Uk Baby Shortage

[Fancypants]

or am I just slow off the mark?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1713132,00.html

[SarahBell]

Its on the bbc and in the sunday times too

[OnlyMe]

Isn't there already a new scheme in place so that working parents can drop their children off at school early and pick them up late so they can carry on workling?

Out of the thousands of schools in the country, how many have set up the system?

Less than 20!

This govt. couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

[Fancypants]

Its on the bbc and in the sunday times too

haven't read the other versions, but the emphasis in the Observer piece tends toward blaming career-minded women and doesn't even mention high housing costs/debt etc etc. Quite a superficial analysis - as its a cover story maybe there'll be some editorial comment elsewhere, I will have to have a look later.

Ultimately though, it's another missed opportunity - or a blind spot, however one wishes to look at it.

[Zaranna]

I'm really bothered about this kind of issue as I'm a late twenties woman who'd love to have children but I can't possibly afford it My partner and I can't buy a house even on 3 or 4 times joint salary (and we don't earn bad money to be honest - the prices where I live are just too high). Even rents are so expensive that there's no way that we could afford a flat on one income. These kind of articles just don't point out the financial facts that are bleeding obvious to anyone my age but that the older generation just don't seem to grasp - ie. we have to have 2 incomes to afford to live and if we gave one up so I could have a child we'd have to apply for council housing, which we would be a low priority for, and so we can't take that risk. If we both carried on working and had a child we couldn't afford the childcare in order to have the 2 incomes to pay our rent. (My partner and I both have PhDs and earn above average salaries, just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem. In a normal non-bubble economy we'd be able to buy a rather nice house perfectly well).

My parents are worried about the whole thing but they still believe what the media says about young career women putting themselves and their careers first yadda yadda all that crap - "you should think about having a baby, we're worried about you putting your work first" etc. etc. I keep explaining to my mother that I would give up work and my career to have a baby in a shot but that I can't afford to (can only afford even mediocre rental housing in the private sector on 2 incomes). My career is the only way that I do have of earning enough money some day actually to have a child!

This observer article talks about how women lose out financially by having children in their twenties but it doesn't even mention that high house prices are the real issue. Until people start realising that their children can't afford to have children because they can't pay to house them, we won't see any real awareness of the problem IMO. When the boomers wake up in 20 years' time and find they haven't any grandchildren and they never see their own children and there aren't enough workers to fund their health care then we'll see a weeping and wailing about these lost babies - but not until then and it will be too late.

Only then will the current over-45s realise that the nice profit they made on that buy-to-let doesn't compensate for a lonely old age paying huge prices for careworkers because they priced out a whole generation from having a family.....

[Elizabeth]

Well IMHO this is all about recession not babies. Its not that it not correct, its just that the only time it is made a highlight issue is when a recession is coming and we need to cut the workforce ... I give up my job, you loose yours ... great time to have a baby

Did you notice the pop-up add was a "Debt Test".

It advocates free nursery places for two-year-olds, paternity leave paid at 90 per cent of a man's salary, and three months of paid parental leave to be taken at any point before the child is five, with one month reserved for fathers. That would cost up to £11bn a year by 2020 - about £183 for every British man, woman and child.

'This is not a report that says to women "stay at home and have children",' said Nick Pearce, director of the

Nah. Of course not. Wouldn't want to frighten the horses

Free Childcare? 100% agree for those women who want to work. But the point is, why should women be forced to work when they have got kids, any more than they should be forced to stay at home? Why can't couples be able to organise their time so that they have between them enough of it to look after the most important part of their lives? We have reached the point where the two income household is the norm, not for the little luxuries (those are paid for with MEW) but to make ends meet.

Actually at the level of economy we have reached I am starting to think a recession that cut into even 1/4 of the double income housholds and caused a massive deflationary spiral in the sectors that are bubble inflated (mostly real estate - not counted in the inflation figures) might not be such a bad thing. It would almost be simply be restorative.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

haven't read the other versions, but the emphasis in the Observer piece tends toward blaming career-minded women and doesn't even mention high housing costs/debt etc etc. Quite a superficial analysis - as its a cover story maybe there'll be some editorial comment elsewhere, I will have to have a look later.

Ultimately though, it's another missed opportunity - or a blind spot, however one wishes to look at it.

True as there is a lot of the usual 'career first', 'not met mr right' yadda yadda yadda

[Mags]

Isn't there already a new scheme in place so that working parents can drop their children off at school early and pick them up late so they can carry on workling?

Out of the thousands of schools in the country, how many have set up the system?

Less than 20!

This govt. couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

That's the extended schools scheme and many, many schools are a part of it at some point of the working day. It's very sad to see children as young as five being picked up at 5.30-6 by a grandparent because Mum or Dad is still at work.

I think it's going to be far healthier for family life for it to be possible for a parent to look after children rather than after school clubs and nursery nurses on the minimum wage.

[Fudge]

Why breed workers in this country? it is too expensive and we can import cheaper.

[Gavin]

Yep, recently got a Barratt advert through the door showing a couple in their late 20's (both good looking models of course) with two kids in their new house who were I guess 7 and 9 years of age.

What buyers? (Or indeed FTB especially?) will be 28 with 8 year old children living in a new house fitted with the latest designer features?

Unless one of the parents has a 100k pa job, it aint going to happen.

Thats what so frustrating about us being told we are doom mongers! :angry:

We are just realists!

I know its just advertising not reality, but come on, give us a grain of credibility. How many couples are like this? If the building companies themselves don't work this out, they will be doomed themselves.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Well IMHO this is all about recession not babies. Its not that it not correct, its just that the only time it is made a highlight issue is when a recession is coming and we need to cut the workforce ... I give up my job, you loose yours ... great time to have a baby

Did you notice the pop-up add was a "Debt Test".

Nah. Of course not. Wouldn't want to frighten the horses

Free Childcare? 100% agree for those women who want to work. But the point is, why should women be forced to work when they have got kids, any more than they should be forced to stay at home? Why can't couples be able to organise their time so that they have between them enough of it to look after the most important part of their lives? We have reached the point where the two income household is the norm, not for the little luxuries (those are paid for with MEW) but to make ends meet.

Actually at the level of economy we have reached I am starting to think a recession that cut into even 1/4 of the double income housholds and caused a massive deflationary spiral in the sectors that are bubble inflated (mostly real estate - not counted in the inflation figures) might not be such a bad thing. It would almost be simply be restorative.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086571396...5Fencoding=UTF8

This books has a good chapter in how in a recession the majority actually get better off, especially in 'quality of life terms' as key living costs become cheaper while in a boom expenses mount. Even in the last recession the vast majority of the workforce were employed.

Debt-based economies are reliant on growth at all costs to repay previous loans. While technology and human advancement should mean we could all jobshare and amuse ourselves with blue-sky science research, enjoy learning new skills, experience more art and culture, the growth imperitive forces everyone to work at all costs, frogmarched to the nearest braindead form of employment for 40 hours a week, or 60 or 70 if like many you have to work more than one job to make ends meet - often quite pointless jobs like serving diabetes at fast food restaurants or standing around in overlit shopping centres encouraging poeple to sign up for credit cards.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

add your comments to the bbc on the baby gap here

[Zaranna]

Why breed workers in this country? it is too expensive and we can import cheaper.

How will that solve the demographic problem? It risks importing pressures on other points in the welfare state, as well as creating a two-tier society in which salaries for many jobs, such as care work, are artificially kept so low that only immigrant workers will do them, or will do them at pay levels so low that they are not paying substantial amounts of tax - how does that help maintain the strength of a welfare state system that relies on the systematic paying of taxes over an individual's working lifetime?

Extract from the Sunday Times article on this issue today:

"Nick Pearce, director of the IPPR, said: “Britain is now at a demographic fork in the road and in danger of taking the wrong direction. Although our population is rising, a fall in fertility would have serious long-term consequences — it would make it harder to earn our way in the world and to pay for valued public services.”

Pearce, who is urging the government to create a minister for demography and better childcare to enable families to combine work and family life more easily, added: “Fertility patterns can take up to 40 years to change so politicians need to start taking action now.”

The report says boosting immigration to the levels required to fill the gap is not politically viable. “According to estimates from the United Nations, maintaining current support ratios in the UK [between those in employment and dependants aged over 64] would require 59.8m migrants between 1995 and 2050, an annual average of slightly over 1m immigrants.”"

[BuyingBear]

I think we've outsourced breeding, it's too expensive when it comes to housing and time off work, we just import full formed and well educated 20 year olds courtesy of the Eastern Bloc, I believe their product comes with 'added work ethic'.

[Fancypants]

I think we've outsourced breeding, it's too expensive when it comes to housing and time off work, we just import full formed and well educated 20 year olds courtesy of the Eastern Bloc, I believe their product comes with 'added work ethic'.

as with all good gags, more than a grain of uncomfortable truth.

Which is why I get infuriated with all the myopic kneejerk claptrap one sometimes sees on here about immigration causing HPI. Any reasonably intelligent analysis will show that that is not an issue at all - we're asking the wrong question - actually HPI is a causal factor behind increased immigration, or it certainly will be in the future.

[FollowTheBear]

"Nick Pearce, director of the IPPR, said: “Britain is now at a demographic fork in the road and in danger of taking the wrong direction. Although our population is rising, a fall in fertility would have serious long-term consequences — it would make it harder to earn our way in the world and to pay for valued public services.”

Pearce, who is urging the government to create a minister for demography and better childcare to enable families to combine work and family life more easily, added: “Fertility patterns can take up to 40 years to change so politicians need to start taking action now.”

The report says boosting immigration to the levels required to fill the gap is not politically viable. “According to estimates from the United Nations, maintaining current support ratios in the UK [between those in employment and dependants aged over 64] would require 59.8m migrants between 1995 and 2050, an annual average of slightly over 1m immigrants.”"

In others, have more children everyone.

How are the Japanese dealing with this issue? Immigration? No, the attitude of most Japanese people is something the BNP would be proud of. Raising birth rates? Well, there were some mutterings to this effect recently but it wasn't taken that seriously.

The answer is more technology, robots to look after the elderly and generally boosting the productivity of the existing workforce. How does Mr Pearce know what technology will exist in 2070? I reckon nuclear fusion will provide unlimited cheap energy, something akin to the startrek replicator will provide most basic needs and most jobs currently performed by humans will be done by artificial intelligence. It may be perfectly feasable for half the population to work in healthcare.

I think we worry about it too much. Humanity has frequently shown where there's a will there's a way.

Edited February 19, 2006 by FollowTheBear

[BuyingBear]

How are the Japanese dealing with this issue? Immigration?

Actually they've tried, there's quite a large Japanese dispora in latin America, but those guys are a little bit too crazy for the native Japense and there's been tensions.

Edited February 19, 2006 by BuyingBear

[The Masked Tulip]

I am tired of the facile dismissals of my views on gender relationships. For those who think deeply, I think you will find something in them. It has taken years for soem of my male friends to think through this, but most now see things clearly, and we can discuss these issues and make better choices. That is progress. I am waiting for the light to come on for others.

I think there is certainly a male backlash, that is growing, against women here in the UK and also in the US.

More and more men I know are 100% opposed to ever marrying a British woman and are passing this information to much younger men. I know so many 'decent' men who have been completely burned via divorce, emotionally, physically and financially, that they have become adamant they will never marry a woman ever again. Some of them, once one woman family guys, now 'play the field' partly out of hurt, partly out of revenge and, of course, inevitably 'decent' women get hurt also.

One last point, there is a club on the outskirts of Cardiff city centre where, of a weekend, you cannot move apparently for Russian, Polish and other Eastern European nurses out for a good evening. The place has gained a bit of a reputation with Welsh women as, frankly, more and more men are heading to that club and choosing to avoid any Welsh girls who attend it. The local ladies are, ahem, apparently pretty cheesed off by all of this.

No, the guys are not solely going there for a 'leg-over', although no doubt some are, but they are going there to look at lovely women and to talk with 'lovely' women. I have not been myself, but have heard this reliably from several sources now, that the real joy about these women is that they are not interested in sleeping around, that they dress and act in a feminine (this does not mean a submissive or subservient way), that they are disgusted by what they see British women getting up to and most, if not all, are seeking that one special man for a long lasting relationship.

There are now simply too many men here in the UK who complain about UK women - about how hard, harsh and masculine such women they have become - for women here in the UK to simply dismiss it and to have a feminist rant. Thankfully, some British women have cottoned on to all this.

Edited February 19, 2006 by The Masked Tulip

[MarkG]

Yeah, where I work we now have Easten European cleaners rather than the British women who used to do the work: appearances might be deceiving, but they all seem very nice and friendly rather than frustrated, obnoxious gits. If they want to find men over here, I think there'll be a queue.

[Richard]

I'm totally with Dr Bubb on this one.

I'll be 30 in May and with no pension, working in a sector experiencing outsourcing and a property purchase 12 - 24 months away with 8 years of very aggressive saving under my belt to get even that close, I am resolved to never being able to take the financial risks associated with being with anyone. I am also in line for an inheritance which my parents have built up from absolutely nothing which I feel duty-bound to protect.

To follow up on Masked Tulip's post above, I do a lot of hiring and recently had to attend a seminar on changes to the discrimination laws coming in this October. During the presentation, the lawyer doing the presentation told us that the word 'lady' is offensive and politically incorrect, so think about that next time you say 'Good morning ladies' at work. I was gobsmacked but looked it up on google and it does indeed seem to a no-no expression. The world's gone mad. Somebody has even come up with something called the 'offensiveness quotient'. Here's the link:

http://www.randomhouse.com/words/language/oq_chart.html

Richard

[Fancypants]

ok, at the risk of provoking some ill-thought out kneejerkisms, I will say the following...

in the sexual marketplace, men are the traditionally "buyers" and women are the "sellers". And, no, this is not equating anything with prostitution - merely an observation about how relationships are formed and maintained... the onus is traditionally on men to instigate proceedings and make offers, which the women will then decide to accept or not.

obviously these traditional forms have become confused and reversed of late, as the roles have become more amorphous. However, these more old-fashioned immigrants are helping to re-assert old certainties.

And in that marketplace, they represent rather better value for money that the existing UK female stock. They offer more, and cost less. Simple.

I do not seek to argue the rights and wrongs of this - it is merely an observation made through the use of analogy - which I thought may be helpful.

[SarahBell]

I am also in line for an inheritance which my parents have built up from absolutely nothing which I feel duty-bound to protect.

In line?

Sorry to be blunt but have they both died? If not you will either have to look after them when they need care or they'll have to sell their home to pay for it. That's how modern britain works.

Maybe in the old days when generations lived together this thing wasn't an issue.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

ok, at the risk of provoking some ill-thought out kneejerkisms, I will say the following...

in the sexual marketplace, men are the traditionally "buyers" and women are the "sellers". And, no, this is not equating anything with prostitution - merely an observation about how relationships are formed and maintained... the onus is traditionally on men to instigate proceedings and make offers, which the women will then decide to accept or not.

obviously these traditional forms have become confused and reversed of late, as the roles have become more amorphous. However, these more old-fashioned immigrants are helping to re-assert old certainties.

And in that marketplace, they represent rather better value for money that the existing UK female stock. They offer more, and cost less. Simple.

I do not seek to argue the rights and wrongs of this - it is merely an observation made through the use of analogy - which I thought may be helpful.

How do you see the Uk female stock competing though? Lower prices or offer better services?

[FedupTeddiBear]

There was a report on Sky News 24 today on exactly the same issue.

I cannot believe that so many people are just TOO THICK to realise what the real problem is!

Many people consider it irresponsible to have children if there is the chance that they will not be able to afford to look after them properly.

With house prices as high as they are, what young family is prepared to live in a studio flat - thats all most of them are able to afford. This applies to renting too - where I live it costs £600pm.

Women need at least 6 months off work when they have a child - unless they are prepared to send their child to day care from 3 months!!! I certainly would not!

Maternity leave pay is usually appalling. In some countries 4 months full pay is the norm!

One just needs to look around at the behaviour of so many kids in this country to realise what the effects of "absent" parents are.

[Bear Goggles]

(From the Frugality thread- relevant here too, I think)

"As soon as you start to generalise you've lost any thinking readers. By 'usual crap' I mean the ill-thought-through generalisations that are made about women sometimes on this forum.

Some men may be choosing to live alone and not engage in committed relationships with women (and I don't believe it's necessary to get married to show commitment). Evidently, not all are."

- -

ILL Thought out?

Now you've done it!

Simply because my view is little-expressed does not mean it is "ill thought out". I often find an explanation way ahead of the mainstream. i think for myself, and achieve lateral break-throughs, way ahead of the mainstream. This is why I am a good investor: independent thought and intuitive insights are part of it.

The mainstream press simply doesnt get it. And many here seem not to get it either. So I will try again.

Look at the usual tripe in the press:

"Stella Hards from Bristol delayed starting a family to concentrate on her career in insurance. Although she dreamt of having at least three children, she is now, at 41, still trying for her first baby with her husband Reda, 26, a caravan outfitter.

“Whenever a relationship started getting serious I would back away as I just didn’t feel ready to settle down. I was too busy enjoying life,” Hards said.

From 35 she realised she had to concentrate on having children, but had two miscarriages. “I know my dream of having three children is very unlikely to become a reality and that is hard to take. I never imagined how difficult it would be to have a baby,” she said."

(from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...047439,00.html)

THEY SEEM to think that woman's choices are the main or only thing driving the lower birth-rate. Men's decisions and choices are part of it too. Look deeper, if you want to see the reality. Here's a woman of 41 married to a man of 26 years. That's a 15 year difference. Doesnt that tell you something? She said she "delayed starting a family to concentrate on her career in insurance". Do you believe this explanation? It doesnt take much imagination to come up with another.

As I said before, both men and women's decisions and choices are behind this lower birthrate. The man's viewpoint is systematically ignored in these media articles. But it matters, and it needs expressing too.

Myt explanation is as above: With house prices so high, and the the difficulty in finding a marriagable woman who brings something other than the huge risk of an expensive divorce, men are sensibly avoiding commitment. Change the culture, and woman's attitudes. Change the divorce laws, and the risks will fall, and men will seek out marriage with more enthusiasm.

Look deeper again. Here's a section from another story in today's paper:

"Along with the escalation in lone parenthood is the big surge in men living alone. Men in their thirties were the smallest group of men living alone in the 1970's. Now they are the largest, with a majority predicted to be living alone in 10 years' time." (Voting with their lack of commitment, as I said. This quote from "Where Marriage is a Diry Word" on page 7 in the News Review section of the Sunday Times.)

Do you think these men are so keen to live alone? Or do they simply find the risks and responsibilities of marriage too high? Maybe the risks look bigger now than they did to prior generations. If so, why? What factors have increased the risk in marriage for men? I think you know my answer.

I am tired of the facile dismissals of my views on gender relationships. For those who think deeply, I think you will find something in them. It has taken years for soem of my male friends to think through this, but most now see things clearly, and we can discuss these issues and make better choices. That is progress. I am waiting for the light to come on for others.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about the 'risks' of marrage. Financially there may be risks for both sexes, but I don't think the majority of the population take that into account when choosing a life partner. Afterall we've witnessed people's lack of understanding of risk very graphically in the last few years when it comes to investement in both property and shares (I'm thinking dotcom boom).

I would offer a slightly different angle on it. I think consumerism is bad for marrage. Few men want a woman who's selfish, and few women want a man who's a loser. Consumerism through advertising tells us we are a failure if we don't have the latest gizmos and encourages us to do anything to get them. Therefore we are diven to be cold and selfish and judge our sucess by what car we drive or sofa we have etc.

It's not the sort of thing either sex is looking for in a partner to bring up your kids is it?