Half of British women reach age 30 without having a child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Agree

Disagree. But you’ll need to live in a less desirable area.

You do know that salaries are lower in less desirable areas? It is a myth you can just move to a lower COL area and live on one salary for MOST people.

Well you could live in PG county or along route 1 in Fairfax. Or just choose a smaller house. Same salary but lower housing costs.

PP - I'm not talking about the DMV specifically, but rather the US generally. One anecdotal suggestion doesn't logically apply to the breadth of the middle class.

And, what happens when you already live in PG County or on Route 1 in Fairfax??

Sure there is some income level where one income will not cut it. 40k is not going to work. But one person at a gs-13 could do it. That’s average around here.

The original post isn't talking about the women in the DMV bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for us! Society will adapt and find ways not to be a pyramid scheme for elder care. The planet will thank us for less people.

No, basically what's going to happen is the pyramid is going to come crashing down on younger millennials and gen Z supporting the retired boomers, then there will be a lack of people to fill critical jobs and the economy will stagnate. We'll try to bring in more immigrants but skilled immigrants from places like China and India will be less likely to leave as their countries develop. Poor countries will continue churning out babies and as they gain more economic wherewithal, they will become just like we used to be in demanding goods and services, which will drive ever increasing pollution, both CO2 as well as material pollution. So the US having fewer kids really won't help people in the US at all in a measurable way. If anything it will only weaken us on the world stage and put Gen Z in for probably the toughest struggle of any generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Survive?
"Survive" does not neeed to equal a 7,000 sqf house for a family of 4
it does not need to equal each parent driving a new luxury car (and of course, each kid getting a new luxury car when they turn 16)
It does not equal putting money aside for college and grad school/law school/med school for each kid.
it does not equal frequent international vacations

"Survive" would mean a roof of your heads (yes, even kids sharing a room "survive") and food in their bellies.
In the US, even someone with ZERO income will "survive" due to government assistance and private assistance like food banks.

You might not LIKE your lifestyle, but your children will definitely SURVIVE even if you or spouse becomes a stay at home parent.

Not talking about UMC -- talking about MC/LMC. Like MOST people. Not DCUM's contingent. The OP was talking about women in general, not the UMC. Most people do not live the lifestyle you are talking about on two salaries (even in the **AFTER** scenario you describe of living on one salary).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/middle-class-income.html

And your cute anecdote of people "surviving" on no salary is adorable - very few people with the ability to have two incomes would choose to live that way on one income just to "stay home with the kids." LMAO

I'm glad you think it's adorable. I actually think you're insane that you think children will literally DIE if they are driven around in a Toyota Carmy instead of a Tesla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Survive?
"Survive" does not neeed to equal a 7,000 sqf house for a family of 4
it does not need to equal each parent driving a new luxury car (and of course, each kid getting a new luxury car when they turn 16)
It does not equal putting money aside for college and grad school/law school/med school for each kid.
it does not equal frequent international vacations

"Survive" would mean a roof of your heads (yes, even kids sharing a room "survive") and food in their bellies.
In the US, even someone with ZERO income will "survive" due to government assistance and private assistance like food banks.

You might not LIKE your lifestyle, but your children will definitely SURVIVE even if you or spouse becomes a stay at home parent.

Not talking about UMC -- talking about MC/LMC. Like MOST people. Not DCUM's contingent. The OP was talking about women in general, not the UMC. Most people do not live the lifestyle you are talking about on two salaries (even in the **AFTER** scenario you describe of living on one salary).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/middle-class-income.html

And your cute anecdote of people "surviving" on no salary is adorable - very few people with the ability to have two incomes would choose to live that way on one income just to "stay home with the kids." LMAO

It is much easier to live on one MC income outside the DC area. You can find homes in the Midwest metros in good school districts for less than 150k or even less than 100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for us! Society will adapt and find ways not to be a pyramid scheme for elder care. The planet will thank us for less people.

No, basically what's going to happen is the pyramid is going to come crashing down on younger millennials and gen Z supporting the retired boomers, then there will be a lack of people to fill critical jobs and the economy will stagnate. We'll try to bring in more immigrants but skilled immigrants from places like China and India will be less likely to leave as their countries develop. Poor countries will continue churning out babies and as they gain more economic wherewithal, they will become just like we used to be in demanding goods and services, which will drive ever increasing pollution, both CO2 as well as material pollution. So the US having fewer kids really won't help people in the US at all in a measurable way. If anything it will only weaken us on the world stage and put Gen Z in for probably the toughest struggle of any generation.

People should not have kids “for society”. The US will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Survive?
"Survive" does not neeed to equal a 7,000 sqf house for a family of 4
it does not need to equal each parent driving a new luxury car (and of course, each kid getting a new luxury car when they turn 16)
It does not equal putting money aside for college and grad school/law school/med school for each kid.
it does not equal frequent international vacations

"Survive" would mean a roof of your heads (yes, even kids sharing a room "survive") and food in their bellies.
In the US, even someone with ZERO income will "survive" due to government assistance and private assistance like food banks.

You might not LIKE your lifestyle, but your children will definitely SURVIVE even if you or spouse becomes a stay at home parent.

Not talking about UMC -- talking about MC/LMC. Like MOST people. Not DCUM's contingent. The OP was talking about women in general, not the UMC. Most people do not live the lifestyle you are talking about on two salaries (even in the **AFTER** scenario you describe of living on one salary).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/middle-class-income.html

And your cute anecdote of people "surviving" on no salary is adorable - very few people with the ability to have two incomes would choose to live that way on one income just to "stay home with the kids." LMAO

I'm glad you think it's adorable. I actually think you're insane that you think children will literally DIE if they are driven around in a Toyota Carmy instead of a Tesla.

??? I never said that ???? Living on government assistance and relying on food banks in order to support a one income household is nuts. And so are you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my parents generation, middle class people didn't want to marry or have kids until they were financial stable and on their way. They would get a good job, then marry and buy a starter house/apartment they could afford where they would want to raise a family, then start to have kids.

Today, many people are not financial stable like that until their 30s.

This is the issue.

I waited until I was married and financially stable-- then couldn't have kids.

My parents were married and financially stable and owned a house by the time they were 25.

But that’s the thing- if you have kids before you’re financially stable you won’t be able to make it. No way could I have saved for a house once I started daycare payments. And I couldn’t have been able to afford daycare without busting my butt in my 20s. And once elementary school starts then shit really hits the fan. Only the wealthy can afford all the random days off, huge summers and the 6 hours of school a day. Life is not set up for children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Survive?
"Survive" does not neeed to equal a 7,000 sqf house for a family of 4
it does not need to equal each parent driving a new luxury car (and of course, each kid getting a new luxury car when they turn 16)
It does not equal putting money aside for college and grad school/law school/med school for each kid.
it does not equal frequent international vacations

"Survive" would mean a roof of your heads (yes, even kids sharing a room "survive") and food in their bellies.
In the US, even someone with ZERO income will "survive" due to government assistance and private assistance like food banks.

You might not LIKE your lifestyle, but your children will definitely SURVIVE even if you or spouse becomes a stay at home parent.

Not talking about UMC -- talking about MC/LMC. Like MOST people. Not DCUM's contingent. The OP was talking about women in general, not the UMC. Most people do not live the lifestyle you are talking about on two salaries (even in the **AFTER** scenario you describe of living on one salary).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/middle-class-income.html

And your cute anecdote of people "surviving" on no salary is adorable - very few people with the ability to have two incomes would choose to live that way on one income just to "stay home with the kids." LMAO

It is much easier to live on one MC income outside the DC area. You can find homes in the Midwest metros in good school districts for less than 150k or even less than 100k.

Did you attempt to read the article?

The shape of the American family is in a steady state of flux, but two-earner households are the norm now. In perhaps one of the biggest shifts of the past 50 years, married mothers entered the work force in ever-greater numbers in a wave that peaked in the 1990s before leveling off and retreating slightly. Women, in general, followed a similar pattern.

But for many families, the addition of women’s earnings has simply helped maintain their position or kept household income from dropping, according to an analysis by Heather Boushey, the president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

From 1979 to 2018, middle-income families’ incomes rose 23.1 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to the study. Professional families’ incomes, by contrast, rose 68.3 percent. Over the same 39 years, the average American woman experienced a 21 percent increase in annual working hours, according to Ms. Boushey’s analysis.

Most of the earnings gains among families in the period Ms. Boushey studied can be traced directly to working women. They accounted for three-quarters of the rise in income among middle-class families in that time. Among professional families, women’s earnings were the most important factor, but men’s incomes rose, too.

“Many families would have seen their income drop precipitously over the past few decades if it had not been for women going to work,” Ms. Boushey said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a mother is literally THE most important job any woman can do. What other occupation contributes more to humanity than sustaining our species?

Too bad society treats mothers like dirt.

This is the unintended consequence of feminism and “women can do everything men can do.” Yes, women should be able to work and men should do half the housework. But it doesn’t actually work that way. My mom was a working mom in the 80’s (out of necessity not choice) and I saw what a raw deal it was. I was determined to be a SAHM or not at all and that’s what I did. I didn’t and don’t feel treated like dirt, but my only job for the last 15 years has been raising my children and running the house. It’s not actually a bad job if you don’t also have another job. I have two daughters and I will support any choice they make, but I will alert them to this reality.

This is unrealistic for most couples. In today's world, you need two incomes to survive. That's just how it is - most families cannot afford to lose one salary - be it the mother's OR the father's.

Survive?
"Survive" does not neeed to equal a 7,000 sqf house for a family of 4
it does not need to equal each parent driving a new luxury car (and of course, each kid getting a new luxury car when they turn 16)
It does not equal putting money aside for college and grad school/law school/med school for each kid.
it does not equal frequent international vacations

"Survive" would mean a roof of your heads (yes, even kids sharing a room "survive") and food in their bellies.
In the US, even someone with ZERO income will "survive" due to government assistance and private assistance like food banks.

You might not LIKE your lifestyle, but your children will definitely SURVIVE even if you or spouse becomes a stay at home parent.

Not talking about UMC -- talking about MC/LMC. Like MOST people. Not DCUM's contingent. The OP was talking about women in general, not the UMC. Most people do not live the lifestyle you are talking about on two salaries (even in the **AFTER** scenario you describe of living on one salary).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/middle-class-income.html

And your cute anecdote of people "surviving" on no salary is adorable - very few people with the ability to have two incomes would choose to live that way on one income just to "stay home with the kids." LMAO

It is much easier to live on one MC income outside the DC area. You can find homes in the Midwest metros in good school districts for less than 150k or even less than 100k.

Did you attempt to read the article?

The shape of the American family is in a steady state of flux, but two-earner households are the norm now. In perhaps one of the biggest shifts of the past 50 years, married mothers entered the work force in ever-greater numbers in a wave that peaked in the 1990s before leveling off and retreating slightly. Women, in general, followed a similar pattern.

But for many families, the addition of women’s earnings has simply helped maintain their position or kept household income from dropping, according to an analysis by Heather Boushey, the president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

From 1979 to 2018, middle-income families’ incomes rose 23.1 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to the study. Professional families’ incomes, by contrast, rose 68.3 percent. Over the same 39 years, the average American woman experienced a 21 percent increase in annual working hours, according to Ms. Boushey’s analysis.

Most of the earnings gains among families in the period Ms. Boushey studied can be traced directly to working women. They accounted for three-quarters of the rise in income among middle-class families in that time. Among professional families, women’s earnings were the most important factor, but men’s incomes rose, too.

“Many families would have seen their income drop precipitously over the past few decades if it had not been for women going to work,” Ms. Boushey said.

I mean, all of that is pretty obvious. Higher household incomes created more competition for the most desirable neighborhoods and drove up prices. I said you’d have to live somewhere less desirable on one income. Do you want all women to quit their jobs and SAH so that you can afford your preferred neighborhood? No thanks — SAH sounds awful. So glad women have better choices now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

It has only been fairly recently that family does not take care of the elderly. The fact that family structure is so decayed that elder care is unusual is the really messed up part of this modern equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

THIS. All these entitlement programs need people paying for them in real time. Reading what some people posts shows how poorly educated we are in this country. This used to be high school government class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

More people is not the only solution. We can cut defense spending or stop paying for expensive treatments after a certain age. At some point the population should contract. Sooner is better for the planet (imo).

THIS. All these entitlement programs need people paying for them in real time. Reading what some people posts shows how poorly educated we are in this country. This used to be high school government class.