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're my idol!
I expect to get a real job in about 19 years, too ... unless my husband's retirement investments really do well, and then we can be Persons of Leisure.
I always hear these outrageous costs quoted for having children, and just the tiniest bit of common sense will tell you it's not true. Are they to tell me the average family with 3 children spends $36K a year on them?
If you utilize a birthing center or midwife, you'll pay $3K or less for the entire (normal) pregnancy and birth (and you're more likely to have a healthy outcome with those options). You'll pay less, whether you have an OB or Midwife, if you have medical insurance. Then you get a tax credit to defray the cost somewhat.
We spend about $150 -$200 per year on (nice) clothes for the first boy & girl, utilizing Ebay, Goodwill, retail clearance sales & garage sales. Those are handed down with additional clothes added as needed.
Breastfeeding is free.
Cloth diapers have an initial investment of about $100 (or less), which will last you through several children.
Our biggest expense will be homeschooling, which we estimate at around $500/year for the first child (less for subsequent children since most materials can be reused), which includes the cost of field trips.
There is much wisdom in what you say. When my parents raised me, the taxes were much lower, and so they could better afford me and my sisters. Also the child exemption has not kept pace with inflation. The Dems have made it much harder on parents. The Dems say they do things "for the children," but they just continue to screw up families with their bad policies.
"If you want to hear God laugh, tell Him your plans."
I also worked full time while my kids were growing up. I would like to retire and just travel around the world visiting my grandbabies, but I have to pay for it somehow!
I don't think I will make it to Moscow this year. But Thanksgiving in Toronto is definitely doable.
Best wishes for your travel plans! I remember you have a son ministering in Moscow, as well as some children in Israel, right? Expensive places to get to :-(.
We have been told that Bear in the Big Blue House has a superior go-to-the-potty DVD.
I suppose it shall at least answer the question, "Does a bear . . ?"
I'v got two kids and I love my "leisure" time because there is so little of it!
;-)
It's not about driving a fancy-pants car and having the newest gizmos. It's basic economics -- with limited resources there is less to go around within the family.
Everyone has "limited resources," regardless of what it looks like. A lot of folks -- DINKS-- earning seven figures still think twice about those $900 Jil Sander pants and $200 t-shirts.
Conversely, a lot of those seven figure incomes also sweat out the private schools and college education.
I might have to check that out. I've always wondered about the "Does a bear.." thing.
Fortunately for me my youngest is showing interest in making the transition and I soon will have all 4 out of diapers.
This is good since the goal has always been to get the last one out of diapers before I go into them.
It has nothing to do with money. That's the easy cop out. My parents struggled every single day raising 6. Dirt poor societies all over the world have large families.
The reasons are simple - the birth control pill, abortion on demand, women getting married later in life, more wealth (not less) and more opportunity for the majority to do things and go places only the rich could do 30+ years ago.
Dirt poor societies all over the world have large families.
They have large families in order to insure their economic well-being when they get too old to work. Also, a lot of those kids in dirt poor societies tend to die.
definitely true!
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.