Posted on 10/04/2006 9:39:29 AM PDT by qam1
The fears that deter young couples from starting a family have been revealed in a report published today. The study, carried out by the Future Foundation into the reasons why Britain's birth rate has tumbled since the end of the 1960s baby boom, found financial pressures were the greatest inhibition.
It found that two-thirds of a sample of childless adults under the age of 45 said they were delaying having children until they could save enough to afford them. Half were postponing having a family until they could move to a bigger home.
The foundation said this fear was well founded because the average cost of raising a child to the age of 18 was now more than £122,000. "To a generation of potential parents inundated with debt, financial pressures will continue to be an inhibitor," it said.
However, other fears could be considered to be more self-centred. Around 50% of childless men and 40% of childless women said they were not ready to make the lifestyle changes necessary to accommodate the needs of young children.
Twenty and thirtysomethings were participating in twice as many leisure activities as 25 years ago and appeared reluctant to give them up.
The researchers found that 61% of new fathers and 56% of new mothers became less satisfied with their leisure time in the year after their first child was born.
.....
But only 7% did not want to have children because they thought they would not be a good parent.
"The findings reveal that having children is now thought of as a lifestyle choice rather than an inevitable life stage," the foundation said.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
You don't have to blush. All I really said was, "I think you're great because you agree with me." (j/k)
We are waiting. They'll be finished in about another two generations, if current trends continue. Parts of India now go by "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh," but that's a quibble.
"It's pretty close. I spent $80K USD on my little sweet dog last year alone. Vet bills are steep these days."
I'm sorry to hear that and sincerely hope that I am not faced with such a choice. I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend that type of money on my wonderful choc lab. It would be a very difficult situation to face.
Are you serious? You spent $80,000 on vet bills?
Yes, that's true but how is it easier for a dirt poor person to raise 2,3,4+ kids but the middle class and above can not do it. They just don't want a lot of kids. It's not the money issue in the sense that they can not afford them it's a money issue in that they can but would rather have 2 cars, a jet ski, a big house, a plasma screen tv, etc. Why struggle with 4 kids when you can be comfortable and happy with 1 or 2 and still have the lifestyle you want. People do not have an obligation to humanity to have 2.1 children so the world population is sustainable.
I dunno. My kids have days where I would consider trading at least one of the four of them on a BMW or even a good night's rest. ; )
Same here with four kids.
just kidding but I probably would if I had it.
Sorry, just kidding but I think I would if I had that kind of money
We have 8 children, and have never been on "public assistance," unless you count working for the government :-).
We're happy to take charity if our friends, neighbors, or church family want to offer, but we also give plenty away. God is faithful, and His people are generous.
Okay :-). It seemed like an *awful* lot! I know vet bills are expensive; we spent plenty on our old cat, before she passed away last year from extreme old age.
Some people choose not to live modestly or, to put it another way, they choose not to live to the limit of their financial resources by having a lot of kids.
I can't fault them for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.