Social change and rising ages for having first child

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
5) I'm not sure of whether this compares to US society at all so bear with me, but here women are virtually forced into work (it's possible this is partly to do with the shorter working hours in the UK). It is almost seen as failure by society for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, does this need to change or is it unimportant?

[ QUOTE ]
5) Absolutely needs to change, but I can't see it happening any other way than via a major war unfortunately. Too many diverging interests and complicating factors are at work here to do it by simple persuasion.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like a budding Hitler. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) I'm not sure of whether this compares to US society at all so bear with me, but here women are virtually forced into work (it's possible this is partly to do with the shorter working hours in the UK). It is almost seen as failure by society for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, does this need to change or is it unimportant?

[ QUOTE ]
5) Absolutely needs to change, but I can't see it happening any other way than via a major war unfortunately. Too many diverging interests and complicating factors are at work here to do it by simple persuasion.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like a budding Hitler. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Also the average age will increase, causing very severe economic problems a few decades from now especially for Japan which doesn't allow much immigration, but almost not at all for the U.S. which allows a lot of immigration.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Grey

I'm not sure how much you mean by a lot, 140,000 immigrants settled in the UK in 2003, 30,000 were admitted because of work, the previous year 2002 these figues were around 117,000 and 15,000 respectively. We also had 318,700 students in 2003 on temporary visas compared to 370,600 in 2002. The 140,000 represents around 0.2% of the population of the country, which is a fair lot in reality, the trouble is vast numbers of immigrants are living together and forming communities, as opposed to integrating into society. There are also an unknown number of people who come into the country by unofficial channels, or rejected asylum claimants who do not leave the country.

I don't think we have a shortage of new people coming into the UK, but I think people come to the UK for much different reasons than they go to the US. As some posters have pointed out in the past, it is possible our cumbersome welfare system has a lot of negative effects as well as positive ones.

Mack

[jcx]

1. Yes because they may have trouble getting pregnant at a later age and they may lack the vigor to raise children properly. At 25 you still possess the youthful energy to chase 2 toddlers around. At 39, after 15+ years of the real world beating on you, perhaps not (although on the plus side older couples may be more financially secure).

2. The likely effects are dramatic as for all intents and purposes a generation is being skipped. If instead of having 2-3 children in their 20's couples wait until their late 30's to have one "little emperor" who will enter the workforce and pay the taxes to keep the entitlement machine running? Europe is in a big pickle here, the US not as bad (but a concern long term). Europes answer thus far has been to import legions from the 3rd world, mostly muslim and of a completely alien culture. This is a recipe for utter disaster once the muslims reach a critical mass (It's debateable whether this is happening already in places like France).

3. Absolutely. I recommend you read "The Death of the West", by Patrick Buchanan. Call him a right wing nut if you want (I disagree with him on several issues) but he's got this one pegged.

4. Many women are learning the hard way that you can't have it all. Life is about choice and opportunity cost. Want a high flying career? Go ahead, but someone else is going to raise your kids (if you have them at all).

5. Again, the issue boils down to choice. When I was born my parents didn't have a pot to piss in. My father drove a truck and my mother stayed home with 3 kids. They made it work because they eschewed instant gratification and materialism for the better of the family. They drove used cars, rarely went out to eat and wore inexpensive clothing. Later on after we were all in school my mother went to work and we were able to acquire some luxuries. The difference today is people aren't willing to deny themselves anything and rack up huge debt burdens that require 2 incomes to service. The kids may not want for material things but they sorely lack the thing needed most when very young - parents' (esp mothers) time.

[vulturesrow]

Im sorry but that is a [censored] stupid thing to say. How do those views make him a budding Hitler?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry but that is a [censored] stupid thing to say. How do those views make him a budding Hitler?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I thought to say that was a little over the top, he has spoken several times in a way I don't find very appealing, this wasn't really one of them. I don't know much about Hungary either, but I expect people think in a very different way to what people might in the UK or US. The country has only been democratic for 15 years or so, a wide range of views is inevitable, that said I don't think there is any real excuse for hatred on the basis of race, religion or politics.

Anyway this is going off topic.

Mack

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
The article states that the average age for women having first babies has risen from 26 to 29 over the last 20 years, also that biology hasn't changed, so complications happen more often.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off, child birth can be a risky endeavor, but it is far from chronically complicated. Most pregnancies go without a hitch no matter how old the mother is.
Second, "complications" increase related to many things other than age, such as poor diet, lack of exercise, stress, excessive doctor involvement (unnecessary C-sections, episiotomies), drugs...
Third, the rates at which complications increase with age of the mother are not that drastic. It's a safe bet for a healthy woman to have a child at age 35 or even 40.

[ QUOTE ]
We all know that medicine has advanced over this time as well, but we also know that this isn't the main reason why women are choosing to wait until later before having children. The main reason is the social changes regarding womens more prominent place in the workforce, the decision to develop a career and have children later, which I suppose is made easier by an improved confidence in medical science.

[/ QUOTE ]
It actually has more to do with education than anything else. Of all the factors relating to people's decisions to postpone their first child, education is by far the most strongly associated. It's not career, class, race...
Simply put, the more education a woman has, the longer she's going to wait.

[ QUOTE ]
In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living standard."

[/ QUOTE ]
Key word, "may."
Where's the science? Where are the statistics?

[ QUOTE ]

My questions to the forum...

1) Do you think it matters that more women decide to wait?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a good trend. More babies will be planned, therefore wanted, and hopefully better taken care of.
And like other's have said already, men are waiting too.

[ QUOTE ]

2) If this trend were to continue, what are the likely effects?


[/ QUOTE ]
Fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Is it possible birth rates could drop so low, that the population could go into (possibly permanent) decline?

[/ QUOTE ] no, not possible. Not unless there was some huge nuclear disaster or something rendering most people infertile.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Do you think this is a sign of women valuing family less than in the past and money more, or do they just simply see that it is now possible to have both?


[/ QUOTE ]
The desire to want to plan and prepare for a family is not at all a sign of lowered family values. It is the opposite.
It's a sign of many things: higher education, effective birth control, longer life expectancy, greater career options...
[ QUOTE ]

5) I'm not sure of whether this compares to US society at all so bear with me, but here women are virtually forced into work (it's possible this is partly to do with the shorter working hours in the UK). It is almost seen as failure by society for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, does this need to change or is it unimportant?

[/ QUOTE ] The notion that work inside the home is less valuable than work outside the home absolutely needs to change. But it needs to change for both sexes, not just women. And it needs to change for all kinds of work, not just childcare (IE housework, cooking).

[benfranklin]

Most of this thread is psychobabble, apparently by posters who are too young to have children.

The basic facts are that children are icky and annoying, but until relatively recently in the history of humanity, they were necessary for their productive value. Children were cheap labor, either as farm labor in the family or apprenticed out to a trade, and they were the only available retirement program for people who grew too old to work and support themselves.

And folks in the golden olden times had to have a bunch of them, because the little buggers tended to die off early due to childhood diseases, plagues, wars, etc.

People today are having fewer kids, and having them later, because kids have evolved from necessities to luxuries. When you are young and struggling, you work and save for the necessities. When you have a career and some money, you go for the luxuries. A good car, then a nice home, a trendy dog, and then a kid or two. Preferably when you have enough money to hire a nanny for the ungrateful little bastards.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of this thread is psychobabble, apparently by posters who are too young to have children.

The basic facts are that children are icky and annoying, but until relatively recently in the history of humanity, they were necessary for their productive value. Children were cheap labor, either as farm labor in the family or apprenticed out to a trade, and they were the only available retirement program for people who grew too old to work and support themselves.

And folks in the golden olden times had to have a bunch of them, because the little buggers tended to die off early due to childhood diseases, plagues, wars, etc.

People today are having fewer kids, and having them later, because kids have evolved from necessities to luxuries. When you are young and struggling, you work and save for the necessities. When you have a career and some money, you go for the luxuries. A good car, then a nice home, a trendy dog, and then a kid or two. Preferably when you have enough money to hire a nanny for the ungrateful little bastards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this post since I am getting older and have no children. "Icky and annoying" and "ungrateful little bastards". Is this really true? I kinda hope so cause I really don't want kids, but my wife does. What about the "change your life (for the better)" and "greatest blessing" stuff I usually hear?

[m1illion]

less people = better world
do you see why?