49
Real reasons people do not have the number of children they want revealed in new report (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by SleafordMod@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article notes that "right-wing governments, including the US and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood", as if today's young adults just don't want children.

But the author suggests that actually people do want children, and one of the main reasons they're having fewer children is because they can't afford many children.

Thoughts?

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 36 points 4 days ago

Falling birthrates are not a problem for humanity.

They're a problem for capitalism which can't rely on that for nebulous "growth" figures.

But if capitalists really want a solution, then a home for two adults and two children should be affordable on one average wage, not two. Build more and make them cheaper. If you can't do that then you don't care about the problem enough.

[-] shani66@ani.social 1 points 2 days ago

A plateauing population is a good thing! Growth is not a good thing! I don't get how people don't understand this. If something is going up forever it will eventually collapse spectacularly, if it's stable instead it'll stay stable.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago

It might not be a problem in itself, but it's certainly a symptom.

[-] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

TL;DR: money. It's always just money. They want us to breed more slaves but they're not willing to put up any collateral.

[-] Redacted@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago

Also, civilsation is going to be brought to its knees by climate change in the coming decades.

Feels somewhat immoral to put someone you love through that.

[-] Photuris@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

Automation is going to chew up jobs faster than new ones are created, too.

Reduce the value of white collar labor, and white collar workers will flood to the blue collar trades, drastically reducing pay there as well.

Not a suitable environment for growing large families.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think "money" falls short as an explanation (though it's certainly part of it). Some countries like Sweden have substantially better state support for parents that the standard and the Swedish population isn't exactly poor in general, either, yet they aren't really getting that many more children than poorer countries with less support for parents.

[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Maybe so much money you can get other people to raise your kids for you, that kinda money 😎

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 38 points 4 days ago

Raising children requires hope for he future.

Of course the first post ww2 generation to see lower prospects then their parents. Will hesitate to bring children into that future.

[-] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 20 points 4 days ago

This is one of my main reasons for not wanting kids…why would I want to bring a child into a world where I couldn’t guarantee them a decent standard of upbringing and think that the world is only going to get worse over the next 20 years anyway?

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

The people who do all the handwringing about falling birth rates are the same people who bring them about by their shitty policies.

[-] Luouth@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

We are only one and done because of financial constraints. I'd say that the package of benefits the government offers parents in my location is fantastic and good on them for doing so well to pull it out of the bag. However, what they don't help with is early years childcare costs (0-3 years) which costs us around the same as our mortgage each month. Only now are we able to get 30 hours paid care. That would be ok if the cost of living and mortgage rates weren't already exorbitant and we cannot even consider taking another 3 year hit with our current young dependant.

So yeah, we'd love another kid, but we aren't able to afford one!

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

I'd love kids, but the world is fucked and it wouldn't be fair on them.

[-] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think uncertainty of employment is a huge issue. Enact a right to employment law.

One off transfers aren't enough, there has to be consistent income stream. The hours of the work offered under this law must be flexible.

Of course, none of that is going to happen if the Government has a neoliberal mindset.

[-] shani66@ani.social 1 points 2 days ago

Better yet, offer no strings attached income. For everyone. We have a lot of jobs that don't really need to exist and it's entirely senseless to force people to do bullshit work. We gotta escape this nonsense cultural dead end that says work is some noble purpose.

Now that is an objectively true position that will never get traction in our hellworld.

[-] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This makes no sense

Millions of people are prevented from having the number of children they want by a toxic mix of economic barriers and sexism, a new UN report has warned.

How does that gel with the poorest countries in the world with societies that treat women like shit having the highest birth rate?

[-] filtoid@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

There's a difference between Women harming their careers by having children, and not being able to a career other than SAHM because you aren't able to get a career job in the first place. Both are sexist, and while it would work to increase the birth rate to remove women's rights, it is morally reprehensible, and yes looks sternly at the US, we see what you are doing!

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 4 days ago

Most people, woman or not, don't have "careers"

They have jobs vast majority of which are very low quality lol

[-] filtoid@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

Honestly can't tell if you're trolling with this.

Any job that would give you an advantage when applying for a new job (ie. Prior experience) is part of a career. For more formal careers like Medicine and Law they are an absolute necessity and often formally defined, for careers like Bartender, the requirements are more fluid, but experience (and particularly unbroken experience) is very important when applying for jobs.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 4 days ago

Careful buddy, you might OD on daddy's koolaid lol

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Any job that would give you an advantage when applying for a new job

Nope. Only true if the new job offers benefit over the previous jobs.

Sorry to tell you this. But for many in modern society that is simply not the case. The growth in income or benefit at best covers the increase in cost of living.

With the huge increases in housing costs alone. Long term employment. Stable or steady replacement. Often fails to pay the increased dost of surviving as low income workers age.

For many low income families jobs last as long as the company success followed by random layoffs to support company shareholders. Followed by inflation only replacement work.

This is in no way a career just survival.

[-] zout@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago

The acces to birth control?

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 4 days ago

Correct but even places with limited BC access. It seems everywhere birth rate is declining, including Muslim and African countries

[-] shath@hexbear.net 2 points 4 days ago

shocked-pikachu

this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
49 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4944 readers
174 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net