Fertility rates

[Mrs Bear]

6 hours ago, onlooker said:

Are children such a big expense? Food and clothing have never been cheaper. Secondhand clothes and toys are in greater abundance now than ever, and easily available through charity shops and sales. There are always hand me downs.

Space is an issue, but previous generations lived at higher densities than we do now, and didn't suffer.

Childcare is very much an issue, but older children can look after younger. We used to belong to baby sitting circles, and sat for each others children.

I think the main constraint on family size now is that it cramps people's social life and enjoyment.

Er, how does older children looking after younger ones work, when the older one needs to be at school/pre school and the parents are both working?  

Though should add that my granddaughter would be only too willing to look after a no. 3.    She has already dictated a wish list for Father Christmas, including 'a real baby, boy or girl.'  She is three and a half.  

[onlooker]

35 minutes ago, Mrs Bear said:

Er, how does older children looking after younger ones work, when the older one needs to be at school/pre school and the parents are both working?  

Though should add that my granddaughter would be only too willing to look after a no. 3.    She has already dictated a wish list for Father Christmas, including 'a real baby, boy or girl.'  She is three and a half.  

Well my oldest did a lot of looking after my youngest - weekends, school holidays evenings etc., but there was quite a big age difference, which is not going to be the case for mothers who have left having a brood late in life.

I would have thought the cost of childcare is so much that for 2 children or more it is not worth one parent (usually the mother) working, at least until they can take themselves to school.

[winkie]

20 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

From experience of my own daughters and their  contemporaries,  people are forming long long term relationships later - not necessarily because they don't want to,  but because they only found the right person relatively late.  

Elder daughter and several of her contemporaries only started families in late 30s/early 40s.  And some of them would love more than 2, but because of sky high housing and childcare costs, it's pretty much out of the question.  Only 2 of daughter's extensive circle have had 3 children, and those are the ones  to whom expenses are not a major issue, I.e. the highest earners. 

 

 

Yes, for some women they might not meet the 'right' person until later in life.....certain people are more choosy have higher expectations today about the 'type' of person they want to form a long-term relationship with, sometimes earning potential comes before say caring, thoughtful, loyal and trustworthy qualities.....coming from a large family we never went hungry or cold.....nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom, sharing hand-me-downs, sharing resources.....what children need is a good stable happy home environment, not the up to date pair of trainers or being bought stuff that does not and will never replace unconditional love.?

 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by winkie

[EnglishinWales]

Infantalism of young people is widespread. A few months ago Tesco tried to refuse to sell me a kitchen knife saying it was their policy that I had to prove I was OVER 25. I am in my early 30s and the back of the packet the knife was in said legally it couldn't be sold to under 18s, since the shop assistant agreed I looked over 18 she had to let me have it but she clearly wasn't happy even asking me to explain what I would need such a knife for. 

By the way back in the 80s my parents owned their own house by the age of 25. Complete with matches, razor blades, lighter fuel, work tools and no doubt several kitchen knives.

If you condition young people to be helpless they will have a hard time creating the next generation.

[Riedquat]

13 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

Infantalism of young people is widespread. A few months ago Tesco tried to refuse to sell me a kitchen knife saying it was their policy that I had to prove I was OVER 25. I am in my early 30s and the back of the packet the knife was in said legally it couldn't be sold to under 18s, since the shop assistant agreed I looked over 18 she had to let me have it but she clearly wasn't happy even asking me to explain what I would need such a knife for. 

By the way back in the 80s my parents owned their own house by the age of 25. Complete with matches, razor blades, lighter fuel, work tools and no doubt several kitchen knives.

If you condition young people to be helpless they will have a hard time creating the next generation.

Probably just the checkout staff being useless and confusing various things. AIUI their policy is that if you're under 25 (or look it ) they want you to prove you're over 18. I saw an equally clueless checkout operator trying to claim it was the law that they had to ID people for alcohol if they were under 25. Nope, it's just company policy to make sure they don't end up in the crapper for selling to under 18s you ignorant fool.

[scottbeard]

15 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

Infantalism of young people is widespread. A few months ago Tesco tried to refuse to sell me a kitchen knife saying it was their policy that I had to prove I was OVER 25. I am in my early 30s and the back of the packet the knife was in said legally it couldn't be sold to under 18s, since the shop assistant agreed I looked over 18 she had to let me have it but she clearly wasn't happy even asking me to explain what I would need such a knife for. 

By the way back in the 80s my parents owned their own house by the age of 25. Complete with matches, razor blades, lighter fuel, work tools and no doubt several kitchen knives.

If you condition young people to be helpless they will have a hard time creating the next generation.

Tesco are just terrified of the fines/compensation they'd have to pay if a 17 year old buys a knife from Tesco and kills someone with it. The key law (not selling knives to under 18s) is actually very sensible.  It's the pressure of lawsuits making it badly enforced that's the problem, rather than infantilism.

It's a bit like the "health and safety gone mad" things you get - H&S in the workplace has actually delivered HUGE benefits over the last 100 years from a position where a few employees a year dying in a construction firm was regarded as normal to where people are actually very safe even in dangerous jobs.  However, it then gets a bad name when people have to take a training course to use a paper-cutter.

The danger as you say is too much molly-coddling means that when something "unusual" happens they haven't developed the skills to react, and I suspect over the next 100 years that will be a real challenge for people of all ages, especially as more things are automated (driverless cars etc).  Certainly there are increasing numbers of people already who have no idea how to find train times or navigate their car once their phone runs out of battery. 

 

[Quicken]

Relatively neutral article on this topic today from the bbc: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46303120

[winkie]

Children lost out when they could no longer take risks, the blame and suing culture, big money to be made from others so called mistakes......so everyone is paranoid of getting blamed, being sued when working around others and  children......due diligence and common sense no longer exists.....?

 

[EnglishinWales]

Infantalism of young people is widespread. And it's the boomers who are pushing it.

What happened at Tesco was an example of what I'm experiencing regularly: middle aged and older people being unnecessarily suspicious and controlling of what I'm up to. I know they have to keep within the law. The law is no knives for under 18s. A 50+ year old cashier trying to obstruct a 33 year old customer from buying a kitchen knife because 'they don't look old enough' is ridiculous. She could see I was well over both 18 AND 25 she just couldn't resist the opportunity to give me grief.

The government raised the adult rate of housing benefit to over 35s in 2012, before that it was over 25 which was bad enough. Now suddenly people under 35 aren't adults? When before they were?! Who runs the government? A lot of them are boomers.

They simultaneously fear and hate young people. I can't even stand at a bus stop without one of them feeling entitled to give me a lecture on how young people today are all useless. Maybe we are since we're constrained daily by the policies the government is pursuing. A government that most of them voted for. And then they complain we're taking too long to set up independently and start families of our own? You couldn't make it up.

[Riedquat]

On 22/11/2018 at 18:11, Quicken said:

Relatively neutral article on this topic today from the bbc: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46303120 

Nice to see good news for once. See, we can improve the UK without having to do anything unethical, just shut the door on immigration and let nature take its course. There's a chance to find a glimmer of hope for the future there, pity the government's response will be to piss on it.

[Riedquat]

On 22/11/2018 at 12:34, scottbeard said:

It's a bit like the "health and safety gone mad" things you get - H&S in the workplace has actually delivered HUGE benefits over the last 100 years from a position where a few employees a year dying in a construction firm was regarded as normal to where people are actually very safe even in dangerous jobs.  However, it then gets a bad name when people have to take a training course to use a paper-cutter.

Some of the H&S people claim that they're working against things like the paper-cutter example, but they don't realise that they've been pushing the very blinkered, over-simplified, over-paranoid "all risks must be managed" attitude that results in that very thing. "Enough is enough" hasn't ever been part of their message so what do they expect when people take it beyond the point where they think "enough is enough"? No, too often they just point out how much worse things were a hundred years ago and somehow think that justifies changes in the last ten or twenty years.

IMO the modern health and safety culture is creating the danger of genuine issues not getting treated with the seriousness they deserve due to a boy who cried wolf effect.

[straw]

can I just point out the practical implications of vasectomies on the birth rate?  Especially non-reversible and for men who definitely don't want any more...I'm of the mind that I've dodged it as years ago I'm sure we'd have had half a dozen going by birthrates of previous generations, as it is I've had many yrs of accepting it, and I think the world has enough babies.  I'm not sure why there's a shock at lower birth rates when the medical profession have been happily snipping away for yrs!?

 

[mrtickle]

On 22/11/2018 at 10:16, Riedquat said:

Probably just the checkout staff being useless and confusing various things. AIUI their policy is that if you're under 25 (or look it ) they want you to prove you're over 18. I saw an equally clueless checkout operator trying to claim it was the law that they had to ID people for alcohol if they were under 25. Nope, it's just company policy to make sure they don't end up in the crapper for selling to under 18s you ignorant fool.

Yes. But that too - that insidious, nasty, "you look >18 and <25 so you need to prove to me you are >18" policy should be resisted strongly. The problem is that CARTEL of retailers have all have put these policies into place, and as you say - very often get away with claiming it's the law.

I'm sure I've seen some organisation's logo and name at the tills ("campaign 25" or something?), posing as a government-backed initiative. It's as if it's a public information campaign announcing a new law - done exactly in the same way. It gives those ignorant self-important interfering idiots an easy ride when they are claiming it's "the law".

[Odakyu-sen]

On 23/11/2018 at 08:06, winkie said:

Children lost out when they could no longer take risks, the blame and suing culture, big money to be made from others so called mistakes......so everyone is paranoid of getting blamed, being sued when working around others and  children......due diligence and common sense no longer exists.....?

 

I wonder what brought this "children can  no longer take risks" mentality? What changed? The feminization of society? The fight against "masculinity"? (I really don't know and am clutching at straws. Someone dive in and help me out (but only if that doesn't involve taking a risk, mind you.)) 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Odakyu-sen

[winkie]

1 hour ago, Odakyu-sen said:

I wonder what brought this "children can  no longer take risks" mentality? What changed? The feminization of society? The fight against "masculinity"? (I really don't know and am clutching at straws. Someone dive in and help me out (but only if that doesn't involve taking a risk, mind you.)) 

For example: Walking a mile or more to school crossing a busy road or two, little Johnny or Jane might get hurt.....mobile phones can mean monitored by parents all day, the good old camps and trips far to dangerous, swing over the brook, forget it, build a dam forget it....go into the water, forget it.

....why even teachers cannot comfort a child or put a plaster on a cut, they can be touched incase sued?..... many freedoms have been removed, gone all softy softy.....cottonwool like.

Could it be having fewer children so over protective with the one they have??

[Odakyu-sen]

For example: Walking a mile or more to school crossing a busy road or two, little Johnny or Jane might get hurt...

Certainly in Japan it is considered normal to "send a child on a journey". In Japan the birthrate is lower than in England, so one could argue that children are more "precious" in Japan, and yet you don't get the overprotectiveness in Japan regarding children to such an extent. 

Something else is at play (and it's not just the children). 

Ref: 

 

[simvastatin]

14 hours ago, Odakyu-sen said:

I wonder what brought this "children can  no longer take risks" mentality? What changed? The feminization of society? The fight against "masculinity"? (I really don't know and am clutching at straws. Someone dive in and help me out (but only if that doesn't involve taking a risk, mind you.)) 

Fake news, that everyone I mean men are perverts

 

[onlooker]

3 hours ago, Odakyu-sen said:

For example: Walking a mile or more to school crossing a busy road or two, little Johnny or Jane might get hurt...

Certainly in Japan it is considered normal to "send a child on a journey". In Japan the birthrate is lower than in England, so one could argue that children are more "precious" in Japan, and yet you don't get the overprotectiveness in Japan regarding children to such an extent. 

Something else is at play (and it's not just the children). 

Ref: 

 

Perhaps the Japanese think that because their society is so homogeneous and law abiding, and looks out for each other, their children are not at much risk while on their 'journeys'.

[simvastatin]

2 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Perhaps the Japanese think that because their society is so homogeneous and law abiding, and looks out for each other, their children are not at much risk while on their 'journeys'.

The problem with Japanese society is that they have stopped growing and think virtual experience are the same as real life.

Britain is much more intelligent, we understand we need the world, and are not afraid.....

[simvastatin]

3 hours ago, Odakyu-sen said:

For example: Walking a mile or more to school crossing a busy road or two, little Johnny or Jane might get hurt...

Certainly in Japan it is considered normal to "send a child on a journey". In Japan the birthrate is lower than in England, so one could argue that children are more "precious" in Japan, and yet you don't get the overprotectiveness in Japan regarding children to such an extent. 

Something else is at play (and it's not just the children). 

Ref: 

 

What is your population decreasing by, you need to learn by observation and not preach non-existence 

[Riedquat]

Japan getting used as an example of not worrying yet that looks like a station platform where they feel it's necessary to put barriers up until a train arrives. Their over-protection just manifests in a different way.

[Odakyu-sen]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Japan getting used as an example of not worrying yet that looks like a station platform where they feel it's necessary to put barriers up until a train arrives. Their over-protection just manifests in a different way.

Not all the station platforms have the modern barriers. The trend is to install them (in case drunks fall onto the tracks, I guess.)

[winkie]

Interesting, myself and my siblings have always walked to school from about the age of seven, at one point used to call for a friend along the way and walked together.....very used to travelling on buses and using the underground from secondary school age.....did us no harm.?

[Riedquat]

7 hours ago, Odakyu-sen said:

Not all the station platforms have the modern barriers. The trend is to install them (in case drunks fall onto the tracks, I guess.)

Sounds incredibly nanny state to me.

[mrtickle]

10 hours ago, Odakyu-sen said:

Not all the station platforms have the modern barriers. The trend is to install them (in case drunks fall onto the tracks, I guess.)

They also prevent suicides, and save lives. People have been murdered by being pushed onto tracks as a train arrives as well. I'm sure those victims would have been delighted to be "over-protected" - what a stupid comment . I think they are a good safety feature. Never call a safety feature "over-protection": IMHO that applies to everything, from car safety belts upwards.

Edited November 25, 2018 by mrtickle