Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sour Mash

Brits Having Less Kids, Marrying Later, Spending More Money On Housing.

Recommended Posts

BBC report.

Britons are having babies later, are less likely to marry and claim double the welfare benefits compared to the 1970s, a report has revealed.

..

Over the same period housing, fuel and water had replaced food and non-alcoholic drinks as the biggest household expenditure.

Spending on social security benefits, meanwhile, had risen by 122% in real terms over the past 30 years - from £69bn in 1978-79 to £152bn in 2008-09.

Lovely, roll on HPI eh? It's worked so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's official. Life in the 1970's was 100% better than it is today, and I was told it was awful. :rolleyes:

What will happen when the little monkeys who run all the machines and stuff, stop reproducing entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC report.

Lovely, roll on HPI eh? It's worked so well.

if you study the time period it coincides exactly with the council house sell-offs and Utility privatisations, accellerated company closures, pension raids etc transfering the collective wealth of the Nation to the UK/foreign uber rich (The City, shareholders, landowners, landlords, Banks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's official. Life in the 1970's was 100% better than it is today, and I was told it was awful. :rolleyes:

What will happen when the little monkeys who run all the machines and stuff, stop reproducing entirely.

Is marrying earlier and having more kids definitely better??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is marrying earlier and having more kids definitely better??

If you can afford it, yes.

People only need a simple life. Why delay marriage and kids if you don't have to? In the name of a "career" i.e. selling your soul to the corporate world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit weird this.

I've been doing some research into working class household patterns in the mid-19th century, and what is really interesting is just how old many couples are when they start having children -- it is not unusual for a woman to be in her late 20s or early 30s when she has her first child. This idea that modern woman are having children "late" only really stands with reference to the British post-war period.

What else is interesting is the rental yields on property and who can afford to live in what, and how many children they can support and how long those children lived (and how many died) on how much of a wage. It's pretty surprising; it's not as bleak as we are often led to believe. The main bone of contention seems to be the cost of coal and food (you could rent a "bedsit" in Whitechapel for sixpence a week in the late 19th century, and a bottom-rung street prostitute was able to earn that fairly easily if she didn't drink too much gin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is marrying earlier and having more kids definitely better??

If you can afford it, yes.

People only need a simple life. Why delay marriage and kids if you don't have to? In the name of a "career" i.e. selling your soul to the corporate world?

You're making the assumptions that (1) people would love to marry and have kids, but can't afford it and (2) they are delaying for career reasons

I could equally say that these days because of the welfare state and rising living standards we no longer feel we need children to support us in old age, and are choosing leisure over family.

Or that changes in divorce laws and payouts are dissuading men from wanting to marry and have children, as it is a financial risk.

Equally some of the poorest people have the most children, and are quite happy to bring them up on benefits (which depsite what many on here say are not that generous). They don't feel the need to delay.

I'm just saying that it is not as simple as saying everyone would - if they could - marry and have children at the same rate as in the 1970s. Far more factors are at play than HPI or career-mindedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "lucky" future children of these people will be buying mansions for tuppence? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit weird this.

I've been doing some research into working class household patterns in the mid-19th century, and what is really interesting is just how old many couples are when they start having children -- it is not unusual for a woman to be in her late 20s or early 30s when she has her first child. This idea that modern woman are having children "late" only really stands with reference to the British post-war period.

What else is interesting is the rental yields on property and who can afford to live in what, and how many children they can support and how long those children lived (and how many died) on how much of a wage. It's pretty surprising; it's not as bleak as we are often led to believe. The main bone of contention seems to be the cost of coal and food (you could rent a "bedsit" in Whitechapel for sixpence a week in the late 19th century, and a bottom-rung street prostitute was able to earn that fairly easily if she didn't drink too much gin).

Interesting.

Research as in reading for personal interest or research as research for publication?

You may want to look at numbers of children per woman that survive into adulthood as a benchmark.

As we are still here the numbers must have been quite high in the 19th century.

Despite us not having any wars killing millions of people or plagues/epidemics wiping out millions of people we have created a society that can't produce enough children to even maintain it's numbers.

Still we have Ipods, they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making the assumptions that (1) people would love to marry and have kids, but can't afford it and (2) they are delaying for career reasons

I could equally say that these days because of the welfare state and rising living standards we no longer feel we need children to support us in old age, and are choosing leisure over family.

Or that changes in divorce laws and payouts are dissuading men from wanting to marry and have children, as it is a financial risk.

Equally some of the poorest people have the most children, and are quite happy to bring them up on benefits (which depsite what many on here say are not that generous). They don't feel the need to delay.

I'm just saying that it is not as simple as saying everyone would - if they could - marry and have children at the same rate as in the 1970s. Far more factors are at play than HPI or career-mindedness.

OK, let's put this one to bed ... again.

Child benefits are about £20 per week per child. Child tax credits vary, but are about three times that figure. In total, approximately £80 per week per child. Now add in the rest of the benefits.

A single mum with one child and on housing benefit gets between £15-20k pa into her hand.

Show me your figures and let's compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large extended families could be a good investment for the future...both in help with child care, parents and siblings also help and support in old age. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Research as in reading for personal interest or research as research for publication?

You may want to look at numbers of children per woman that survive into adulthood as a benchmark.

As we are still here the numbers must have been quite high in the 19th century.

Despite us not having any wars killing millions of people or plagues/epidemics wiping out millions of people we have created a society that can't produce enough children to even maintain it's numbers.

Still we have Ipods, they didn't.

Background research for a wider project for eventual publication.

You've mentioned the other interesting aspect as well: that of how many children survive infancy. I have been looking at traditional working class areas of Lancashire, particularly Liverpool, and I expected pretty high infant mortality, and I've been pretty surprised. My figures are more one in five or six, when I would have expected less than one in four.

It's also pretty interesting how many adults don't marry or ever have children, despite living to a fairly ripe old age.

Incidentally, what has made me smile is how many people used the workhouses as cheap temporary doss houses. There are folk that just travel around the region, sleeping in a different workhouse every few nights. :D

Edited by dissident junk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this. Ive always been of the view that

1) I wouldnt want to bring any children into a shithole of a world like this, and especially a worthless disgrace of a country like this

2) African countries are producing masses of babies anyway, I should adopt some of those if i wanted children

3) I hate children anyway

BUT

Im now adamant that pensions wont exist if/when i get to retuire, i need offspring to care for me.

The trouble is for me, procreation is a completely economic decision. I cant think of anything more unnatural than being tied to something you may have nothing in common with. Adoption might at least lessen that. as you can specify certain traits, though the subject might not bond with you, due to no blood relation, however irrational that may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit weird this.

I've been doing some research into working class household patterns in the mid-19th century, and what is really interesting is just how old many couples are when they start having children -- it is not unusual for a woman to be in her late 20s or early 30s when she has her first child. This idea that modern woman are having children "late" only really stands with reference to the British post-war period.

What else is interesting is the rental yields on property and who can afford to live in what, and how many children they can support and how long those children lived (and how many died) on how much of a wage. It's pretty surprising; it's not as bleak as we are often led to believe. The main bone of contention seems to be the cost of coal and food (you could rent a "bedsit" in Whitechapel for sixpence a week in the late 19th century, and a bottom-rung street prostitute was able to earn that fairly easily if she didn't drink too much gin).

Spoilsport, your not supposed to counter stories like this with actual facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is tragic in this era where we can produce so much surplus so easily that the vast majority of an entire generation is unable to afford basic housing and food for a family.

It is the clear failure of a socio-economic system. Naturally the people with wealth and power are trying to blame the poor and young for the failure, but reality is the blame always must lie with those who hold the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can afford it, yes.

People only need a simple life. Why delay marriage and kids if you don't have to? In the name of a "career" i.e. selling your soul to the corporate world?

I think that the trend to having fewer kids and having them later is much more to do with people enjoying an extended period of "adultescence".

Look at the way 30s blokes still act like 19 years olds in dress, activities, holidays etc.

Back in the 50s people went from being "kids" to being "proper grownups" relatively early. Now, in dress and behaviour, everyone seems to be a teenager.

Now, people want to enjoy a much longer period of young adulthood, where they have the money to spend on themselves - on going out, socialising, drinking, partying, travelling etc, etc.

Women can live on their own or with friends for years - a generation ago maybe they went from living with parents straight to their married home.

If houses were really cheap do people think that most of us would forgo all of this funnest time of life and go straight into marrying, settling down and having 3 kids in their early 20s?

I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is marrying earlier and having more kids definitely better??

Good point. We don't need to produce young people ourselves when we can just import ready made adults.

This has been the overarching social policy of the last 10 years.

Edited by ingermany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the trend to having fewer kids and having them later is much more to do with people enjoying an extended period of "adultescence".

Look at the way 30s blokes still act like 19 years olds in dress, activities, holidays etc.

Back in the 50s people went from being "kids" to being "proper grownups" relatively early. Now, in dress and behaviour, everyone seems to be a teenager.

Now, people want to enjoy a much longer period of young adulthood, where they have the money to spend on themselves - on going out, socialising, drinking, partying, travelling etc, etc.

Women can live on their own or with friends for years - a generation ago maybe they went from living with parents straight to their married home.

If houses were really cheap do people think that most of us would forgo all of this funnest time of life and go straight into marrying, settling down and having 3 kids in their early 20s?

I don't.

The average age of an unassisted FTB is now 37. I don't think people are spending 16 years post-education clubbing and travelling, at least not voluntarily. I'd say by their late 20s most people have had their fill and start wanting some security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is all the wrong sort of people are having babies, e.g. chavs, under-class, council house dwellers etc.

It is time to leave these country behind unless you are super rich or one of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average age of an unassisted FTB is now 37. I don't think people are spending 16 years post-education clubbing and travelling, at least not voluntarily. I'd say by their late 20s most people have had their fill and start wanting some security.

Agree. It's not by choice after their late 20s for most, it's that they (I include me in this) can't afford adequate accommodation to start a family, at least not in an area where you would be happy raising kids.

The claim that people are kids for longer now is tail wagging the dog thinking. They can't afford to be adults by your definition due to housing costs, so all that's left is being a kid. Unless you're on benefits or have won a lottery on one sort or another there is a whole generation who will be childless through no choice of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average age of an unassisted FTB is now 37. I don't think people are spending 16 years post-education clubbing and travelling, at least not voluntarily. I'd say by their late 20s most people have had their fill and start wanting some security.

37 year olds buying their first properties - 2 bed flats on mortgages that'll take 25 years to pay off.

Jesus, we are f***ed. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 without owning a house but that's got nothing to do with the fact that I'm single and don't have kids - I simply have no desire whatsoever for either (although I would like a house at a sensible price). I want to live my life as I want it, not to have all my time and money drained by a bunch of kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this. Ive always been of the view that

1) I wouldnt want to bring any children into a shithole of a world like this, and especially a worthless disgrace of a country like this

2) African countries are producing masses of babies anyway, I should adopt some of those if i wanted children

3) I hate children anyway

4) Having children = no more freedom.

I wish I could meet a woman who thinks that way :)

Problem is all the wrong sort of people are having babies, e.g. chavs, under-class, council house dwellers etc.

And they're having them a lot sooner too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't have kids knowing that they'd just be another generation of slaves, indebted for their entire miserable lives to the UK's property owning overlords.

Don't have kids and cuts these parasites off at the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.