The 'cant afford a baby' generation?

IsoChick

Eek, sorry, that should say we both work FULL time.... god, if I worked part time it would be heaven

galvanizersbaby

IsoChick wrote: »

Eek, sorry, that should say we both work FULL time.... god, if I worked part time it would be heaven

I thought it was too obvious a solution for you to have overlooked!
(Not that it wouldn''t have been ok for you both to have worked part time of course)

TotallyBroke

I agree with the facts that some people do struggle with what they deem essential spending. But that is because we have grown into a greedy society. People now feel the need to live in 3 bedroom homes when there are only 2 people. People feel the need to have the electricity and gas on full blast 24 hours a day. Think back to your own grandparents and for some, your own parents. People didn't have electricity and gas. (some still don't) if they were cold they put on extra layers of clothing.
Years ago families of 5 and 6 lived in 2 up 2 down terraced properties. Even now some people choose to continue living with families where you have 3 generations. And more people should if they find they are struggling. Why not stay at home for as long as possible pool all your family wages together and combine everything at a young age. Be able to buy somewhere and when the time is financially right move on. I wish I had. If I had that mentality while growing up. My elderly parents would be mortgage free I would be mortgage free and if things had gone really well I would be able to buy my son a home now and rent it out until he chooses to live in it himself.
But I lived way beyond my means and I got myself in to serious trouble through my own stupidity. I fell pregnant and had my son I then did everything I could to slowly claw my way back out the hole I had dug. Events in my life put me back into problems as you will see from my signature but that was not due to me being frivolous or because my son was born. I am clawing away again and I aim to have all of my debt paid by end of 2009.

barnaby-bear

TotallyBroke wrote: »

I agree with the facts that some people do struggle with what they deem essential spending. But that is because we have grown into a greedy society. People now feel the need to live in 3 bedroom homes when there are only 2 people. People feel the need to have the electricity and gas on full blast 24 hours a day.

Where I live a *one* bedroom flat in a really bad area is 700 pounds a month to rent. A cheap nursery place 800+.
People with low mortgages etc. :rolleyes: in cheap areas don't often appreciate that it's not that people are struggling with essentials like rent because they have chosen an extravagent option but they may be struggling at the lowest standard and really is a 1-bed flat ideal environment for a child especially if you have both parents working full time? It sounds rather irresponsible.

barnaby-bear

TotallyBroke wrote: »

I agree with the facts that some people do struggle with what they deem essential spending. But that is because we have grown into a greedy society. People now feel the need to live in 3 bedroom homes when there are only 2 people. People feel the need to have the electricity and gas on full blast 24 hours a day. Think back to your own grandparents and for some, your own parents. People didn't have electricity and gas. (some still don't) if they were cold they put on extra layers of clothing.
Years ago families of 5 and 6 lived in 2 up 2 down terraced properties. Even now some people choose to continue living with families where you have 3 generations. And more people should if they find they are struggling. Why not stay at home for as long as possible pool all your family wages together and combine everything at a young age. Be able to buy somewhere and when the time is financially right move on. I wish I had. If I had that mentality while growing up. My elderly parents would be mortgage free I would be mortgage free and if things had gone really well I would be able to buy my son a home now and rent it out until he chooses to live in it himself.
But I lived way beyond my means and I got myself in to serious trouble through my own stupidity. I fell pregnant and had my son I then did everything I could to slowly claw my way back out the hole I had dug. Events in my life put me back into problems as you will see from my signature but that was not due to me being frivolous or because my son was born. I am clawing away again and I aim to have all of my debt paid by end of 2009.

We're often talking about people in their mid-30s here who need two incomes to rent the most basic of homes and with modern society and the distribution of where work is - there are an awful lot of ifs/buts and compromises here. Yes if having a child is the most important thing in your life regardless of the quality of life you can offer then there is probably a way most people can do it.

SandC

lostinrates wrote: »

I hesitate to respond to this as I don't want my comment to be misinterpreted as critism of anyone- it most definitely is not, and also because I highly admire your sentiment of needing to pay for what you need to spend...but, although you might only have to stop working for two weeks, that doesn't mean the baby only needs you full time for two weeks.

It's not usually an option for self employed people who don't get any maternity pay, never mind 6 months on 90%. Think mobile hairdresser, beautician working in a salon on a self employed basis - none of them high earning so hard even to save up for time off.

TotallyBroke

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Where I live a *one* bedroom flat in a really bad area is 700 pounds a month to rent. A cheap nursery place 800+.
People with low mortgages etc. :rolleyes: in cheap areas don't often appreciate that it's not that people are struggling with essentials like rent because they have chosen an extravagent option but they may be struggling at the lowest standard and really is a 1-bed flat ideal environment for a child especially if you have both parents working full time? It sounds rather irresponsible.

That's exactly what I mean about a greedy society. Why is the person that owns the 1 bedroom flat in a bad area charging £700 for rent? :eek:

I don't see that it is irresponsible to bring a child up in a 1 bedroom flat. I was brought up in a 2bedroom flat with both parents and 2 sisters. We are ok. In fact we didn't spend a lot of time at home while growing up we much preferred the park. If we had our own bedrooms with dining rooms and extra playrooms etc we may have been a generation of children addicted to computer games and having bad health.
I live in a council area just outside of West London. It is not cheap to buy a property or rent one nowadays. My mortgage is £200-300 per month (I bought the property 10years ago). I could rent my own home out (based on prices of other properties around) for over £1000 per month. That is just plain greedy. I too was victim of that greediness, I bought a 3 bedroom house because I could afford it at the time. I didn't need it I could've stayed at home with ,y parents. It was going to be my home forever and now I am a single Mum of 1. Can I sell it NO because I would never be able to buy ir rent anywhere else.

My point is that babies themselves do not cost a lot of money. But everything else around people does. It's not that people can't afford children it's that people can't afford what they already have and children.

lostinrates

SandC wrote: »

It's not usually an option for self employed people who don't get any maternity pay, never mind 6 months on 90%. Think mobile hairdresser, beautician working in a salon on a self employed basis - none of them high earning so hard even to save up for time off.

I agree, but that doesn't mean its right...not on a personal level but on a wider one. Doesn't mean its wrong either..its only my opinion. DH and I both had working mothers, who did great jobs..both as mother's and in their careers.

lynzpower

TotallyBroke wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean about a greedy society. Why is the person that owns the 1 bedroom flat in a bad area charging £700 for rent? :eek:

I don't see that it is irresponsible to bring a child up in a 1 bedroom flat. I was brought up in a 2bedroom flat with both parents and 2 sisters. We are ok. In fact we didn't spend a lot of time at home while growing up we much preferred the park. If we had our own bedrooms with dining rooms and extra playrooms etc we may have been a generation of children addicted to computer games and having bad health.
I live in a council area just outside of West London. It is not cheap to buy a property or rent one nowadays. My mortgage is £200-300 per month (I bought the property 10years ago). I could rent my own home out (based on prices of other properties around) for over £1000 per month. That is just plain greedy. I too was victim of that greediness, I bought a 3 bedroom house because I could afford it at the time. I didn't need it I could've stayed at home with ,y parents. It was going to be my home forever and now I am a single Mum of 1. Can I sell it NO because I would never be able to buy ir rent anywhere else.

My point is that babies themselves do not cost a lot of money. But everything else around people does. It's not that people can't afford children it's that people can't afford what they already have and children.

Because thats what the market rate is!

You may have bought your home 10years ago, but any LL who bought in say the last 5 years has a sky high mortgage.

Living in london then youll know exactly what rates are charged. Housing associations, and council ( ie low rent) are not available to most of us, and I personally have no problem with that, but the inflated bubble that this country has found itself in in terms of property prices ( both rent and to mortgasge) over the last say 8 years has created, whether we like it or not, a situation where normal rate taxpayers cant afford to stop working- as the rent/. mortgage has to be paid.

Also to add, that so many of us have the overhang of student loans and fees to pay back. I finally managed to pay off my SLs 10 whole years after I took the first one out. If you appreciate that 50% of people now go to uni then 50% of them will have around 20k debt. ( if not significantly more) . I know one freind of mine who had a child before she paid off her SLs and she is screwed now and they are probably going to lose thier home. ( mortgaged, about to go into repo)

TotallyBroke

lostinrates wrote: »

I hesitate to respond to this as I don't want my comment to be misinterpreted as critism of anyone- it most definitely is not, and also because I highly admire your sentiment of needing to pay for what you need to spend...but, although you might only have to stop working for two weeks, that doesn't mean the baby only needs you full time for two weeks.

When does a baby ever stop needing any parent full time? I'm 35 in a few weeks time and I still need my parents full time. Ok I have my own home and no longer live with my parents, they no longer provide my clothes or food or pay for my education. (Well they do provide me food on a Wednesday as that is the day we go to see them each week). But I still need them as parents to advise, share experiences and to give moral support.
I am working full time but once I drop my son off at 7am to go to work I do not switch off my mothering switch. It just goes on standby until I have left work then is powered back on.
I'm able to provide for his basic needs of food, warmth, clothes etc by working. I'm able to pay someone that is more qualified as a carer than i am to do the same while I'm working and I'm still able to provide the love and nuturing for him when we are together. I prioritize him before other things because I deem him as more important. If I found myself struggling again then the tv, internet, telephones etc would all go. I'd cut back considerably on my utility usage and also our means of transport. But I do not comprimise on quality time together.
What is the difference of returning back to work at 3, 6, 9 or even 12months? At some point if you have not been able to save to lose a full time wage to be a sahm or sahd then you will have to return to work.