2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

JonnyBravo

Orpheo wrote: »

Sorry, can't see how his stacks up. To compete with 5 people I have to be 5 times better than they are?

Admittedly, any tangible competitive advantage would more likely come from nurture and environment than genetics.

5 times the offspring = 5 times the genes passed on.
This is the point you were arguing. "Genetic suicide", remember?

If on the other hand you're arguing about nurture and environment one could point at a couple with one child (like you) but slightly older and richer than you and say, again on the balance of probabilities and no slight intended to you as an individual, that their child is likely to outcompete yours.

Orpheo

olly300 wrote: »

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.

No, Olly. You took what I said and changed it into something completely different to suit your own argument. I didn't say that moving house provided stability at all did I? I said that staying in the same place for 20 years itself doesn't constitute stability. That is not the same thing.

Yes. You and Percy put words in my mouth about different things. Both times, you twisted my words in order to put me in a position where you would like me to be. I'm not standing under your authority or occupying that position.

I support an adult's right to have children when they choose. That a woman's early twenties is the fittest age is not propaganda, it is, to the best medical understanding, fact. That you choose to wait to have children does not make you morally superior. I do not think that you should have children and "expect everyone else to pay"; if you have children you should step up, take responsibility and support them.

If, Olly, you aren't manipulating my words, then I assume that you lack the capacity to draw meaning from what you are reading. I do not intend to dumb down my writing in order to spoon feed you, but I have taken the time to link to some exercises for you.

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/online/2005/read/level2/level2reading.htm

JonnyBravo

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do back this up please. A 'host' of illnesses ? Which ones would those be ? Childhood mortality.. practically negligible in statisical terms compared to even 20 years ago.. regardless of income. Strong detriment to a childs academic success ? Purely financial/social and class barriers in place.. most of which are only now being recognised and dealt with.

Why don't you use google yourself. I put in "poor" and "illness" and get a host of answers. eg first link http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/23/poverrty-kids.html
Why not try it?
As for your "practically negligible" well that depends on what we're comparing clearly. The difference in fertiltiy between 22 and 26 might be described as "practically negligible".
I've not claimed they're not trying to deal with it. But it exists.
FACT.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Women today are putting off children due to purely financial reasons.. and it's unforunately at complete and utter odds with what their biology is programmed to do. Simple as that..So they make their choice.
It's those with the most to lose that will think more about it, since pure and simply, they can't afford the loss of 1 income or the childcare. So they look in envy and disgust to those that don't have to, those with nothing to lose financially.

This wasn't true, again, even 20 years ago.

It costs too much these days to have a secure roof over one's families head on one income. Especially if the mortgage is secured on 3x joint wages ( and that's what everyone's really talking about on this thread about 'being financially secure' before having kids let's face it)

. I really do believe it all boils down to this, and it's not rocket science. Working women who's income is needed to pay the mortgage or the rent will think twice and put off having children.. then blame those who don't/have nothing to lose/or have fallen on hard times and are now single themselves... and feel somehow that it's now some kind of a 'moral' issue or crusade. It's nothing of the sort, and it's only a very recent thing that women have started feeling this way.

I agree with most of what you say. Perhaps not quite as simplistically but with the generalisations apart from your "moral crusade" argument.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Fact is, our economy is now WAAAAAAY out of whack with our basic biology. It is not good for women to keep putting off having children later and later in life biologically. Yet it's not good economically these days for any woman really to start a family in their early 20's, when it's best biologically.

Nature will generally always out though. And the real travesty is that waiting until you're 39 to have your first child.. is being hailed as something to be smug and morally correct about at all..thats not something to 'aspire' to.. it's something that is at the present time seen as the 'financially' correct thing to do despite all the biological problems it presents.

Individuals are powerless to change the system as a whole. They are able to make a choice about their individual child and how to give it what they deem to be "the best chance" they can.

Orpheo

JonnyBravo wrote: »

5 times the offspring = 5 times the genes passed on.
This is the point you were arguing. "Genetic suicide", remember?

If on the other hand you're arguing about nurture and environment one could point at a couple with one child (like you) but slightly older and richer than you and say, again on the balance of probabilities and no slight intended to you as an individual, that their child is likely to outcompete yours.

OK. I concede the genetic suicide argument as I have presented it.

I don't buy that slightly older and richer parents necessarily give their children an advantage. My daughter's individual prospects are not inhibitted by our wealth or lack thereof. I cannot elaborate on this without giving out too much personal information by allowing readers to identify which school she attends. But what has shaped her into what she is and what she will become is parental attention, not wealth.

JonnyBravo

Orpheo wrote: »

OK. I concede the genetic suicide argument as I have presented it.

Ta.

Orpheo wrote: »

I don't buy that slightly older and richer parentsnecessarily give their children an advantage. My daughter's individual prospects are not inhibitted by our wealth or lack thereof. I cannot elaborate on this without giving out too much personal information by allowing readers to identify which school she attends. But what has shaped her into what she is and what she will become is parental attention, not wealth.

Again you're making the mistake of looking at an individual. You need to consider populations. Of course it is entirely possible that your daughter's prospects aren't inhibited but in the population is more likely than not.
Clearly parental attention is part of the input (and probably one of the largest ones) as are a whole host of to her factors. One of those is "wealth".

Orpheo

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Ta.

Again you're making the mistake of looking at an individual. You need to consider populations. Of course it is entirely possible that your daughter's prospects aren't inhibited but in the population is more likely than not.

Ok, I slightly misinterpreted your post.

Clearly parental attention is part of the input (and probably one of the largest ones) as are a whole host of to her factors. One of those is "wealth".

Agreed.

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

My daughter's individual prospects are not inhibitted by our wealth or lack thereof. I cannot elaborate on this without giving out too much personal information by allowing readers to identify which school she attends. But what has shaped her into what she is and what she will become is parental attention, not wealth.

if wealth is not something that impacts on prospects and choices then why do people strive for it? if not in themselves then in their children? why bother to push children into better schools? surely it is because this means more fulfilling lives (i.e. relatively more wealthy lives)?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

if wealth is not something that impacts on prospects and choices then why do people strive for it? if not in themselves then in their children? why bother to push children into better schools? surely it is because this means more fulfilling lives (i.e. relatively more wealthy lives)?

I think wealth is the laziest way of striving for a fulfilling life it buys shortcuts to other fulfilments for some (I include my not so wealty self in that lazy route these days). Far more exciting, I think, to be fulfilled by almost anything else: a skill or talent, a commitment to a cause, a family, a love of a sport, activity....''wealth'' can't buy innate skill for example, just tuition to be less poor at that endeavour.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I think wealth is the laziest way of striving for a fulfilling life it buys shortcuts to other fulfilments for some (I include my not so wealty self in that lazy route these days). Far more exciting, I think, to be fulfilled by almost anything else: a skill or talent, a commitment to a cause, a family, a love of a sport, activity....''wealth'' can't buy innate skill for example, just tuition to be less poor at that endeavour.

no i don't really buy that. i don't think poverty creates talent or enthusiasm for life. if you look at the most successful people the majority have come from wealthy backgrounds - and i'd include culturally successful people in that. it just gives them a chance to start from a higher position and not to have to compromise their work for the profit motive. there's nothing fulfilling in having a talent but having to compromise that talent in order to put food on the table or a roof over your head. i see it in my own industry. many start off with idealistic dreams of making really impactful documentaries but end of making reality formats because that's the only real way to make a living. same with artists. okay a few slip through who are able to pursue their vision but most will be reduced to making major compromises to get by and just lead a mediocre life.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

no i don't really buy that. i don't think poverty creates talent or enthusiasm for life. if you look at the most successful people the majority have come from wealthy backgrounds - and i'd include culturally successful people in that. it just gives them a chance to start from a higher position and not to have to compromise their work for the profit motive. there's nothing fulfilling in having a talent but having to compromise that talent in order to put food on the table or a roof over your head. i see it in my own industry. many start off with idealistic dreams of making really impactful documentaries but end of making reality formats because that's the only real way to make a living. same with artists. okay a few slip through who are able to pursue their vision but most will be reduced to making major compromises to get by and just lead a mediocre life.

I think everyone ends up making compromises....the idealistic possibly mind/notice more? I do buy it, and what's more I buy that its part of human society...

tbh, I think the choice of creating impactful documentaries over reality formats is...well, a luxury but not a life changing one..its still got to have a market, if it had a market. The choice of working in media over...I don't know...anything..having any choice of career is a valuable bonus of our society, IMO not to be undervalued.

I understand what you say about artistic though...and the lack of choice is a factor in why we changed. But not lack of success, in fact it DH was saying it seemed the more in demand he got the more he felt like a performing monkey. In our house the documentary thing would be sincerely understood but come under the ''performing monkey'' theory. The choice is to fund it another way or keep planning and trying while in your ''bread and butter'' work. What ''wealth'' through leaving his musical career bought him is the choice, for example, to write only what he wants to write. he still could have written that along with elevator jingles, but he chose not to...other's might choose differently, but I don't believe one of those choices is more ''artistically'' compromising. Ethically possibly! Because of our former careers and contacts within it I suppose I sympathise with what you are saying but don't personally feel it...

Similarly, I don't feel life has to feel ''mediocre'' on any income in the UK but outlook and feeling drained from work could resign one to it.