2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

Percy1983

How about needing to claim benefits to support the child?

LilacPixie

Percy1983 wrote: »

How about needing to claim benefits to support the child?

You mean Child Benefit?? That was a touchy subject here a few weeks back

ceridwen

ninky wrote: »

have you got any stats on that or is it just your opinion based on a couple of anecdotes? if you look through history the vast majority of movers and shakers have come from wealthy backgrounds.

i also wouldn't have a problem with a kid of mine living a life of leisure if that's what they wanted to do and we had the wealth to afford it.

i've worked hard to get what i have today - some degree of success in a competitive industry. but i can't help thinking i would have achieved far more in life - and with fewer moral scruples - if i had had money.

what happens when you don't have money is you often have to opt between honouring your principles to the letter or progressing your career. not a nice situation to be in.

there are far more 'worthy' things i could have put my time to but they wouldn't have paid the bills.

Well - from that - it is certainly true that the more money one has then the better able one is to "honour ones moral principles". I've noticed in my own position (ie low salary:( - but no children to take into account) that there are the odd few things that I am not totally happy with in my life that wouldnt have happened if I had had enough money to have a totally free choice as to how to act. However - they are things that I know wouldnt "offend" 95% of the human race actually - but they DO "offend" me to some extent and I would prefer to have had enough money to keep my conscience totally snowy-white at all times in all circumstances. One of the things that bothered me about having children was the worry that I might find myself having my principles "offended" a lot more of the time because I would have been concerned about having enough money for them to live on (as well as myself...).

There ARE some of us at any rate who do strive to "keep faith" with our conscience as best we can - and, yes, it does help a huge amount in doing that if we don't have to choose between our conscience and "financial necessity".

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

How about needing to claim benefits to support the child?

People claim benefits in the most because they are "entitled" to them not because they need them.

Though with benefits like child benefit and the winter fuel payment they can cause difficulties if you don't claim them as they are sort of gateway benefits to more help.

I do remember Sir Alan Sugar stating he tried not to claim the Winter Fuel payment but as it was automatic it's impossible not to take the money.

ceridwen

Orpheo wrote: »

This is your personal view formed from your own personal experiences. Fair enough. You say you are scarred from your experience of having to move house? Bless. Let's hope life doesn't throw any real problems at you.

Well that was mega sympathetic wasnt it? - NOT...

olly300

Orpheo wrote: »

When did I say this? Quote me.

You are the second person to put words in my mouth.

No-one is putting words into your mouth.

This is a discussion if you don't think we are interpreting your posts in the way you think they should be interpreted then give a longer explanation.

JonnyBravo

Orpheo wrote: »

I have stated the fact that the a woman's peak of fertility is 20-24 and the later you leave having children beyond that the higher the risk. I have also pointed out the link between older fathers and autism. These are the facts that should be borne in mind when you decide when you want to have children. I have also said that choosing to have children later does not give you the moral high ground as some posters have implied.

Risk? You seem to cherry pick your arguments. A bit here and a bit there.
The younger the parent the less wealthy they are on average. A family's wealth has been shown to be a risk factor for a host of illnesses, childhood mortality and is a strong determinant of the child's academic success. There are more risks than the risk you seem to be suggesting is important. Medical science allows the mitigation of this risk in most of the population.

You seem to be getting irate at implied arguments yet hold others to account for what you have and haven't said.

Orpheo wrote: »

I have also pointed out that in spite of having our daughter at what many on here would consider the wrong and irresponsible time, that we have raised her as well as getting on with our jobs, buying a house, etc, etc. We are debt free and have the financial means to step back on the housing pyramid tomorrow should we wish to do so. In the meantime, there are those who are still waiting for the elusive 'right time' to have their children when in fact they will continue to find reasons not to. And in spite of their protestations, nobody on this thread has been billed for my daughter's upbringing.

You seem to be mistaking the generalisations made in the thread for an attack on yourself. No-one directly accused you of billing us as far as I'm aware, yet it does remain the case that a greater proportion of young mothers rely on the state for financial support than their older counterparts.

JonnyBravo

Orpheo wrote: »

No, Wayne has simply had more children, they are likely to be less competetive than my daughter.

We could argue about what you mean by "competitive" but lets stick to your genetic argument.
Each one may be, but as a whole and that is how they should be considered in genetic terms your daughter would need 5 times the competitive advantage.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely.

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

No, Wayne has simply had more children, they are likely to be less competetive than my daughter.

how so? if we're talking about "passing on genes", then the more offspring you have (unless identical twins) then the more of your genes you pass on since each sperm and egg contains a unique selection - and each final embryo its own selection. you spoke before of "genetic suicide" and yet not all of your genes will have been passed on to your daughter - are you concerned about the "suicide" of the genes you have failed to pass on? so you will have failed to pass on all your genes and so will her mother. unless you each intend getting yourself cloned. then by the time your daughter has children she will not be passing on all of those genes you have passed onto her. go on a few generations and there are actually very few genes that you have passed on left.

ninky_2

JonnyBravo wrote: »

There are plenty of species where a mutual consent, and indeed lifetime partnership, are the norm. It is not simply a "male choice"

.

true. not so sure it was historically true of humans or all other primates. if you look at chimpanzee groups the alpha male tends to mate with all the females (and many of the other males).

in chimp world it's the mike tysons that seem to get to pass on their genes more than the brad pitts or bill gates. did you see that show by professor winston recently? it talked of evidence that 1 in 10 men bring up a child that is not their unknowingly and that human females are genetically programmed to be attracted to more "masculine" males when they ovulate but choose more "feminine" mates for lifelong partners. they want to produce strong offspring but have nurturers to support raising them.