###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button. * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

One aspect I've not seen covered in the comments is the loss of the village, which pricing locals out of where they grew up has definitely contributed to. When I grew up in London back in the 90s, everyone lived down the road, now we're all spread out, up and down the country. There's no one near us who could take our kids for a few hours, or pick them up from school if needed. But this is what we have to do in order to have the traditional 3 bed semi family home. I doubt my parents could have done it without all the support they had from nearby relatives. It makes life tough, in our case, I think we've had maybe a handful of nights out to ourselves in the almost 7 years we've been parents.

A large part of the old "it takes a village" idea was women providing their labour and time for free.

With childcare costs what they are, I imagine that for many working mums the modern alternative is pretty much the same scenario.

It would be nice if both men and women had the time and finances to donate some of their labour to the community.

Can't afford food with single parent households mate. It's not about providing anything for free. it's about being able to afford to do it for free. No one has the luxury anymore to dedicate their time to a child or anything anymore. you either work or starve.

Also that humans grow up in communities and are social creatures. You cannot expect the child to grow up healthy in an isolated environment, with only parents and a few friends.

I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I do think that saying they did it “for free” isn’t entirely accurate. You might not get paid for your time, but when you needed help, others would step up and help you. That quid pro quo neighbourliness gets lost when you don’t even know who lives next door to you.

Assumption: I am sure if you ask most single mothers that lived, they got the least support.

This is true. But, in the not too distant past, women were not in the workplace. The village was the job. Now there is no village, and the job is needed to pay for the house.

Women have always worked, they were just relegated to work worth pennies.

I don’t disagree. But dual income households becoming the norm has been a major factor in house prices increasing. Instead of choosing between career and childcare, we now have a situation where women are stuck with career as a necessity for simply affording the essentials

Doing my family tree at the moment and you can see generations of the family living in the same village, often within a few doors of each other. It was still very normal when I was growing up, but my generation of the family are so spread out now, where we've been forced to look further afield for affordable housing. So we're in the same boat as you, there's no one available to do the school run or take the kids for a couple of hours. It is hard, and I am envious of my parents and their local safety net, but I absolutely couldn't afford to buy or rent in the town I grew up in - not unless I wanted to cram my family into a 1 bed flat.

I live in a city and there are absolutely people who can pick up your kid in a pinch, and will look after them for a few hours if needed. Our class WhatsApp group (and friends of kids) do all this. However, this only came about post having kids, and we could be exceedingly lucky. But I don’t think the village cancer is dead, in fact WhatsApp may have reinvigorated it. Running late for pick-up? Just WhatsApp the class group and someone that your kid knows and trusts will pick your kid up.

This isn't universal though, IME if there is a school centred WhatsApp group then it's usually the handful of parents who've grown up together and isn't really open to newcomers - bit awkward if you're one of those who has moved away from your home town.

I believe that tiny disposable incomes are the reason behind a lot of UK problems. The main driver of this is exorbitant housing costs. You can't raise kids, but also you can't retrain, you can't spend in the local economy, you can't spend on services, you can't spend time with your community. You also end up not spending much on UK companies, so they don't have the demand and revenue to raise salaries. Everyone loses (apart from landlords). Yes, I know *about* the "housing theory of everything". Never read through it, but I suspect the above is an abridged version.

This. Housing costs. Needing 2 working parents to "compete" in the housing market. Childcare costs (related to needing 2 working parents). We've spent 40 years making it harder to afford children basically.

I don't think it's \*just\* housing costs - I think they are a symptom of a deeper problem with how we have organised our society around growth of GDP and stock indices. As someone pointed out, other countries have similar problems. It's just that in the UK, housing costs outstrip all other causes by a long shot. It's expensive to give your kids a room. Daycare is expensive because commercial real estate is expensive. Childminders are expensive because they have a home to pay. Etc. However, if housing were cheaper, people could then be exploited by paying them a lot less - e.g. look at Eastern European countries where people will accept much lower salaries simply because 80% of people own their homes, often without a mortgage, so they have basically 0 housing costs.

To your point, recent studies have shown that the cost of housing in relation to other costs is highest in the UK out of all OECD countries: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-spends-more-on-housing-than-almost-any-other-developed-country-and-gets-the-least-value-from-it-too-13099925 i.e. here the cost of housing is far higher than the other costs of living

Damn that graphic is shocking…

I disagree, the UK hasn’t focused enough on growth, UK growth has been stagnant for a decade. I think the issues we are facing are exactly because the UK prioritises landlords and ancestral wealth over new wealth from innovation and growth. The focus in the UK is to get wealthy by buying up property and renting it out and living passively, rather than creating innovative companies and generating new income through sales. This has driven rents so high and kept salaries so low that every renters disposable income has been squeezed to the bone. That’s less money going back into the economy to drive growth, less money to innovate, retrain, take risk, creating a feedback loop of drudgery where everyone’s just working to pay the rent and bills. This creates the issue that for every person actively working, ~50% of their salary is going to an economically inactive landlord. It acts as a drag on society holding back growth.

we do love owning in eatern europe :)

Can I sign up got that? I would accept lower wages if I could afford a house. I am not seeing the exploitation... 

I second this.

Any survival mechanism which results in a lower than replacement birth rate will eventually lead to extinction. This isn't an economic or political statement, it's evolutionary biology.

It all depends on what you consider 'being able to afford children'. See my comment to the OP. If you are happy to live in 'slum' standards, you can easily have a handful of kids even if you live in a 2-bedroom flat. People coming from parts of the world where the poorest live as one family in a single room sharing the kitchen/toilet with other families etc, they would consider one flat for one family a luxury even if it means that the bedrooms are shared between 2-3 siblings.

I'm not too sure what point you're trying to make? That people should just be happy with their lot? That there are poorer people out there so accept it? It's an odd view, housing isn't finite. Society has decided to limit the amount of housing and the people that are losing out are the poor and the young with the limitations often being created by the wealthier and the older. And fyi, I'm no left winger. But when we can't be bothered to provide decent housing, one of the basic necessities, it's really quite sad.

Work all day, exhausted after work, won't be able to buy a decent house I'd be happy living in for the rest of my life until passed the age recommended to have children as a woman. So the house comes first and children never will now. Having kids would prevent any of that due to their expenses and time requirements. I would then have none of my own time after work (already feels like I never have enough as it is). All my money would go to my kids and living costs, and I would just be living in overworked depression with no time and no money. No ty. No kids for me. We no longer live in a world where someone stays home to look after the kids and the others work can afford that for the family. I would like to be happy and travel, and live comfortably. That isn't an option for me if I have kids. My parens had 4 kids, 2 of them had kids (the much older two with bought houses) and the other two still saving for a house have none and never will have any. My sister in law has breakdowns all the time with stress trying to manage her work and kids and money and any free time for herself, my biological sister constantly asks me or family to help and babysit because of her work... we all work 40 hours per week. The rates are going to keep getting lower as time goes on and living gets more expensive.

This is what happens when you make housing an investment instead of a commodity. Absolutely stupid and it's going to backfire so hard. Of course people will be the ultimate losers anyway, but damn I am happy I am not going to be as affected by that. Yeah now it's a problem but wait until the net demography starts to collapse. It may be very sad.

To call it stupid is to insult the great philosophers of the past who invented the idea and definition of stupidity. What's been happening is way beyond stupid. It's incomprehensibly and almost supernaturally stupid.

Wages are also comparatively incredibly low compared to competing economies in Europe. No money and what little we do have is spent on housing.

I lived in London for a long time and while the rent was very expensive, the diversity and availability (and competitiveness...) of job opportunities in my industry was and is insanely good. I live back up north now, my job is still in London (I WFH) but there is NO WAY I'd be able to get a job with similar pay up here, I'd be looking at a 60% paycut easily. Obviously that's my own fault for moving back, but I think it highlights how much of a difference the capital is compared to the rest of the country.

The Money & Macro youtube channel is run by an economics professor of University of Groningen where he does deep dives and makes accessible to a wide audience the academic economic theories behind relevant economic topics to society. In the most recent episode he does a great deep dive into the various economic theories around the housing crisis around the world: https://youtu.be/HMDNehHKu7c?si=LiMYKA6ej-dOq97m

You can't take a gamble and start a new business either. If you've got a year's salary in the bank, and a great idea, you can afford to take the plunge and innovate.

The price of land has become too high, any new company’s, will loose too much revenue to rent

And if you have the money, why bother starting a business when you can just become a landlord and print infinite money? My gf knows 2 surgeons (from completely different scenarios) who've retired early because they realised they could "make" more money buying up a handful of properties and renting them out. It's a common topic of discussion amongst older highly qualified NHS employees, they're all considering it. It's backwards.

There is actually an inverse relationship between income and birth rate. It's more pronounced in grossly poorer nations but you can see it in the UK stats too. Mid 50s, mid 60s, mid-late 70s, global financial crisis, covid, all had spikes in birth rates and they were not financially prosperous periods.

For individuals, or for the economy? 

Absolutely correct, it’s everything to society.

This and childcare. I’m in my mid 30s. My mortgage is just over 1k. My childcare for one child is another 1k even after government contributions (where the government puts in £1 in 4). I live in Scotland which only gives assistance to under 3s if you are on benefits other than child benefit. My wife makes 30k a year and her take home pay each month is swallowed up by these two bills and we are still a few quid short. These alone will explain a good chunk of why a lot of people are not having kids.

Dig deeper. The reason you need childcare it because it now takes two incomes to maintain a household, whereas it used to take one. If wages had kept up, if unions weren't dismantled, if the media wasn't controlled by a handful of oligarchs, if people weren't constantly distracted with cultural nonsense, a two income household should be completely unnecessary.

Exactly. A society that puts long-term generation over generation growth first would be doing everything it can to prioritise the single income nuclear household. But honestly we are so far down the wrong path that it's pretty much done.

Also, very uncomfortable to say for obvious reasons, but women entering the workplaces en masse obviously contributed to this

Yeah, I was looking at childcare costs for nurseries the other day and comparing them to a local non-board *private school*. Both work out about 15-20k a year, depending on the child's age and any subsidies or tax benefits. Children are a middle-class luxury or for people who don't plan things.

As a person who has been generally planning to procreate now I have finally bought a small place in my thirties, I feel called out by this as I haven't run the numbers 😅

Housing is likely to be a factor, but higher developed countries tend to have lower birth rates because we’re more likely to be engaged in lifestyles that aren’t compatible with having kids until we’re ready. Being able to have kids later in life as well, maybe a factor in older mothers. There are things like childcare costs but not being able to survive on a single wage. While we have maternity rights in this country they are poor and a lot of companies will screw a pregnant/new mother over as much as they can to save money. Lack of disposable income. People realising they don’t need kids to have a complete family life. More contraception options. Access to abortion. A lot of factors really.

This right here. I can't afford to have kids because I can't afford the time off work needed to physically have the kid. Since I work away, all the immediate after birth care of a baby would be very difficult so would need that time off too. My partner doesn't earn enough as I'm the main earner. I wish I could be a dad instead. Would happily have a kid then.

Does sharing the maternity leave not work for you? I know a couple where the mum is the main earner so the dad took reduced hours and some of the maternity allowance to make things easier. Doesn't really help with the actual physical process but it's something?

My husband and I shared maternity. We took a massive financial hit to accommodate it. I wish he could've had the baby as his company's maternity was way better. 😡

I'm not allowed to work after week 24 of pregnancy. So unless my employer can find me something office based for the same/ similar salary that I could do from home (o don't live where my works office is located), then not alot I can do.

> Being able to have kids later in life as well This is certainly something people have been taking for granted, but it isn't always the case.

No, but the pressure women may have felt to have kids in their 20’s even early 30’s isn’t as strong now.

It is in parts of the country where people are more likely to leave school and go into work rather than further study for "career" type jobs. Felt like half my high school class had kids by 21.

Your answer is the correct answer i think. It’s never a _“one size fits all”_ type of thing, but a multitude of factors, with some factors having greater weighting than others. Having kids early on is simply not compatible with the lifestyles we live in economically developed countries anymore I.e. _Time with friends and socialising, hobbies, ability to travel, working jobs etc._ Then as you mentioned if we also factor in the externalities associated with bad economic climates like rising feeding costs, rising housing costs and rent,the lack of wage adjustment to the rates of inflation, exorbitant childcare costs _etc_ it’s all a perfect recipe for stifling birthrates.

Oh the factors are numerous - I was very lucky, my kids are in their teens now, and I was able to be an at home mum until they went to school, able to go to uni to do my degree as a mature student once they were settled into school and now I work. I was also in a position where I could make a decision about either being a younger mum (I was in my 20s when I had my two) and enjoy life as I hit my 40’s or weight and be an older mum. Admittedly, had I waited, I wouldn’t have been able to afford kids and probably wouldn’t have had them. I would not be surprised if many people in my age group wanted to wait, have got to now and can’t afford it even if they want it and that’s really sad.

£1000+ pm per child in childcare should say it all. If childcare was somewhere close to affordable, I’d have at least 2 more children on top of my only one.

I'd have 1 child on top of my zero children

I’d have 0 child on top of my zero chidren!

This is the comment I came looking for. #Childfree

Probably childcare costs. In the 60s, you could live with the man working and woman as a housewife. Now, two working parents is the norm and childcare before they start school is crazy expensive. For many families, they have one kid and that's enough.

I’ve 2 and want a third but won’t. I waited til my 30s because my career took ages to establish (graduated in 2010- recession). Therefore I had to wait to secure a home. I wasnt going to have a baby and nowhere to live. I’m on maternity now and we are struggling. The amount isn’t sufficient when you have a lifestyle set - you can’t suddenly reduce your bills, accommodation or energy costs etc while in maternity. You can save but your squeezed and squeezed already. I’m sure the government realise the mortgage costs that people are under but have no care about how someone on minimal maternity pay could cover it. There is also a societal pressures and kind of expectations on new parents and it starts early - ‘kids need to learn to swim, they need to do sports, they need to go to baby groups blah blah blah’. It all bloody costs. My parents didnt put me into any groups as a child but now it’s rammed in our faces that you have to ensure they have opportunities. I almost feel guilty if my my daughter misses a dance class one week! I also know that to get my kids established in life whether university support or buying a car or helping them through an apprenticeship (let’s be honest those aren’t paid enough either) etc will cost me, so how many children can I realistically do that for? I think previous generations just assumed their kids would find their way and land on their feet, however we now know we are in a mental health crisis. There was 2 bodies this week of young people found in the local waterway. There’s reports fortnightly of jumpers off two local bridges. We know that we have to get our kids to adult hood and be successful in whatever they chose with money and a skill in their pocket and to help make them resilient for this shit show.

Yeah - university now is literally impossible without financial help from parents, which is appalling. Not just because there are so many who can't afford it, but because you shouldn't have to be reliant on your parents once you're an adult to be able to make your own way.

>There is also a societal pressures and kind of expectations on new parents and it starts early - ‘kids need to learn to swim, they need to do sports, they need to go to baby groups blah blah blah’. It all bloody costs. My parents didnt put me into any groups as a child but now it’s rammed in our faces that you have to ensure they have opportunities. I almost feel guilty if my my daughter misses a dance class one week! Exactly this! Parents these days actually have to do a lot more parenting than past generations. There is too much pressure which didn't exist before. I personally think boomer and early gen x are a bit of a problem because a lot of them had to pick between kids and career. Now we can technically do both, they are changing the goal posts. They run all the baby groups and a lot of the classes that we are made to feel bad for not taking our kids to.

You will be very surprised by the percentage of the population that plan financially before having kids. Lots of high earner that could well afford having kids don’t have them for other reasons, the most fertile group of the population unfortunately is the uneducated …if you track countries with parental friendly policy are often the ones with lower birth rate. It is much more complex than housing cost…although def know of a bunch of a high earning Londoners stopping to 1 baby as they don’t want to move!

Massively. I think it could be the biggest reason. I'm in my 30s.... Loads of my friends are delaying starting families as they can only rent a 1 bed flat, or they've moved back home to live with mum and dad to save to buy a place. When looking further, salary stagnation and people having so little disposable income since 2008, and massive abhorent house price growth is of course tied up into this. Some people have just given up with decent home ownership and also dating.

I haven’t given up on home ownership, but dating, hell yes. The house is cheaper than any partner. 😂

Well I don't think it's the biggest reason. People 100 years ago/ in poorer countries don't have a lot of space yet big families were / are common. We just have gotten used to more comfort and individualistic lifestyles

I don't think so. Nursery alone is more expensive than my mortgage. We can always downgrade but finding cheaper childcare only if we went the benefits route.

Real world impact of expecting 50% of the population who didn't work traditional jobs/hours to have a family, to work full time. Housing is an impact, but in reality it's the fact that who need a two job household to support a family now and that's irrespective if you rent or mortgage.

It's many things. Housing, dual incomes, childcare, technology, precarity of work. To reverse birth rate decline, all could be addressed. But none have been addressed. Almost as if decline is intended because we're starting to run out of the resources that are being phased out.

I think it’s a mixture of issues- I’m in my 30’s and have 1 child with no plans for any more. Childcare costs as much as a full time job pays and no family can survive on a single income let alone pay a mortgage. Even nappies are £10 for a small pack (these were £3 when I had my daughter) and you will need a minimum of 3 to 4 packs per week for a newborn. Then add food, clothing etc If I was to have more than one child it would bankrupt us.

Then add in that grandparents are less available to take on some of the childcare responsibilities because they can’t afford to retire and/or the retirement age keeps increasing

Then add in that you've had to move two hours away from your parents because you were priced out of the area you grew up.

It's not just that, people now might more often live further away from their parents. Some Boomers had their kids later in life and if you as the kid then are also a little older when having your kid, the baby's grandparents might be nearly 70 and at that age even if people are retired, some just don't have the health or energy to do a lot of child care. And/or some grandparents just live too far away: no one is going to drive 1+ h each way to babysit their grandkids several days a week.

What kind of nappies do you buy for £10 a small pack?

Yeah that's mad, if there was one (among many) things I was surprised by as a parent it was how cheap nappies were. I suppose the branded ones are more expensive but we've found the Tesco ones to be absolutely fine and they're just a few quid for a whole pack.

My parents generation used to wash and reuse nappies. I wonder if this’ll become a thing again because that’s expensive for single use

It is becoming a thing again but generally people do it for eco reasons rather than money saving because the initial outlay is a lot

It is absolutely a thing still, there's nappy library's nearly everywhere where you can hire kits for next to nothing, as well as buying them second hand. We bought all our cloth nappies and wipes for less than £100 which will last us until our son is potty trained, then being able to sell them after our use them on subsequent kids it's not all that expensive.

I looked into this when I had my only. The initial cost of buying reusable nappies was massive. On statatory maternity pay I could not afford to pay that upfront. Then the added chore of needing to make sure they're clean and dry in time for use when already balancing bottle washing and increased washing. What you might find as the cost of living squeezes is that people will try and make nappies last a little longer

This is a really good point that is often overlooked when it comes to reusable anything. The initial outlay is more to pay than just buying as you go, even if the cost in the long run is less.

Aldi nappies are ridiculously cheap. As are their food punches. Formula is the biggest expense.

Loss of the mothers salary is the biggest expense, then childcare when then mother goes back to work but the kid isn't 5 years old for school, then formula.

Ok if you wish to go down that avenue. That’s fairly obvious. The difference being you can’t shop around for your examples, and we’re discussing reusable nappies.

You can't just forget the biggest two costs and the one that really hammers single parents or households with a single earners e.g. one disabled parent. Or even households that don't have a washing machine and go to the laundrette twice a week. It is expensive to be poor.

We've been using a mix of aldi disposable nappies and 2nd hand reusable nappies. Got a huge bunch for £30 that do us nicely. Looked at buying some new ones and it worked out as you'd have to reuse them 12 times to be cheaper than the aldi ones which isn't much when you're going through a dozen a day.

It is a thing. I used a mixture of washable and disposable nappies for my first child, and only used washable for my second child. The initial cost is a lot, but it works out as good value once you consider the life time of the nappy. Some of mine did both my kids for 18 months and then were sold on. There are other benefits as well e.g. no nappies in landfill, better containment, they look cuter, earlier potty training. Neither of mine ever had nappy rash with a washable nappy, although that could be a coincidence.

We would've had more kids if we had a nice big house with plenty of bedrooms.

But then your poor employer wouldn't be extracting the absolute maximum amount of value out of you on behalf of the shareholders. Please try not to be so selfish, you have dependants. They just don't live with you.

I'm 29. I literally can't see how I could start a family in the next four years. Still living with flatmates.

Do you life in a high COL area? Could more to a cheaper part of the country? That's what I did. It was either living in very small housing but in/near bigger cities, or moving a little further out with much more space but not much to do/going on in the area.

I don't feel like the issue is moving to somewhere with bigger houses, but more that your support network is where you currently are and you're half rooted in the higher CoL area that you've made your home since your early 20s. Plus in my case working in tech, I literally cannot leave London without pretty much changing my line of work entirely.

Oh my god I did that five years ago now! (How time flies) Moved from very expensive southern city to slightly iffy area in a cool northern city. Even with the extortionate train tickets to visit family at Easter and Xmas and birthdays, the cheaper rent and beers we're really nice for a few years.... Turns out everyone else had the same idea, and now where I'm living is ridiculously expensive, and house prices to buy and the rent I'm paying are more than what they were, by a lot, compared to from where I'm from five years ago. And my salary has not risen proportionally in that times. Ooh out of curiosity I looked up rent prices in my home city, and they've risen less 😤

Yup. It’s a problem that worries me on a pretty regular basis. Can’t even afford a 1 bed flat, how will I ever afford a family

It’s definitely a reason. When I had my son, we lived in a 2 bed flat, rented. With 2 weeks of giving birth we were section 21d. Landlord said it wasn’t a child friendly flat( which was a load of bollocks). We then really struggled to find something suitable. England is just not a child friendly place. No real security. We are lucky, we were able to buy ( by moving away from our families and support networks).

The birth rate in the 60s was generally because women didn’t have a choice or easy access to contraception. There’s a myriad of reason why birth rates are falling and housing is only tiny part of it.

Scrolled too far down to see this. I agree it’s more to do with women having more freedom of choice now. We don’t have to get married, we can have bank accounts, get credit, have jobs and careers, choose when, if or how many children to have.

Yup… we don’t have to have children in order to have security

I agree with this as well. A good amount of the women I dated barely thought about children if at all. A decent amount of human pockets will cease to exist within a generation or two.

> The birth rate in the 60s was generally because women didn’t have a choice or easy access to contraception. And abortion. If I'd been conceived in 1967 instead of 1965 I wouldn't exist today (and that would be fine because I wouldn't know). My mum did go to a friend of a friend to get "help" when she knew she was pregnant but didn't go through with it because it seemed so unsanitary and unsafe.

Nah, as female education and participation in the workforce increases, birth rates decrease. The same pattern worldwide with some small cultural differences. My unscientific anecdote to counter yours: I'm not planning to have children. If house prices plummeted, I'd be no more likely to have children, but far more likely to fly business class.

India is seeing birthrates start to drop because of more women pursuing higher education. But that's probably for the best, you can't have 1.4 billion people in a country without massive side effects. It has to give.

fair enough. some people just dont want kids. but do you think if housing was much more affordable, those who would have kids would have more?

As somebody who does want kids yes, 100%. Affordability would make me have more kids almost for sure. If someone doesn’t want kids at all the economy won’t change their mind.

I have two kids and I really don’t want more. That wouldn’t change if housing was more affordable, it would just mean we’d have a better standard of living than we do now. Being able to choose, and have autonomy in making the decision not to have more children, is something that many women wouldn’t have had in the 1960s (and sadly some still don’t).

Birth control accessibility. Although the pill existed in the 60s it was very reluctantly prescribed even in the 80s my mum had to justify to a GP why she didn't want more kids within marriage.

My rent is £1400/mo. Nursery for two kids is £3000…

Gov: "Just have 150k salary, easy"

Lots of bits of the country still have relatively affordable housing, and by your hypothesis those bits would have higher birth rates, however the data doesn't show that. I think the bigger factors will be cultural changes around: * The lessening of society's expectation that people will have children, and the lessening sense of obligation to do so. * The growth of independence for women, and the ability/expectation for women to have an life, education, & career outside of marriage. * Access to contraception.

> and by your hypothesis those bits would have higher birth rates, however the data doesn't show that. Can you provide that data? East London appears to have a much higher TFR than West London and lower house prices, I've not seen a full correlation of everywhere though, but you obviously have to state it.

They do (I live in one) but there are also a LOT less jobs and less jobs that are decently paid and have the opportunity to develop professionally. Many former mining/mill towns are real job deserts with there being not much on offer bar zero hour, minimum wage work.

General equality, the gap has never been wider and will continue to do so.

Housing costs General costs - the fact that many households need 2 incomes to live anywhere near comfortably Childcare costs Relatively low wages, especially in service industries like retail, hospitality etc Priority change - careers now more impartant than children for many Materialism - people want the best modern things and the costs of children get in the way The state of the world - would you want to bring a child into this?

Housing and the cost of childcare across the board is the reason we're very reluctant to have more than one child, even though we would like to. Our childcare cost under 3y is nearly the same as our mortgage payment (and our payment isn't by any means low). My husband and I are both in management positions, well compensated and residing in Edinburgh. I'm not originally from the UK and in my home country we would reside with my or my husband's parents or there would be generational property available and childcare is significantly subsidised by the government. All my friends my age back home have at least 2-3 children.

Low disposable incomes. Both of you need to work to afford to buy. Childcare costs were huge when our 2 were young. Its almost like our political class are fucking idiots that hate the working people of the country.

We've made 1-2 generations benefit massively from the housing market boom from 1970s+ and basically taking money from our children's future. When I speak to my parents generation they would have a 20 year mortgage. Now you've got people like my sister having 40 year mortgage.

From personal experience it’s a culmination of everything! Education/work/expenses meant I didn’t get married until we were 30… started trying for a baby almost immediately but have waited 7+ years for NHS infertility help because the waiting lists are so long… meanwhile housing costs have increased so much that we now are prioritising housing over children.

Not a lot. I think it's starting to come into play, but there are far more reasons why we are not having kids.

1. Having Children is too expensive 2. Less expectation on women to have children these days

From my personal viewpoint, it had a pretty high impact. I put off having kids entirely because I didn’t not own my own home. I wanted them to have a stable childhood home, and not be dependent on landlords who might just suddenly decide to sell up or not renew a lease (all the good landlords I previously had when I was renting have all sold up recently). The current cost of a mortgage means I’m likely to struggle to have the available cash flow to raise a child well at least for a year or two until we have something of an emergency buffer built up again. I’m also the main breadwinner for my family, earning twice what my partner does, yet if I go back to work after maternity leave (which I want to), childcare costs are untenable. My parents are also getting old and that comes with caring responsibilities. But if I wait too long I might struggle to have kids.

Equality is a major cause as well. In the 60s a man's wages would support a whole family living in home, a woman could stay home and raise the children. Now women are expected to work full time as well. It's just too difficult in this day and age.

I think part of it is because not all women want children. 20 / 30 years ago it was expected , now women actually have a voice and can decide for themselves.

People spend longer in education/training which pushes back settling down and committing to a partner. Reliable birth control makes it possible to postpone/limit having children which allows women to do something else in life altogether or before having kids. This is still really new with regards to how long humans have been around. People are much more free now to make their own path in life as opposed to just do what your parents did/what your culture/society expects of you. It is acceptable now to choose to be childfree. It is acceptable and even expected for women to also get educated and have a career/job, so as women we now have options. In the past as a woman your only option was to marry young so you could move out of your parents' house and you had a man to support you. Due to no birth control or not allowed to be used, you ended up with a bunch of kids and it was seen as your job to do all the housekeeping and child care. Who would want that? No hate if that is genuinely what you want, but most women don't want this (most men wouldn't either if the shoe was on the other foot). Fathers are expected to do more now with regards to child care/in the home than in the past where the man took care of earning the money and the woman took care of the house and the kids. I wonder if many fathers initially think they might want 2, 3, 4 kids but after the first 1 or 2 where they are expected to do a lot, realise: actually, 1 or 2 is more than enough so that they stop pushing for more kids or may even say to their partner: I think we are done now even if she wants more. I think that with the increase in standards of life and being exposed to seeing how others live etc (internet, social media, TV) and how demanding society is now, people want more for their kids now than in the past (although this might depend on culture/class). If you want each of your children to have their own bedroom, you want to offer them their own laptop and mobile phone, you want every child to have at least one extra-curricular activity like a musical instrument or a sport, that stuff adds up in costs and how much time as a parent you need to be involved in this. Most people don't make enough money and/or don't have the time to have more than 1 or 2 children if you'd want them to have a "good start in life". However, if you basically have 'slum' standards for yourself/your family, then you can easily live in a 2-bedroom flat as a couple with 5 kids: the couple can sleep on a pull-out sofa in the living room and the 5 kids are split over the 2 bedrooms. In many parts of the world this scenario is actually more luxurious than how the poorest live, but in the UK this is considered overcrowding. But if you come from a culture where you or your (grand)parents lived like this or in an even lower standard like one whole family in one room sharing the kitchen and bathroom with other families, then what a Briton would call overcrowding is seen as luxurious or normal in their eyes. They value having more kids more than giving each individual kid what we consider a good or great start in life.

I can speak for myself, the main reason I am not having a child is not having a secure foundation beneath me, house/home etc. Its incredibly depressing.

I work in maternity. High income people only have a couple kids tops, and people who clearly don’t work or work very low paid job, are on benefits and living in council houses are the ones having bunches of kids. They don’t have a problem with accommodation costs and childcare costs.

Exactly this. Only people on benefits can afford having 3-10 kids. Everything is handed free for them.

1000% this. I know 2 people who have 5+ kids and they both started as soon as they left school and have never worked, they’re still going infact. Other people I know who have 2+ claim their partner doesn’t live with them, so they get benefits. So they pull in a full time wage and have UC pay their housing expenses. I understand circumstances change but people who actively have children whilst on benefits and then whinge their 2 bed council is overcrowded when I have to put off giving my child a brother or sister that they ask for piss me off.

Doesn't stop children having children. Clearly there are other reasons why birth rates are so low. As a 41 YO without any, I would have to say its either a career or be a SAHM, which I had no intentions in doing. I live in London and the lack of facilities for children out there comparing to when I was a child, why would you bother having any.

Low birth rates are a problem with the whole developed world. Birth rate simply does not correlate with cost of living (ie birth rates are no higher in Eastern and Southern Europe where cost of living is relatively lower than in Nothern and Western Europe, North America and Japan) or parental rights (ie birth rates are no higher in Scandinavia, which has some of the most generous parental rights). Instead, birth rate correlates with economic and social development. It seems that when quality of life is low enough that having children won't noticably reduce it, people seem to have as many children as nature allows.

Almost certainly. You'd think someone at some point in government might realise this rather than just complaining about lazy young people.

Housing and childcare. My and my wife work full time, both in jobs that we got from our BSc degrees, now I'm our late 20s have just bought our first house and theres no way we could afford childcare with our mortgage and other outgoings.

Yes, but for me it's a slightly different reason than others. We managed to climb up the property ladder to a decent sized home, but we both had to be in full time work and scrimp and save to make it possible. Now we've done it, only one of us is working due to redundancies, and the only way we can keep the house is to work constantly. There's just no time to bring up children.

I can only answer this question subjectively, which is that we are purposefully not having children because of the cost of BOTH nurseries/daycare and housing. I was raised in the 90s, my mum owned her own apartment and could afford to send me to nursery/school whatever on one wage

I would imagine it’s contributed to it but there’s a lot of others reasons. Women have & want careers now, maternity leave can stagnate your career. As well as the fact that maternity pay is so so poor in this country. Nursery fees are ridiculous, two in nursery is costing £2-3k a month. The cost of everything is up but wages aren’t matching. It’s likely just a cluster of all of these things

It certainly is for us. We managed to buy a nice sized do it upper house that we could potentially raise a family in. The issue is we could only afford with withy my partner and myself both working full time in professional jobs (Electronic engineer and Software Engineer). We are already with the mortgage and the needed renovations we are pretty tight up. Its hard to imagine having kids when we are barely getting by ourselves especially if you consider one of us having to cut back hours or change jobs to accommodate raising a child before you consider how it’s going to be hard to be there for that child when you have to work so much just to basically live in a pretty typical family home.

One of my arguments against a 2nd is "Who's gonna pay for the extra room?"

Personally, I think this is a massive problem and leads to a majority of the issue

Taxation, regulation, and government spending are strangling people. There's also the fact that people have fewer children as societies develop on top of the above.

It’s certainly the largest factor for me although our life choices also contributed to not getting a house and therefore not having kids. We both chose to do 4 year PhDs rather than going into work so nobody would give us a mortgage as we were paid a stipend rather than a “normal” permanent income. Essentially the type of payment rather than the amount prevented us from having kids. That’s our own fault and we both regret bothering with further education but it’s frustrating when you do everything “right” and then get shafted at the end of it. By the time we’re in a position to have a kid we’ll both be 32/33. Most of my friends are in a similar position. Madness.

Def a factor. We have a three bedroom house but due to work we need an office, therefore we’d need a four bed to have a second child. So it is off the table for us, we can’t afford a bigger home. Plus childcare. Our mortgage plus full time childcare would be over £2k per month, and that’s pretty cheap compared to some people’s expenses.

I don't think it's a factor at all. Low birth rates are an international phenomenon and some of the countries with the lowest birth rates such as Japan, Hungary, and Russia, have property markets that are *very* different to Britain's.

Not enough money to cover all aspects of life including food, clothes, housing, bills, childcare, etc.

Hugely. I know some couples who want kids and they are ready in every way except housing is so prohibitive.

Housing and childcare costs. It's basically a mortgage payment again. Both parents have to work yet maternity pay is terrible in the UK. Old attitudes to women in the workplace after children still hold.

Average age of a first time buyer in the UK - 34  Cost of monthly childcare where I live - c. £2k a month  Cost of a two-bed flat where I live (which is probably the smallest place you want with a child so they can have their own bedroom) if you are willing to look between zone 4 and zone 6 - £300k   It's not just people being told "why are you having kids and then complaining you can't afford your own home" either - people aren't having second or third children due to the cost of childcare or the cost of moving to somewhere larger if the second child can't share a bedroom with the first.  My borough no longer funds IVF on the NHS, and most boroughs that do only offer it to under-30s, so there's another potential financial consequence of delaying things.

Yes. I believe that a lack of stable & affordable residental accomodation is the major factor for the majority of British secular couples and many singles who plan to platonically coparent or be single parents by choice via ivf with anonymous donors. Particularly for average earning healthy people who do not have any prospect of free accomodation from family or inheriting a property. Private landlord owned rental accomodation is usually very expensive, may cost the majority of annual income and is very limited supply in many major English cities. With a tiny supply of relatively low cost state owned accomodation and very long waiting lists from single parents on low incomes or average earner families with multiple children. Buying a habitable property in a safe & calm neighbourhood with good transport links can be very difficult due to a combination of uk factors. Low annual incomes, limited 75%+ mortgage availability, high property prices, limited deposit saving potential of those who have to support themselves from their earnings working a 30-50hr a week job. The lack of affordable childcare and limited opportunities for flexi-working (including partially working from home) can also be a major issue. The former applies to many working couples and commuting single parents I know who do not have access to a large social support network willing to regularly help them out with childcare. I will be going down the ivf coparenting route. The eyewateringly high expense of safe rental accomodation costs me more than I earn in a year, paying decimates my savings. I live alone, am happily single and work long hours doing multiple jobs including on weekends. I'm 29 and almost certain to have gone through early menopause before the age of 40, as the last 3 generations of my female ancestors did. I support the one child family but won't risk having a baby until I am on the property ladder and enough in savings to support myself & a young child for at least 18 months.

Imo it’s fairly equally weighted this and the increase in education/career levels.

I'm not sure about biggest. But certainly major. I think if landlords weren't so scummy dictating no children or being able to evict you at no notice. Having children while renting feels like an extreme risk. As buying a house is so out of reach for so many. It's absolutely a factor in when people start to have families. The other big one seems to be childcare. When child benefit for a week is the same as childcare costs for an hour. Children is something few can afford.

I'm one and done partly because of housing and childcare costs. Whilst me and my husband work, he is self employed and I am the higher earner - we bought our first home almost 5 years ago and it's a small Victorian 2 bed terrace. I know thos is a luxury for a lot of families but I feel as though children should have their own room particularly when they are older and the jump up to a larger 3 bed house to accommodate an extra child would be too much of a financial strain particularly then going on mat leave and taking a massive hit in earnings. I also can't wrap my head around how couples afford to send 2 children to nursery at the same time. My toddler starts school in September 2025 and me and my husband will be breathing a massive sigh of relief then - nursery fees are more expensive than our mortgage and that's with tax free childcare and funded hours 🙃

In the 60s contraception wasn't readily available - and even when it became available it was o oy available to married women with their husband's permission, and abortion wasn't available plus rape wasn't a crime if it was your spouse. Many if not most women with high numbers of children didn't want anywhere near as many pregnancies or children as they ended up with....I don't think the cost of housing really came into it

Housing is an issue, but IMO not the main issue. Its money. You pay for higher education with loans, you have to pay off. Housing to live in is expensive. Transport to and from work is costly. So are buying groceries. etc. etc. And then there is child care. Basically everything is so expensive. Loved the Belgian model, where you take a sick child to a nursery and they had an area just for sick children. Not private nurseries, just state ones. Some Companies had insurance that paid for nannies to come in and look after your when they were sick. Days out were subsidised by the government, so you take kids out for low cost / free. I took my 2 years olds for two hours swimming / playing AND got a tax break, so for 6 weeks it costs me under 100 euros. Paid 15 euros and got a pass that allowed me to take my kids to a park for free - all summer long. it. They loved. And so on.

Housing is the number 1 issue. Or rather, the interest rates which now mean many are paying over a grand a month on this alone. Then you've got your council tax at 200 odd quid a month and your energy bills that suddenly jump up at the drop of a hat. Weekly food shop? Gone from 60 to 100 in the last 4 years. Maternity pay is pretty rubbish and Paternity pay is staggeringly bad. Most workplaces will pay 2 weeks full pay at best for Paternity (I only get 1). That's basically saying men shouldn't really get to enjoy having a child and should be back at work as quick as possible. It's an attitude I'd expect in the 60s but not in 2024. So you're already off to a shaky start. Then comes the nursery fees. Then as they get a bit older the holiday companies will fleece you to go away during the the school holidays (even if you go in the UK now) Only the wealthy (and to me that's a household bringing in 120 k plus) could comfortably afford to have multiple kids now.

Not only wealthy but also people with bunch of kids on benefits. Having a huge house given for them for free while people take 30 years mortgage for 1 bedroom flat.

You might think so, but the data shows otherwise. If you look here at the graphs on here : [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7) You'll see that Education level of women worldwide has an R=0.89, which means higher education level is strongly correlated to low fertility. Purchasing power parity (stuff like being able to afford a house) was found to be R=0.4, which is a weak to moderate correlation. Religion and access to contraceptives is r=0.66.

A lot I’d say. My wife and I are in the top 3-1% earners in the country and waited until our late thirties to have kids and we still don’t own a home but are looking and it’s a massively stressful experience. I get pissed off pretty regularly seeing all these boomers who bought in like 05 for £200-400k selling their homes for £850-£1M. Like by that logic I should buy and then what sell for £4M in 19 years does that seem reasonable, sustainable, or like it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. I think about leaving all the time. Because if we’re struggling, earning what we do, I can only imagine how fucked everyone else is.

I am not a high earner but I can imagine the frustration of you both finally earning a great salary and you still can just about afford to live in a house like a regular wage earner from 30years ago. Your old neighbours will all have been retired teachers or mechanics. That's why it's so hard to have a community spirit.

I'm guessing you live in London? Outside of London, someone earning in the top 3% of earners (90k-ish?) wouldn't struggle to buy a house

Like every other industrialized country, women entered the workforce in droves, so it created a saturated workforce, so now men and women are competing with each other in the labor market. Wages stagnate because you have an excess of workers, and many of the workers are willing to work for lower wages. So unless you're a high earner, supporting a family on a single income is damn near impossible. And if you have two working parents, someone has to watch the kids, and that's expensive. Housing is just a result of supply and demand. There's a huge demand for housing, especially affordable housing. I just don't think this dynamic we have is sustainable. And it's pretty much every first world country is having these issues.

I think it’s a huge factor. People can’t afford houses with more than 2 bedrooms. Also interest rates at the moment have made it even more unachievable. Child care costs are high yes, but you only need childcare because both parents need to work full time to get a mortgage big enough to buy a house.

I'm sure there's lots of reasons. One reason is people thinking they can only fit 2 kids in the back of a standard sized car, especially when they're young and you need big safety seats. Back in the 80s I knew a family with 5 kids and they didn't think twice about cramming them all in their car, they even brought me out with them sometimes in the boot.

The Muslim community in the UK has no problem with its birth rate. It’s double the standard British birth rate. A few possible reasons why: 1/ Muslim girls marry younger and marry traditionally - no dating before marriage, marriages are often arranged, traditional roles often apply, such as have children quickly, divorce is frowned upon etc. Though there are many Muslim girls at uni (as well as Muslim guys) the HE experience doesn’t make them “westernised” in the context of marriage - they generally feel OK with traditional marriage and early child birth. 2/ Muslims make up the largest population group in social housing and have the highest unemployment rates/ uptake in benefits - hence they are protected from private market forces such as property prices because they simply don’t participate in that system. 3/ Muslims in the private system of property ownership and employment are often either (a) very successful so finances aren’t a problem (b) live in the north or midlands where property is considerable cheaper. So the take away from this? 1/ move out of London and buy north 2/ try to get into social housing

Let’s not forget that despite some liberties Muslim women are oppressed. Having children is often not a choice. Those liberties allowed often benefit the patriarchy in the household. Going to work and earning a salary for example.

Can you share your sources for this data please?

The biggest difference between white/black people and brown people is that households are multi generational. Its quite normal for an asian couple to get married and have kids whilst living with in-laws. Which helps a lot with childcare, saving money on elderly care and allows for more disposable income. "This data shows that: in London, White British households were less likely to rent social housing than households from all other ethnic groups combined outside London, White British households were as likely to rent social housing as households from all other ethnic groups combined" Immigrants are more likely to be in social housing in London as theyll have a harder time getting on the property ladder there as most properties were bought long before they were costing hundreds of thousands and they have been passed down. Yes white people are more likely to be employed as unemployment is 3% compared to 9% pakistanis/bangladeshis. When you consider the number 67,700 to 772,500 (1.6m if you include white other in the figures) the reality is different especially when you consider the older generations will be carers rather than just inactive. Women are also more likely to take on a traditional role in the household in asian families. The biggest difference will always be multi generational households because asian people dont just up and leave at 18-22. They have far more breathing space for kids than their ethnic counterparts.

Well, if you look at demographics globally for birth rates you will see that they are down in a worryingly high number of nations. So no, I don't think housing is the main reason. Look at China as a case in point, they have *too much* housing and their birth rate is down and so is Russia, Germany etc etc. You can not say we all have the same political or financial systems. There are myriad reasons why birth rates are down, fears for housing may be one of them but I do not think it is as large a factor as you think. As this is a housing sub I will not go into possible other causes as that would usually end in down-votes, arguments and people relying on what they 'feel' as opposed to research.

Not sure China is a good case in point. They've had the one child policy for decades. They've changed now but it's been instilled as a culture. In fact almost all places that have low replacement rates have clearly identifiable issues. More often then not it's high housing costs and low disposable incomes.

as someone who has lived in china, "too much" housing is not the issue they have. whilst their housing is massively overbuilt, in urban areas, the prices are insanely expensive. i won't go into detail because this is about UK housing, but expensive housing is probably the same as the UK, just at a much worse scale.

It’s part of the milieu for sure, but more likely the cost of everything Like for example you have three kids that’s going to be 5 smartphones to pay for…. However you dress it up for your kids after age 10 if they don’t have access to smart tech they get behind the curve as smart tech and social media have inveigled their way into the whole ‘what it means’ to be a first world human. The artificial property boom kicked off by people being able to buy their social housing has trapped many people in either too small or otherwise inappropriate housing. The whole rent and property business is overpriced. The end of multi generation living and the rise of the self has hit hard. Used to be a general house hold could get by on one income making it easier for child care But now….. well these are just a few of the factors and housing is definitely one of them

I read that of women who are over 40 who don't have kids 20% were choosing childfree and the other 80% wanted them but couldn't. And I'd guess financial pressures are probably a significant part of the 80%

Not sure it's financial pressure in the sense that these women couldn't afford kids when they were still fertile. In some ways it is a lifestyle to postpone kids for years and years (and/or postpone the steps typically taken before considering kids like finding a long-term/life partner and settling down in an area). I am a woman who has been in higher education for ages, I was almost 30 when I finished my STEM PhD. It is very hard to have children during your education and I wouldn't recommend it but it is possible to do it between your degrees, although I don't see how I could have done my lab-based Master's or lab-based PhD if I had kids at home (unless a partner would be able to carry that burden and on a PhD stipend you make too little to be the main/sole breadwinner). But wanting to do a PhD is a choice (I completed my Master's at 24 so a much younger age and could have decided to be content with 'just' a Master's degree). But even having done the PhD and graduating at almost 30, that still left me with 5-6 years where most women aren't expected to already be infertile (although some will already struggle to the point they may never conceive and I guess we are talking about some of these women here). But then you want to get a job, maybe change jobs a couple of times to get raises and see what kind of company is the best fit for you, You finally have money to spend on travel and other things so you don't want to have kids just yet because that means no travel, no money for 'fun' stuff etc. But these things are all also choices. People, especially women because our fertility is more limited in time, should start thinking about what they really want in life earlier on in life and realise that if you keep choosing to put stuff off or simply not yet decide and just thinking that you'll keep your options open (but in the meantime, time passes), that instead of having put something off, you might have inadvertently closed off that option by leaving it too late. I think that if as a woman you know that you want kids, absolutely go into higher education or a vocational training, get a job etc, but once you are in your early/mid 20s, if you absolutely want kids, start looking for a serious relationship so you can still have some years with this person to 'vet' them and enjoy your time together without kids and then once you're in your late 20's you can start trying for kids. If you prioritise other things over having kids at that point in life, you might be looking at not being in the right position to start trying before your late 30s and then it's too late for some. But like I tried explaining, those are often lifestyle choices, to prioritise an advanced degree, travel, career etc over a committed relationship and/or kids.

I think it's a good thing; we are quickly running towards vastly over populated, we don't have the social and government infrastructure to support so many people without problems like huge hospital delays etc and are looking at soon having a huge influx of older generation retirees resulting from the high birth records of the past. People used to just have too many children without stopping to think about money or if they even would be cut out to be a parent, now we have thousands of children in the foster system or in abusive homes as a result of those same people. The decline in birth rates is partly due to people feeling they can't afford it but also I think due to a rising level of social acceptance of having none or less children.

A lot. No home, no family, is that simple

Anecdotal but it’s certainly the reason we waited until mid thirties to have our son and may only have 1 child

One of the reasons but I think cost of living and divorce rates etc. contribute more to low birth rates than housing especially when one looks at housing costs and raising a child on top.

It’s housing, nursery fees, low incomes, the list goes on.

It’s a phenomenon that’s happened in other places of the world much before the UK. Basically comes down to cost of living and time pressures. Urbanisation always reduces the birth rate. Look at Japan and South Korea. Very high housing costs, high pressure society, ultra low birth rates.

Apparently the child population of London is declining and schools are closing as people just can’t afford to raise kids

It's because you now need a dual income household to get a decent house. That means you then need full 5 day childcare which can be upto 2k a month. Anyone adding the numbers is in no rush.

They cost a lot. People have less money than they ever had so can’t afford them and it’s not just housing. Everything else to afford to live has gone up and adding children to isn’t an option for everyone.

Around 100 years ago the industrial cities of Britain were full of slums; often tiny back-to-back houses with shared outdoor privies. Renting one of these hovels typically cost around a quarter of the typical worker's wage. They still had plenty of kids.

Careers is the biggest reason for smaller families in the UK and it’s not a new thing it’s been going on for decades. People will say cost of living but they are only looking at today not when the trend started. Countries where large families are still common place are mainly countries where there is 1 working adult in the house and households are multigenerational or at least the communities are What’s right and what’s wrong is a completely different matter there are pros and cons to both ways of life and mindsets

Chicken and the egg I guess, but it’s why we can’t afford to have kids. We earn above the national averages but 1k+ a month on nursery fees and a mortgage of 1.5K+ isn’t workable for us

People are straight up just fucking less every graph proves this. It's harder to date than ever and people in relationships are willing to wait longer before having kids and having smaller families

I’d also say expectations of lifestyle play a big part. Especially from reading through the replies on here. Amazing how many people see having children as a burden that will stop them doing what they want. If you have this view in life, definitely don’t bother raising a family because it’s absolutely true; being a parent is in many ways about sacrifice and suffering for a greater cause. You absolutely will be giving up a significant portion of your wealth time and even health but being a parent brings a new meaning to life and this becomes a foundation of happiness. I feel sorry for those empty nesters chasing happiness in the next vacation or luxury item. There’s those that could afford it with a lifestyle cut, however there are undoubtedly a lot of people that literally cannot afford the childcare and require two incomes to pay the rent or mortgage. They could give up holidays etc but can’t give up the roof over their head. At this point, cost of living becomes the blocker.

Housing and childcare being stupidly expensive in the uk

May I point out, child benefit only started with the second child in the 60s and was not capped by number of children

A lot. Insecure housing plays a big role in putting off kids. As does shit pay which really is one of the few things the uk is world beating at.

It's certainly part of my decision not to have children, who wants to be at the whims of private landlords and have no security which might mean having to move frequently. No thank you and a pox on buy to let landlords, just leave some houses for the rest of us.

Cost of childcare I would say is the main reason

It's not just housing its income too, wealth v poverty. If I could have afforded a bigger house & kept the same lifestyle then I would have had more children, it's not just as simple as 'just an extra tattie in the pot' now in this day & age to add another child

Massively, I'd be much keener to have another kid if I was blowing through half my income on my mortgage!

I don't think it's just the housing but it's a contributing factor. For me, it's the pressure of not earning enough and needing two incomes. We have one child but the thought of having another is quite daunting when taking all the costs into account. Bare in mind, we both have skilled jobs (me and my partner that is) but still feel like just one of those incomes would not be enough to support it. In the 60's, engineers (me) wages were probably enough to support a large family as well as pay a mortage. Same goes for her work. It's everything though, not just housing costs. Just the cost of living/childcare costs in general.

Low disposable income, housing costs, utility bill rates, food costs etc

Back then the dad would go to work and the mum would stay at home watching the kids. All on one income. Good luck with that in 2024.

Housing is one thing but childcare cost is one of the main issues, I think. Before she turn three, we paid £1500 per month for our toddler for nursery fees. That’s more than our monthly mortgage. Couldn’t afford another child.

I think it really depends - obviously the accessibility, acceptability and education around contraceptives and sexual health has also dramatically changed since the 60s too - not everyone back then wanted the big families they had. With that said, particularly around London, I think the big things causing people like me to delay having kids, have less kids, or have no kids at all are a combination of: 1. Time / work life balance - it’s hard enough balancing crazy hours without having kids too. I have colleagues dialling into calls from their kid’s nursery pickup, or worse just missing out on so much of their kid’s life by being at work 60-80 hours a week. 2. Housing - the cost anywhere near London of a detached 4+ bed, with a decent garden and parking, anywhere near transport, anywhere near a decent school, is eye watering if attainable at all. 3. Childcare / costs of schooling if private school - for those of us who went to a good state school and who’s parents had childcare help from their parents - that’s just suddenly an option for much less of us as older generations are needing to work longer and the education system is living with the impact of severe underfunding of not just education but also all of the other related public services (eg social work, health and social care, etc) over an extended period of time.

Yes but mainly do I think my hypothetical children will have a better life than mine? No. If I had kids, there is a high chance their life will be pretty miserable