The demographic timebomb was Re: the whole kid thing

[Ali]

 Joywitch, the Curmudgeon wrote:-
 
<<< But is that enough to make me want one of my own?  No, I don't 
think so.  I just don't have enough personal desire to reproduce for 
it to make sense.  Is there any societal need?  IMO, the last thing 
the world needs is more people in it.  However, there is a societal 
need to take care of the world's many neglected kids, and I've given 
a lot of serious consideration to adopting a kid.  I like the idea 
of adopting an older kid, to avoid the baby stage, and to rescue 
some unhappy soul from her cupboard under the stairway>>>

Like many, I'm fascinated by the kid discussion here. I'm interested 
to learn why people have made the decisions they have, and I suppose 
I have a desire to share *my story* with you. Fortunately, I haven't 
got time to do that right now, but I did want to question Joy's 
concept of "society".

Whilst I personally like the idea of the world as one family, one 
society, on balance I'd have to say that that's a little idealistic. 
There are too many people in the world, and some like my husband 
have an absolute horror of over producing. Thus, as a couple we were 
allowed to have 2 children, but he honestly believes that having 
more than 2 would be greedy - we should not produce more than 
ourselves. However, it is also a fact that in many Western cultures 
we are facing a demographic timebomb.

Quite simply, the ratio between the working population and 
the "economically inactive" population has changed drastically in 
the last century and is set to change still further. What does this 
mean? It means that each worker is effectively supporting a higher 
and higher number of non-workers. I won't bore you with statistics 
(unless you ask), but our societies are ageing, people are opting 
for smaller families, later and more children are staying on in 
further education. Older people are dependant on those working to 
ensure that there are sufficient funds going into their pension 
funds to give them an allowance, sufficient taxes going into the 
treasury to pay the higher welfare bills.

In the UK we are already seeing changes to the way that pensions are 
calculated, we will possibly see the end to our official retirement 
age in a few years time, both different approaches to deflect some 
of the problems of our ageing population. However, real and 
permanent solutions are difficult and unpalatable to Western 
countries. 

If those living in the Western World don't reproduce in sufficient 
numbers, there are arguments that the only way many countries will 
be able to look after their ageing population is by mass 
immigration. Immigration is already a political hot potato, and I 
won't start a flame war here by discussing its rights and wrongs. 
All I can say is that the xenophobia which is often a factor in 
immigration discussions, disgusts me.

IMO immigration will become a necessity unless the demographic 
situation changes, although the effects of this will not necessarily 
be felt in my lifetime. Meanwhile, the issue about why so many women 
are choosing not to have children must be investigated. 

The concept of the "Work/Life balance" is growing in popularity with 
the novel but simple idea being that we can work and have a life. In 
Europe a whole new raft of legislation has been passed in recent 
years to protect workers, and women's rights have increased 
considerably. For example, if I were to have another baby now, I 
would be entitled to a year off work (about half of which would be 
unpaid and the majority of the rest paid for at about £100 per week) 
and still return to my old job (well if I was working). We have 
child benefit, family credit, limited nursery places from the age of 
3.5 and if our incomes are low enough (mine wasn't - quite) 
subsidised childcare. There are many other rights that we now have. 

It is hoped that these increased rights and payments will help women 
both to have children and stay in the workplace. what it doesn't do 
is take away the stress of trying to have it all. I did have a 
career that I tried to keep going by working full time with my first 
child. For me, the stress wasn't worth it. My daughter was sick for 
seven weeks of her first year at nursery. My work was acomodating, 
but not *that* accomodating, plus the nursery failed 2 social 
services inspections. By the time you factor in my husband being 
away alot, and not having any family nearby, I couldn't see many 
benefits of working. The childcare costs of having my second 
daughter would have wiped out the rest of my income. I didn't see 
any inducements in trying to have a "career" and children. 

I have never regretted having children and I don't think I ever 
will, but it is a big sacrifice. Many of my friends have yet 
to "produce", and I dislike the way some now think the only subject 
I can talk about is kids. I often feel like a pariah in the child-
free zones I used to inhabit.

I certainly wouldn't cast aspertions on anybody who has decided not 
to have children, but I do get annoyed when *friends* try and 
categorise me. A few months ago when I was deciding whether to 
continue with my HR course, a good friend suggested that I tried to 
get a job in a call-centre. The rational was that they paid ok 
money. The implication was that that was the only thing that should 
really matter to me now, not doing something I might actually enjoy 
or get pleasure from. Grrrrr. 

Ali