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 ...
I'll give you an example of a couple I know making mid-six figures. Two kids, both in private school at about $25,000 a year apiece. One of the kids is about to take the SATs, so that's an added $100 an hour three times a week for "SAT coaching." One kid who is particularly driven, has been taking Mandarin lessons twice a week for the past three years and has traveled to China about a half dozen times. The other kid, who is a jock, takes tennis lessons -- don't know the cost, but it can't be cheap.
I know both the kids -- they are bright, but not brilliant. But the basic idea is to "launch them" (the parents' phrase not mine) into a life somewhere above where their parents reside. Even with the parents' not insignificant dual income, this would be impossible with four or six kids.
Bottomline, these are incredibly ambitious people who want their kids to do better than they did.
Stuff and fluff matters to some people. I applaud your priorities.
Not necessarily. Intangibles like life enrichment and love are part of a rational analysis. If a couple is on firm financial footing, with enough resources to meet the immediate costs of childbearing and a secure belief that they will continue to bring in enough to cover the costs of childrearing, if the couple wants children it would make rational sense for them to have them immediately.
But parents have responsibility not only for their own basic needs, but for those of their children. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; having children (which I agree is a good thing) comes at the "love/belonging" stage, meaning only after immediate physiological needs and safety (future well-being) are secured. No one wants to be in the position of being unsure how they will meet their next month's expenses; I can't imagine how horrible it would be for parents not to know how they would pay for their child's food/clothes/education/health care/etc. So of course it makes sense to wait to have children only until you can reasonably ensure you won't find yourself in that position. That's what I mean by a rational analysis.
Read Antoninus last post to me. The Maslow stuff doesn't apply...
They're not misguided. Their priorities are different. They see the world as a very tough place and getting tougher. They simply want to prepare their kids for that...there's nothing wrong with wanting your kids to have their own comfortable home, an interesting profession and the ability to afford a few of the luxuries in life.
While your priorities may be in service to God, country and community, with all the other stuff secondary, they see the other stuff as important.
psych -- from the greek for soul/spirit. The original meaning was study of the soul...
That's not to say that one needs a new BMW and a condo in Destin before one should have kids; just that a certain level of financial stability and security is necessary to meet the basic needs of children, and a reasonable decision to have children takes into account whether the parents have that stability and security or whether they should work a while longer to obtain it.
Not having a dog in this fight, I tend to look at it in a very cold blooded way. Someone can have one or two kids and give them all the little perks that help to assure a prosperous life, education, travel, a relative amount of financial security...or, they can have five or six kids and live on the financial edge -- no travel, no high end education, no financial security for the kids.
And people do fall over the edge every day -- I've seen it in ghettos where decent people go on public assistance just to feed the four or five kids. And then folks get down on them for having more kids than they can afford.
===========================================
Well, there you have it.....kids.
----------------------------------------
That's the one with the cool subliminal messages.
cool I'm in the minority where's my gubment check?
If we had waited until we could "afford" children we'd still be childless. I'm going to snuggle with my baby and read stories to all 3 of them at bedtime tonight. I pray we get to add to our family soon. My kids are my leisure time!
I think people are going to be unhappy, no matter how much money they have, if they give their love to what can't love them back. Your family can love you ... not as much as you need - that's one reason we need God ... but your house, investments, job, car, or education can't love you at all.
Award-winning posts! I followed your comments all afternoon, and there was one great point after another.
"Since it's a Great Britain article, they can't be including health care."
Great observation, thanks for the input.
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.