Greg Bowman Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The problem I have is that I am paying almost 50% of my net salary for my mortgage on a small flat so if I was going to have children I would have to trade up and take on a lot more financial responsibility and I do not think I am ready for such a commitment. Also I am not so good looking. Priceless and your generation wonder why us boomers take the P*** out of you (and yes I do mean financially as well as every other way) You are in your 30's for f*** sake not 16 when pray are you going to be 'ready' Your generation is so risk adverse it's laughable and why you are getting to caught in a mighty squeeze between us and the generation coming through - they really are ready for responsibility. Here's a suggestion trying be a man - it sort of works and is a proven model, I wouldn't also worry to much about your girlfriend she will find a proper bloke soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Some bizarre reactions on here The op's point seems to be that a high cost of housing makes it more difficult to have children - which is trivially absolutely true. Others in the thread appear to be attempting to argue that because it doesn't make it technically impossible, it can't be making it more difficult...very odd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 2 & 1/2 year old thread? Still looks like a good time to break this lecture out again Families spend less on consumerism today then they did in the 60's & 70's They spend all their money on housing, (healthcare for the americans) and having two cars. They need two cars to have two jobs to pay for expensive housing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The costs of having children these days are crippling - my hats off to anyone who goes down the child route.They also suck Time out of your life. Having said that, if you 'get' a good one you will have someone to look after you in old age. Although, judging by what I hear from medics, more and more elderly people have adult children who simply do not come near. Tragic. I am single, early 40s and have been dting recently via chatting up women in the usual way, looking through dating sites, etc, and it is truly frightening just how many early to late 40-something women there are who, now in their 40s, are looking for a man to father a child for them... they should have been doing this 20 years ago quite frankly. As brutal as it sounds, a woman who has been career obsessed and who now 'demands' a child in her 40s is not the type of personality you wish to casual date yet alone get into a posible parenting situation with. The bottom line, and the truth does hurt here, modern British women are screwed up about what they want in life, who or what they should be and have been made to feel ashamed of being women by a bunch of, IMPO, 1960's femminist writers who have made a small fortune from the meeja telling all other women how hateful men are and how awful it is to wish to be a mother. If you look at many of those 1960's femminist writers they are now 60-something single and manless women. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy? Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I think the rot set in about the time women started having views on the gold standard - they were certainly a lot happier before education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterfly Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Most of the posters on this thread seem to assume that childless women are the tragic victims of adverse economic circumstances. However some women don't actually want children. I am highly educated (four degrees) and am childless but would still have chosen to be childless if I had spent my life shelf stacking at Tescos. The world is already over populated and motherhood has never really appealed to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) And as for the cost of living, I think if you compare the way today's 20- and 30-somethings live, and what they spend their money on, to that of their parents' generation, you may find some other reasons for the need for dual income households. Whilst I agree the cost of housing is ludicrous, I think you have a point here. In the last 30 or 40 years we seem to have created a huge culture of entitlement. Everybody now seems to want to 'live the dream' and have what a generation or two ago would have been a minority upper middle class lifestyle - house, two cars, foreign holidays, nanny etc. I meet so many women who think this is essential for family life, yet they come from lower middle class backgrounds themselves. Up until the 'blip' of affordable house purchases in the 70s, it was perfectly normal even for middle class professionals to live in what we would now consider abject poverty; bringing up children in small flats with shared bathrooms, wearing hand me downs, taking the bus and perhaps having one camping holiday a year. Now, I know if people did this today they would still struggle, but to say they can't afford to have children is just stupid. I also particularly dislike the way the Germaine Greer-generation of feminists indoctrinated women into thinking that for a woman to work was somehow her duty, and not only that, it should be an amazing fullfilling, empowering experience, and not the tedious drudgery that men had always known it mostly was. Edited September 13, 2009 by Austin Allegro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 How many people do you know who don't own an MP3 player, digital camera, laptop and a 32" flat screen TV?I don't know many. MP3 player - price of one plus free downloads = tiny fraction of the real cost of even an old 70's portable cassette player and ten tapes. Digital Camera - again small fraction of the cost of running a film camera and having just the holiday photos printed (regardless or not if any of the photos were worth printing in the first place). 32" flat screen TV, about pound for pound about what the cost a TV in the 70's / 80's / 90's without even taking inflation into account. All in all all these examples add up to less than one month's net salary, their equivalents have been affordable mass market items for decades, to say that expenditure here is putting a brake on affording other things like a house / children is a 100% wide of the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) Most of the posters on this thread seem to assume that childless women are the tragic victims of adverse economic circumstances. However some women don't actually want children. I am highly educated (four degrees) and am childless but would still have chosen to be childless if I had spent my life shelf stacking at Tescos. The world is already over populated and motherhood has never really appealed to me. I think thats great and well put, but don't think it is the majority view. Seems these two weird tribes are out there the Kidult 30 something blokes who must make real woman's flesh creep and the I want a career but not really I wanted kids all along late 30's alpha female. And remember for you professional souls out there - a career is just another word for a job without overtime think about that on your own when you are 60. Friends aren't the new family. Edited September 13, 2009 by Greg Bowman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 http://www.spike.com/video/first-10-minutes-of/2811209 just in case you haven't seen the intro of idiocracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 How many people do you know who don't own an MP3 player, digital camera, laptop and a 32" flat screen TV?I don't know many. Me neither - but what are you getting at? MP3 - 100 quid (for a nice one) Camera - 250 (again, much cheaper can be found) Laptop - 500 (ditto) Flat Screen - 500 (ditto) Total cost - 1350 quid Hmmmmm...1350 quid isn't going to get you very far in meeting housing/council tax/utility/other unavoidable costs, is it? You are looking in the wrong place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Simply a matter of money A lot of girls would love to have their kids in their 20s but just can not afford to do it Low wages High living costs High house prices High taxes And to an extent higher expectations both in partners and aspirations. Give the average 20s couple a million quid and the first thing they would do is get married and have children. To address the problem we need to build more houses so that houses are cheap, not affordable but CHEAP. ie a 4 bed semi no more than £100k. It can be done if we wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Me neither - but what are you getting at?MP3 - 100 quid (for a nice one) Camera - 250 (again, much cheaper can be found) Laptop - 500 (ditto) Flat Screen - 500 (ditto) Total cost - 1350 quid Hmmmmm...1350 quid isn't going to get you very far in meeting housing/council tax/utility/other unavoidable costs, is it? You are looking in the wrong place. Yeh it is one of the most stupid arguments. Most peoples electronics probably don’t even add up to one months wages so saying we have shiny TVs and if you didn’t have that you could afford a house or a kid is just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaevictus Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 To address the problem we need to build more houses so that houses are cheap, not affordable but CHEAP. ie a 4 bed semi no more than £100k.It can be done if we wanted. Can't happen. It would dilute the amount of houses in the country making them less expensive. Boomers would go crazy - you would be stealing their hard earned wealth. Report to the reeducation centre immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I was at a wedding last weekend at which, in his service, the priest specifically mentioned, as a key challenge facing young couples today, the curse of punitive mortgage costs & the frequent need for two earners to meet them. Which is supremely hypocritical, coming from someone who has a home provided rent free by his employer. There is another reason, I think, why the birth rate among non-immigrant communities is falling. Family law is now so discriminatory against men that many are now simply not prepared to take the risk of a relationship breaking up after becoming fathers. The consequences are huge, even if the man is at no fault whatsoever (e.g. he is working hard to sustain the family unit and she goes off and has an affair): there is a very high risk that he will end up homeless, with a large proportion of his income taken from him indefinitely and that he will not be allowed to see his children or play any part in their upbringing, apart from paying for it. In immigrant communities (especially Hindu, Sikh and Muslim ones), in which militant feminism has not become an inherent part of the culture, even if, theoretically, it could still be applied in law, men do not face the same level of disincentive. Along with the cost of housing and living, this is another important reason why I would be very reluctant to start a family and would absolutely refuse to get married (cohabitation on the basis of a legally abiding agreement fair to both parties - yes ; marriage - absolutely no). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatkins Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 I was 27 when we had our first child (kid is an animal). Second a few years later. It wasn't the "right" time in terms of the financial outlook as the Missus earned more than me at the time. We were pretty well "broke"-whatever that is, for a few years but they were the best years of my life. Would I swap em for a flatscreen? Yea right. Bottom line-it's NEVER the right time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 For supposedly 'educated' women it seems they're pretty stupid. Entitlement f*cks with your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Foil Hat Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Good artilce but still the old hint of 'selfish career women'.Female graduates I know are no less likely to be into 'having kids' than any other women. With immoral and crippling student debt burden (cheers, you NuLabour filth) and unchecked housing inflation (cheers, you NuLabour pigs who carried on the Conservative policy) and a McDonaldised Labour market typified by underemployment (thanks, new Labour who carried on the Conservative policy) they simply don't have a hope in hell. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Along with the cost of housing and living, this is another important reason why I would be very reluctant to start a family and would absolutely refuse to get married (cohabitation on the basis of a legally abiding agreement fair to both parties - yes ; marriage - absolutely no). And I thought romance was dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The choice is quite stark for couples our age... mortgage OR children. (note I do not say house OR children ) Eh? I don't get this. If this is so true about people "not being able to afford kids" how come its the poorest who have the most and don't care about owning houses anyway? My parents had me and my sisters way before they bought a house. Since when did owning a house become a prerequisite for having kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) Since when did owning a house become a prerequisite for having kids? This seems to be another attempt at a subtle straw-man No, consigning working / child rearing couples to rented accommodation doesn't make it physically impossible, but that was not what was originally claimed. If housing is very expensive then the proposal to have children becomes a proposal to have children in rented accommodation, where tenancy laws afford you you practically zero security of tenure. Edited September 13, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) Eh?I don't get this. If this is so true about people "not being able to afford kids" how come its the poorest who have the most and don't care about owning houses anyway? My parents had me and my sisters way before they bought a house. Since when did owning a house become a prerequisite for having kids? Presumably you are older than the AST? If not you shouldn't be here worrying about house prices or the economy. I'd be out having fun if I were you. Edited September 13, 2009 by Cogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DementedTuna Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) My parents still don't own a house, yet, somehow... by bending the laws of space and time, I exist. Idiotic preconceptions are a big problem. In my area, a 4-bed house rents for only 25% more a month than a 2-bed flat. That's not a massive premium to be able to have kids. No mortgage interest or capital to pay, meaning your outgoings are lower while you're bringing them up.. then when they've left there might be enough savings together to buy a smaller place for cash. A big house is only necessary for the 20-25 years of your life where you're bringing up kids. Advantages include being able to rent close to a good state primary or secondary school, get the kids in there... way, way cheaper than buying a house in a prime catchment area. You would have to pre-vet your landlord though, make sure they're not a noob. Edited September 13, 2009 by DementedTuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DementedTuna Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) double post. Edited September 13, 2009 by DementedTuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Maybe one female graduate in three doesn't want to have children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.