2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

olly300

Orpheo wrote: »

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.

!!!!!! are you going on about?

Orpheo wrote: »

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.

Actually by posting that you show that you lack the capacity to discuss and debate with people who come from different backgrounds from yourself, have different levels of education including that in different spheres to your own and have a different world view.

Orpheo

olly300 wrote: »

Actually by posting that you show that you lack the capacity to discuss and debate with people who come from different backgrounds from yourself, have different levels of education including that in different spheres to your own and have a different world view.

Really? Is that what it shows? Or does your post show that you have exhausted your thimble full of worthwhile to say?

What are you going to prove for your next work of genius? Allow me to make a suggestion: how about reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion light year across closed universe isn't big enough to encompass just how ****ing far you are from having a clue.

And what, Fanny Adams, exactly do you know about my background and education?

olly300

Orpheo wrote: »

Really? Is that what it shows? Or does your post show that you have exhausted your thimble full of worthwhile to say?

What are you going to prove for your next work of genius? Allow me to make a suggestion: how about reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion light year across closed universe isn't big enough to encompass just how ****ing far you are from having a clue.

If you are going to try insult me personally then I will reply.

Orpheo wrote: »

And what, Fanny Adams, exactly do you know about my background and education?

As much as you clearly know about mine.

Orpheo

If you are going to try insult me personally then I will reply.

Don't be a victim.

As much as you clearly know about mine.

Are there voices in your head? Once again, Olly, I didn't imply any knowledge about your background and education, all I have to work on is what you furball in your posts.

Generali

I've not read any more than a couple of posts on this thread so please don't anyone think I'm taking sides.

Orpheo wrote: »

Allow me to make a suggestion: how about reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion light year across closed universe isn't big enough to encompass just how ****ing far you are from having a clue.

However, the above is one of the great insults.

ninky_2

what is clear on a large scale is even those who decide to have their children in a "muddle through" scenario do seem to limit the numbers of children they have as a rule. one of the big factors in that would seem to be affordability. most people realise they couldn't "muddle through" with more than about 2 children (unless they are going to rely on the state) - so even those who say don't wait to have kids because of money do seem to allow external monetary factors to influence family size.

Orpheo

ninky wrote: »

what is clear on a large scale is even those who decide to have their children in a "muddle through" scenario do seem to limit the numbers of children they have as a rule. one of the big factors in that would seem to be affordability. most people realise they couldn't "muddle through" with more than about 2 children (unless they are going to rely on the state) - so even those who say don't wait to have kids because of money do seem to allow external monetary factors to influence family size.

I can agree with most of this, except for your using "what is clear on a large scale" to make fact of opinion and using the emotive term "muddle through" to create the impression of many poor parents in difficulty. I almost forgot your use of "as a rule" to cement your opinion as a solid law of physics.

People no longer need to routinely have 5 children as the infant mortality rate is low, in the case of the following stats - children dying before their 1st birthday, is 4.9 children per 1000 (2008), in 1960 it was 22.8 children per 1000, in the early 1900s the figure was around 130 per 1000. Now, I don't claim that the low infant mortality rate is the only factor, the widespread availability of contraception is also a factor, but it is important to remember that methods of contraception have existed for thousands of years and that only 50 years ago in the UK single mums were institutionalised and children out of wedlock scandalised. Of course, in the modern UK, it is responsible to limit the number of children you have according to whether or not you can afford to raise them yourself and of course people "allow [STRIKE]external[/STRIKE] monetary factors to influence family size", but this is quite a shift of the goal posts from only having children if you can give them a fantastic life, defined by you as:

a fantastic life in terms of what can be controlled in my definition is to have a choice to work or not to work. to be able to persue interests, studies, travel etc. to have the flexibility that money provides. basically to be wealthy. i know not all wealthy people are happy but i certainly would not want to have children destined to be wage slaves. an extreme position perhaps and one that many will not share but it's my position.

The life without work that you aspire to for children is something I find hard to view as a positive thing. Raise your children with self-respect and equip them with the education and confidence to make their own way in life. If you work hard you can achieve what you want according to whatever motivates you. You may be motivated by money, your children may not be, many people choose low paid jobs that they love and nobody is a "wage slave" unless they have borrowed other people's money.

LilacPixie

How much does it actually 'cost' to raise a family?? Obviously designer babygros and a brand new mini at age 17 costs a fair whack but i'm talking about the minimums? I have never actually thought about it, kids need shoes i buy shoes, kids need clothes i buy clothes, kids like jelly for a treat if been good during the day I buy jelly etc etc. I would class us as 'comfortable' certainly not wealthy, our kids will have to work when they reach adult hood. My 4 yearold assures me she will be a vet 'when she grows up into a bigger girl'. Really I think even if you can't give your children all the materialistic things they want/desire but as long as they have ambition and you support that as far as possible you can't go far wrong.

ninky_2

LilacPixie wrote: »

How much does it actually 'cost' to raise a family?? .

the typically quoted figurein the uk is over 200k on average to raise a child to the age of 21.

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

People no longer need to routinely have 5 children as the infant mortality rate is low, .

i'm not sure i agree with your suggestion that people had more children due to infant mortality. a lot of people like a big noisy family full of lots of children - more so than 1 or 2 provide.

biologically you obviously pass on more/different genes if you have more children (even more so if you have them with different partners since the match with their genes influences which ones will dominate and come out in future mixes) - and so increase the chances of having stronger progeny.

it's not uncommon to meet people who want loads of children (i know several) but say they haven't because they can't afford it.

i think if the stats show that people delay having children due to housing affordability it is not unreasonable to assume that many delay having more children for similar reasons.