3.5 million
permanent residents:.0.53 million
Non residents: 1.68 million

You get total 5.7 million if you add it up. I was born in 1992 in Singapore. the population increased by 20% since I was born.

@Soontobe60 thanks to you, now I understand why people are so easily manipulated by stats and 'fake news'. Cos they don't do research and can't interpret data. thank you!

@Soontobe60 the article also corresponds with data on the Singapore government website www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-population-structure/latest-data

If you have difficulty.

@Desiringonlychild
I've read your first link again, and realised why there is a difference. The article you referenced talks about residents, whereas mine referred to population. Also, it quotes an increase in foreign employment growth of 22k, whereas my source refers to migrants, as calculated by the difference between immigrant and emigrant workers.

I'm guessing that if the immigrant workers were to leave the country then yes, the average age of the population would increase. That would be compounded by the reduction in developing the infrastructure however, as immsure the aging population probably wouldn't be able to replace migrant worker!

It just goes to show, not all sources of statistics tell you the same thing! (But your original,post prompted me to do a bit of research, which I enjoyed, so thank you for that 😀)

I'm not jealous but I do think people could massively improve both their own financial situations and that of their dc if they had fewer dc.
That being said OP no one for anyone to say this to your face. I'm sure you already knew people were probably thinking it. Social housing was never designed for staying in for life. It should be used as a step to propel yourself into better things. Imagine how much you'd have left over if you'd stopped at one and studied etc. You say you'll work when the youngest is at school, it's more difficult after years out of work to get a job. Also your thinking sounds entitled, as if you're saving the government money by staying at home instead of requiring childcare.
In the real world that's not how the system is designed to work.

@Desiringonlychild

What a shame I didn't read this post off you before I wrote my last one. You seem to have labelled me as some sort of moron.

@Soontobe60 thanks to you, now I understand why people are so easily manipulated by stats and 'fake news'. Cos they don't do research and can't interpret data. thank you!

@Desiringonlychild

Singapore citizens: 3.5 million
permanent residents:.0.53 million
Non residents: 1.68 million

I read that as there are 3.5 m citizens, OF WHICH 0.53 m are permanent and 1.68 m are non resident million.