Frightening!

[Gardian]

This all started when I was at our neighbour’s birthday party on Saturday night.

 

Four of their five sons and daughters were there, together with two other young couples. In turn, all of their children attended, ranging in age from early teens down to 18 months. When you counted up the numerous kids and added in the ones of other young couples we know down here, I got to an average of about 2.5 in each family.

 

Not surprising you might say – there are tax and other benefits for having a biggish family here in France.

 

I then got to thinking about the young men and women who we know back in the UK (including our own two sons) who are married or in stable partnerships and aged 20 -35. I got up to about 30+ couples, but could muster less than 10 kids between the lot of them.

 

Isn’t this particular generation heading for a demographic crisis when they reach retirement age for lack of a tax-paying population to support the UK society? Sure, property equity release might help, but all the evidence suggests that most aren’t doing sufficient for their retirement anyway.

 

This isn’t a poke at the Government – just a thought that it ought to be seriously thinking of following the French lead, and quickly. Anyone agree?

[Debra]

.

[Viv]

I agree with Debra, I don't think that  French women put off having children quite as late as many UK women, some of  whom may be more career, materialistically minded. 

I certainly think that the UK has far more in the way of welfare / tax benefits than France has. 

I also think that encouraging people to have have more children (future tax payers) to pay for pensioners is the worst type of pyramid scheme and I cannot understand why any government retains faith in such a ludicrous system!

[Debra]

[.

[Viv]

I wasn't having a pop at you Deb, really really    [:(] thats why I emphasised the some women bit, I didn't meet Mr Right until I was 30, so that's my excuse.

 

[Debra]

.

[Pip]

This is so close to home.  My son is 31 years old and since leaving university has lived in London and worked very hard at his chosen career.  Three years ago he and his girlfriend bought a one bedroom flat for an absurd amount of money.  They both have good steady jobs and have finally decided that they would like to start a family.  They will make wonderful, loving parents.  Their wish is to move out of London and my son will commute. Last week my son phoned me and was not his usual sunny self.  Apparently they have done all their figurework and if it is only my son working they cannot afford a mortagage on a house within easy reach of London.  This makes me both sad and angry.  There is a young woman I know of who is younger than my son, who worked for only 18 months after leaving school at 15  and who now has four children by two different fathers and has never married.  She definitely doesn't cherish the children and I suspect they will grow up to be juvenile delinquents poor things.  The point is that she has just been handed the keys to a brand new four bedroom house through a housing association.  She has no rent to pay and receives approx. £400 a week for herself and the children.  Guess who pays for all this ?  People like my son and his girl who work hard, pay their taxes but sadly can't afford to start a much wanted family of their own.  This is a topsy turvy world we live in in the U.K. 

[Debra]

.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

As a whole, Europe (the 25 nations, that is) does not, as such, face a

"demographic timebomb" - population is growing at a modest and

(probably)  sustainable 0.15%. This disguises a number of issues.

- Overall, birthrate in the EU is only 1.47 children / woman. The

balance that brings up the population to a growth rate of 0.15% comes

from migration from outside the EU. Immigration, as we all know, can be

a fairly contentious issue.

- Within the EU, "old" EU nations such as France (birthrate 1.85 and

rising) and the UK (1.66 and - I believe - falling) have positive

population growth above the EU average at 0.37% and 0.28%.

- For France and the UK, population growth is being fuelled mostly by

immigration, and much of  this is coming from "new" EU countries.

In otherwords, the demographic problem is just being shuffled. This is

one reason why the Manderins in Brussels (OK - I know that that is just

figurative, but work with me for a minute here) are quite keen to push

expansion further, preferably to include some serious population growth

centers such as Turkey (birthrate 1.94).

- There are hard economic limits to how far the EU can be expanded - a

point were the next potential candidate nation is simply too poor to be

absorbed with positive benefit to the whole. We can argue all week

about were that might be - personally I really am not sure.

- The alternative is to try and shift the birthrate within the EU back

towards the necessary level to maintain a steady state. This is

complicated by factors such as infant mortality, gender ratios and

continuing improvements in life expectency, so it does shift around a

bit, but I believe is currently reckoned to be a fraction over 1.9

births per woman...not that far from where France currently is, and may

not be unconnected to its "three child" policy.

- Of course, none of this takes any account of the growth in population

rate in the world as a whole. Someone clever (a bloke with the somewhat

unlikely name of Colin Trudge as I recall: I may be mistaken in this)

worked out that the world needed to lower its birthrate to around 1.6

to have any hope of steadying population (at around 9 billion, I think)

by 2050. In other words, the we in Europe rather face the choice of:

A) much increased levels of migration in order to even out population

growth rates coupled with a commitment to cut birthrate right back

worldwide, or;

B) contributing further to explosive population growth which, if

Malthus is to be believed, will eventually lead to catastropic

reductions through famine, war or disease.

C) increasing birthrate within Europe to maintain steady state and

somehow persaude the rest of the world to make some dramatic

cutbacks...which we will then give them the same "demographic timebomb"

that Europe is now attempting to defuse.

I'm glad I'm not in charge. [:)]

[Dog]

Check out the Campaign for Human Extinction.

There are far to many humans on this small planet.

I eschew fecundity.

Please do not breed...

[Iceni]

The danger of having children at an older age is that after the age of 30 a womans fertility declines at an alarming rate. Older parents of both sexes will have gene mutations which make testing for problems such as Downs syndrome and at all ages Spina Bifida routine. I have an SB child, I was not an older parent but it can be hereditary. Think of the devistation of waiting for a year or so (or more) and then finding you are pregnant but the child has Downs.

Women were built to have children at a young age. My daughter-in-law has sacrificed a lot to stay at home to look after my two grandchildren. I was told to go back to work by a doctor as the stress of 24 hour care was making me very ill - so that proves that there is no solution that covers everyone.

If you want children it is very difficult to live in the SE of England and other areas that are expensive. A decision has to be made but leaving it until the women is over 30 starts pushing the % envelope. In the family I was brought up in it was normal for everyone to stay at home until they found a partner to live with and then the extended family took over the childcare if necessary, this was due to lack of money. I am nearly 60 so what goes around comes around and just because abortion was not legal did not mean it did not happen because one extra mouth to feed would be the last straw for the whole family. All the families in our street rented - owning a house was unheard of.

There were no tax credits, money for childcare or even an acceptance of a child from a divorced family - I was a barsteward, divorce was the equivalent to not having had a father. I suppose every generation thinks they have it hard but I was used to uncles of 50 who still lived with their mum because they could not afford to leave the family as there would then be nothing for their mother to live on. My uncle spent his life looking after his disabled sister into his 70's - the council put a bathroom into their rented house when they both died, the tap was either outside or in the basement and the toilet in the far end of the garden - my aunt could  not walk and there was no help offered ever. She never even had a wheelchair. This was 40 years ago not 1800.

There is a current TV program about people paying off their mortgages in 2 years - the problem is that thrift has gone out the window and everyone wants everything.

As for starting from scratch in modern times, yes I have done that also and if you get a really really MEAN attitude it is amazing what you can achieve. Not even a take-away for 18 months let alone going out for a meal. Not going to the pub, buying clothes etc etc and we were able to put a good deposit down on a small house. We had goals not credit cards.

Our greatest achievement was getting and staying debt free - it is so old fashioned that perhaps I should be 90 next birthday and not just 60. By the way, we keep costs down in the winter by living in one room as we cannot afford to heat the whole place - and I am as happy as the days when we could do what we wanted when we wanted.

Mrs Meldrew

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Tessden"]This is so close to home.  This is a topsy turvy world we live in in the U.K. [/quote]

And why do you think this is unique to the UK?

I can assure you the same thing happens in France.  It's just that those who move to France don't tend to mix with these lower HLM-dwelling classes who breed copiously and don't work.   And because those rich Brits in their delightful multi-hectares don't see it, they think it doesn't exist.

  

 

[Debra]

.

[Pip]

Hi Saligobay.  You are quite right it isn't unique to the U.K..  People are people whatever their nationality and there will always be those who give and those who take.

[Pip]

Hi Debra.  Your post hit the nail on the head for young couples today.  The good news is I have just heard from my son and they have decided to look for a home further away from London than they wanted but which they can afford.  His sacrifice will be extra travelling time but this will, hopefully, be compensated with the patter of tiny feet.  Compromise is always the best way to go !

[Debra]

Good luck to him, Tessden.  We always find a way in the end if its what we really want!

[Gardian]

Interesting comments.

With respect to all, I was expressing a concern about the medium term future, rather than the past. Any concerns I have, are likely to come to pass (or not) long after I'm pushing up the daisies. Was, however, very interested in Jond's 3rd para, which seems to make my point.

Back to the original point - what is the ratio of newborns to all the young couples who you know, or know of? I'll bet the average is one or less.

But I do agree with Jond, "Glad I 'm not in charge".

[Tresco]

What's young? LOL

I can't work out the exact ratio (I used to be able to do that kind of thing) but out of my own family there were 9 children, and there are now 19 grandchildren (after two surprise late arrivals) and 5 great grand-children.

You may be glad to know that most of the grown up grand-children are well on their way to being good contributors to your pensions, but it's not quite enough is it?

Other people I know, (UK) two couples with 3 under 6's stand out as very unusual.

[Debra]

.

[Pangur]

France does have a higher birth rate than the UK - in fact it has the highest birth rate in Europe after Ireland.  It also has the highest percentage of women at work in Europe, which is probably connected to the fact that affordable childcare is available, working hours are more regulated than in the UK and families appear to be more valued in French society. According to Eurostat, French women have their first child at 28.4 years, British at 29.7.  French women have 1.9 children on average, compared with the British 1.74.  The replacement rate is 2 - so for today's workers to get their penions, immigration - or more babies - is needed.  The Germans are seriously worried about future tax income as their birth rate is plumeting. German women are putting off having any children as it is extremely difficult to work and have children due in part to the conservative attitudes of many German men towards childcare, compounded by the fact that they don't leave university until their mid twenties, which means by the time you have enough experience under your belt to take the risk of going on maternity leave, your fertility is in serious decline.  This is my experience in the UK as well - although graduates are younger, you are putting your career at serious risk if you conceive before you're 30.  You're seen as not taking your job seriously - and this is friends' experiences across a range of sectors.  I have thirty years of work ahead of me - it's not being materialistic to want to keep my career, it is a necessity. Not making it easier for working women to get pregnant in their twenties also costs the state a lot of money in fertility treatments. IVF then leads to an increased number of premature babies costing more money. Despite our best efforts to ignore the fact, the older you are the harder it is to get pregnant. But I have just one friend who had a baby before 30 and that was an accident. I know if I want kids I need to do it now - but I also need to secure my future first. Is this increased birth rate connected to French women being less ambitious in their careers than British women? Well, the French gender pay gap among full time workers is 12% compared with 22% in the UK and 37% of French managers are women compared with 35% of managers in the UK, so according to the stats, they're doing better at work.   They're also better educated - 84% of French women have completed upper secondary education, compared with just 77% of British women.  There was a very interesting article about "anti-natalism" in the UK, which I think is spot on, having spent my twenties and early thirties in the UK.http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1725350,00.html  There probably is a big rural/urban divide in the birth rate statistics in both countries - and given that many on this forum have moved from urban England to rural France, this might account for a lot of the differences in experience.  The south east of England can be an unforgiving place for families.  Decent childcare is ridiculously expensive and the education system is a total shambles.  Non-British friends flee the south east before their children reach school age while our British friends talk wistfully of the welcome they got as a family on holidays anywhere else in Europe.  The birth rate is one reason for introducing family tax credits and affordable childcare, but another reason for supporting families is that without it, women will never have the same opportunities as men in the workplace.  For women of my age, who want a satisfying career, childcare is the the key issue today.  Happy International Women's Day!

 

 

 

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Pangur"]

Is this increased birth rate connected to French women being less ambitious in their careers than British women?

[/quote]

No, Pangur.  The French govt encourages breeding by offering tax breaks etc. 

And you might want to read in the French press about women's equality in the workplace.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Really interesting post.

... the French gender pay gap among full time workers

is 12% compared with 22% in the UK and 37% of French managers are women

compared with 35% of managers in the UK, so according to the stats,

they're doing better at work.   They're also better educated - 84% of

French women have completed upper secondary education, compared with

just 77% of British women.

I was quite surprised (and gratified - I have daughters) by this. The

picture one often finds painted in France is that women are far worse

off in the workplace and in education than elsewhere in Europe. If you

don't mind me asking, where did these figures come from?

It also has the highest percentage of women at work in

Europe, which is probably connected to the fact that affordable

childcare is available, working hours are more regulated than in the

UK and families appear to be more valued in French society.

The birth rate is one reason for introducing family tax

credits and affordable childcare, but another reason for supporting

families is that without it, women will never have the same

opportunities as men in the workplace.  For women of my age, who want a

satisfying career, childcare is the the key issue today.

As you say. We have a number of female friends who are in or

approaching their 40s who are simply resigned to never having children.

This does not make them happy, but they cannot see any alternative -

they may be successful in their careers, but even so they simply cannot

afford the childcare costs if they are also to be able to afford

housing and life's little luxuries - food and heating, for example.

[Pangur]

Jond, the figures are from Eurostat, which is run by the European Commission so they are as reliable as any statistics can be.http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,1090_33076576&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL (haven't figured out the links yet).    Obviously figures don't tell the whole picture but they are generally a lot more reliable than depending on your own personal experience. 

Saligo, your post is extremely dismissive without offering any real insight.  The quote you've posted is totally out of context - I haven't suggested anywhere that I think this is true and I go on to quote figures suggesting that French women are at least as amibitous as their British counterparts.  In fact, if you re-read my first paragraph, you'll see I agree with you!  On the issue of the press, I do read some of the French broadsheets, along with women's magazines such as Elle and Marie Claire.  I have to say the women's magazines are a pleasant surprise - compare the French edition with the UK editions of these magazines and the articles so much more liberating and diverse that the sex and shopping  and please your man diet of the UK mags.   I'm not pretending to be an expert on French society - if you can give some links about inequality in France, I'd genuinely be interested in knowing more. 

The question originally posed was: should the British government follow the French lead?   I am not for a minute suggesting that France is a bastion of equality.  But in terms of encouraging women to have children, while participating in the workforce, they seem to be on the right track. 

 

 

[Suze01]

On TF1's news this morning there was an item on equality in Government. They showed a league table of European countries with the % of women within Government.  The UK was fairly high up the table with 35% (or was it 37?) but France was way down the bottom of the table with a poor 13%.  There's clearly a large bit of inequality going on there!

[Pangur]

Actually the UK is ranked 50th in the world - with France at a disgraceful 85, narrowly beaten by Azerbaijan[:)] and the US at 69.   The UK is mid league in terms of Europe, not high up...

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm   makes for some interesting reading!