Finance biggest deterrent to having children, report says

Guardian Unlimited ^ | 10/4/06 | John Carvel

[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.

[Antoninus]

One is not able to teach children values if one cannot keep those children fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, healthy, or safe.

Read the biography of St. Bernadette Soubirous and get back to me, will you?

[Antoninus]

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.

False dichotomy. There's another "or" you haven't considered:

Or, they can have five, six, ten, a dozen kids and live very modestly, instilling in their children from day one that they need to pull their own weight, help with things around the house, help with their younger siblings, and take care of each other in general. I would argue that such families are many times healthier and happier than your typical DINK couple or family with one or two kids. Why? Because selfishness is given no quarter in a large family.

[Antoninus]

I've seen it in ghettos where decent people go on public assistance just to feed the four or five kids.

Well, there are at least three Freepers on this thread who have 4+ kids. I can't speak for the others, but my family has never been on public assistance of any kind.

[Antoninus]

Award-winning posts! I followed your comments all afternoon, and there was one great point after another.

Great, now I'm blushing...

[linda_22003]

"When I got married eight years ago, I did NOT want kids, and if I had to, just one. About a year into the marriage, the biological clock started ticking and the maternal desire began. It got stronger and stronger as time went by."

And some of us wait for that desire to kick in, and it truly never does. Does that mean we should have kids anyway? (Rhetorical question, not a personal one). I didn't think so, myself.

[steve-b]

It appears parents are delaying children not so much as a lifestyle choice, but because a rational analysis of the time and money needed to raise them properly shows that they are not yet ready.

Yes, when they make reckonings based on what's left to them after half their income is confiscated to take care of the kids of irresponsible layabouts who crank 'em out without bothering to ponder those issues first....

[steve-b]

Most Republicans have never cut a coupon in their lives and consider shopping any place below Neiman-Marcus to be "slumming."

Wow, you managed to repurpose a direct quote from DU by deleting only one word. Not bad.

[DungeonMaster]

Finance biggest deterrent to having children, report says

This sure doesn't tell the whole story because people with less money tend to have more kids. It would probably be much more accurate to say desire for wealth the biggest deterrent to having children.

[thinking]

The tribe with the most babies; wins....

[steve-b]

The Maslow stuff doesn't apply.

Nonsense. The prioritization of basic biological needs before security and of security before personal satisfaction applies to any rational person.

[Antoninus]

Wow, you managed to repurpose a direct quote from DU by deleting only one word. Not bad.

Yawn. Your drive-by drivel is beyond tiresome.

[Antoninus]

The prioritization of basic biological needs before security and of security before personal satisfaction applies to any rational person.

Having children is a basic biological need. And a Divine exhortation for that matter.

[steve-b]

Yeah, that's why India conquered Britain.

Oh, wait....

[steve-b]

Having children is a basic biological need.

Nonsense. If you don't die from not having it, it's not a basic biological need.

[steve-b]

Having children is a basic biological need.

Nonsense. If you don't die from not having it, it's not a basic biological need.

[steve-b]

Your drive-by drivel is beyond tiresome.

projection (pr& JEK sh&n): the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way

[Joan Kerrey]

Which equates to just under $230K USD. $230K/18=$12,777.777 per year. For some reason I'm not sure I am buying that cost.

It's pretty close. I spent $80K USD on my little sweet dog last year alone. Vet bills are steep these days.

[Antoninus]

projection (pr& JEK sh&n): the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way

As usual Steve, you've got nothing. You even project projection onto other people.

[Antoninus]

Nonsense. If you don't die from not having it, it's not a basic biological need.

You're kidding, right? If a species doesn't have offspring, it dies out after one generation. Hence, having children is a basic biological need.

[steve-b]

Ah, the fallacy of redefinition.

Lack of a basic biological need causes the death of an individual. (Perhaps you should clarify the definition you are using for that last big word, and include your definitions of "alone", "sex", and "is", just in case.)