2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

Shakethedisease

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.

Well are you saying that only the weathly should have children then ? Go on, spit it out if that's what you really mean. And more than likely what this thread is all about. You shouldn't have children if you aren't 'wealthy' right ? Because it 'inhibits' life chances so why put the child through some sort of 'inferior life' when one doesn't have to ? Just leave it to the 'well off' eh ?

And JohnnyBravo you can p*** off. I'm a qualified midwife. I don't need a few Google links to tell me what's what thank you very much.

Since there have been more than a few 'life stories' here. Why not ponder on the fact I had my first when I was 16, my second when I was seperated and my last three when I and my second husband were skint as anything.

But I've paid more than made up in what I've paid in taxes since. You're far too quick to write people off. Far too quick to put people in boxes that they'll 'never climb out of'.. and far to quick to assume that those in poverty will always remain so. Like it's static.

You're debating the wrong thing anyway.. it's not the number of children that are being born. It's that people are living much longer. And this, not children being born.. is one of the main problems facing us as a society today. Who pays for them all/us ?

The UK is already top-heavy.. and it's going to explode soon. And this thread is debating limiting and cutting the numbers of potential/future uk taxpayers at the proverbial ankles !!.. More fool you really. You've missed the point about population stats and the elephant in the room.. competely !

Perhaps you all need to 'google' a few links about our aging population instead of worrying about who should and who shouldn't have babies, citing childhood illnesses etc. It's completely irrelevant.

Wake up.. in the UK we're all living longer and not enough children are currently being born to pay for that.

The population of the UK is ageing. Over the last 25 years the percentage of the population aged 65 and over increased from 15 per cent in 1984 to 16 per cent in 2009, an increase of 1.7 million people. Over the same period, the percentage of the population aged under 16 decreased from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. This trend is projected to continue. By 2034, 23 per cent of the population is projected to be aged 65 and over compared to 18 per cent aged under 16.

The fastest population increase has been in the number of those aged 85 and over, the “oldest old”. In 1984, there were around 660,000 people in the UK aged 85 and over. Since then the numbers have more than doubled reaching 1.4 million in 2009. By 2034 the number of people aged 85 and over is projected to be 2.5 times larger than in 2009, reaching 3.5 million and accounting for 5 per cent of the total population.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949

treliac

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And JohnnyBravo you can p*** off. I'm a qualified midwife. I don't need a few Google links to tell me what's what thank you very much.

Your vitriolic spite makes me glad you weren't around when I gave birth to mine.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

Your vitriolic spite makes me glad you weren't around when I gave birth to mine.

Vitriolic or not, she's spot on that we won't have enough people of working age to support the numbers of retirees without a significant population growth of younger people.

Be that through birth or immigration or both, that it must and will happen is absolutely inevitable.

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Vitriolic or not, she's spot on that we won't have enough people of working age to support the numbers of retirees without a significant population growth of younger people.

Be that through birth or immigration or both, that it must and will happen is absolutely inevitable.

Thought it might feed into your theory of an ever expanding population hamish. The [STRIKE]ponzi[/STRIKE] pyramid scheme can't go on forever sadly.
....

ninky_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Vitriolic or not, she's spot on that we won't have enough people of working age to support the numbers of retirees without a significant population growth of younger people.

Be that through birth or immigration or both, that it must and will happen is absolutely inevitable.

what you're talking about is a kind of population pyramid scheme where population growth is always a necessity of extending lifespans. clearly this is not sustainable. instead what needs to happen is each generation needs to create some sort of excess wealth that is invested to pay for their future needs. additionally we perhaps need to start seeing retirement differently - not a fixed "birthright" age that you stop working but more flexible than that. retirement in its modern sense is pretty much a modern invention anyway and sort of seems to be the direction we're going. you also forget that children need to be paid for by the taxpayer too. so whilst many will go on to become future taxpayers (although let us not forget some will emigrate, not make it to adulthood or currently spend their life on benefits thereby not putting back into the pot) in the immediate term they are being paid. remove some of the costs of education and healthcare for children by creating fewer and that actually leaves some in the pot for investing in future care of elderly.

do i think only the wealthy should have children? i wouldn't be so authoritarian as to dictate that. however on a personal moral level like not eating meat or not smoking i do think in our current world of too many people and high per capita requirement for resources that's the morally preferable choice yes.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I


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.

lir don't mean to be rude but i'd put you and you DH under the "wealthy" category. i know it's all relative but i'm pretty much get the sense that compared to me and my background you have had the opportunities that wealth gives and if you were able to have children i'd say you two would be prime candidates for doing so and be able to give them choices and opportunities in life. obviously your OH has chosen to make more money than a musical career could have done but i sense you could have got by if he'd gone down the musical career route.

i've kind of gone for a sort of halfway house where i've entered a creative profession but have not been able to afford the great swathes of hobby filmmaking and similar endeavours that i see those from wealthier backgrounds indulging in (and yet still living in bigger houses and going on plenty of overseas travel). i'm not bitter about it just observing and realising that is how the cookie crumbles - i'm not a victim style person and i'm happy with life and myself but i really do think i could probably have achieved greater more unique things with a more wealthy start in life (and that includes all the networks and cultural insights the better off seem to have as well as monetary assets). my OH similar feels restrained by his background of an illiterate mother and lack of education. he's made what he can from his situation but i know he is intelligent and there is no doubt that his background has limited his choices in life.

Orpheo

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)?

...Because wealth is something that may impact upon your prospects, but it isn't the only or even the main thing that will impact upon your prospects, unless you believe it. I wonder if wealthy people believe that their wealth has driven their achievements, I rather think not. On the other hand, those without wealth are quick to blame it for their lack of achievement.

Not everyone measures their achievement by wealth. If that is how you would like to measure yours then you do so.

Some of the wealthiest people in the world started with nothing, many of the world's entrepeneurs are not even graduates. Some of those that were/are born wealthy have/will die penniless. It is what they have done that may or may not be "fantastic" not what they have been given.

Orpheo

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well are you saying that only the weathly should have children then ? Go on, spit it out if that's what you really mean. And more than likely what this thread is all about. You shouldn't have children if you aren't 'wealthy' right ? Because it 'inhibits' life chances so why put the child through some sort of 'inferior life' when one doesn't have to ? Just leave it to the 'well off' eh ?

You are right. This is what this thread is about and it deserves to be challenged for the poison that it is. Instead of saying it straight it is being dressed up as the only clever, superior social and moral thing to do.

Oh, for a world where everyone is wealthy and far to good to do the real work.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

Thought it might feed into your theory of an ever expanding population hamish. The ponzi scheme can't go on forever sadly.

I've never said we need an "ever expanding population".

In an ideal world we would all be paying for our own retirements as we go, and population rises and falls would be of little relevance beyond actually providing enough workers in the population to physically care for the old and maintain the economy and national infrastructure.

However we don't live in an ideal world.

As it stands today, we don't pay for our own retirements. We pay for the retirements of our grandparents, and our grandchildren pay for ours.

This works fine when you have 3 workers for every retiree, but it doesn't work at all when you have 3 retirees for every worker. The financial burden becomes impossible and society collapses. And that is what will happen without population growth with the demographics as they currently are.

If you try to shift the retiremnent burden down by 3 generations overnight, you would pretty much need to triple national insurance contributions, leading to an effective tax rate of 70% to 80%. Which is out of the question.

The only way to resolve the situation is to gradually shift the retirement burden down through the generations over the course of several decades, whilst using population growth as an interim measure.

And thats exactly what the UK is doing.

Oh, and one more thing......

A Ponzi scheme is not the same as a pyramid scheme.

There are subtle but important differences, which many of our posters would do well to remember lest they look like a bit of an idiot for misusing the term "Ponzi Scheme".

"A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish these schemes from Ponzi schemes:

• In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)
• A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach (insider connections, etc.) and often attracts well-to-do investors; whereas pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
• A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse much faster because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive simply by persuading most existing participants to "reinvest" their money, with a relatively small number of new participants."

ninky wrote: »

what you're talking about is a kind of population pyramid scheme where population growth is always a necessity of extending lifespans. .

See above.

But congratulations on knowing the difference between Ponzi and Pyramid.....;)

JonnyBravo

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well are you saying that only the weathly should have children then ? Go on, spit it out if that's what you really mean. And more than likely what this thread is all about. You shouldn't have children if you aren't 'wealthy' right ? Because it 'inhibits' life chances so why put the child through some sort of 'inferior life' when one doesn't have to ? Just leave it to the 'well off' eh ?

Eh?
You seem to be putting words in peoples mouths.
You don't need to be wealthy, you just need to be able to raise your children yourself.
What if everyone needed significant financial help to raise their kids? Simply put that can't even happen, you can't have everyone being a net recipient. You do understand that don't you?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And JohnnyBravo you can p*** off. I'm a qualified midwife. I don't need a few Google links to tell me what's what thank you very much.

Ignoring your temper tantrum (diddums) I presume you now concede that wealth is a factor affecting health?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Since there have been more than a few 'life stories' here. Why not ponder on the fact I had my first when I was 16, my second when I was seperated and my last three when I and my second husband were skint as anything.

But I've paid more than made up in what I've paid in taxes since. You're far too quick to write people off. Far too quick to put people in boxes that they'll 'never climb out of'.. and far to quick to assume that those in poverty will always remain so. Like it's static.

Ah so now we see the reason for your anger. Bless. Should you be on the internet?
The discussion is around generalisations. Not your specific circumstances. Why do people assume the discussion is them, or their child? We don't know you.
No population is so uniform as to mean there is not a significant distribution.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're debating the wrong thing anyway.. it's not the number of children that are being born. It's that people are living much longer. And this, not children being born.. is one of the main problems facing us as a society today. Who pays for them all/us ?

The UK is already top-heavy.. and it's going to explode soon. And this thread is debating limiting and cutting the numbers of potential/future uk taxpayers at the proverbial ankles !!.. More fool you really. You've missed the point about population stats and the elephant in the room.. competely !

Perhaps you all need to 'google' a few links about our aging population instead of worrying about who should and who shouldn't have babies, citing childhood illnesses etc. It's completely irrelevant.

Wake up.. in the UK we're all living longer and not enough children are currently being born to pay for that.



http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949

Ha ha. Brilliant. You need to read up on populations and how they grow. Rapidly growing populations (ones usually with an abundance of resources and no significant predation or cause of mortality usually exhibit a popluation explosion and then a consequent collapse.
That is what humans are currently doing. We do not exist in a steady state. Your solution of "breed more" is destined to failure, not in our lifetime, but failure none the less.
That is your elephant in the room.