The 'cant afford a baby' generation?

barnaby-bear

TotallyBroke wrote: »

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.

......

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.

I just don't see it as very pleasant - imagine three adults in a one bed flat, mum, dad and teenage son without a bedroom.... mum and dad out all day while teenage son roams around the park......

I can perfectly understand why a lot of my peers don't have kids, they can afford a bedroom of their own and don't have to worry about a neglected child if they had a child they would no longer be able to afford a bedroom of their own and would have a whole heap of stress.

RoxieW

I think the two main issues financially are house prices and childcare costs. I do agree that most people on average wages could not afford an all singing, all dancing house on one salary. If both work then the childcare reduces the income dramatically, leaving you in the same sort of situation. We found that we were a little bit better off with both of us working, but not enough to justify someone else looking after our children from 8-6pm every day
I think the trouble is that couples live for the moment in 2 salary land - ie they buy the house and get the car (or cars!) on hp or the car thats expensive to insure and run. They buy all the gadgets, go on holidays - perhaps get a credit card or two because they can afford it. Then, when they start thinking of starting a family they are financially commited in such a way that to drop a salary/have to pay out for childcare makes it seem an impossibility.
As we had our first child when we were both at Uni and didnt have a penny to rub together we were used to living frugally. We lived in a tiny two bed terrace in a cheap area because it was all we could afford. We struggled with shopping bags on public transport. We had a tv our parents gave us and furniture I found either free or from second hand/charity shop. We didnt go out. We never missed these things because we'd never had them and they just werent an option. Since then we've built a - a suppose you'd say better - life. Although at the time our baby couldnt care less that he had a second hand cot. We now have the mortgage, the holidays, the days out and material things for the kids. Some things we still dont have - like a decent car or a 'big' house'. We're planning to build these things into our future but for now we cant afford them. Still, I feel we and our kids have a fantastic quality of life. They enrich my life and our life as a family in a way that you could never put a price on.
I think what my point is that we're working forwards and building the 'checklist' of material things, whereas many couples have them in place already (and the financial commitments that go with them) and have to work 'backwards' from that - something that many cant bear to do. I dont blame them - I think I'd find it difficult now, going back to our old lifestyle because we've grown used to something else. Hope that makes sense.

TotallyBroke

lynzpower wrote: »

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)

I agree with everything you have said here. But as you point out that is what the market rate is. That's how people live now with student loans etc. I'm not saying any of these are wrong.

What I am saying is that babies do not cost any more to have than what they did 50 or even 100 years ago. Babies eat the same amount, they use nappies and potties the same amount. It's just that everything else around us has spiralled to out of control levels. And it is what we want to give our children that hikes up the costs. For example a child that wants to learn will get just as good an education at a state school as they would if they went to a private school. A child that does not want to learn or that is not very academic will not learn no matter what type of school they go to.

So I say again people can afford to have children they just cannot afford children and the lifestyle they have to live in.

barnaby-bear

TotallyBroke wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said here. But as you point out that is what the market rate is. That's how people live now with student loans etc. I'm not saying any of these are wrong.

What I am saying is that babies do not cost any more to have than what they did 50 or even 100 years ago. Babies eat the same amount, they use nappies and potties the same amount. It's just that everything else around us has spiralled to out of control levels. And it is what we want to give our children that hikes up the costs. For example a child that wants to learn will get just as good an education at a state school as they would if they went to a private school. A child that does not want to learn or that is not very academic will not learn no matter what type of school they go to.

So I say again people can afford to have children they just cannot afford children and the lifestyle they have to live in.

But 50-100 years ago housing on a single salary was the norm. Now a smaller % of the population can afford that.

If you need two peoples income to pay the rent what do you do if you lose an income??? Whether that be because parent stays at home or effecitvely because childcare wipes it out.

I know many people living in really poor accommodation they don't want to live in and it's hardly a 'lifestyle' choice for them to be saying I don't want this inflicted on a latchkey child who'll be roaming around the park and we'll never see anyway.


I hardly call basic accommodation and shelter a 'lifestyle'

TotallyBroke

You seem to be misenterpreting everything I say.

I certainly am not and never have been a Latchkey kid. We as a family spent quality time together going to the park to play every day after school. We also went at weekends if Dad was working away. If he was home then we did day trips out together as a family. Only I have been taught in every aspect of my life it should always be quality over quantity.

I am just saying I understand that people are struggling in todays climate when pay rises are given at 1% but the cost of living has increased by a hell of a lot more. I don't earn a fortune. But I have been fortunate with some of my choices.
But the cost of procreating and producing a child does not cost anything. (Unless you need to be wined and dined before doing the deed.) It also costs nothing to go into labour. It costs a very minimal amount to look after a baby for the first 12months of it's life.
Unless you cannot afford to be a sahm or sahd because losing a full time wage or paying for childcare is too much. Although childcare is a cost for the child it is one that is forced due to other circumstances within our lives.

All I am saying is I had to throw every spare bit of energy into learning to juggle money and surviving on very little. So I could continue with my pregnancy and have my son. If people want to consider having children in the future. I suggest cutting back on all unneccessary stuff and trying to live on one wage now. Saving the other wage to cover while on maternity.

I know that is not always possible I didn't do it myself but I certainly wished I had done that. I will be encouraging my son to be saving as much as he can from the time he gets his first job to cover every eventuality he may come across.

gratefulforhelp_2

RoxieW wrote: »

Actually, its the opposite - her much older OH is desperate for a baby. She says that she'd like one but sometimes I think if she wanted one so badly she'd make it happen.
I think I'm just getting a bit sick of people passing judgement on us - there seems to be a big stigma around being a young parent - particularly having more than one or two children - and I've had alot of comments on our choice that infer it to be a negative thing, not a positive thing. It's hardly as if we're on benefits or incapable. We're homeowners and my husband brings in a good income - at one point we were both working. The 'Its all well and good for you to keep procreating but we just cant afford a baby' winges are really starting to wind me up to the point of snapping which I dont like to do.

You are producing children whose efforts in the workplace and taxes will support this person in her old age by way of pensions. She should be jolly grateful to and supportive of you!

Maisie11

Childcare costs in this country are a disgrace. We paid our childminder $45 per day per child. That equates to £2000 per month for two children assuming a 22 day working month!!!

I am surprised that something isnt done to sort out these costs. If the gov want women to go back to work then they need to make sure it is affordable. My husband and I work full time in well paid jobs so we were able to do it but no wonder women generally dont think it is worth it. I took 6 months off for each child and then I was back to work.

Definitely dont agree that you can bring up a family in a 1 bed flat! It is not fair on the parents or the child. And I also dont agree that a state education is as good as a private one. Some state schools are fab, some are failing dens of crime and there are the 'average ones inbetween. I dont want a average school for my children. I want one that will bring out the very best in the boys and give them opportunites and chances to take part in sport, music etc and if by chance they need some help I do not want them in a large class where they cannot be heard. Really really dont want to go down the private/state debate but we cannot make sweeping generalisations about it being alright to live in a 1 bed flat with a baby using real nappies. Where on earth would you dry them bearing in mind you wouldnt have a garden.

efrieze

I would like to defend the person or people who say that they can't afford a child and 'it's ok for you to have another...'

The reality is (as said before), the more you earn as a woman, the more you are 'giving up' to have a baby and stay at home. Whereas, a stay at home mum doesn't really lose anything by having another child because (as said before) each baby/child doesn't really add THAT much to the houshold bills expecially if you are sensible with your outlays. I think that the first child is the expensive one (the one where the household income can reduce substantially, especially if you earn the same as your DP, as I do).

I work full time and my DD 3 has been in full time 8am-6pm nursery since she was 6months old. Until recently, I paid £1165:eek: in monthy childcare costs but I could afford to pay this and go back to work. I think people who take a full year's maternity leave and say that they can't afford things are being self indulgent (if they are moaning) - either go back to work earlier, or accept the choices you have made.

I am due to have another child in July, and my expense will go up again, and our lifestyle will have to be trimmed back, but such is life. You afford what you want to afford.

TotallyBroke

RoxieW wrote: »

I think the two main issues financially are house prices and childcare costs. I do agree that most people on average wages could not afford an all singing, all dancing house on one salary. If both work then the childcare reduces the income dramatically, leaving you in the same sort of situation. We found that we were a little bit better off with both of us working, but not enough to justify someone else looking after our children from 8-6pm every day

I agree with this. These are not costs that everyone has to have because they have children. They are costs that people find themselves having to spend out because we are in the year 2009.

RoxieW wrote: »

I think the trouble is that couples live for the moment in 2 salary land - ie they buy the house and get the car (or cars!) on hp or the car thats expensive to insure and run. They buy all the gadgets, go on holidays - perhaps get a credit card or two because they can afford it. Then, when they start thinking of starting a family they are financially commited in such a way that to drop a salary/have to pay out for childcare makes it seem an impossibility.

Exactly, we have grown in a society that welcomed people and encouraged people living on credit and having more materialistic wants rather than needs.

RoxieW wrote: »

As we had our first child when we were both at Uni and didnt have a penny to rub together we were used to living frugally. We lived in a tiny two bed terrace in a cheap area because it was all we could afford. We struggled with shopping bags on public transport. We had a tv our parents gave us and furniture I found either free or from second hand/charity shop. We didnt go out. We never missed these things because we'd never had them and they just werent an option. Since then we've built a - a suppose you'd say better - life. Although at the time our baby couldnt care less that he had a second hand cot.

You have proved one of my points. You say yourself that you didn't have two pennies to rub together to start with. It's not a case of having those two pennies and then the day your child was born someone snatching them away from you.

RoxieW wrote: »

We now have the mortgage, the holidays, the days out and material things for the kids. Some things we still dont have - like a decent car or a 'big' house'. We're planning to build these things into our future but for now we cant afford them. Still, I feel we and our kids have a fantastic quality of life. They enrich my life and our life as a family in a way that you could never put a price on.
I think what my point is that we're working forwards and building the 'checklist' of material things, whereas many couples have them in place already (and the financial commitments that go with them) and have to work 'backwards' from that - something that many cant bear to do. I dont blame them - I think I'd find it difficult now, going back to our old lifestyle because we've grown used to something else. Hope that makes sense.

Thank you this is my point and I agree with your post. You obviously have explained it a lot better than I have or could have.

lynzpower

But the issue is if you dont have these things in the first place ( we have no mortgage, no car, we can easily forego the 2k pcm on holidays and stop buying everyone presents etc. I still struggle to see where I can cut back 25k pa.