I read a few days ago: My great-grandparents had 12 kids, my grandparents 6, my parents 3, I have 1 and my daughter has a cat (and the cat is castrated).
The fact is, raising children and keeping up with domestic responsibilities, is a full time job on its own. You can’t expect women to have both full time jobs outside of the home and a bunch of babies. As a single mom, I have to work, but I wish I could give all my attention to what matters most.
As a single mum you should know that trusting anybody but yourself is a pure disaster. And no , children don’t need a helicopter mum. Kids of working mothers do better at school, btw. Maybe bc most of working mothers are also ambitious intelligent and well organized.
@@Diashi1267The "traditional family" kept women down, we weren't allowed higher education or the choice to live by ourselves without having a husband, we couldn't have a career, we were dependent on the husband, often trapping women, especially those with children (almost all of them at the time) into abusive marriages.
@@billmartins5545 You have a very cynical view of marriage. Sounds like you’ve drank the feminist koolaide. Well if marriage is a tyranny and single motherhood is a soul sucking grind then I guess you’re just screwed 🤷♂️
@Diashi1267 maybe thank past men who abused that power. Perhaps if men never abused that position, mothers/wives would've felt safe and secure enough to be in that homemaker position.
Late stage Capitalism is overtly anti family. My dad (who was a printer) in the 70s was able to have 2 children, a stay at home wife and a 3 bedroom house in a nice suburb of London on his very working class wage.
Exactly. That's millionaire territory today. Today you need both parents working fulltime jobs, with a heft of savings, and scrimping just to get a tiny gaff. Your life fades away for 25-35 years while you try to "get ahead".. Greed Priced the startup familys out of the market.. too bad, so sad. Better start importing some, dropping them in on welfare.... Oh! Wait....😮
Economists as snake oil men, they have sold endless growth and gdp as the only measuring stick. Our imbeciles in charge have latched onto this as the only signifier for a stable nation. Fools led by fools. The poor were always robbed blind by the rich but since the 70s the target was moved to the middle class. Slowly but surely their wealth was transferred upwards until one day they found they were no better than the poor a few decades prior. On top of that you add feminism and women in the workplace which was all done for economic reasons. Double the workforce and get women to demand to work while decreasing wages in line. None of it is rocket science but myopic dogooders bought it hook line and sinker while the robber barons rubbed their hands in glee nudging women toward their own misery.
Indeed, my Dad was a car mechanic in a London Suburb. He married in 1964 and bought a 4 bed Edwardian house. They had 4 children and my Mum stayed at home. Totally out of reach now. That house is currently worth around £800,000.
The "sheeple" as you call them have never had any REAL say in the matter of the major policies of this country and never will! We vote for a party agreeing broadly with their manifesto then subsequently get a whole host of decisions, policies, laws etc that most people DID NOT sign up for ! If we had referendums on KEY matters the outcome would be quite different I'm sure but that would never be allowed to happen for various reasons. Lord, we can't be allowed to live in an ACTUAL DEMOCRACY - whatever next !🙄😡
No to more mass immigration. We are seeing sectarian politics as a result of immigration. We need to encourage native white people to have children by increasing benefit cap for the minority white race. Immigration should be done on a temporary basis with no guaranteed citizenship on the table. The great replacement is happening.
I always say this,,,,the workers are been over burdened,,,also the elites aren’t paying tax and robbing all the money with the help of government. Where has this £11,000,000,000 (billion) gone to help Africa go green! Rubbish it’s all been robbed by the establishment and the politicians
You were not paying attention when watching the video. All developed countries have low fertility, including the Nordic countries who are generally considered to be happier.
The second question is "Why haven't we seen any pro-natalist policies for natives to encourage higher birth rates?" Instead we have mass immigration exacerbating housing issues and putting natives off having kids... The third question is "Do we even need mass immigration to address the ageing population problem when the immigrants get old (we don't give them 5 or 10 year visas and make them leave) too and that we are in the 4th Industrial Revolution now, robotics and AI is going to make a lot of people unemployed. Do we really want to be bringing millions with no great love and affinity to this nation who are likely to be soon totally disenfranchised and demanding from the state? Who thinks this is actually going to work out? I can explain why/how AI is going to do this, it seems inevitable.
International finance capitalism will never invest in training, robotics or increase pay and conditions if it can just fly in labour. Oligarchs love immigration.
@@chrisohanlon69 agree. Plus we need to look on our nation as OUR ancestral homeland not an economic zone open to the World in the interests of international finance capitalism.
@@chrisohanlon69 we certainly don't need many. The Tories treat the nation like an airport lounge shop. Labour think we are a Global Charity. ReformUK think this is our home.
As a childfree man, who decide early on in life that I would never be counted among the fathers, I will not just approve your comment but thank you for mentioning this point, which is too often overlooked.
@@johnnycarrotheid Divorce has been known to create monster criminals in society. Best not create it. Maybe this is why Religious groups fair better because of the greater difficulty in getting a Divorce 🤔
Ignoring the almost total lack of rights for men when it comes to reproduction / children, and the divorce system which acts as a wealth redistribution arm for the State at the behest of women (exaggerating, but not that much)... I know plenty of men who wanted to be fathers, but never (perhaps that should be 'likely will never') got the chance. Mate selection favours women to a staggering degree, and the average woman between 16-40 will have many many opportunities to reproduce (should she want to) with or without a stable man in her life. The same cannot be said for the average man. Women decide whether children are born - not men. That's not just the law, it's biological reality. If babies aren't being born, it's because women are choosing not to have them.
The irony is that the couples who can least afford it tend to have large families and the ones who are more affluent and better educated decide to have fewer children.
false its in a fecondity curve is U shaped. Poor and crazy make tons of them, middle class make only the kids they can affort meaning less and less. And the very wealthy make a lot of kids too, one famous exemple could be Elon Musk and his 10 kids.
Another reason why endless Economic growth is a spurious Economic Model. In Australia it is becoming so expensive to live that many young people cannot afford too many children. Poor Economic management by Economists and Politicians.
Dear friend, the problem isnt about economic growth, its when all this growth goes only in the pocket of few people instead of the pocket of people, working people and citizen who are the heart of the nations. Its about the rise of inequality that are at their heighest level of the last 100 years. The people are being starved by their elite, that what led to the world war and that lead to extremism nowdays. People having less kids is a symptome of that.
@@ltgdr6298 Yes, economic growth IS a problem. That it all goes in a few pockets is typical of late stage capitalism. but Wherever the benefits land, growth is still destructive to the way of life of everybody else and the Earth.
@@chriswatson1698 Your are repeting yourself, instead of repeting yourself maybe you could explain how is that growth bad, and include into your response the fact that most of the growth isnt real wealth growth but money print and money devaluation. No if they where taxes on the wealthy that have make a tons of money detroying the planet and ripping of the middle classe to actually give it back in a way or another to the middle class people would've a much better life. Or not even taxing the rich but redirecting all this money printing and money creation that devalue the money in the actual pocket of the people and not only a tiny elite. Again our growth measured isnt real growth its just money printing and money devaluation. That why the middle classe is DYING, they are being paid in dollars but arent told that they are being paid in is being devalued WAY FASTER than their salary increase.
The issue is that young people are being told ' have kids, work longer, because thats good for the country..... its good for poliiticians and the wealthy that own the land, industries and natural resources, to have lots of ' labour' to exploit.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6giWork longer and “hustle” is definitely a message out there, but they are certainly not currently told to have kids by any media, institution, education or anything else. It’s beyond off the priority list in social messaging in the mainstream. But I agree that no one is giving anyone a meaningful message to do virtually anything, aside from some vague cultural murmur like: feed the GDP, or help the economy, feed your hedonism” or something similarly dead and devoid like that. It’s a dead culture honestly, things are just catching up to that state in reality.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6gi Who suggested that what you have raised in your comment is the answer ? Having Children is a natural human instinct. Selfish me, me , me, Materialist me, me. me Hedonistic me me me who is unable to commit to anything apart from themselves is a destructive instinct; family is the microcosm of society. That is why malevolent forces have gone full on attack of the family institution. We are living in unique times of the cult of self annihilation, via contraception, abortion and assisted suicide. All you have done is point out a problem, which we will have in any area of human existence, so why not wipe out human existence, then you won't have to worry about life's problems or you can drown out the problems with the drug of rampant materialism.
True and we need the upper classes of society to want to breed up because they have stopped doing so but they wont because of the kind of World we now live in.
My mum and dad had a family but no house for 5 years. They lived with their parents. We can all make excuses just depends how bad you want something. Your holiday abroad twice a year or a family.
@paulmetcalfe4054 The big difference is that previous generations could eventually afford to buy a house, whereas plenty of millenials and Gen Z will never be able to afford property. Secondly, your parents had family who could take you in. Plenty of people are not in their position.
@@paulmetcalfe4054Your parents were living at a time when the ratio of house prices to income were likely around 3 times income whereas in the UK it varies between around 8 and 14 depending upon where you are! To save for a mortgage deposit nowadays could take you through to middle age! Also how many wives would be prepared to live with their mother's in law for decades!
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559while many could eventually buy a house a whole strata never could and relied on council housing which is like unicorn anything now
Dr Paul Morland says that immigrants in turn have small families... Absolutely the opposite to what is happening. I live in Tower Hamlets and the average immigrant family (mostly one demographic) has 4-5 children.
So you've decided that your small sample size anecdotal data is more accurate than Morland's researched data of the whole country.....such confidence you have.
@@kalebdaark100 what the data says is that the immigrants *eventually* have as many children as the natives, which only happens after a couple generations
@@AllanHinde-mb2pri don't want to be harsh, but it will be so, to what you said, how do we do that? there is no new land to flee to so we can't make a new country, we have had 40 years of training to sit on our hands, our whole media/political/law systems are against us, we been pushed to the brake down community cohesion, have smaller families ect, We have no way to organise in any amount of meaningful numbers. You can easily get 100-1000 plus but they just get branded extremists. Living at the end of an empire is not as fun as the romans made out.
I am 57, I had 3 kids then adopted 2 more. So I have 5. What they are all facing now is that, even though they all would love to have at least 3 kids each, they cannot. They can’t for a simple reason: housing. There is no way they can afford a home, with all their effort, their university diplomas, they can just afford a “studio”, that is, a non-bedroom “apartment”. As housing is now something people invest in, they expect 30-80% return. This “return” is pushed onto renters and buyers… so now we have a young generation that cannot afford to rent nor buy their first home. How can they have or adopt kids? They just can’t!
You sound like a great parent. Can you help? In my country (Australia) it's quite normal for couples to live with parents until their circumstances improve. After all they only need space for a double bed and a cot. We have the same problem with unaffordable housing. I was a landlord for a few years after my mother died. Many just want enough rent to cover the mortgage. So it's the cost of housing that pushes up the price, not the other way around. And it's immigration pushing the price up.
PS It is possible to have one baby, or at least get married in a studio flat. Our ancestors lived in worse. You just need to be creative with your furnishing. I live near what was a motel and is now studio flats. Young couples often have their first child there.
We have the buy to let people to thank for this, often Boomers who funnily enough expect me to pay for their full state pension when they gauge rent prices that I'm dependent on because they bought all the houses by generation (Millennials) need to live in. F em all. I will do nothing for the over 65.
@@billmartins5545 Well atleast they are your own boomers. In my country it's foreigners buying them. My parents were boomers, they didn't have it easy to begin with either. I don't remember but they started off in a tiny caravan but it rotted. Then we lived with one of my grandmothers. Then we lived in a 10x10 foot shed. My mum was having another baby so we moved into a house. But the house only had one bedroom and only one power point in the whole house, no bathroom and the toilet was at the end of the yard. After a while there we could finally afford a house. How many caravans and sheds have you raised kids in lately?
@@grannyannie2948 I wouldn't say it's immigration. Look at where you Aussies live. That's basically five cities and Perth, all the while you have largely empty Outback, that could have been populated, if people could work from home as policy. So I'd look more into labor and housing construction laws.
It isn't just economic issues. I am in my 50s, live in London, and took the decision not to have a family many years ago. I did not want to bring up children in what has become a violent cosmopolis, where Christian values and English cultural history is under continual attack.
My friend, I'm 54, I come from the East End, I took the same decision in my mid 20's. I saw that the world that I grew up in, Aunts Uncles around the corner, my beautiful Mum and Dad together forever, I knew everyone around my area. Families had grown up together for generations. Our homes were clean ,my Nan and Mum kept beautiful clean homes, cooked beautiful food, and we were loved ! My Mum and Dad didn't aspire to have a big shiny car or a conservatory! Good food on the table and a clean bed were more important. I saw this world dying infront of me. I saw my area turn into a third world dump, and those in power advocate the trashing of all that we were. I knew then that this situation was going to be rolled out. It was the new direction of travel. I got vilified for taking this stance. How wrong was I ? My beautiful Wife felt the same way thankfully. We have children in our family, we adore them. We fear for them. We know what's coming. And it ain't good !!!!!!
"The material thing" may seem irrelevant to you, big man. But if you are working 12-hour shifts for companies like Amazon, where you have to relieve yourself in a bottle and then pay high costs in rent for a small apartment and so on, it only seems logical that having kids is going to be way down on your list of priorities. That kind of stress wears people out and dampens the desire to get it on. Indeed, if working conditions aren't compatible with family life and our economic overlords want to squeeze as much out of their workers as possible, I doubt the population decline will stop soon. It amazes me that the top 1% of the population that complain about the majority of the population not having kids don't actually see that they are coming across like the old slave masters who complained about their slaves not breeding. Would any sane person want to bring a child into the world knowing they'd be little more than wage slaves/serfs for their tech overlords? Besides, if it's such a big problem, why not go out and start having loads of kids yourself, big man. Just do what Genghis Khan did, if you know what I mean. If you don't want to do that, then pay people to have kids just like you pay them to clean windows, go down into sewers and fly planes. People respond to the economic incentives in front of them; clearly, there aren't enough economic incentives to have kids.
Blame the building societies. They started to take husbands' and wives' incomes into account when making loans. This was in the 1960s. House prices doubled. Then it took two incomes to buy a family sized home.
I'm Australian and I've been saying this for years. Feminism tripled the tax payers, mum, dad and the babysitter. Doubled the cost of housing. And reduced wages without decreasing consumerism. The upper echelon loved it. By the 1990s they'd got as many women out to work that they ever would. But they discovered that mass immigration had the same effect.
@@grannyannie2948Mary Harrington - author of Feminism against Progress - made very similar points in her interview with Peter W last year. You can pin an awful lot of blame for things that have gone wrong in society on the gynocentric push to get as many women out of homes, and rearing their children instead of working.
@@EE12CSVT I have watched Mary several times. But I've been making this point for a very long time. I also like her friend Louise Perry who argues the sexual revolution was bad for women.
The ONS back in 2001, before it had been completely infested with blair cronies did a series of articles on 'replacement immigration' and strongly advised AGAINST mass immigration, & concluded a small improvement in birth rates would yield a similar improvement to dependency ratios, and, more importantly, be stable, whereas high immigration just delivers a bigger problem down the line.
Mass migration is easier to increase and is far more appealing to progressives for electoral and moral reasons. Increasing fertility rates of the indigenous population takes decades, whereas increasing immigration can be done in only a few years.
As an ancient postwar child who chose not to have children, it was still a joy being a ‘favourite uncle’ who, of course, ignored parents and dished out copious quantities of icecream, seaside rock and all the ‘wrong’ things that made children happy. That was MY choice. What is NOT MY CHOICE is the dishing out of largesse from my taxes (yes!! I’m still paying tax!!) to non-indigenous arrivals on our shores who continue to absorb more and more child benefit by having more and more children. This is not a flippant comment, just come to my town of Bolton on any weekday and walk around or travel on the bus - it’s simply out of control, since the non indigenous aren’t working they also obtain many other benefits. 👍🇬🇧👍🇮🇱👍🇬🇧👍🇮🇱👍🇬🇧👍
Similar, but from the Antipodes. My partner considered marriage to be old-fashioned, until it was too late to have children. My brother and sister-in-law could not afford school fees for three children - despite his being a high achiever - and had to stop at two. I suspect that this still gnaws at them.
Yeah, deciding not to have kids wasn't the good option, no matter how you try to twist it. Not going to let older people encourage youth even further down this path.
The simple dependency ratio they obsess over is overstated in importance What matters is not only 1) are the 18-65, but also 2) are they actually working (most muslim women do not) & 3) does the tax they generate actually exceed the spending they consume Benefits paid to those of below retirement age are actually increasing faster than pensioner benefits now. Additionally, despite the higher number of over 65s, over 65 NHS spending has been flat since the 1980s, at about 2/5thsof all spending throughout. Then there are all the costs that fall....education costs, policing costs, maternity costs.
@@Nick-io9ukThe sale of our business on retirement generated huge tax burden. Despite paying NI for fifty years we do not benefit from the same pension as those born after 1953. Our private pension did not generate the amount projected, and the small amount we do receive is taxed, leaving total annual income below £15K. We never claim benefits and stay independent.
Israel's high fertility rate is for the most part attributable to the ultra-orthodox community where families with six or more children are the norm rather than the exception. There's also a very high birth rate in the Palestinian territories. In a documentary about Gaza filmed a few years ago, one man was proud to say he had fathered 40 children with three wives, 22 boys and 18 girls.
Were I younger( i am 73) I would not stay in this country. The future will be constant fighting and tension between Islam/ the far left and Everyone else. Demographics plus immigration suggest the Islamists will be a very strong force and will have strong influence in parliament
I feel I could probably write an essay on reasons why women had few, if any children in the past thirty years, not that I really want to, but that have not really been explored by the two men in this otherwise interesting talk. Hmm, might start a few notes. Writing from a New Zealand perspective, I can see how our specific situation saw the decline in birth rates clearly. These include from my own perpective, time and place in a rapidly changing NZ society of the era: Cultural: Sexual revolution from late sixties changed society for us compared with the quite different lives of our parents, making life new and with no model of what was to come, putting a different, almost enforced pressure that young women from the late 1970s on must absolutely not consider staying at home to be a home maker, even if many of us would really have preferred that life. That was very much part of the zeitgeist for my era of hitting child bearing age in mid 80s/90s. Contraception availability - which was welcome, of course, also the lack of a dating culture which changed from the formal, preferable dating scene of that of our parents and resulted for us in poor partnerships, broken relationships, fewer children. Neoliberalism - experienced in NZ very sharply, suddenly and horiffically compared to most of the rest of the world meant removing the option pretty much entirely of being a stay at home mother, and absolute societal rebuffing if one found oneself a single parent even for a short period. Neoliberalism in NZ from 1991, our absolute worst year, was almost akin to Stalinist level anti-family policies. Absolutely no parental leave compared with Europe until decades later. I personally knew no women who were home makers, mums at home on a permanent basis. A few weeks, months, maybe a year. Luckily for me I worked only part time from after the first year, wanting to be the best parent I could for my one child and part time working mothers were generally said to be the best option for the child, but that may have been social conditioning forced upon us, as well. Zilch child friendly work/govt policies, expensive childcare. Child friendly govt and work policies only started to improve from mid 2000s in NZ. And of course, absolutely lack of affordability; the low wage economy that was deliberately, intentionally created by govt policies from 1984 onwards in NZ. Once the top quality of living standards in the world up to the 1960s, NZ regressed way below that of the OECD thereafter, and still languishes near the bottom, today. So, yeah, absolute social conditioning stemming majorly from govt policies really made the worst impact over the past few decades, at least in NZ, although improved in the recent decade and a half. I wonder if all of the above contributed to our, at the period through the 1990s, of such horrific child abuse in our country. No excuse of course, but the societal breakdown was definitely implanted by successive govt policies of the period. Reflecting back, I feel robbed of having had no societal option to have had the extremely important role of being a long term, stay at home Mum. And our society and future is the poorer for it
Good comment. I think it can be boiled down to the female vote liberalizing politics which has shifted the Overton window so far left that even talking about immigration is taboo.. Everything else seems to be a byproduct of that transition. Women represent the largest voting block so largely in control.
Hello from across the pond in Oz. I'm probably older, but I was a stay at home mum. In the 1980s they introduced a payment to married women to stay home to raise their own children. But inflation has destroyed it. $20 a week barely buys bread and butter these days. Apparently the government says women prefer subsidised daycare. As I see it the elites benifited immensely from feminism. It tripled the tax base, mum, dad and the babysitter. It doubled the cost of housing and the rich have real estate portfolios. And it reduced wages without decreasing consumerism. By the 90s they'd dragged every mother out to work. And then the realised they could replicate it every year with immigration.
The problem is no one is looking to turn of the tap of indefinite leave to remain and citizenship after just 5 years which is why everyone coming legally or illegally. U.K. sitting on a ticking time bomb as all 3 million who arrived since 2019 will be given citizenship - there is no way the demographics of the U.K. will survive this because numbers higher than in last 1000 years and their birth rates higher so it’s all over unless someone wakes up and changes the laws Temporary work visas only- they will still come but will never get citizenship- this will take pressure of housing etc and support locals to give birth
I saw this comin downstream about 20 years ago. 13 years ago, I figured a big country with low population, sunny weather, not in the EU, english speaking, tough immigration policy. Here I am today, in australia, and a citizen. Can't blow in here- u get sent offshore forva decade or more.
Immigration is just the latest scam in a long line of scams by economists and politicians. At first it was getting women into the workplace, doubling the workforce overnight and halving wages at the same time. Then they wanted more bodies for the grinder so they import as many as will come. Demographic change, societal collapse and all other consequences are of absolutely no concern to any of them. Just gdp line go up.
We should stop giving away our citizenship for free. We should adopt the old Roman model. All newcomers should work in the NHS, police, army etc. for 25 years, with no criminal record, no disloyalty to the nation. Then by all means give them free citizenship without the paperwork. People that come here to marry someone or refugees should just get visas specifically linked to those issues with no automatic right to ILR or citizenship.
Why is it that voting for the likes of Trump is a "backlash"? Why can it not just be that he, and those like him, represent the wishes of a lot of people? Just how many more countries need to vote rightwards, and their right of centre populist (that is to say, popular) politicians grow hugely in support, for them to stop being referred to as "a backlash"?
The word 'backlash' is a derogatory control word often used by socialists. It is not as damaging as the outcome of the phrase 'trash and burn', which socialists often resort to when they try to get what they want.
Agreed. We shall not play on our enemies terms and seek truth first and foremost. That is why one cannot be a nice idealist liberal. Instead if one wants freedom then be a freedom fighter who can name his enemies and knows what banner to put on the flag unashamedly. That s Orban that is Trump.
My parents wanted me to go straight from highschool to university. Instead I married young and delayed university until my kids were in primary school. I encouraged my daughters to delay university until they had babies. Really universities are very baby/child friendly. People live so long now delaying a career makes sense. This is alternative young women should be offered.
@@grannyannie2948 Nope. Media isn't telling women to hate family building. The more educated you are, the more you do cheques and balances of what is required to have a family. I don't want to spend millions of dollars on my education, then get employed, get married and work 3 jobs (1 job is raising your kids, 1 job is sustaining your relationship with your husband and the other job is your actual career)
@@grannyannie2948What if your partner split up before you finished education? No offence, the main issue is women take all the risks regarding kids. You are out of the workforce and education cycle which puts you behind for investing and saving for retirement, gaining work experience and more - in some fields it’s fine and in others it can be a real challenge. Glad it worked for you but it is risky currently.
@@Coastpsych_fi99 I disagree, now and even then, men were at more risk in marriage than are women. Here in Australia, had my husband wanted a divorce, the government would have paid for my, and my children's necessities. Or I could have got a job, or I could have began study, in which case the government would have paid for childcare, enough for my children and I to survive plus additional money to cover textbooks etc. As for retirement money the courts consider this when dividing assets. So women don't have much to worry about. If women in your country are forced to accept unplanned childlessness, due to these issues, feminists should be talking to politicians about ending these problems.
I believe that Social and economic depression and also overwhelming forced demographic change imposed on us by successive governments has reduced the economic and social viability of having larger families in the UK.
Whenever I'm out and I see people with their kids they're always crying and running around, and the parents look so stressed out and miserable! I decided a long time ago I don't want to live like that.
The maddest statistic of all is that the US, the original 'nation of immigrants', has 21% of births to a foreign born mother. The UK, historically a nation of emigrants, has 31% of births to a foreign mother, ie 50% higher than the US. The most incredible thing about all this is that the UK, despite having literal third world,developing country levels of explosive population growth these last few years still has a stagnant economy, even underperforming nations like Japan or Italy.
One reason that we import doctors from places like Ghana (etc.) is that we've degraded status, wages, and working conditions of doctors, scientists, academics, (etc.) in real terms, to the point where young people are no longer attracted to joining those professions. We need to make essential professions attractive again.
Circular argument, we imported doctors as it's cheaper to the government than training the amount we need. These foreign doctors drive down wages and quality of life in the first place.
And yes as a scientist we pay almost the same for a starting scientist as I was 20 years ago, that wasn't a good wage then. It's worse now but we can use cheep foreign labour to fill the positions.
@@RogerS1978 Having analysed our pay relative the the Consumer Price Index, I found that my pay had actually dropped by 40% compared to what it would buy in 1995. The even more astonishing thing was that in 2022, our council was recruiting waste collection drivers, and offering them slightly more than I was getting as a principal scientist! No wonder that scientists, particularly early in their careers (when they're on 2- or 3-year contracts) aren't a viable prospect for a woman who wants to settle down and start a family.
There are many facets to this discussion Women in the workplace = less opportunities for men = less money for men = less married women = less early formed families = less children Add in Central banks creating inflation making life even more expensive and all of the above issues become greater problems... Families matter, housing matters, cost of living matters. Women that want families but NEED to work to maintain their standard of living (or luxury) CANNOT have families early and thus less children. Economics is a major cause of demographic ills. So what is the core problem that creates economic stress? Inflation of course or the Cost ofLiving.... but how is it caused? The Central banking monetary system creates inflation via money printing. It destroys families by impoverishing them. It creates immigration as a short term sugar for fixing demographics. End the central banks and create wealth for the masses!
Women going into the workforce in numbers made labour cheap. Wages go down. Prices go up. Now we have mass migration and more inflation. This system is failing.
W0men were good to enter the workforce HOWEVER.... as you said prices are up and I think that is due to a political reasons. W0m*en were given the right to vote ❎and THAT caused housing and migrant inflation to no longer be regulated.
Near the beginning of this interview, the ratio of workers to the retired was quoted. I find that to be dishonest. What should have been quoted was the ratio of workers to ALL dependents, including citizens who are too young to be workers and the adults who care for people who are too young to be workers. Also the unemployed and the disabled.
Therein lies the problem. So many decent working people cannot earn enough money to afford a decent home and provide an average living standard. Migrants on the hand have many children knowing full well all their needs will be met by our taxpayers no questions asked. Any kickback from the tax payer is dismissed with screams of racism.
It may be time to focus on your men. A study was done on male and female lottery winners. It found winning made men much more likely to marry than women it also decreased divorce rates. Men would use new found resources to build families, whereas women would use said resources to exit families. Right now the majority of university graduates are women. Women under 30 are out earning their male equivalents, and marriage rates are at all-time lows. People are leaving it very late to form relationships, this is especially bad for women whose fertility takes a nose dive after 35. (Note that when you break down the fall in birthrate the greatest fall is from women under 25. For women over 30 it has increased) Women naturally prefer to pair with men who are more successful and confident than themselves. Focus on your men, find ways for them to succeed. Families will naturally form.
No. Women will abandon those “successful” men if they treat them badly. And they do. I mean they treat them as their fathers treated their mothers. That’s why males with money want to marry and women want to divorce. Bc males want a family as the one they were raised in, and women say - over my dead body. Funny how you don’t see it and your only solution is to make women weaker more miserable and dependent on men. I guess - if not money - avarage man has nothing to offer. He wants money so he can home where everything is already done, eat a meal, watch tv and then a quick fuck and off to sleep. Wife should be happy with his gold credit card 😂😂😂. Sorry, actually women are not so greedy and most of us prefers small apartment with a nice cat than a big house with sth like you inside. Deal with it, honey.
Worth mentioning that relationships between men and women has also descended into utter chaos since the rise of social media and online dating. People don't want to enter seriously into long term relationships and a lot only seem to have children by accident, if at all which makes them more unloved than in previous generations where children were properly planned for. Either the man or woman (both, even) sleeps around which results in divorce and ultimately single parent families. We know how damaging it often is for children growing up with only one parental influence. Add into this mix the fact that people now largely want to date purely on looks and not personality (thanks mainly to people living a life online in pictures and adverts), and you end up with a generation of people with completely miserable lives.
Part of the problem of you pointing out this synopsis on dating is that there is going to be an immediate rebuttal by (i.e. the man in this video) --- that rebuttal being that the OTHER countries with old classic dating conditions, have also a reduced birth rate. That being said I 100% agree with you and sadly Statistician will fixate on external comparison not so much the unique western-world 'social-cultural' reasons which makes our replacement rate the smallest. If indeed dating is this difficult then the meaning of life will deteriorate for the average man who is not a hermit or self-motivated (some men are odd in that they are sexually indifferent and so a quest for a committed women is just additive but not necessary).
@@NPC-bs3pm I get what you're saying, but I don't really buy the fact that other countries that have a low birth rate have "classic dating conditions". If you look at all the countries with poor birth rates, they all have free and open access to the internet and ultimately use it in a very similar way to the West. I don't see how their problems are any different to ours, in that regard. The exceptions to this, of course, are the two countries who's birth rate is currently highest: India and China. One has unlimited access to the internet the same as the West, the other has heavily controlled access. Maybe the answer to a stagnating population is rapid industrial growth which (I believe, at any rate) triggered the skyrocketing population in these countries, similar to what happened in Victorian England.
Its so common sense. More jobs, more productivity, safer cohesive societies, better wages, happier people, more children will follow in this current world. But hosing is unaffordable, no job security, dangerous environments, woke curriculums, turns people off building relationships, starting families, interest or incentive in working at all. No taxpayers= no tax= no welfare.
Promoting children should come together with promoting and incentivising stable 2-parent families, with steady income and a large support network of grandparents, friends and church/community. Being a non-believer myself, I feel jealous about the community that churches offer, but I just can't force myself to listen to all the drivel about non-existent prophets and celestial intelligence. We should be realists, and realists must realise that we need to support monogamy and a community support network to allow people to procreate
Voddie Bauchim talks about three steps of brainwashing, the second of which is "Jamming". This step is characterized as massive social pressure to endlessly qualify every statement you make that is counter to The Narrative. "I'm not saying go back to the 50's, I'm not against women in the workplace, I'm not saying I'm anti-feminist" you say over and over again, until you forget to take your own side, and you ultimately say "I don't have the answers". Recognize what has happened to your mind. Reject it. Avoid situations where people continue to affect your mind this way. Hold fast to the truth. Say what you have to say, without qualification. Do not fear to embrace solutions from the past, they worked.
@@HairExplosion No kidding. Don't they know how pathetic they sound? "I'm rejecting every solution we've ever had, so I don't have any solutions". Yeah, I wonder how that happened. Yeesh.
A child is two dependents: the child himself and the adult who must care for, or teach him. An ageing population is a matter of supporting the elderly, instead of babies and their mothers.
Ythe thing that the author misses about the low birthrate is not that Japan's population will go back to 100 million and there will be one worker per retiree, but that the population of children will drop by 90%. Which means a long turm population of Japan will be 14 million. In South Korea the population of babie will drop by 95% in 3 generation.
Spain is looking at having its native Spanish population within 1 generation. Within 5 generations, native Spanish population will drop from 42 million to 1.3 million.
Something I noticed in the workplace over many years is people complaining their taxes being spent on other people's children and how the Governments keep allowing so many people in from other Countries. I always ask these people how many children do you yourself have? And almost invariably the answer is Zero!
Something I noticed in the 2000's when I started working, was the 16hr single parents being better off financially then their managers in their 16hr a week jobs.
Excluding women from the workplace is downright stupid. It helps countries, families and individuals for women to play a part in it, even if they choose to stay at home to raise children. Unless they're very wealthy, a family that relies entirely on one person's income to survive is putting itself at greater risk than a two-income household, in the event that that one person's earning capacity is compromised, through illness, injury or death.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 Nobody suggested excluding women from the workplace, that's government terrorism. I would also never suggest that women don't work. Just that the fetish for getting women to pay taxes is bad for everyone. Women have always worked, just for their personal relationships, with the payment being love. "in the event that that one person's earning capacity is compromised" This is actually not a significant risk in life, certainly not something you should design your life around. A man can easily get life/income insurance to guard against it. Having the woman work for a boss instead of her family means she must abandon her children. But raising children is deeply personal and cannot be replaced by hiring someone. Imagine the husband hiring a stranger to celebrate his 20 year wedding aniversary because he's busy with his career. Surely he can make more money than the cost of hiring someone? There's more to life than a paycheck. Fundamentally the drive of women into employment is about the communist war against civilization.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 I agree with you. I'll add the fact that I think people forget that the housing market is related to the perceived auction competition from the addition of women in the workforce, HOWEVER that being said women contribute LABOUR HOURS that are additive, and not reductive to our standards of modern living. If the markets were aligned properly people would realize we are wealthier than the past.
think peculiar things like the cladding crisis have also played a factor, following the dreadful fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017. Many other tower blocks were found to have similar cladding problems, which now needs removing, but there have been multiple rows about who should pay for the work. Thousands of responsible young people, for whom the flat was their first step on the property ladder, found themselves with a bill of more than a years wage. Meanwhile, their flat is unsaleable and many go to bed worried about another fire. Often, there are fire wardens now on duty every night. Not only can these young adults not afford a family, but who would want a baby in a place at risk of fire?
Also what about the greedy and wilful ignorance of those who allowed the cladding to save a meer 5000quid.. correct me if this is wrong. The court cases to suppress the people pointing out the danger. 6 years before there was a fire in Camberwell with same cladding. The coroner expressed concern. 2 adults and 4 beautiful children died in that fire...yet the system allows it to horrendously happen again
People have replaced children with household pets. Dogs and cats now are the children. It is bizarre how pets are treated. If you ever see people out and about, and not cloistered with a screen, it is with their dogs.
They can also direct their parental instincts toward those poor migrants. It trips their compassion, empathy / sympathy instincts, without the safety of their own children to consider.
What? 😂🤣 the most likely to think ‘oh, poor immigrants’ are the religious types who love refugees and want more vulnerable people to join their religion.
I have 4 dogs, they are most definitely not child replacements. My dad was a police dog handler , I grew up round dogs, I like them. Even as a child, i didn't like children.
Immigration always crowds out indigenous family formation in a developed economy that has no space to expand into (land) or resources that require exploitation (UK doesn’t have these in any measure that could not be exploited by the indigenous workforce: see coal mines). Young indigenous as far back as the 70s started to make rational economic and social decisions when they saw the beginning of resources being redirected to immigrants over the indigenous. This carried on at a steady rate until the 90s when it accelerated vastly under the Blair “rub their noses in diversity” project got going. And so here we are.
Handmaiden’s Tale is completely relevant as young women are used for their fertility by the wealthy when they themselves cannot afford to have her own child.
It’s economic for me. The majority of my 9-5 wage (university graduate) goes to housing, food, heating, etc. and I can’t see it getting to much better later on. I think housing is a huge thing, it’s easily most of my wage to keep a roof over my head.
@@evolassunglasses4673 Women are driven out of the home into the work place far more in Socialist/Communist countries that Capitalist ones. In fact, the Soviet Union carefully manipulated the pay of higher earning jobs in order to make it impossible for single earning households to exist, thus forcing women out into factories and wage-slavery. Both system's goals are the same; the destruction of the family unit, but imo the socialist system was far more effective.
Japan doesnt have much feminism, and still has a horrible birth rate, i think. Its irreligiousity. the only western populations with good birth rates are 1)israelis, 2) the amish 3) the mormons.
Many people leave it until they are over 30 yrs old when fertility is already declining. This also means that you only have energy for 1-2 kids. Some at this age fail to get pregnant. Therefore the average birth rate is below 2.
My preferred strategy would be to give women who have already had kids free university tuition. The problem now is not teenage mothers, its women (and men) in their late 30s & 40s whose aged seeds and eggs are simply not as virile as they were a decade earlier. See Ed Dutton and his commentary on spiteful mutants. Instead of career first, then kids, it should be kids first, then career. Even employers would probably like it as there is no maternity leave & care to worry about.
As long as you are married, you do not pay the tuition fees. As soon as a divorce happens or scam is revealed the person will pay tuition + 20%. Reasoning is simple: #1 you do NOT want to have fatherless homes due to the massive crime correlation there in. #2 You may have exploiters of the free tuition system, so my marriage rules would safe-guard against it.
And then enter the workforce decades behind the men who got to start in their teens and twenties? Get significantly fewer years in the field and paying into her own retirement and social security? And the men will just magically transition to helping with domestic duties when she starts school? It's just creating even more risks to weigh against each other. The solutions are going to involve mitigating risks not creating more. Free tuition just makes sure you don't have debt, it doesn't cover the opportunity costs of starting a career on time. And fuck, what if the kid becomes disabled and needs full time care forever? Does she just get a check?
@@ss-ds2dn That is true what you say. The way I would put it is that it is a option to increase population by a bit Early career experience indeed may be a big factor to consider as you mentioned. The parents that have the situation of "the kid become disabled...." THAT is a negative situation for ANY time in life. If you fixate on the older years🎲 - that is on you as a choice.
@@NPC-bs3pm yeah I'm aware that that's a negative at any time. The point is what is to be done for her if she only delayed her education/career to have kids with the promise of future opportunities that are now likely impossible without more help? Will she be provided with round the clock help? She did her part of the deal, so what are the new criteria for getting what was promised? The problem has always been that society depended on keeping women ignorant. You can't half-ass patriarchy. It's either full oppression or full egalitarian. And that involves conferring prosperity and status onto motherhood itself. But if men were able to do that it would have been done already
Because more than 80% of the women are attracted to and want babies with less than 20% of the men, and men-women relationships have been liberalised to allow for and encourage that. Single women without children past the age of 40 were deluded enough they could date one of the top 20% of men, turning down dozens of half-decent men in their younger years. The wine business is something to invest in.
Complaining about this is futile, if not idiotic. There is now way you will get rid of the dating market and go back to arranged marriage. This is what the West is all about: freedom to choose you partners, freedom to not start a family if you don’t want to start one, either because you want no kids or because you are a woman and you will not compromise into accepting an inferior partner. Make no mistake: the men that you call “half-decent” _are_ inferior.
@@mrror8933 Hypergamy is not something that you can either defend or attack. It is a fact of life, as immutable as the earth orbiting the sun. Better get used to the _fact_ that women are fundamentally right when they find out which men have value and which men don’t - not _decide,_ mind you: _find out:_ the decision to reject or neglect comes after the finding out. Once you realise that, you must then admit that you have no right to be ordinary, because ordinary is synonymous with mediocre. Every man who wants to be considered dating material by at least a woman should find his own path to excellence. You should know your sh.t, whatever the sh.t is, as there is an infinity of variations to the stuff. There is another possibility, of course: know you’re sh.t. And complain about how all women in the world are unfair bitches, along with all the redpillers and blackpillers howling on the Internet.
@@cordfortina9073 Anyone who's has to ask with some anger what "inferior" means probably belongs to this category. Look up in the mirror: there's a good chance that this is the place where you find out what I mean by "inferior". Nobody is actively pushing anyone out of the dating market. What really happens is that the dating market in the West is the most liberal of all markets, the most free from any sort of tampering. Precisely because governments or other vested interests do not interfere with it: that would be socialism. It being the most liberal of all markets, it is also the fairest of all market, by construction.
"We're not going back to the 50's or the 80's" And here's where you give the game away. The 80's went back to the 50's. There's no reason the 20's and 30's can't go back to the 80's, except all the whiners saying "can't be done, can't be done". It's pathetic.
Only 5 minutes in but it seems that concern about pensions and providing care for the elderly is the driving factor for this fear about population decline. I don't buy it. This seems more to be another dangerous consequence of too much dependency on the state. I for one welcome a reduction in population. UK is overpopulated as it is. Bursting at the seams.
We've been under replacement for 30 years. Have you seen a population reduction? You aren't going to get one just because middle-class white women aren't having kids. You're just going to get one growing rapidly made up of people from cultures which really don't care much for people outside of their own group.
People will always want to settle into the UK so we'll never run out of younger people. Immigrants breed more enthusiastically, given that these mainly come from the third world. With Brexit we have cut ourselves off from immigration from countries much more compatible with British culture, so the number of immigrants from the third world will continue to grow exponentially. The problem is that the indigenous population wants to have their cake and eat it: new cars ever 3-4 years, holidays abroad twice a year or more, large new houses, etc. You can't change people's attitudes. Essentially, feminism has killed off the family - this is the REAL reason why fertility has dropped. Until the late 1970s people used to marry young and have a lot of children, but now women are simply not interested in marriage. Women nowadays want a career, multiple sexual experiences and 'freedom' (whatever that means). This is unlikely to change, barring a violent revolution.
Mothers are penniless. A married woman has no legal right to the income that her child's father earns because he doesn't do his share of the child care. Motherhood has always been a crap deal.
While thats happening, thats not really Brexit. Ireland saw a greater reduction in its 'born in EU8' population between its 2016 and 2021 census than did the UK, and also saw a proportionally greater increase in born in India people. Norway, Italy, Denmark also seeing EU8 numbers actually reducing. its more a statement of the better wages out east compared to 10,20 years ago and worse wages in western europe than anything else. Many went home during Covid & saw the Poland of 2020 was nothing like the Poland of 2005. The simple fact is that there really arent that many poor europeans who want to move anymore. The dash to allow in as many Ukrainians as possible was probably a last gasp to attract as many young europeans as possible. The vast majority of immigration from hereon in, perhaps all of it, net, will be from outside europe whether inside the EU or out. The next major movement of white people will likely be AWAY from decaying western european countries.
Some of it is development and comfort… but most of it is how much we work for so little. My wife and I are 29, we spend very little. One 32k job wasn’t enough to cover expenses so my partner got a part time one too. Cost of living is through the roof, we waste billions on new arrivals that attack us in the street, and inflation. So we try to save each month and children get further away as each set back hurts savings. Your landlord sells so now you need a moving lorry, your employer goes under, you’re fired for wrong think or speech. Can just never get out of the ditch at the speed the government can dig it deeper. Whites want kids…. We struggle to have them.
I’m unable to have kids and it’s devastating. I can’t believe people are choosing not to have them these days. I’m expecting to see a lot of people shouldering a heavy burden of regret in the years to come.
If you don't have a secure place to live and support network it is near impossible to have children. Why have children to leave them in a nursery while you work 2 or 3 jobs? Where's quality of life. Fact is many people have seen their parents struggle with no support so why repeat that
That depends on if people want them. If they do and don't have them, then like you it will ve very sad. However there are loads of people for whom it's fine. I'm 60, o just don't like children, it's no regret at all. Interestingly I have 5 close friends, all with children. 3 of them if they had their time over would not do so again.
For a demographer he seems very ignorant of the simple reason why the replacement rate is 2.1 and not 2. It is not infant mortality. Mortality can strike at any age and thus is not factored in It is the fact boys are born at a slightly higher rate than girls, so with a replacement rate of 2 there will be slightly fewer than 1 girl/womb born per woman and a gradual collapse would still occur.
He wants to keep "muh liberalism" and immigration. Doing that shuts down all possible solutions except euthanasia, which he shoots down because we have to maintain the dignity of human life even though the government sponsors wars and revolutions all over the globe. At some point he said he has no solution.
The average cost of raising a child from birth to 18 in the UK is £223,256. This includes housing and childcare costs. That’s around £12,400 a year, or £1030 a month. How many can afford (1) nevertheless multiple children?
It's always been the same. Do the sums & you can't afford it, but you go ahead anyway & you find a way. It's the same with housing. Take London out of the equation & if you really want it, anyone on average wages can get on the ladder - the media don't want people to think so though.
@@terrorbilly1 I'm an hour from london. My son bought his flat 8 years ago on £16k. My other son & his gf are both on below £26k & have been in a detached new build for a year. Sometimes you just have to go for it & forget the Sky TV & holidays for a few years.
@@terrorbilly1 depends if you are talking hourly or annual earnings. I've always worked entry level warehouse jobs. Even at that level, under £15 ph, if I do every hour of overtime on offer, I can gross nearly 80,000 a year, not even in the south east. Yes that's 70+ hour weeks, I wouldn't want to keep that up forever. But a lot of the young Indians who came over 18 months ago in the warehouse now have six figure savings and are already buying UK property. Like it or not, that's the kind of competition young native first time buyers are up against.
My theory has always been that the more educated you have and how high your anxiety about the future is the less you have or want children. Having children is an expensive endeavor and if you calculated the amount of money you need so spend in the next 18 years your less likely to want it. Owning an exotic pet is less of an expense than a child.
Maybe the falling fertility rate is an act of nature of which we have no control. Nature works in mysterious ways. We just need to find solutions in dealing with less people. More volunteers, more intergenerational households, being more self sufficient etc.
There are two major obstacles to increasing birthrate: - Prospects of the future - Financial wellbeing You don’t have children if you can’t afford it and if the future is bleak. There is also a fundamental problem in relation to our monetary system. It relies on new people existing and taking on debt in order to grow the monetary supply. This is going to have to change. We need a fiscal based monetary system.
Plenty of people have children they cannot afford. It is a take as old as time to have kids when poor or in terrible relationships. Nothing has changed at all considering single mothers are at record numbers globally.
The cost of living as well as our expectations of what constitutes a ‘decent life/standard of living’ is likely a huge factor. Higher levels of educational attainment among women and delays due to establishing one’s career are related factors. All of these are valid and we’re not going to turn back the clock so we will likely having incentivise couples / provide more support. Older women (who would have retired) in previous generations and might have helped with childcare are having to work for longer often due to economic circumstances (some may be related divorce) and also increase in pension age. It’s something of a wicked issue. Not an easy one!
Delaying having children also has an impact. Consider having 2 kids at age 18 vs having 2 kids at age 38. In one scenario, when you reach age 38, your children are already having children. By delaying, nearly an entire generation is being skipped. There are fewer young people to support an aging population.
As a couple who chose not to have children why should childless couples pay higher taxes? Why be penalised fir one's choice? If people can't afford children then don't have them.
Gov services are a ponzi scheme, if you pay average tax and make average use of expensive and inefficient gov services as a childless person you're still relying on others children to keep the scheme going. Especially if you want the society in general to persist.
Also a member of a DINK couple, just retired, I am hostile in principle to taxes varying according to lifestyle choices, just like you are. But in practice I do not care. Because I know, just as you do, that our wealth is better measured in time than in money. Tax differences between parents and non parents are never significant, they are anecdotal. And there is no such thing as the redistribution of _time_ through taxation, since no tax is payable in time. In my country, France, some idiot will sometimes advocate for enrolling all adults of all ages who are in good health into a civic service, something like non-military conscription for all. But all this idiot can do is sell a few hundred books: there is no real danger here.
@@flowerfairy1950 your taxes currently pay for the pensions and healthcare of the generation above you, it'll be the generation of workers below you that pay for your pension etc. Do you anticipate needing a carer in your later years? They won't be the same age as you.
Im 31 myself living in London. I only have a couple of friend's with kids or even considering them at the moment because renting or buying anything more than a 2 bed flat is basically impossible and thats with significant help from family. Im moving to the Mornington Peninsula in Australia with my Australian wife with the hope of having a family out there, they live in a very family oriented area where all her cousins have children and their quality of life as a child is pretty amazing, even though yes it is expensive. Having that family network around you i think is an amazing way to raise a family and unfortunately in a big city like London where I cannot afford to live anywhere near my parents and my friends are either not having children or moving miles away from each other to anywhere they can afford to live, just doesnt bring the sense of community which I personally feel is ideal for raising a family
Old age pension and old age freebies (bus pass, TV licence fee, etc) should ALL be means-tested. Boomers who own their home don't need state pension or a "free" bus pass let alone Boomers who own multiple homes. NHS healthcare for over 80s should be limited, you do not need to have £100k or even more spent on chemo and heart surgery and a new hip and 3 months in hospital for the very old when the NHS doesn't allocate enough funds to dental care for kids and (poor) adults.
I've looked at some figures from 2016 that shows that the average NHS spending on over 85s was £7000 per annum, compared to just over £2k for the entire population. 2019: "This shows that spending is considerably higher for those in the last year of life, with average spending of £6,651 compared to £624 for those who lived for at least another five years."
Then what is the point of working and saving? I'm 60 now, retired, not in receipt of any benefits. In 37 years of work I took precisely 16 weeks holiday and worked on average 75+ hour weeks. I have lived in the same house for over 30 years, never moved up from my poor area. Been on 4 foreign holidays, drove around in second hand cars. If you make it so that it's better to spend on new kitchens, 2 holidays a year, replace for a new car regularly rather than save for old age, then it will hardly be surprising if people don't bother to save.
@@marianhunt8899 Gee, as someone who cared for his elderly parents, I didn't know that. As the country is pretty much bankrupt, sharp conversations without sentimentality are needed on just how much we should be prepared to spend keeping the very elderly alive or giving tthem hip replacements months before they die of old age.
Most people can't handle work and children at the same time properly ... because work pays the expenses... suffer the children ... when they become adults... have less children...
"I don't have the answers." So clearly, we should not follow your advice. A good start would be, look at the approach you've taken (rejecting the 50's, forcing women into the workforce) and doing the OPPOSITE.
Really useful discussion. Thanks. Do you recall Prince Harry saying he wld stick to 2 kids to save the planet? He made me feel so bad for my 3. I raised my kids in the last 20 years and didn't feel the culture was pro natal as a middle class woman who kept reading articles about supporting childless women or how awful it wld be to stay at home or how hard it is to Have It All. Will tell my 21 year old girl not to leave it too late.
From a 25-year-old man with a wife from Poland. We want children (2-3 would be perfect). The main reasons why we delay that are: Economic conditions - Despite earning around the average wage in our country, we still don’t have enough money for key assets (house, flat, etc.). Education - We know how to delay pregnancy and can wait for it. Time - In our current schedule, we both have to work to earn enough money, so if we decide to have a child, our economic status will decline or our goals will be delayed. Moving out - To achieve education and better earnings, we had to move to a city where we don’t have a support network from family, so we have to build our resources from scratch.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I read a few days ago: My great-grandparents had 12 kids, my grandparents 6, my parents 3, I have 1 and my daughter has a cat (and the cat is castrated).
Look at the affordability of house in that time period and you will understand.
Yes. I can afford 1, so I have 1.
Great grandma had no choice, grandma had limited, mom had a few more choices, and the daughter has the most but not all of the choices yet.
🤣 😬
Am not sure if this is ment to be funny or even if it is true,,,but I found it hilarious 😂
The fact is, raising children and keeping up with domestic responsibilities, is a full time job on its own. You can’t expect women to have both full time jobs outside of the home and a bunch of babies. As a single mom, I have to work, but I wish I could give all my attention to what matters most.
As a single mum you should know that trusting anybody but yourself is a pure disaster. And no , children don’t need a helicopter mum. Kids of working mothers do better at school, btw. Maybe bc most of working mothers are also ambitious intelligent and well organized.
You used to be able to. It was called a “traditional family”. You can thank feminism for getting rid of that norm
@@Diashi1267The "traditional family" kept women down, we weren't allowed higher education or the choice to live by ourselves without having a husband, we couldn't have a career, we were dependent on the husband, often trapping women, especially those with children (almost all of them at the time) into abusive marriages.
@@billmartins5545 You have a very cynical view of marriage. Sounds like you’ve drank the feminist koolaide. Well if marriage is a tyranny and single motherhood is a soul sucking grind then I guess you’re just screwed 🤷♂️
@Diashi1267 maybe thank past men who abused that power. Perhaps if men never abused that position, mothers/wives would've felt safe and secure enough to be in that homemaker position.
Late stage Capitalism is overtly anti family.
My dad (who was a printer) in the 70s was able to have 2 children, a stay at home wife and a 3 bedroom house in a nice suburb of London on his very working class wage.
Fleet Street printers earned good money back in the 70s and could get paid overtime on many occasions.
Exactly. That's millionaire territory today.
Today you need both parents working fulltime jobs, with a heft of savings, and scrimping just to get a tiny gaff.
Your life fades away for 25-35 years while you try to "get ahead"..
Greed Priced the startup familys out of the market..
too bad, so sad.
Better start importing some, dropping them in on welfare....
Oh! Wait....😮
But nowadays your dad wouldn't find a wife until say late 20s, his wife would have a career and have one child in her 30s maybe zero.
Economists as snake oil men, they have sold endless growth and gdp as the only measuring stick. Our imbeciles in charge have latched onto this as the only signifier for a stable nation. Fools led by fools.
The poor were always robbed blind by the rich but since the 70s the target was moved to the middle class. Slowly but surely their wealth was transferred upwards until one day they found they were no better than the poor a few decades prior.
On top of that you add feminism and women in the workplace which was all done for economic reasons. Double the workforce and get women to demand to work while decreasing wages in line.
None of it is rocket science but myopic dogooders bought it hook line and sinker while the robber barons rubbed their hands in glee nudging women toward their own misery.
Indeed, my Dad was a car mechanic in a London Suburb. He married in 1964 and bought a 4 bed Edwardian house. They had 4 children and my Mum stayed at home. Totally out of reach now. That house is currently worth around £800,000.
Put nationals on a child benefit cap of two whilst importing families with over 5 kids each.
That's the plan.
Been happening for decades.
And sheeple have been allowing it 🤷♀️
The "sheeple" as you call them have never had any REAL say in the matter of the major policies of this country and never will! We vote for a party agreeing broadly with their manifesto then subsequently get a whole host of decisions, policies, laws etc that most people DID NOT sign up for !
If we had referendums on KEY matters the outcome would be quite different I'm sure but that would never be allowed to happen for various reasons.
Lord, we can't be allowed to live in an ACTUAL DEMOCRACY - whatever next !🙄😡
No to more mass immigration. We are seeing sectarian politics as a result of immigration. We need to encourage native white people to have children by increasing benefit cap for the minority white race. Immigration should be done on a temporary basis with no guaranteed citizenship on the table. The great replacement is happening.
@@Anne_Onymousthe 'sheeple' voted for less immigration at every opportunity, using the lawful democratic process available.
Never thought of it but you absolutely Spot On..
Simple answer: People who dont work are rewarded while people who do work are squeezed dry of their money. Its the definition of insanity
I always say this,,,,the workers are been over burdened,,,also the elites aren’t paying tax and robbing all the money with the help of government. Where has this £11,000,000,000 (billion) gone to help Africa go green! Rubbish it’s all been robbed by the establishment and the politicians
The ‘why’ is simple - unhappy people do not invest in the future. Britain is a miserable country.
Humans, just like any other animal, don't breed well in captivity.
And only gonna get much much worse
Same in the US. Future is looking bleak to young people. Why leave children in that mess?
You were not paying attention when watching the video. All developed countries have low fertility, including the Nordic countries who are generally considered to be happier.
@@kalebdaark100 Maybe they are happier because they don´t have children?
The second question is "Why haven't we seen any pro-natalist policies for natives to encourage higher birth rates?" Instead we have mass immigration exacerbating housing issues and putting natives off having kids...
The third question is "Do we even need mass immigration to address the ageing population problem when the immigrants get old (we don't give them 5 or 10 year visas and make them leave) too and that we are in the 4th Industrial Revolution now, robotics and AI is going to make a lot of people unemployed. Do we really want to be bringing millions with no great love and affinity to this nation who are likely to be soon totally disenfranchised and demanding from the state? Who thinks this is actually going to work out?
I can explain why/how AI is going to do this, it seems inevitable.
Do we need a single immigrant? Is there any good reason for a single one of them to be here? I think not.
International finance capitalism will never invest in training, robotics or increase pay and conditions if it can just fly in labour. Oligarchs love immigration.
@@chrisohanlon69 agree. Plus we need to look on our nation as OUR ancestral homeland not an economic zone open to the World in the interests of international finance capitalism.
@@chrisohanlon69 we certainly don't need many. The Tories treat the nation like an airport lounge shop. Labour think we are a Global Charity. ReformUK think this is our home.
Because the people who run Britain want us enslaved or dead
Unless being a mother becomes a paid job - with insurance and pension scheme - not much will change
fk off. you have a husband, and that child has a father. he can take care of you all.
both within and between countries, the less money you have, the more kids you have
Given the downstream economic & societal benefits I think this is a good idea.
The wolf's a worried that sheeps don't reproduce anymore
That's called marriage
It's not just about women and their views on having children. So many men don't want them or change their minds after having them
As a childfree man, who decide early on in life that I would never be counted among the fathers, I will not just approve your comment but thank you for mentioning this point, which is too often overlooked.
men have their children taken away in the courts, thats why
Many men see the flip of a coin chance of divorce, and almost impossible chance if it happens, of raising their own kids.
What's the point 🤷
@@johnnycarrotheid Divorce has been known to create monster criminals in society. Best not create it. Maybe this is why Religious groups fair better because of the greater difficulty in getting a Divorce 🤔
Ignoring the almost total lack of rights for men when it comes to reproduction / children, and the divorce system which acts as a wealth redistribution arm for the State at the behest of women (exaggerating, but not that much)... I know plenty of men who wanted to be fathers, but never (perhaps that should be 'likely will never') got the chance. Mate selection favours women to a staggering degree, and the average woman between 16-40 will have many many opportunities to reproduce (should she want to) with or without a stable man in her life. The same cannot be said for the average man. Women decide whether children are born - not men. That's not just the law, it's biological reality. If babies aren't being born, it's because women are choosing not to have them.
Why have I never, ever, once heard a politician urging UK people to have more children?
Because it doesn’t work.
The don't want to invest in children , they want to import slave labour for instant tax theft.
Because they are cnuts
Farage did
The government is anti English and anti men.
You ARE being replaced. They just don’t look like you or speak your language.
Yes, THEY certainly haven't stopped having children!
"They just don’t like you". FIFY
@@twentyrothmans7308😂
Funny, every country that was colonized said the same thing
Qualcuno può tradurre ciò che ha detto?
The irony is that the couples who can least afford it tend to have large families and the ones who are more affluent and better educated decide to have fewer children.
"Idiocracy" was supposed to be a Movie, not a blueprint 😂
That is because the one has a realistic view about having children, the other not so much.
Intelligent people do spreadsheets. Thick people spread their legs.
false its in a fecondity curve is U shaped. Poor and crazy make tons of them, middle class make only the kids they can affort meaning less and less. And the very wealthy make a lot of kids too, one famous exemple could be Elon Musk and his 10 kids.
Another reason why endless Economic growth is a spurious Economic Model.
In Australia it is becoming so expensive to live that many young people cannot afford too many children.
Poor Economic management by Economists and Politicians.
Population increase pushes up house prices. Immigrants increase the demand for houses. Immigration is anti-baby making.
Dear friend, the problem isnt about economic growth, its when all this growth goes only in the pocket of few people instead of the pocket of people, working people and citizen who are the heart of the nations. Its about the rise of inequality that are at their heighest level of the last 100 years.
The people are being starved by their elite, that what led to the world war and that lead to extremism nowdays. People having less kids is a symptome of that.
@@ltgdr6298 Yes, economic growth IS a problem. That it all goes in a few pockets is typical of late stage capitalism. but Wherever the benefits land, growth is still destructive to the way of life of everybody else and the Earth.
@@chriswatson1698 Your are repeting yourself, instead of repeting yourself maybe you could explain how is that growth bad, and include into your response the fact that most of the growth isnt real wealth growth but money print and money devaluation.
No if they where taxes on the wealthy that have make a tons of money detroying the planet and ripping of the middle classe to actually give it back in a way or another to the middle class people would've a much better life.
Or not even taxing the rich but redirecting all this money printing and money creation that devalue the money in the actual pocket of the people and not only a tiny elite.
Again our growth measured isnt real growth its just money printing and money devaluation.
That why the middle classe is DYING, they are being paid in dollars but arent told that they are being paid in is being devalued WAY FASTER than their salary increase.
You have to look at immigrants as a whole wealthy and poorer. The weak other and well educated immigrants also have fewer kids
Increasing numbers of unemployable single parents with children and universal benefits is not the answer.
That is what current policies are getting us. Politicians are acting with their well-known skill and competence.
The issue is that young people are being told ' have kids, work longer, because thats good for the country..... its good for poliiticians and the wealthy that own the land, industries and natural resources, to have lots of ' labour' to exploit.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6giWork longer and “hustle” is definitely a message out there, but they are certainly not currently told to have kids by any media, institution, education or anything else. It’s beyond off the priority list in social messaging in the mainstream.
But I agree that no one is giving anyone a meaningful message to do virtually anything, aside from some vague cultural murmur like: feed the GDP, or help the economy, feed your hedonism” or something similarly dead and devoid like that.
It’s a dead culture honestly, things are just catching up to that state in reality.
@@francisravenscroft-dw6gi Who suggested that what you have raised in your comment is the answer ?
Having Children is a natural human instinct. Selfish me, me , me, Materialist me, me. me Hedonistic me me me who is unable to commit to anything apart from themselves is a destructive instinct; family is the microcosm of society. That is why malevolent forces have gone full on attack of the family institution.
We are living in unique times of the cult of self annihilation, via contraception, abortion and assisted suicide.
All you have done is point out a problem, which we will have in any area of human existence, so why not wipe out human existence, then you won't have to worry about life's problems or you can drown out the problems with the drug of rampant materialism.
True and we need the upper classes of society to want to breed up because they have stopped doing so but they wont because of the kind of World we now live in.
NO HOUSES=NO FAMILIES!
My mum and dad had a family but no house for 5 years. They lived with their parents. We can all make excuses just depends how bad you want something. Your holiday abroad twice a year or a family.
@paulmetcalfe4054 The big difference is that previous generations could eventually afford to buy a house, whereas plenty of millenials and Gen Z will never be able to afford property.
Secondly, your parents had family who could take you in. Plenty of people are not in their position.
@@paulmetcalfe4054Your parents were living at a time when the ratio of house prices to income were likely around 3 times income whereas in the UK it varies between around 8 and 14 depending upon where you are! To save for a mortgage deposit nowadays could take you through to middle age! Also how many wives would be prepared to live with their mother's in law for decades!
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559while many could eventually buy a house a whole strata never could and relied on council housing which is like unicorn anything now
Why do we need more houses built when we're not having enough children to replenish the 1ndigenous population?
Dr Paul Morland says that immigrants in turn have small families... Absolutely the opposite to what is happening. I live in Tower Hamlets and the average immigrant family (mostly one demographic) has 4-5 children.
Agreed, he made several errors in this video.
That family's father must have a very good job to be able to support that many children. Perhaps a doctor or an engineer ;)
@@terrorbilly1😂
So you've decided that your small sample size anecdotal data is more accurate than Morland's researched data of the whole country.....such confidence you have.
@@kalebdaark100 what the data says is that the immigrants *eventually* have as many children as the natives, which only happens after a couple generations
Far left LABOUR God help us
How about we help ourselves
@@AllanHinde-mb2pri don't want to be harsh, but it will be so, to what you said, how do we do that? there is no new land to flee to so we can't make a new country, we have had 40 years of training to sit on our hands, our whole media/political/law systems are against us, we been pushed to the brake down community cohesion, have smaller families ect,
We have no way to organise in any amount of meaningful numbers. You can easily get 100-1000 plus but they just get branded extremists.
Living at the end of an empire is not as fun as the romans made out.
@@BobBob-cn1yy it's Woke Global Corporatism with more NeoCon wars.
The irony of these two comments are hilarious
@@evolassunglasses4673 The iron law of oligarchy strikes again.
Hungary gives tax incentives for natives to have kids.
Natives being operative word
Viktor Orban is the best leader in the Western world.
Australia too.
Its like 5k$
Starting to think we need to be taken over by Hungary 😂
@RBAILEY57 agreed
I am 57, I had 3 kids then adopted 2 more. So I have 5. What they are all facing now is that, even though they all would love to have at least 3 kids each, they cannot. They can’t for a simple reason: housing. There is no way they can afford a home, with all their effort, their university diplomas, they can just afford a “studio”, that is, a non-bedroom “apartment”. As housing is now something people invest in, they expect 30-80% return. This “return” is pushed onto renters and buyers… so now we have a young generation that cannot afford to rent nor buy their first home. How can they have or adopt kids? They just can’t!
You sound like a great parent. Can you help? In my country (Australia) it's quite normal for couples to live with parents until their circumstances improve. After all they only need space for a double bed and a cot. We have the same problem with unaffordable housing. I was a landlord for a few years after my mother died. Many just want enough rent to cover the mortgage. So it's the cost of housing that pushes up the price, not the other way around. And it's immigration pushing the price up.
PS It is possible to have one baby, or at least get married in a studio flat. Our ancestors lived in worse. You just need to be creative with your furnishing. I live near what was a motel and is now studio flats. Young couples often have their first child there.
We have the buy to let people to thank for this, often Boomers who funnily enough expect me to pay for their full state pension when they gauge rent prices that I'm dependent on because they bought all the houses by generation (Millennials) need to live in. F em all. I will do nothing for the over 65.
@@billmartins5545 Well atleast they are your own boomers. In my country it's foreigners buying them. My parents were boomers, they didn't have it easy to begin with either. I don't remember but they started off in a tiny caravan but it rotted. Then we lived with one of my grandmothers. Then we lived in a 10x10 foot shed. My mum was having another baby so we moved into a house. But the house only had one bedroom and only one power point in the whole house, no bathroom and the toilet was at the end of the yard.
After a while there we could finally afford a house. How many caravans and sheds have you raised kids in lately?
@@grannyannie2948 I wouldn't say it's immigration. Look at where you Aussies live. That's basically five cities and Perth, all the while you have largely empty Outback, that could have been populated, if people could work from home as policy. So I'd look more into labor and housing construction laws.
It isn't just economic issues. I am in my 50s, live in London, and took the decision not to have a family many years ago. I did not want to bring up children in what has become a violent cosmopolis, where Christian values and English cultural history is under continual attack.
Understand but fortitude is required to fight back… we all have a responsibility to procreate as long as biology allows
My friend, I'm 54, I come from the East End, I took the same decision in my mid 20's. I saw that the world that I grew up in, Aunts Uncles around the corner, my beautiful Mum and Dad together forever, I knew everyone around my area. Families had grown up together for generations. Our homes were clean ,my Nan and Mum kept beautiful clean homes, cooked beautiful food, and we were loved ! My Mum and Dad didn't aspire to have a big shiny car or a conservatory! Good food on the table and a clean bed were more important. I saw this world dying infront of me. I saw my area turn into a third world dump, and those in power advocate the trashing of all that we were. I knew then that this situation was going to be rolled out. It was the new direction of travel. I got vilified for taking this stance. How wrong was I ? My beautiful Wife felt the same way thankfully. We have children in our family, we adore them. We fear for them. We know what's coming. And it ain't good !!!!!!
@@FFS704 but your making an argument for English people to have more children.
@johnyoung8727 Very well articulated, and I totally agree with you.
@mhm9868 I would not recommend it to anyone. I want to keep it the way it is.
"The material thing" may seem irrelevant to you, big man. But if you are working 12-hour shifts for companies like Amazon, where you have to relieve yourself in a bottle and then pay high costs in rent for a small apartment and so on, it only seems logical that having kids is going to be way down on your list of priorities. That kind of stress wears people out and dampens the desire to get it on. Indeed, if working conditions aren't compatible with family life and our economic overlords want to squeeze as much out of their workers as possible, I doubt the population decline will stop soon. It amazes me that the top 1% of the population that complain about the majority of the population not having kids don't actually see that they are coming across like the old slave masters who complained about their slaves not breeding. Would any sane person want to bring a child into the world knowing they'd be little more than wage slaves/serfs for their tech overlords? Besides, if it's such a big problem, why not go out and start having loads of kids yourself, big man. Just do what Genghis Khan did, if you know what I mean. If you don't want to do that, then pay people to have kids just like you pay them to clean windows, go down into sewers and fly planes. People respond to the economic incentives in front of them; clearly, there aren't enough economic incentives to have kids.
Blame the building societies. They started to take husbands' and wives' incomes into account when making loans. This was in the 1960s. House prices doubled. Then it took two incomes to buy a family sized home.
I'm Australian and I've been saying this for years. Feminism tripled the tax payers, mum, dad and the babysitter. Doubled the cost of housing. And reduced wages without decreasing consumerism. The upper echelon loved it. By the 1990s they'd got as many women out to work that they ever would. But they discovered that mass immigration had the same effect.
@@grannyannie2948Mary Harrington - author of Feminism against Progress - made very similar points in her interview with Peter W last year. You can pin an awful lot of blame for things that have gone wrong in society on the gynocentric push to get as many women out of homes, and rearing their children instead of working.
@@EE12CSVT I have watched Mary several times. But I've been making this point for a very long time. I also like her friend Louise Perry who argues the sexual revolution was bad for women.
We are becoming the new Lebanon
Some terrifying days ahead... if nothing really disruptive is done very, very quickly! Thanks, Peter, for your amazing Public Service!
The ONS back in 2001, before it had been completely infested with blair cronies did a series of articles on 'replacement immigration' and strongly advised AGAINST mass immigration, & concluded a small improvement in birth rates would yield a similar improvement to dependency ratios, and, more importantly, be stable, whereas high immigration just delivers a bigger problem down the line.
You hit the nail on the head with the phrase 'infested with Blair cronies'. We now have socialism on steroids because of that tw@.
Mass migration is easier to increase and is far more appealing to progressives for electoral and moral reasons. Increasing fertility rates of the indigenous population takes decades, whereas increasing immigration can be done in only a few years.
As an ancient postwar child who chose not to have children, it was still a joy being a ‘favourite uncle’ who, of course, ignored parents and dished out copious quantities of icecream, seaside rock and all the ‘wrong’ things that made children happy.
That was MY choice. What is NOT MY CHOICE is the dishing out of largesse from my taxes (yes!! I’m still paying tax!!) to non-indigenous arrivals on our shores who continue to absorb more and more child benefit by having more and more children.
This is not a flippant comment, just come to my town of Bolton on any weekday and walk around or travel on the bus - it’s simply out of control, since the non indigenous aren’t working they also obtain many other benefits.
👍🇬🇧👍🇮🇱👍🇬🇧👍🇮🇱👍🇬🇧👍
Isn't child benefit capped at 2 now?
Similar, but from the Antipodes. My partner considered marriage to be old-fashioned, until it was too late to have children.
My brother and sister-in-law could not afford school fees for three children - despite his being a high achiever - and had to stop at two. I suspect that this still gnaws at them.
@@helendancelotnot for much longer. There is pressure on gvmt to remove the cap.
Yeah, deciding not to have kids wasn't the good option, no matter how you try to twist it. Not going to let older people encourage youth even further down this path.
So by paying taxes to support children of the non indigenous population you can be their favourite uncle. Just indirectly.
Yes,. The rate of theUK is better than that of Japan. But dont forget that the UK has massive migration from other cultures while Japan does not.
The simple dependency ratio they obsess over is overstated in importance
What matters is not only 1) are the 18-65, but also 2) are they actually working (most muslim women do not) & 3) does the tax they generate actually exceed the spending they consume
Benefits paid to those of below retirement age are actually increasing faster than pensioner benefits now. Additionally, despite the higher number of over 65s, over 65 NHS spending has been flat since the 1980s, at about 2/5thsof all spending throughout.
Then there are all the costs that fall....education costs, policing costs, maternity costs.
@@Nick-io9ukThe sale of our business on retirement generated huge tax burden. Despite paying NI for fifty years we do not benefit from the same pension as those born after 1953. Our private pension did not generate the amount projected, and the small amount we do receive is taxed, leaving total annual income below £15K. We never claim benefits and stay independent.
Israel's high fertility rate is for the most part attributable to the ultra-orthodox community where families with six or more children are the norm rather than the exception. There's also a very high birth rate in the Palestinian territories. In a documentary about Gaza filmed a few years ago, one man was proud to say he had fathered 40 children with three wives, 22 boys and 18 girls.
One word............ freedom.
Were I younger( i am 73) I would not stay in this country. The future will be constant fighting and tension between Islam/ the far left and Everyone else. Demographics plus immigration suggest the Islamists will be a very strong force and will have strong influence in parliament
I got out 4 years ago when I was 58. Best thing I ever did. It's beyond me why anyone would stay.
See Mélanchon about to form a government in France. 70,%of Muslims vote for him....
Sadly the same everywhere. Seeing this country going the same way. Europe definitely not any better.
Where did you go? Everywhere I look has a growing Muslim population
Exactly and who on earth would bring a child into this???
I feel I could probably write an essay on reasons why women had few, if any children in the past thirty years, not that I really want to, but that have not really been explored by the two men in this otherwise interesting talk.
Hmm, might start a few notes. Writing from a New Zealand perspective, I can see how our specific situation saw the decline in birth rates clearly.
These include from my own perpective, time and place in a rapidly changing NZ society of the era:
Cultural: Sexual revolution from late sixties changed society for us compared with the quite different lives of our parents, making life new and with no model of what was to come, putting a different, almost enforced pressure that young women from the late 1970s on must absolutely not consider staying at home to be a home maker, even if many of us would really have preferred that life.
That was very much part of the zeitgeist for my era of hitting child bearing age in mid 80s/90s. Contraception availability - which was welcome, of course, also the lack of a dating culture which changed from the formal, preferable dating scene of that of our parents and resulted for us in poor partnerships, broken relationships, fewer children.
Neoliberalism - experienced in NZ very sharply, suddenly and horiffically compared to most of the rest of the world meant removing the option pretty much entirely of being a stay at home mother, and absolute societal rebuffing if one found oneself a single parent even for a short period.
Neoliberalism in NZ from 1991, our absolute worst year, was almost akin to Stalinist level anti-family policies. Absolutely no parental leave compared with Europe until decades later.
I personally knew no women who were home makers, mums at home on a permanent basis. A few weeks, months, maybe a year. Luckily for me I worked only part time from after the first year, wanting to be the best parent I could for my one child and part time working mothers were generally said to be the best option for the child, but that may have been social conditioning forced upon us, as well.
Zilch child friendly work/govt policies, expensive childcare. Child friendly govt and work policies only started to improve from mid 2000s in NZ.
And of course, absolutely lack of affordability; the low wage economy that was deliberately, intentionally created by govt policies from 1984 onwards in NZ. Once the top quality of living standards in the world up to the 1960s, NZ regressed way below that of the OECD thereafter, and still languishes near the bottom, today.
So, yeah, absolute social conditioning stemming majorly from govt policies really made the worst impact over the past few decades, at least in NZ, although improved in the recent decade and a half.
I wonder if all of the above contributed to our, at the period through the 1990s, of such horrific child abuse in our country. No excuse of course, but the societal breakdown was definitely implanted by successive govt policies of the period.
Reflecting back, I feel robbed of having had no societal option to have had the extremely important role of being a long term, stay at home Mum. And our society and future is the poorer for it
Good comment. I think it can be boiled down to the female vote liberalizing politics which has shifted the Overton window so far left that even talking about immigration is taboo.. Everything else seems to be a byproduct of that transition. Women represent the largest voting block so largely in control.
Hello from across the pond in Oz. I'm probably older, but I was a stay at home mum. In the 1980s they introduced a payment to married women to stay home to raise their own children. But inflation has destroyed it. $20 a week barely buys bread and butter these days. Apparently the government says women prefer subsidised daycare.
As I see it the elites benifited immensely from feminism. It tripled the tax base, mum, dad and the babysitter. It doubled the cost of housing and the rich have real estate portfolios. And it reduced wages without decreasing consumerism.
By the 90s they'd dragged every mother out to work. And then the realised they could replicate it every year with immigration.
The problem is no one is looking to turn of the tap of indefinite leave to remain and citizenship after just 5 years which is why everyone coming legally or illegally.
U.K. sitting on a ticking time bomb as all 3 million who arrived since 2019 will be given citizenship - there is no way the demographics of the U.K. will survive this because numbers higher than in last 1000 years and their birth rates higher so it’s all over unless someone wakes up and changes the laws
Temporary work visas only- they will still come but will never get citizenship- this will take pressure of housing etc and support locals to give birth
I saw this comin downstream about 20 years ago.
13 years ago, I figured a big country with low population, sunny weather, not in the EU, english speaking, tough immigration policy.
Here I am today, in australia, and a citizen.
Can't blow in here- u get sent offshore forva decade or more.
Immigration is just the latest scam in a long line of scams by economists and politicians. At first it was getting women into the workplace, doubling the workforce overnight and halving wages at the same time. Then they wanted more bodies for the grinder so they import as many as will come.
Demographic change, societal collapse and all other consequences are of absolutely no concern to any of them. Just gdp line go up.
Make deportations a thing. Send them back.
@@isayit6054 immigration is just a SYMPTOM of our financial and banking system that loves millions and millions of cheap workers and future consumers.
We should stop giving away our citizenship for free. We should adopt the old Roman model. All newcomers should work in the NHS, police, army etc. for 25 years, with no criminal record, no disloyalty to the nation. Then by all means give them free citizenship without the paperwork. People that come here to marry someone or refugees should just get visas specifically linked to those issues with no automatic right to ILR or citizenship.
Here's my take: the 'rules' underpinning the current notion of marriage and family are repulsive. Sensible women aren't interested.
Why is it that voting for the likes of Trump is a "backlash"? Why can it not just be that he, and those like him, represent the wishes of a lot of people? Just how many more countries need to vote rightwards, and their right of centre populist (that is to say, popular) politicians grow hugely in support, for them to stop being referred to as "a backlash"?
The word 'backlash' is a derogatory control word often used by socialists. It is not as damaging as the outcome of the phrase 'trash and burn', which socialists often resort to when they try to get what they want.
Agreed. We shall not play on our enemies terms and seek truth first and foremost. That is why one cannot be a nice idealist liberal. Instead if one wants freedom then be a freedom fighter who can name his enemies and knows what banner to put on the flag unashamedly. That s Orban that is Trump.
@@Hemswell the right use the word as well, don't be so ridiculous 😂
The reason it is a problem is because much of this "backlash" is very Hitlerian and war-mongery. And we all know where that led before.
Every message to girls and women is anti traditional family. The Barbie movie represents our age perfectly.
My parents wanted me to go straight from highschool to university. Instead I married young and delayed university until my kids were in primary school. I encouraged my daughters to delay university until they had babies. Really universities are very baby/child friendly. People live so long now delaying a career makes sense. This is alternative young women should be offered.
Oh ho! Women no longer agree to be house slaves and baby-making machines? They want to live for themselves?! Souless narcissists!! How dare they?!
@@grannyannie2948 Nope. Media isn't telling women to hate family building. The more educated you are, the more you do cheques and balances of what is required to have a family. I don't want to spend millions of dollars on my education, then get employed, get married and work 3 jobs (1 job is raising your kids, 1 job is sustaining your relationship with your husband and the other job is your actual career)
@@grannyannie2948What if your partner split up before you finished education? No offence, the main issue is women take all the risks regarding kids. You are out of the workforce and education cycle which puts you behind for investing and saving for retirement, gaining work experience and more - in some fields it’s fine and in others it can be a real challenge. Glad it worked for you but it is risky currently.
@@Coastpsych_fi99 I disagree, now and even then, men were at more risk in marriage than are women. Here in Australia, had my husband wanted a divorce, the government would have paid for my, and my children's necessities. Or I could have got a job, or I could have began study, in which case the government would have paid for childcare, enough for my children and I to survive plus additional money to cover textbooks etc. As for retirement money the courts consider this when dividing assets.
So women don't have much to worry about. If women in your country are forced to accept unplanned childlessness, due to these issues, feminists should be talking to politicians about ending these problems.
I believe that Social and economic depression and also overwhelming forced demographic change imposed on us by successive governments has reduced the economic and social viability of having larger families in the UK.
who want to raise a family into a dystopian hell scape?
Whenever I'm out and I see people with their kids they're always crying and running around, and the parents look so stressed out and miserable! I decided a long time ago I don't want to live like that.
The maddest statistic of all is that the US, the original 'nation of immigrants', has 21% of births to a foreign born mother. The UK, historically a nation of emigrants, has 31% of births to a foreign mother, ie 50% higher than the US.
The most incredible thing about all this is that the UK, despite having literal third world,developing country levels of explosive population growth these last few years still has a stagnant economy, even underperforming nations like Japan or Italy.
Its got to the point now nothing can and won't be done, just sit back watch the show its going to be spectacular.
Exactely. I stock up with popcorn.
Is that a solution??
@@UgljesaNikolic-rc6ws
IS there a solution? No. Hence popcorn
Homelessness and lack of financial security is definitely a put off
One reason that we import doctors from places like Ghana (etc.) is that we've degraded status, wages, and working conditions of doctors, scientists, academics, (etc.) in real terms, to the point where young people are no longer attracted to joining those professions. We need to make essential professions attractive again.
Circular argument, we imported doctors as it's cheaper to the government than training the amount we need. These foreign doctors drive down wages and quality of life in the first place.
And yes as a scientist we pay almost the same for a starting scientist as I was 20 years ago, that wasn't a good wage then. It's worse now but we can use cheep foreign labour to fill the positions.
@@RogerS1978 Having analysed our pay relative the the Consumer Price Index, I found that my pay had actually dropped by 40% compared to what it would buy in 1995. The even more astonishing thing was that in 2022, our council was recruiting waste collection drivers, and offering them slightly more than I was getting as a principal scientist! No wonder that scientists, particularly early in their careers (when they're on 2- or 3-year contracts) aren't a viable prospect for a woman who wants to settle down and start a family.
The value of labour is decreasing, whereas that of ownership is increasing.
I love how Peter lets his guest reply fully and only interrupts for clarification
or interrupts when hes having a coughing episode
There are many facets to this discussion
Women in the workplace = less opportunities for men = less money for men = less married women = less early formed families = less children
Add in Central banks creating inflation making life even more expensive and all of the above issues become greater problems...
Families matter, housing matters, cost of living matters.
Women that want families but NEED to work to maintain their standard of living (or luxury) CANNOT have families early and thus less children. Economics is a major cause of demographic ills.
So what is the core problem that creates economic stress?
Inflation of course or the Cost ofLiving.... but how is it caused?
The Central banking monetary system creates inflation via money printing. It destroys families by impoverishing them. It creates immigration as a short term sugar for fixing demographics.
End the central banks and create wealth for the masses!
Women going into the workforce in numbers made labour cheap. Wages go down. Prices go up. Now we have mass migration and more inflation. This system is failing.
W0men were good to enter the workforce HOWEVER.... as you said prices are up and I think that is due to a political reasons. W0m*en were given the right to vote ❎and THAT caused housing and migrant inflation to no longer be regulated.
Near the beginning of this interview, the ratio of workers to the retired was quoted. I find that to be dishonest. What should have been quoted was the ratio of workers to ALL dependents, including citizens who are too young to be workers and the adults who care for people who are too young to be workers. Also the unemployed and the disabled.
And the retired may not be dependents
@@pixie3458if they receive a state pension then they are from a financial pov, not that they haven't worked for their pensions
There is nothing better than a family! But a responsible one! As many children as you can afford ,feed , and educate.
Therein lies the problem. So many decent working people cannot earn enough money to afford a decent home and provide an average living standard. Migrants on the hand have many children knowing full well all their needs will be met by our taxpayers no questions asked. Any kickback from the tax payer is dismissed with screams of racism.
It may be time to focus on your men. A study was done on male and female lottery winners. It found winning made men much more likely to marry than women it also decreased divorce rates. Men would use new found resources to build families, whereas women would use said resources to exit families.
Right now the majority of university graduates are women. Women under 30 are out earning their male equivalents, and marriage rates are at all-time lows. People are leaving it very late to form relationships, this is especially bad for women whose fertility takes a nose dive after 35. (Note that when you break down the fall in birthrate the greatest fall is from women under 25. For women over 30 it has increased)
Women naturally prefer to pair with men who are more successful and confident than themselves.
Focus on your men, find ways for them to succeed. Families will naturally form.
No. Women will abandon those “successful” men if they treat them badly. And they do. I mean they treat them as their fathers treated their mothers. That’s why males with money want to marry and women want to divorce. Bc males want a family as the one they were raised in, and women say - over my dead body. Funny how you don’t see it and your only solution is to make women weaker more miserable and dependent on men. I guess - if not money - avarage man has nothing to offer. He wants money so he can home where everything is already done, eat a meal, watch tv and then a quick fuck and off to sleep. Wife should be happy with his gold credit card 😂😂😂. Sorry, actually women are not so greedy and most of us prefers small apartment with a nice cat than a big house with sth like you inside. Deal with it, honey.
All the man's fault then, as usual ? Nothing to do with Neoliberalism ?
Worth mentioning that relationships between men and women has also descended into utter chaos since the rise of social media and online dating.
People don't want to enter seriously into long term relationships and a lot only seem to have children by accident, if at all which makes them more unloved than in previous generations where children were properly planned for. Either the man or woman (both, even) sleeps around which results in divorce and ultimately single parent families. We know how damaging it often is for children growing up with only one parental influence.
Add into this mix the fact that people now largely want to date purely on looks and not personality (thanks mainly to people living a life online in pictures and adverts), and you end up with a generation of people with completely miserable lives.
Part of the problem of you pointing out this synopsis on dating is that there is going to be an immediate rebuttal by (i.e. the man in this video) --- that rebuttal being that the OTHER countries with old classic dating conditions, have also a reduced birth rate.
That being said I 100% agree with you and sadly Statistician will fixate on external comparison not so much the unique western-world 'social-cultural' reasons which makes our replacement rate the smallest. If indeed dating is this difficult then the meaning of life will deteriorate for the average man who is not a hermit or self-motivated (some men are odd in that they are sexually indifferent and so a quest for a committed women is just additive but not necessary).
@@NPC-bs3pm I get what you're saying, but I don't really buy the fact that other countries that have a low birth rate have "classic dating conditions". If you look at all the countries with poor birth rates, they all have free and open access to the internet and ultimately use it in a very similar way to the West. I don't see how their problems are any different to ours, in that regard.
The exceptions to this, of course, are the two countries who's birth rate is currently highest: India and China. One has unlimited access to the internet the same as the West, the other has heavily controlled access. Maybe the answer to a stagnating population is rapid industrial growth which (I believe, at any rate) triggered the skyrocketing population in these countries, similar to what happened in Victorian England.
@@NPC-bs3pm
The core issue is female genetics:
The more free and wealthy a woman is, the less kids she will want to have.
@@NPC-bs3pm White people did this to themselves. Don't bitch and cry now. Take accountability
Its so common sense. More jobs, more productivity, safer cohesive societies, better wages, happier people, more children will follow in this current world. But hosing is unaffordable, no job security, dangerous environments, woke curriculums, turns people off building relationships, starting families, interest or incentive in working at all. No taxpayers= no tax= no welfare.
Promoting children should come together with promoting and incentivising stable 2-parent families, with steady income and a large support network of grandparents, friends and church/community. Being a non-believer myself, I feel jealous about the community that churches offer, but I just can't force myself to listen to all the drivel about non-existent prophets and celestial intelligence. We should be realists, and realists must realise that we need to support monogamy and a community support network to allow people to procreate
Voddie Bauchim talks about three steps of brainwashing, the second of which is "Jamming". This step is characterized as massive social pressure to endlessly qualify every statement you make that is counter to The Narrative.
"I'm not saying go back to the 50's, I'm not against women in the workplace, I'm not saying I'm anti-feminist" you say over and over again, until you forget to take your own side, and you ultimately say "I don't have the answers".
Recognize what has happened to your mind. Reject it. Avoid situations where people continue to affect your mind this way. Hold fast to the truth. Say what you have to say, without qualification. Do not fear to embrace solutions from the past, they worked.
So true! I get fed up with discussions like this which are always filled with "jamming" disclaimers
@@HairExplosion No kidding. Don't they know how pathetic they sound?
"I'm rejecting every solution we've ever had, so I don't have any solutions".
Yeah, I wonder how that happened. Yeesh.
A child is two dependents: the child himself and the adult who must care for, or teach him. An ageing population is a matter of supporting the elderly, instead of babies and their mothers.
You are wrong to say "it appears the world has given up having children". It seems it only concerns non-islamic world
The wildly differing T levels are interesting too.
Harvey Danger has been around the world and only stupid people are breeding.
Birthrate is falling in most Islamic countries too. Saudi Arabian went from 7 to 2.5
Not according to the World Bank.
None of these solutions will be contemplated by what Britain has just voted in sadly. To many British have the political memory of a gnat.
Ythe thing that the author misses about the low birthrate is not that Japan's population will go back to 100 million and there will be one worker per retiree, but that the population of children will drop by 90%. Which means a long turm population of Japan will be 14 million. In South Korea the population of babie will drop by 95% in 3 generation.
Spain is looking at having its native Spanish population within 1 generation. Within 5 generations, native Spanish population will drop from 42 million to 1.3 million.
Something I noticed in the workplace over many years is people complaining their taxes being spent on other people's children and how the Governments keep allowing so many people in from other Countries. I always ask these people how many children do you yourself have? And almost invariably the answer is Zero!
Something I noticed in the 2000's when I started working, was the 16hr single parents being better off financially then their managers in their 16hr a week jobs.
"we need women in the workforce"
Why? For a bigger GDP?
That doesn't improve life.
Excluding women from the workplace is downright stupid. It helps countries, families and individuals for women to play a part in it, even if they choose to stay at home to raise children.
Unless they're very wealthy, a family that relies entirely on one person's income to survive is putting itself at greater risk than a two-income household, in the event that that one person's earning capacity is compromised, through illness, injury or death.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 Nobody suggested excluding women from the workplace, that's government terrorism. I would also never suggest that women don't work. Just that the fetish for getting women to pay taxes is bad for everyone. Women have always worked, just for their personal relationships, with the payment being love.
"in the event that that one person's earning capacity is compromised"
This is actually not a significant risk in life, certainly not something you should design your life around. A man can easily get life/income insurance to guard against it.
Having the woman work for a boss instead of her family means she must abandon her children. But raising children is deeply personal and cannot be replaced by hiring someone. Imagine the husband hiring a stranger to celebrate his 20 year wedding aniversary because he's busy with his career. Surely he can make more money than the cost of hiring someone?
There's more to life than a paycheck. Fundamentally the drive of women into employment is about the communist war against civilization.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 women in the workplace is the source and cause of many societal problems
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 I agree with you. I'll add the fact that I think people forget that the housing market is related to the perceived auction competition from the addition of women in the workforce, HOWEVER that being said women contribute LABOUR HOURS that are additive, and not reductive to our standards of modern living.
If the markets were aligned properly people would realize we are wealthier than the past.
Oh, to see your face when a female nurse or doctor does nothing to save your life. Her work doesn't improve life, you say, so why should she bother.
think peculiar things like the cladding crisis have also played a factor, following the dreadful fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017.
Many other tower blocks were found to have similar cladding problems, which now needs removing, but there have been multiple rows about who should pay for the work. Thousands of responsible young people, for whom the flat was their first step on the property ladder, found themselves with a bill of more than a years wage. Meanwhile, their flat is unsaleable and many go to bed worried about another fire. Often, there are fire wardens now on duty every night.
Not only can these young adults not afford a family, but who would want a baby in a place at risk of fire?
Agreed
Also what about the greedy and wilful ignorance of those who allowed the cladding to save a meer 5000quid.. correct me if this is wrong. The court cases to suppress the people pointing out the danger. 6 years before there was a fire in Camberwell with same cladding. The coroner expressed concern. 2 adults and 4 beautiful children died in that fire...yet the system allows it to horrendously happen again
Some of those apartments were for social housing for immigrants who then sublet them illegally to make a profit.
People have replaced children with household pets. Dogs and cats now are the children. It is bizarre how pets are treated. If you ever see people out and about, and not cloistered with a screen, it is with their dogs.
They can also direct their parental instincts toward those poor migrants. It trips their compassion, empathy / sympathy instincts, without the safety of their own children to consider.
Without pets the suicide rate would skyrocket, guaranteed.
So if pet ownership is banned for not parents, they would suddenly demand sealed borders and make some babies? Ask Japan and SOuth Korea.
What? 😂🤣 the most likely to think ‘oh, poor immigrants’ are the religious types who love refugees and want more vulnerable people to join their religion.
I have 4 dogs, they are most definitely not child replacements. My dad was a police dog handler , I grew up round dogs, I like them. Even as a child, i didn't like children.
Immigration always crowds out indigenous family formation in a developed economy that has no space to expand into (land) or resources that require exploitation (UK doesn’t have these in any measure that could not be exploited by the indigenous workforce: see coal mines).
Young indigenous as far back as the 70s started to make rational economic and social decisions when they saw the beginning of resources being redirected to immigrants over the indigenous.
This carried on at a steady rate until the 90s when it accelerated vastly under the Blair “rub their noses in diversity” project got going.
And so here we are.
Handmaiden’s Tale is completely relevant as young women are used for their fertility by the wealthy when they themselves cannot afford to have her own child.
It’s economic for me. The majority of my 9-5 wage (university graduate) goes to housing, food, heating, etc. and I can’t see it getting to much better later on.
I think housing is a huge thing, it’s easily most of my wage to keep a roof over my head.
Feminism. The End.
Driven by capitalism which wants both sexes working.
@@evolassunglasses4673 Women are driven out of the home into the work place far more in Socialist/Communist countries that Capitalist ones. In fact, the Soviet Union carefully manipulated the pay of higher earning jobs in order to make it impossible for single earning households to exist, thus forcing women out into factories and wage-slavery. Both system's goals are the same; the destruction of the family unit, but imo the socialist system was far more effective.
You sound like a bigot
Just look at 1930s Russian propaganda posters for anyone who disagrees.@@oliverreno4734
Japan doesnt have much feminism, and still has a horrible birth rate, i think.
Its irreligiousity. the only western populations with good birth rates are 1)israelis, 2) the amish 3) the mormons.
Why have children you are not allowed to raise in the country, language, and culture of their birth?
And that will be a minority plus second class in their own land within 20yrs. That would be so cruel.
Many people leave it until they are over 30 yrs old when fertility is already declining. This also means that you only have energy for 1-2 kids. Some at this age fail to get pregnant. Therefore the average birth rate is below 2.
Nailed it! Suzanne Venker talks about this on her channel. "What no-one told women about their fertility."
My preferred strategy would be to give women who have already had kids free university tuition. The problem now is not teenage mothers, its women (and men) in their late 30s & 40s whose aged seeds and eggs are simply not as virile as they were a decade earlier. See Ed Dutton and his commentary on spiteful mutants.
Instead of career first, then kids, it should be kids first, then career. Even employers would probably like it as there is no maternity leave & care to worry about.
As long as you are married, you do not pay the tuition fees. As soon as a divorce happens or scam is revealed the person will pay tuition + 20%.
Reasoning is simple: #1 you do NOT want to have fatherless homes due to the massive crime correlation there in. #2 You may have exploiters of the free tuition system, so my marriage rules would safe-guard against it.
And then enter the workforce decades behind the men who got to start in their teens and twenties? Get significantly fewer years in the field and paying into her own retirement and social security? And the men will just magically transition to helping with domestic duties when she starts school? It's just creating even more risks to weigh against each other. The solutions are going to involve mitigating risks not creating more. Free tuition just makes sure you don't have debt, it doesn't cover the opportunity costs of starting a career on time. And fuck, what if the kid becomes disabled and needs full time care forever? Does she just get a check?
@@ss-ds2dn That is true what you say. The way I would put it is that it is a option to increase population by a bit
Early career experience indeed may be a big factor to consider as you mentioned.
The parents that have the situation of "the kid become disabled...." THAT is a negative situation for ANY time in life. If you fixate on the older years🎲 - that is on you as a choice.
@@NPC-bs3pm yeah I'm aware that that's a negative at any time. The point is what is to be done for her if she only delayed her education/career to have kids with the promise of future opportunities that are now likely impossible without more help? Will she be provided with round the clock help? She did her part of the deal, so what are the new criteria for getting what was promised? The problem has always been that society depended on keeping women ignorant. You can't half-ass patriarchy. It's either full oppression or full egalitarian. And that involves conferring prosperity and status onto motherhood itself. But if men were able to do that it would have been done already
MY mother, my wife, my children..... these people are humans beings not extensions of your ego-
Someone needs to investigate how many MP's has children..... especially ones who are of an age to be eligible for the draft.
Indeed. Then we may finally discover exactly how many children Boris Johnson does have; at least, in the UK!
Because more than 80% of the women are attracted to and want babies with less than 20% of the men, and men-women relationships have been liberalised to allow for and encourage that. Single women without children past the age of 40 were deluded enough they could date one of the top 20% of men, turning down dozens of half-decent men in their younger years. The wine business is something to invest in.
Complaining about this is futile, if not idiotic. There is now way you will get rid of the dating market and go back to arranged marriage. This is what the West is all about: freedom to choose you partners, freedom to not start a family if you don’t want to start one, either because you want no kids or because you are a woman and you will not compromise into accepting an inferior partner. Make no mistake: the men that you call “half-decent” _are_ inferior.
@@patcartier8171 it's not a complaint, it's an observation. You seem to defend hypergamy and you have very facile arguments.
@@mrror8933 Hypergamy is not something that you can either defend or attack. It is a fact of life, as immutable as the earth orbiting the sun. Better get used to the _fact_ that women are fundamentally right when they find out which men have value and which men don’t - not _decide,_ mind you: _find out:_ the decision to reject or neglect comes after the finding out. Once you realise that, you must then admit that you have no right to be ordinary, because ordinary is synonymous with mediocre.
Every man who wants to be considered dating material by at least a woman should find his own path to excellence. You should know your sh.t, whatever the sh.t is, as there is an infinity of variations to the stuff. There is another possibility, of course: know you’re sh.t. And complain about how all women in the world are unfair bitches, along with all the redpillers and blackpillers howling on the Internet.
@@cordfortina9073 Anyone who's has to ask with some anger what "inferior" means probably belongs to this category. Look up in the mirror: there's a good chance that this is the place where you find out what I mean by "inferior".
Nobody is actively pushing anyone out of the dating market. What really happens is that the dating market in the West is the most liberal of all markets, the most free from any sort of tampering. Precisely because governments or other vested interests do not interfere with it: that would be socialism. It being the most liberal of all markets, it is also the fairest of all market, by construction.
Wine and Cat Food 😉
"We're not going back to the 50's or the 80's"
And here's where you give the game away. The 80's went back to the 50's. There's no reason the 20's and 30's can't go back to the 80's, except all the whiners saying "can't be done, can't be done".
It's pathetic.
Only 5 minutes in but it seems that concern about pensions and providing care for the elderly is the driving factor for this fear about population decline. I don't buy it. This seems more to be another dangerous consequence of too much dependency on the state.
I for one welcome a reduction in population. UK is overpopulated as it is. Bursting at the seams.
Boomers' fear of no one taking care of them when they're old manifests itself in front of our very eyes.
Just a bunch of old farts who want more exploitables to make line go up.
We've been under replacement for 30 years. Have you seen a population reduction? You aren't going to get one just because middle-class white women aren't having kids. You're just going to get one growing rapidly made up of people from cultures which really don't care much for people outside of their own group.
Talk about betting on every horse in the race; couldn't get the interviewee to give anything but indefinite answers.
no chance im having kids with the direction the uk has gone over the last 30 years. F whats happening. not putting them through this crap.
What about Africa?
@@barrygreen9341 What about it?
People will always want to settle into the UK so we'll never run out of younger people. Immigrants breed more enthusiastically, given that these mainly come from the third world. With Brexit we have cut ourselves off from immigration from countries much more compatible with British culture, so the number of immigrants from the third world will continue to grow exponentially. The problem is that the indigenous population wants to have their cake and eat it: new cars ever 3-4 years, holidays abroad twice a year or more, large new houses, etc. You can't change people's attitudes. Essentially, feminism has killed off the family - this is the REAL reason why fertility has dropped. Until the late 1970s people used to marry young and have a lot of children, but now women are simply not interested in marriage. Women nowadays want a career, multiple sexual experiences and 'freedom' (whatever that means). This is unlikely to change, barring a violent revolution.
Mothers are penniless. A married woman has no legal right to the income that her child's father earns because he doesn't do his share of the child care. Motherhood has always been a crap deal.
People should only have kids if they want them, there is nothing worse than resented children and miserable parents who regret their decision.
A lack of decent affordable housing and community does not encourage
@@janewest2845totally agree
While thats happening, thats not really Brexit. Ireland saw a greater reduction in its 'born in EU8' population between its 2016 and 2021 census than did the UK, and also saw a proportionally greater increase in born in India people. Norway, Italy, Denmark also seeing EU8 numbers actually reducing. its more a statement of the better wages out east compared to 10,20 years ago and worse wages in western europe than anything else. Many went home during Covid & saw the Poland of 2020 was nothing like the Poland of 2005.
The simple fact is that there really arent that many poor europeans who want to move anymore. The dash to allow in as many Ukrainians as possible was probably a last gasp to attract as many young europeans as possible. The vast majority of immigration from hereon in, perhaps all of it, net, will be from outside europe whether inside the EU or out.
The next major movement of white people will likely be AWAY from decaying western european countries.
People didn't decide to stop having kids. Women did.
Some of it is development and comfort… but most of it is how much we work for so little. My wife and I are 29, we spend very little. One 32k job wasn’t enough to cover expenses so my partner got a part time one too.
Cost of living is through the roof, we waste billions on new arrivals that attack us in the street, and inflation. So we try to save each month and children get further away as each set back hurts savings. Your landlord sells so now you need a moving lorry, your employer goes under, you’re fired for wrong think or speech.
Can just never get out of the ditch at the speed the government can dig it deeper. Whites want kids…. We struggle to have them.
I’m unable to have kids and it’s devastating. I can’t believe people are choosing not to have them these days. I’m expecting to see a lot of people shouldering a heavy burden of regret in the years to come.
If you don't have a secure place to live and support network it is near impossible to have children. Why have children to leave them in a nursery while you work 2 or 3 jobs? Where's quality of life. Fact is many people have seen their parents struggle with no support so why repeat that
What sane person would want to bring a child into this world especially after the last 4 years of tyranny?
That depends on if people want them. If they do and don't have them, then like you it will ve very sad. However there are loads of people for whom it's fine. I'm 60, o just don't like children, it's no regret at all.
Interestingly I have 5 close friends, all with children. 3 of them if they had their time over would not do so again.
Our biggest demographic crisis now is the Labour government.
For a demographer he seems very ignorant of the simple reason why the replacement rate is 2.1 and not 2. It is not infant mortality. Mortality can strike at any age and thus is not factored in
It is the fact boys are born at a slightly higher rate than girls, so with a replacement rate of 2 there will be slightly fewer than 1 girl/womb born per woman and a gradual collapse would still occur.
University should be from age 30 onwards , young people should spend the time 18 to 22 creating families , and upto 30yrs, raising families.
"I don't think we should go back to the 50's, I think we need women in the workplace"
Then you have chosen death for your country. Good night.
Agreed. They should have had on Mary Harrington, mother to young children and author of Feminism against Progress.
He wants to keep "muh liberalism" and immigration. Doing that shuts down all possible solutions except euthanasia, which he shoots down because we have to maintain the dignity of human life even though the government sponsors wars and revolutions all over the globe. At some point he said he has no solution.
The average cost of raising a child from birth to 18 in the UK is £223,256. This includes housing and childcare costs. That’s around £12,400 a year, or £1030 a month. How many can afford (1) nevertheless multiple children?
It's always been the same. Do the sums & you can't afford it, but you go ahead anyway & you find a way. It's the same with housing. Take London out of the equation & if you really want it, anyone on average wages can get on the ladder - the media don't want people to think so though.
@@SteeeveO the problem is that majority earns below average wages. Haven't you heard of the middle class shrinking?
@@terrorbilly1 I'm an hour from london. My son bought his flat 8 years ago on £16k. My other son & his gf are both on below £26k & have been in a detached new build for a year. Sometimes you just have to go for it & forget the Sky TV & holidays for a few years.
@@terrorbilly1 depends if you are talking hourly or annual earnings. I've always worked entry level warehouse jobs. Even at that level, under £15 ph, if I do every hour of overtime on offer, I can gross nearly 80,000 a year, not even in the south east. Yes that's 70+ hour weeks, I wouldn't want to keep that up forever. But a lot of the young Indians who came over 18 months ago in the warehouse now have six figure savings and are already buying UK property. Like it or not, that's the kind of competition young native first time buyers are up against.
My theory has always been that the more educated you have and how high your anxiety about the future is the less you have or want children. Having children is an expensive endeavor and if you calculated the amount of money you need so spend in the next 18 years your less likely to want it. Owning an exotic pet is less of an expense than a child.
Yes. People see no ROI in having kids and opt out.
Maybe the falling fertility rate is an act of nature of which we have no control. Nature works in mysterious ways. We just need to find solutions in dealing with less people. More volunteers, more intergenerational households, being more self sufficient etc.
Or maybe it's prophylactics and late-term abortion.
Weak discussion, avoiding hard truths (many of which have been mentioned in other comments) and a lukewarm cup of milky tea guest. Disappointing.
There are two major obstacles to increasing birthrate:
- Prospects of the future
- Financial wellbeing
You don’t have children if you can’t afford it and if the future is bleak.
There is also a fundamental problem in relation to our monetary system. It relies on new people existing and taking on debt in order to grow the monetary supply. This is going to have to change.
We need a fiscal based monetary system.
Plenty of people have children they cannot afford. It is a take as old as time to have kids when poor or in terrible relationships. Nothing has changed at all considering single mothers are at record numbers globally.
The cost of living as well as our expectations of what constitutes a ‘decent life/standard of living’ is likely a huge factor. Higher levels of educational attainment among women and delays due to establishing one’s career are related factors. All of these are valid and we’re not going to turn back the clock so we will likely having incentivise couples / provide more support. Older women (who would have retired) in previous generations and might have helped with childcare are having to work for longer often due to economic circumstances (some may be related divorce) and also increase in pension age. It’s something of a wicked issue. Not an easy one!
Delaying having children also has an impact. Consider having 2 kids at age 18 vs having 2 kids at age 38. In one scenario, when you reach age 38, your children are already having children. By delaying, nearly an entire generation is being skipped. There are fewer young people to support an aging population.
As a couple who chose not to have children why should childless couples pay higher taxes? Why be penalised fir one's choice? If people can't afford children then don't have them.
Why should my children pay for your elderly care and pensions?
@@apebass2215 We paid taxes all our lives and subsidised children, education, health etc etc
Gov services are a ponzi scheme, if you pay average tax and make average use of expensive and inefficient gov services as a childless person you're still relying on others children to keep the scheme going. Especially if you want the society in general to persist.
Also a member of a DINK couple, just retired, I am hostile in principle to taxes varying according to lifestyle choices, just like you are. But in practice I do not care. Because I know, just as you do, that our wealth is better measured in time than in money. Tax differences between parents and non parents are never significant, they are anecdotal. And there is no such thing as the redistribution of _time_ through taxation, since no tax is payable in time. In my country, France, some idiot will sometimes advocate for enrolling all adults of all ages who are in good health into a civic service, something like non-military conscription for all. But all this idiot can do is sell a few hundred books: there is no real danger here.
@@flowerfairy1950 your taxes currently pay for the pensions and healthcare of the generation above you, it'll be the generation of workers below you that pay for your pension etc. Do you anticipate needing a carer in your later years? They won't be the same age as you.
Im 31 myself living in London. I only have a couple of friend's with kids or even considering them at the moment because renting or buying anything more than a 2 bed flat is basically impossible and thats with significant help from family. Im moving to the Mornington Peninsula in Australia with my Australian wife with the hope of having a family out there, they live in a very family oriented area where all her cousins have children and their quality of life as a child is pretty amazing, even though yes it is expensive. Having that family network around you i think is an amazing way to raise a family and unfortunately in a big city like London where I cannot afford to live anywhere near my parents and my friends are either not having children or moving miles away from each other to anywhere they can afford to live, just doesnt bring the sense of community which I personally feel is ideal for raising a family
Old age pension and old age freebies (bus pass, TV licence fee, etc) should ALL be means-tested. Boomers who own their home don't need state pension or a "free" bus pass let alone Boomers who own multiple homes. NHS healthcare for over 80s should be limited, you do not need to have £100k or even more spent on chemo and heart surgery and a new hip and 3 months in hospital for the very old when the NHS doesn't allocate enough funds to dental care for kids and (poor) adults.
I've looked at some figures from 2016 that shows that the average NHS spending on over 85s was £7000 per annum, compared to just over £2k for the entire population. 2019:
"This shows that spending is considerably higher for those in the last year of life, with average spending of £6,651 compared to £624 for those who lived for at least another five years."
Then what is the point of working and saving? I'm 60 now, retired, not in receipt of any benefits. In 37 years of work I took precisely 16 weeks holiday and worked on average 75+ hour weeks. I have lived in the same house for over 30 years, never moved up from my poor area. Been on 4 foreign holidays, drove around in second hand cars. If you make it so that it's better to spend on new kitchens, 2 holidays a year, replace for a new car regularly rather than save for old age, then it will hardly be surprising if people don't bother to save.
If you do that to boomers, they will have no inheritance to leave to their children. How many young people would be happy with that?
@@EE12CSVTmost people get infirm and sick as they age, even if you tale care of yourself. That's what ageing does to all living creatures.
@@marianhunt8899 Gee, as someone who cared for his elderly parents, I didn't know that. As the country is pretty much bankrupt, sharp conversations without sentimentality are needed on just how much we should be prepared to spend keeping the very elderly alive or giving tthem hip replacements months before they die of old age.
Money and lack of it .. middle / working class has been destroyed
Talk about real reasons stop talking around stuff
Most people can't handle work and children at the same time properly ...
because work pays the expenses...
suffer the children ...
when they become adults...
have less children...
very interesting discussion. Your guest might find it boring, but he really hasn't got a clue about women and I'm afraid women are the key to this....
60 years old, never had kids. Best decision I ever made. I would never bring a human being into this world.
Similar age, same approach: becoming a father is the very best thing I never made.
"I don't have the answers."
So clearly, we should not follow your advice. A good start would be, look at the approach you've taken (rejecting the 50's, forcing women into the workforce) and doing the OPPOSITE.
It almost certainly comes from the combination of lack in morals and vitues and the guidance to follow them.
Really useful discussion. Thanks. Do you recall Prince Harry saying he wld stick to 2 kids to save the planet? He made me feel so bad for my 3. I raised my kids in the last 20 years and didn't feel the culture was pro natal as a middle class woman who kept reading articles about supporting childless women or how awful it wld be to stay at home or how hard it is to Have It All. Will tell my 21 year old girl not to leave it too late.
Why would you allow that ginger numpty to influence your emotional state on any level?
From a 25-year-old man with a wife from Poland. We want children (2-3 would be perfect). The main reasons why we delay that are:
Economic conditions - Despite earning around the average wage in our country, we still don’t have enough money for key assets (house, flat, etc.).
Education - We know how to delay pregnancy and can wait for it.
Time - In our current schedule, we both have to work to earn enough money, so if we decide to have a child, our economic status will decline or our goals will be delayed.
Moving out - To achieve education and better earnings, we had to move to a city where we don’t have a support network from family, so we have to build our resources from scratch.
I bet your wife or girlfriend craves a baby