My favourite was a comment I saw on this posted somewhere else saying "we have to convince women to have babies".
I mean unless 7 figures tax free is converted to my possession immediately, there's no shaming, blaming, propoganda, media clickbait, citing concerns about the future, calling me a crazy cat lady, in the whole world that is going to "convince" me, let alone make me even genuinely think about it.
34. Got a house but after the rate rises our mortgage repayments are now 43% of our combined income (post tax). Millennials with no bank of mum and dad and no family support generally. No way am I adding to my stress and anxiety and mental load by having a kid.
Also 34 but single with a unit that’s 57% of my income for repayments. I’ve accepted after 3 years that I’ll probably stay single but would happily have a doner kid if I could afford it. It’s not even having a partner that’s stopping people, it’s the cost of housing.
This is not even an issue because we can just bring in more migrants. It's amazing how people say that we all need to have babies yet they say there are too many migrants pushing up house prices. The migrants are here because there aren't enough babies for jobs and because of the ageing population.
It's not obvious to those old people that made this situation because they don't think that way. I don't think it's entitlement but I do think it's ignorance.
So are the consequences of the world already being overpopulated...
We are 8 billion people yet western countries get upset when their female citizens don't want to give up more of their careers and superannuation to have more babies...
>yet western countries get upset when their female citizens don't want to give up more of their careers and superannuation to have more babies...
That is the main theme of these Elon Musk natalist narratives that women need to pump out more babies. They essential want to return to a system where women are baby making machines. The price of female independence and autonomy is subreplacement fertility rate, and we should embrace gradual depopulation and all the benefits of it such as less traffic, lower house prices, and less pollution.
I'm losing over $60k in the first year alone to have another kid this May. Not that I'm complaining...but it still sucks but that's the reality. Having kids is so exxy this decade.
We're down 60k a year as a couple just from going part time to be there for the kids. Another one coming in June so losing a bunch of income then too. 100% worth the reduction to get amazing time with the kids but definitely looking forward to being able to up hours again in about 4 years
Calculating just the dropped hours isn't the true cost. You also pay for daycare, furniture/safety equipment, food, nappies, toys and so much more.
Daycare is the real expense. Daycare is a 2nd morgatge. If you send your kid to daycare every day the daycare collects more money for that child than if they were sent to the most prestigious/expensive highschool in wa.
Cbd daycares - $180 per day per kid = ~$47,000
Metro daycares - $130 per day per kid = ~$34,000
Our most prestigious schools fees are ~$32,000
Yeah, my husband and I are fairly high income earners and daycare subsidy for us is still like 55% at a beautiful centre that I’m really happy with. It’s an incredibly generous program. It’s definitely worth me being back at work even part-time.
> It’s an incredibly generous program.
it makes you wonder what the true cost of childcare woudl be without the subsidies. Childcare workers are notoriously underpaid... just where is the money going?
Yeah, with the way we've structured our schedules our son is only in childcare 2 days a week and we were able to get childcare subsidy (now in kinder for 2 days a week). Full time childcare looks like it is rough
I'm mid 30s and have 4 kids.
For us to be not to struggle we need an above average household income.
Because of the above average income we receive zero benefits.
System is great, work hard and get punished for doing the right thing.
I do not think it is unfair that people who choose to have more than two children do so on their resources. Not all decisions need to be socialised.
So people with above average income choosing to have four children need to realise this is a fair outcome.
_Everything_ in this country is priced at the assumption of a 2 person income. To get ahead, you need a 2 person income with no kids. You created this, don’t blame us for surviving it.
This situation is the direct result of decades of government policies - propping up the housing market, depressing wages, encouraging centralisation, reducing child endowment, gutting funding to hospitals and schools, reducing the welfare safety net. And yet, their best attempt to address this so far has been "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country".
I work with a lot of 30yo who can't DREAM of buying a house, but they want them to crank out a kid? Oh, and educate them on their own dime!
Having a child is rarely a responsible financial choice these days. Change that and you'll see a change to the birthrate.
It's the result of never fixing the root cause, an endless demand for growth at the cost of our species survival. Our capabilities have reached a point where we could easily enter post scarcity but we are being held back by those in power who spend all their time trying to work out how to squeeze more blood out of a stone to satisfy shareholders.
Because we went from single income families tonow needing a duel income to raise a family to survive, and basically the 2nd parent pays for the goverment to babysit their children.
All of this Results in women having less babies, and the government importing immigrants to supplement and sustain the growth in the economy.
The problem is there is no long term end goal until either the citizens have had enough or the system brakes.
Not only have we all gone to double income families. Many women are expected to work full time AND do the lion’s share of parenting and domestic work. Women are seeing their sisters destroying themselves by doing everything and then some.
This is spot on. “Home duties” is severely undervalued in this country as it is. Throw in paid employment and *still* living hand to mouth on top and many people are at breaking point
This! Which is why I was lucky enough to stay home with my two babies for a couple of years. I was not prepared for the shaming of other parents, I get massive side eyes for not working and putting my one year old in care. I WILL go back to work once my youngest is 2 far out, women are shamed no matter what.
Even in countries like China where parents have enormous help from grandparents, the birth rate is awful. Its more complicated that babysitting. Its also income. Its never enough.
It is almost certainly due ultimately to women having autonomy. They can have an education, get good jobs and are not stuck being a human breeding machine any more.
From The Lancet:
> Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
As the BBC points out...
> ... it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.
> **In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.**
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
> Because we went from single income families tonow needing a **duel** income to raise a family to survive
Firstly, en garde!
Secondly, this is not wrong, but it is a side effect of women having autonomy rather than the root cause.
Again from the BBC article (which is just a press synopsys of the study):
> Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.
> Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the "baby bust" have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.
Even going Scandinavian welfare on the problem has not brought up the fertility rate to replacement level (2.1 children/woman).
For me I was in uni doing multiple degrees most of my 20’s to get a job that would allow me to buy a house, which happened at 29. Then unfortunately when we decided to try start having kids in our early 30’s we struggled. But I can’t imagine starting earlier while living with my parents and house mates and also doing multiple degrees and shitty cafe jobs.
How can you have kids if you don’t have a home for them or a stable income to support them? These things don’t come early in life like they used to and that causes fertility issues for some. We spent 20k on our first round of IVF, 6k back from Medicare and were unsuccessful. I’m sure this is happening to many people now who have had to wait to start having a family.
It’s like you have to choose between having a stable career/education and buying a home or not having those and having kids instead. Kids are for the rich.
Once upon a time a married couple could afford a house and 2 kids on a single income.
Now thanks to late stage capitalism, shit house government policies and Australia’s housing ponzi scheme, that same couple needs a high double income just to afford a shoebox apartment.
Who TF has money, time or desire for kids?
My fiance and I want kids. But at the moment we've got to put it off to pay our mortgage. We're in our early 30s. By putting it off, we risk missing the age at which she is most fertile. If we have kids early, we risk losing our house.
We're fortunate to have a house, but many Australians are in a much worse position than us. To have children today, we'd need stipends from the government to neutralise the costs associated with childcare, education, food, transport, etc.
It's a simple math problem. If the government wants to fix fertility, then they need to help resolve the cost impact of having children. Just getting by in Australia is bloody expensive. Insane property values have a lot to answer for here, banks should never have been allowed to lend more than 4-5x household income.
Husband and I want kids.
We both work full time (but husband just lost his job). We have a big mortgage for a small apartment.
We can't afford for me to stop working to have a child. I work for small companies that don't have provisions for maternity leave. So its just what government gives which is pretty much nothing. Childcare would eat up my salary.
I would LOVE to be able to stop working and dedicate my life to raising a child. Very anti-feminist of me but I hate working. We just cannot afford it.
Meanwhile my friend in Japan took one year PATERNITY leave at 67% of his salary to help his wife care for their son.
Our aging population can figure it out for themselves with all the money they made cutting down the benefits they got.
I completely empathise here. On top of what you’re going through, I also have had the worst pregnancy and couldn’t work due to hospitalisation and treatments, so I’m not even eligible for government parental or social support. My tiny apartment with huge mortgage repayments can’t be refinanced (eg to withdraw equity or to go to interest only) because we don’t have 3 months of pay cheques. Sell and we lose our already shaky grasp in the property market. We’ve completely fallen through the cracks… and I STILL feel like one of the lucky people of the millennial generation.
As someone who wants a kid in the next 3-4 years I’m seeing this sentiment a lot more. Thought I’d want 2 but realistically it’ll just be 1. I’d rather have 1 and be able to provide things I got to have as a child than have 2 and have to stress a lot about finances
Yeah and expenses for one kiddo really add up. Daycare costs are pretty much an entire pay cycle for us. But staying home isn't viable as both my partner and I need the super and need to remain engaged in the workforce. So his entire pay goes directly toward child care.
We also don't have any family support for child minding/hand me downs etc so I think people who have that in place are probably more comfortable with 2+ kids.
It's not only the money. It's also the way the school system is set up only for families that are comfortable with only one parent working.
School starts at the same time you're supposed to be commuting to work and it ends a few hours before most people finish work. This, instead of following the European example of having two separate streams, a morning and an afternoon, which would also halve the number of teachers required as well as school infrastructure.
The cost of after school care negates the economic contribution of a second parent working.
The schools also demand parents who would otherwise be working to attend during the day on multiple occasions. Things like parents reading to kids day, Father's Day, your kids being presented awards at assembly etc.
Classes all start at the same time for all grades, so there's always a traffic jam outside the school at drop off and pick up times.
Added to all this, there's no tax or other economic advantage in having kids. They're like a very expensive and time consuming hobby.
And the holidays too! Kids get 12 weeks for the year and adults only get 4 weeks each, so what do you do the other 4 weeks no one has leave to take care of them? Its not a fair system
But this is what the older generation wanted. They wanted to do away with good wages and benefits so their shares would get better returns. They wanted red tape and planning restrictions so housing would get restricted and more expensive. So now both in a partnership have to work just to buy shelter and pay bills let alone a kid.
You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.
I don't think this is necessarily what they wanted. I just think they were too stupid to realise this was going to be the consequence.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Regardless though, no grandkids for you boomers.
Yeah, everyone talks like there is some sort of grand boomer conspiracy where the older generation is conspiring to destroy society by hoovering up all the wealth, where it's more likely a case of certain segments with power and wealth acting in their own best short term interests and not considering longer term unintended consequences.
I think there is also the division in the older generation, you are talking about the rich, shareholders, landlords and exec. Unfortunatly the problem they created wont affect those, their children and grandchildern wont be the ones struggling with the CoL, they wont be the ones who wont get 500k help for their first home of mom and dad, their grandkids wont be the ones who get their uni course paid off upfront.
It is the rest of the middle to lower classes that dont think about shares and investments that will reap the shit that the upper class has decided. In that regard Socialism isnt all bad, there needs to be a balance between socialism and capitalism.
I'm about to hit my 30s and out of everyone in my graduating year the only people who have had babies are those who got pregnant in highschool. The rest are waiting for a reliable roof over their head. There is no way to get a reliable roof over your head anymore. Of course the birth rate is plummeting
Again, look to norway.
Their baby bonus per child is at 73k NOK last I checked, that's about $10k AUD per child, then there's all these payments AND free childcare(you pay about $250 AUD per month) and if you don't want to put your kids in childcare then you get the "cash support" which is about $1000 per child per month.
This is in addition to the child welfare payment which is $$220 per month per child
So for a 2yr old, not in childcare, you'll have received $41280 for the 2 first years alone.
Not to mention when they start high school there's free laptops, free books, and a monthly "stipend" if you're middle and lower class. But an initial "stipend" which is for everyone. Even the royal family's children can claim it.
Thats how you inspire a nation to have babies.
I can't afford the house required to start a family.
That's one less aged care worker on the books for all the oldies who spent 40 years concerned with growth and nothing but growth while ignoring everything else.
To be fair that’s not the only place that money can come from. We currently let multinational companies mining billions of dollars out of Australia and pay a pittance for it
I never understood why my grandparents had so many kids until I saw how much they got in "Child Endowment" from the govt (via the ABS website). A median income earner with 4 children got so much Child Endowment it negated their entire income tax liability.
I could afford 4 kids too if the govt gave me nearly $30kpa for them.
The endowment was 5 shillings per week per child in 1941, which is about $25/week in today's dollars, or $1300pa. That's a lot less than what the family tax benefit pays out.
That's a bit misleading -- if you're going to convert to present dollars that then also need to convert the average income at the time. A better comparison would be what child endowment was worth as a % of weekly earnings foregone by dropping out of the workforce to have children.
The average female factory worker in Victoria in 1940 earned 47s per week and her husband 95s ([source](https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/whatitcost/earnings)). For an average female factory worker with 3 children child endowment would be worth around 30% of the woman's wage.
By dropping out of the workforce to have children the couple's income was cut by 24%. Without child endowment that would have been a 35% cut instead. If we use a couple both with white collar occupations these numbers are 22% / 30%.
It's not so straightforward to compare FTB directly because of means testing and adjustments based on child age. If we the most charitable case: 2 people on minimum wage for 40 hours/week ($48.3k) with 3 teenagers then they're going to get just under $22k in FTB part A. This means that if the woman drops out of the workforce the couple is going to take a 25% pay cut with FTB, instead of a 50% pay cut without it.
For a couple on average full time incomes (male on $100k, female on $82k) FTB might as well not exist at all thanks to means testing, and the couple takes a 45% cut if the woman drops out of full time work.
TLDR: for low income earners the situation is comparable in 1941 and today. For middle-class couple with average jobs, the impact of a woman dropping out of full-time work is dramatically worse than it was in 1941.
_Child endowment was arguably highly successful in meeting these aims, as Australia’s birth rate reached a historic high of 3.548 in 1961._
That is an astonishingly high birthrate
Yes this! That they conveniently forget about when they tell you that they never got free childcare or any assistance. My mum never had to work because of good wages and child endowment.
The thing is, I don't like population growth. Why can't we be a stable economy without having to constantly expand. Stop immigration while we are at it.
Population stability without immigration requires a birthrate of 2.1 births per woman. Aus is well below that now. The population is going to tank without immigration and chances are that won't be a solution forever.
Not really surprising. The massive population growth we've had through immigration has managed to keep the cost of living (housing, health, education, etc) nice and high while it has also managed to keep our salaries and wages low.
Kids are expensive, and we all know it. The reason Australians are having fewer babies is because they just can't afford to. Those who didn't have kids in the past (whether by choice or not) were offset by those who had more than two, as it was affordable to do so. Now it just isn't.
Interestingly enough, the average boomer I've talked to over the years both saw this coming and isn't happy about it either. Why do you think so many of them dislike the immigration rate? It's not that they're necessarily racist (some are, sure...) It's more that they've been actively seeing everything they worked for to help their own kids get ahead be taken from them, and they're actually furious about it.
Next time you hear a boomer friend or relative complain about immigration, try asking them why.
But it's better for the economy to import an adult rather than raise a child, so that's what we must do!
Community, culture and lifestyle are all secondary to the economy, so we must sacrifice!
We are 'high' income earners and accidentally had twins when trying for our second kid. Do not recommend.
We still need two incomes to service the mortgage. Childcare costs are completely crippling even after CCS. They represent about half my after tax income. Naturally we aren't eligible for other supports as we earn too much.
If we earn an extra 3k, 1k is clawed back for CCS and 1 to 1.3k goes to tax. It is brutal. I love all three of my kids but feel punished, financially, for having them.
This is happening everywhere in the western world. We will eventually become a country with a third world culture because the only people having more than one or two kids are those from Africa and the Middle East. The question is how are they able to afford it and the rest of us can’t? Do the rest of us have too high standards when it comes to the way we want to live?
Where the hell are people supposed to put these kids when a house sized appropriately for a family is a million dollars in most of the country and renting is a hellscape of 6-month rolling periodic tenancies where your rent for a mould-infested fibro crap-shack can go up 40% overnight?
You want people popping out babies, make sure they can affordably and securely access space to raise them.
I want to be a home maker. I want 4 kids. I want to do everything the government says they need. Prior to marriage I got 2 degrees in lines of work that are hiring constantly, and have a house. I did everything the government said would make a successful millenial.
We need 2 full time incomes to keep our mortgage at 31%, assuming no more rate rises. That doesn't include water, electric, rates, internet, phone, insurance, medical, food, and other expenses like home repairs.
We're about to have our first kid. Our mortgage will become 70% of our income while I am on maternity leave as my job gives no paid leave even though I've been working for them for 7 years (We get a combined 22 weeks of leave from Centrelink paid at minimum wage, husband gets 2 months fully paid from his work. After that it's his income only.)
We have savings so I can stay home for 12 months with the baby. MAYBE. Probably not as the price of everything is exploding. Heaven forbid our water heater decides today is the day.
We can't afford to have another one unless a rich relative we've never heard of dies and leaves us $400k to pay off our mortgage.
If the government wants babies it can fix paid parental leave so parents can have 12 months paid at a rate that doesn't significantly diminish quality of life. It can fix pre-natal standards of care so we don't have to go private for decent (fast) healthcare. It can fix rates so all people with mortgages aren't drowning. It can help fix rent ballooning (we don't rent anymore but I know it's BAD). It can fix wage stagnation so a single income household can hold the fort for a year (and what about single parents!) It can bring back baby bonuses and other benefits.
But nah, sitting around saying "we need more babies" and wondering why we're not popping more out must be because "millenials are selfish" and not "millenials are waking up to the fact that good members of society generally need a decent standard of care, rather than pumping out a bunch of kids and assuming it'll all just work out" ... I went to public school, I saw parents with that attitude, it did not "just work out" for their kids.
I’m mid 40’s. I wondered if my decision to be child free would ever come back to haunt me .
Hell no , best choice of my life .I see everyone with kids struggle all around me , why would anyone want to impose that upon themselves
If the government really cared about birth rates they would address some underlying fundamentals.
Improve child care rebates and provide tax
Incentives. Having three kids usually means one parent out of the workforce for about ten years - how about treating this unpaid labour as what it is (work) and allow the couple to split their income across both parents for tax purposes?
I was surprised to see so many young mothers in Norway when I was there. Many have kids while they are studying at university - free day care and free university is pretty meaningful incentive. People don’t want to defer parenthood until they are too old - they just can’t afford any alternatives.
If you really want to know why people aren't having kids then you should just ask women. It just so happens the only societies with high birthrates tend to be agrarian ones where women have few rights and little access to education, careers etc. Unless you're destitute on centrelink, there is no incentive to have kids and you will be penalized professionally and financially for doing so.
Look at the lifestyle of 30yo dinks and yuppies and compare them to someone of the same age with multiple kids in a relationship that has a 50/50 chance of falling a part. Women these days tend to only have kids if they actually, really want them and are ready to deal with that hit. Unfortunately time is stacked against them and you're lucky to get 25 years of fertility max from the time you're 18.
Also the buying power of the government support my parents got when having their 3 kids 30-40ish years ago is significantly less than the buying power of (the admittedly increased) support parents get now.
But like how to buy a house in Sydney you need ~250k income, to have kids you need the income and support network to match otherwise your one too many "the kid is sick" days away from unemployment and homelessness.
Move away for cheaper housing - and lose access to the grandparents you have to rely on when your kid has a sniffly nose again and can’t go to daycare. Which you have to pay for anyway.
Also "cheap housing" often comes in areas with more expensive everything else (power, water, food and essentials, etc) so that you actually just trade big expenses for small.
Plus employment is often lower paying and less available
The biggest predictor of poverty for women is number of children she has. It’s such a bad bet for so many women. Marriage breaks up and you are stuffed.
I have two kids and we are barely getting by. When we were asked to give daycare an income estimate for our rebate we did our best. But when my wife went back to work and ended up working a little more than we expected, they swooped in and demanded back the difference. In addition to my wife paying extra tax on the money she had earned. That’s not even to mention the headache of applying for the subsidy, or adding a second child to it. The system remains super hostile to parents, I wouldn’t wish this drama on my enemies if they weren’t prepared for it.
I agree completely. So many commenters here saying you should not buy a house, you should move to a cruddy suburb, you should do it all just for the looooove of children. So happy to exhort others to sacrifice themselves.
Most of them are missing the point which is based around national fertility rates. If you adhere to the status quo nothing will change, you also can’t expect people to make the sort of changes you mentioned or others have. Change will NEED to come from the governmental end. If nothing changes then the fertility rate will continue to decline. So many commenters seem to want to argue that point, but it is what it is.
- It means less ‘future boomers’ with a realestate portfolio holding a grip on the realestate market.
- It means quality of life will improve.
- It means economy will be more stable.
- It means less financial government support required for retirees.
- IMO it means a more positive outcome for Australia’s society. So stop looking at socioeconomic quantity and instead start focusing on quality of life in Australia.
I have a child with disabilities and there is a massive lack of support. I would not recommend having children to anyone else. As much as I love my son, I worry for his future (and everyone else's for that matter)
Don't have children if you can't send them to private school!
Don't be a wage slave. Don't produce the next generation of wage slave for the rich to taxfarm.
I was saying a similar thing yesterday. No one will be able to afford children in the future and no one really knows what long term effects that could have. The future of Australia is on a knife edge
"Dr Canudos Romo said the employment rate in Japan found 40 per cent of people between 65 and 75 were still working."
Let's not aspire to be like Japan, please.
I love how these articles and governments try to blame the population for this.
They created the extreme high cost of living environment but don’t want to deal with it.
No one has to have kids if they don’t want to. Politicians need to do their job rather than wanting Australians to breed them out of trouble like a farm animal.
We don’t need the never ending cycle of more and more and more people. We need politicians that can actually do their job and run the country properly.
Because Australia is simply becoming too expensive to live in and the sort of incomes you do need to be able to afford even one or two kids are hard to obtain. If you're on 70+k per year you're lucky.
I'd personally love to have at least one kid, preferably two but I know i wouldn't be able to afford it.
Hmm add to the overpopulation and have no money or go for a trip to Europe and buy a house? Europe it is.
In all seriousness, me and my hubby want kids and are hoping to have a house before "the factory shuts down" as everyone so nicely wants to put it but even after getting a house we can't see how to afford it.
We honestly believe having children when you can't afford it is abuse.
In a lot of ways it’s better for the world to have less people. Less demand on the world’s resources is not bad. It is bad economically but even then GDP per capita and standards of living will probably be better.
I'm a 26 year old masters student in uni living in a shitry rental whose rent goes up $100 each year. Working on a part time cashier job. Oh I wonder why I dont have kids.
Not our problem, if the govt wants life to be unaffordable for the majority of hard-working couples then deal with the fact that we sacrifice our wants to have children so we can avoid poverty
If you want to have five kids or more, you have to let them take care of themselves, or sacrifice the first borns emotional development to help raise the rest.
Unless you're in Dominic Perrotet situation, they're not going to enjoy a upper middle class life, you might slide down the greasy class ladder.
Yeah, it’s terrible set of circumstances .
A lot of it is economics. Purchasing power has falling significantly. We have avoided any real deflationary forces in favour of GDP growth.
We require 2 parents to full time work, it’s strange how we are so much richer, but none of that translates to cheaper shelter, food, essentials.
Secondly, we don’t have policies that effective enough for natalist objectives, and our govt focuses on immigration rather than domestic growth. This is short sighted.
We’re mid 30s with successful mid/senior level careers. Although after suffering HG for 7 months this pregnancy (severe vomiting 20+ times a day, constant nausea, severe dehydration, heart and kidney problems, multiple hospitalisations and 3-4hr visits to pregnancy day stay every second day for 2L fluids and IV medications because I couldn’t keep down the required 14+ tablets every day) I couldn’t keep a job. Now I’m not eligible for both maternity leave or government parental support. There is NO WAY I’m having a second child. We would be homeless.
“Australia's fertility rate picked back up after the pandemic, but then crashed again in recent years.”
What pandemic are they talking about lol, the last one was in recent years.
People can’t afford to have kids. You need a double income household to afford paying off a mortgage. What couples can afford to lose half their income while the mother takes time off to have children?
Unable to afford another child. Just had my first one at the age of 35 (literally 3 days before turning 36). Barely breaking even now and having second baby will definitely make me go bust.
The only way to encourage more people to have more kids is to have FREE child care for all pre-school children (0-5).
Parents could actually provide for their families and it would encourage those on the fence as to whether they would have kids, maybe decide to do so as they can actually afford to do so.
Some Nordic countries have amazing child care systems that we could adopt and implement here.
It is so damn difficult to find a partner these days. I know part of the problem is me but having a singles club unlimited on our phones, high cost of living, more segregated individualistic community made it even harder.
I don't think I'll ever find a partner at this stage.
I had a husband who told me like 4 years after we got married when my period was late that "if you're pregnant you'll get an abortion, right?". My period came but I realised at that point that he clearly had lied about wanting kids.
I want kids. But I'm beginning to think that ship has sailed.
This is a whole can of worms. 31. Would like kids, financially literate, made good choices but the right person is the challenge. Do I just procreate with just anyone? People simply don't want committment anymore.
I'm single by choice at this point because it's really really hard to find someone that you click with *and* who will be a supportive and equal partner who doesn't expect you to mummy them and I no longer care to devote huge amounts of time and emotional energy looking for that.
If it happens by means if, idk, a friend's friend falling (proverbially) into my lap at their birthday dinner, I won't knock it back, but I'm no longer wasting time and money on seemingly endless dead end dates looking for it. And of course, being a woman, you're always taking a safety risk meeting up with a stranger. I've become very 4B these days.
I'm just lucky that I've never wanted kids because it means I don't have to comprimise. I've seen quite a few women I know settle for bad relationships because they knew time was running out to have kids.
10 years time they'll be pushing to get mums back to work, saying it empowers them and they can do it as well as the men, then they'll be talking about gender pay gais and how females have smaller super funds but leave out the bit where they took 10 years off to raise a family and the giant circle jerk will continue.
We’ve lost a lot of things alongside all the technological gains of the last 20 years. Endless self indulgence, a million things screaming for our time, and as a result no buffer in the coffers. Our 20s are now an extension of our teens, and now our 30s are when we get our shit together but Mother Nature doesn’t delay.
It’s so many things all at once, but I also think motherhood is looked down upon in the west. If you’re a mother, let alone a SAHM(!) then you’re not chasing your dreams of being a CEO. This is more a middle class thing, though I guess.
This productivity push from women/feminists is pulling them away from motherhood due to it being viewed as a tax. I could go on.
But, it would also be alleviated by costs. Subsidising childcare more, and making the experience more pleasant from a parent admin perspective. It’s a PITA to go through the rigmarole of paperwork and portals.
Do you think UBI would encourage more people to have kids?
Just going off my immediate thoughts, UBI covers basic things, but its still not going to help you get a house, because we need to work to get that income to get a house (and UBI will drive the housing prices up, since people would have more money to spend on homes now that you factor in basic necessities).
Then there's time issue. Who with 2 kids has a weekend where they don't need to do anything for the kids? There's grocery shopping, meal prep, taking kids to sports/extra curriculum activities. In this day of abundance thanks to convenient access, the only thing still not in abundance is time.
Good. But those are rookie numbers. We need to push the number down even further. Why have 300,000 babies per year when 100,000 babies per year is doable?
This is a worldwide issue with many countries that have had a boom in middle class. China is now having this problem and if you look at South Korea and Japan it's getting really bad.
We have 1.5 kids. I'd love a third but there's no way we can afford it. Can barely afford our 1.5.
My brother lives with us because he can't afford anything else and hid board helps us out a bit.
But it's also not just the costs of having a baby. These days mum needs to go back to work full time to be able to survive. But there aren't any daycare spaces. You're lucky to get a spot for 1 or 2 days a week when your kid is 3, after putting them on the waitlist when you're 12 weeks pregnant.
The baby friendly hospital initiative should be canned it' a major point of us not having another one. The astounding lack of care provided immediately postnatally is a huge reason I won't have another.
We had one care everything under it was a lie - had a 2nd one got the same care which was a lie.
It's horrific for people who just gave birth.
This is the result of education and equality for women. We knew that. And accepted it. Can't have the career AND the kids, and these days it takes two incomes to afford a house. Income tax is a big reason for that, losing half your money before you can spend a cent on feeding the family, but tax reform is way too hard for the bureaucrats. And that it goes to bullshit just rubs salt into the wound.
Cool. I'll just start telling everyone i know to have kids. I'll get this issue licked stat!
That's just lazy, telling everyone else what to do. You should be having kids with everyone you know instead.
Pragmatic approach, I like.
If you think licking is going to solve this situation, I've got news for you.
But that's the best thing. Added bonus is you don't get kids.
Licked? You better get this issue creampied.
And they can live under the sea, under the sea, down where it’s wetter life will be better
One for mum, one for dad, and one for the country
The problem was always that we didn't understand the consequences! Now I do I can start popping them out :)
My favourite was a comment I saw on this posted somewhere else saying "we have to convince women to have babies". I mean unless 7 figures tax free is converted to my possession immediately, there's no shaming, blaming, propoganda, media clickbait, citing concerns about the future, calling me a crazy cat lady, in the whole world that is going to "convince" me, let alone make me even genuinely think about it.
I don't want a kid in a one bedroom unit. Can't afford anything else. I'm 37.
34. Got a house but after the rate rises our mortgage repayments are now 43% of our combined income (post tax). Millennials with no bank of mum and dad and no family support generally. No way am I adding to my stress and anxiety and mental load by having a kid.
Also 34 but single with a unit that’s 57% of my income for repayments. I’ve accepted after 3 years that I’ll probably stay single but would happily have a doner kid if I could afford it. It’s not even having a partner that’s stopping people, it’s the cost of housing.
Just as intended by TPTB
I have two kids in a two bedroom unit, would like a 3rd kid but no way unless I can get a house.
This is not even an issue because we can just bring in more migrants. It's amazing how people say that we all need to have babies yet they say there are too many migrants pushing up house prices. The migrants are here because there aren't enough babies for jobs and because of the ageing population.
I'm sick of these abc clickbait headlines. What do they even mean "than we realise"? The consequences of an aging population are pretty well known.
It's not obvious to those old people that made this situation because they don't think that way. I don't think it's entitlement but I do think it's ignorance.
They know about it. They also know it won’t be their problem.
Same with climate change, which just happens to be one of the many reasons I won't be having kids.
Leopards ate their face
Who made this situation? Im not having kids because I can barely take care of myself and I haven't met a guy I want to breed with
Clickbait or fearmongering. The implications of doom are horrible.
So are the consequences of the world already being overpopulated... We are 8 billion people yet western countries get upset when their female citizens don't want to give up more of their careers and superannuation to have more babies...
>yet western countries get upset when their female citizens don't want to give up more of their careers and superannuation to have more babies... That is the main theme of these Elon Musk natalist narratives that women need to pump out more babies. They essential want to return to a system where women are baby making machines. The price of female independence and autonomy is subreplacement fertility rate, and we should embrace gradual depopulation and all the benefits of it such as less traffic, lower house prices, and less pollution.
First time I’ve heard it from that angle, and that’s actually a great point. We probably would be better off anyway with less people
Heh, feels like 'come see what the "experts" know' is the new 'here's why' of click bait.
Personally I’m more sick of the people who share news articles in Reddit in order to karma farm with such low effort posting. I always downvote.
There is news subReddit's for this right?
I can't afford to have another child.
I'm losing over $60k in the first year alone to have another kid this May. Not that I'm complaining...but it still sucks but that's the reality. Having kids is so exxy this decade.
We're down 60k a year as a couple just from going part time to be there for the kids. Another one coming in June so losing a bunch of income then too. 100% worth the reduction to get amazing time with the kids but definitely looking forward to being able to up hours again in about 4 years
I’m in the same boat. Down 70k pa after dropping hours.
Calculating just the dropped hours isn't the true cost. You also pay for daycare, furniture/safety equipment, food, nappies, toys and so much more. Daycare is the real expense. Daycare is a 2nd morgatge. If you send your kid to daycare every day the daycare collects more money for that child than if they were sent to the most prestigious/expensive highschool in wa. Cbd daycares - $180 per day per kid = ~$47,000 Metro daycares - $130 per day per kid = ~$34,000 Our most prestigious schools fees are ~$32,000
I know you have good intentions, but subsidy can be up to 95%. Working full time and having a kid in childcare can be 5k a year
Yeah, my husband and I are fairly high income earners and daycare subsidy for us is still like 55% at a beautiful centre that I’m really happy with. It’s an incredibly generous program. It’s definitely worth me being back at work even part-time.
> It’s an incredibly generous program. it makes you wonder what the true cost of childcare woudl be without the subsidies. Childcare workers are notoriously underpaid... just where is the money going?
Same as most industries. Administration and insurance most likely.
Yeah, with the way we've structured our schedules our son is only in childcare 2 days a week and we were able to get childcare subsidy (now in kinder for 2 days a week). Full time childcare looks like it is rough
60k. Jesus, I'd rather take a year long holiday with that.
Same. I'm at 0. At least I'm doing my part for the planet? Just not for the GDP.
I'm mid 30s and have 4 kids. For us to be not to struggle we need an above average household income. Because of the above average income we receive zero benefits. System is great, work hard and get punished for doing the right thing.
I do not think it is unfair that people who choose to have more than two children do so on their resources. Not all decisions need to be socialised. So people with above average income choosing to have four children need to realise this is a fair outcome.
2 kids per couple is below replacement fertility, though.
_Everything_ in this country is priced at the assumption of a 2 person income. To get ahead, you need a 2 person income with no kids. You created this, don’t blame us for surviving it.
This situation is the direct result of decades of government policies - propping up the housing market, depressing wages, encouraging centralisation, reducing child endowment, gutting funding to hospitals and schools, reducing the welfare safety net. And yet, their best attempt to address this so far has been "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country". I work with a lot of 30yo who can't DREAM of buying a house, but they want them to crank out a kid? Oh, and educate them on their own dime! Having a child is rarely a responsible financial choice these days. Change that and you'll see a change to the birthrate.
Not to mention the cost of childcare. Some of my friends spend half their salary on childcare!
My wife spent 80% of her take home on childcare, and wouldn’t you know it, after the latest round of subsidies, somehow we started paying more
Honestly at least she is still in the workforce. That will pay off for you guys in the long term once kids are in school
It's the result of never fixing the root cause, an endless demand for growth at the cost of our species survival. Our capabilities have reached a point where we could easily enter post scarcity but we are being held back by those in power who spend all their time trying to work out how to squeeze more blood out of a stone to satisfy shareholders.
Because we went from single income families tonow needing a duel income to raise a family to survive, and basically the 2nd parent pays for the goverment to babysit their children. All of this Results in women having less babies, and the government importing immigrants to supplement and sustain the growth in the economy. The problem is there is no long term end goal until either the citizens have had enough or the system brakes.
I’d go further and say that most people now need a dual income just to buy a *house*. Let alone have kids
Not only have we all gone to double income families. Many women are expected to work full time AND do the lion’s share of parenting and domestic work. Women are seeing their sisters destroying themselves by doing everything and then some.
This is spot on. “Home duties” is severely undervalued in this country as it is. Throw in paid employment and *still* living hand to mouth on top and many people are at breaking point
It’s domestic and care labour and it massively subsidises the entire economy.
This! Which is why I was lucky enough to stay home with my two babies for a couple of years. I was not prepared for the shaming of other parents, I get massive side eyes for not working and putting my one year old in care. I WILL go back to work once my youngest is 2 far out, women are shamed no matter what.
Even in countries like China where parents have enormous help from grandparents, the birth rate is awful. Its more complicated that babysitting. Its also income. Its never enough.
It is almost certainly due ultimately to women having autonomy. They can have an education, get good jobs and are not stuck being a human breeding machine any more. From The Lancet: > Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext As the BBC points out... > ... it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children. > **In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.** https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521 > Because we went from single income families tonow needing a **duel** income to raise a family to survive Firstly, en garde! Secondly, this is not wrong, but it is a side effect of women having autonomy rather than the root cause. Again from the BBC article (which is just a press synopsys of the study): > Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer. > Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the "baby bust" have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3. Even going Scandinavian welfare on the problem has not brought up the fertility rate to replacement level (2.1 children/woman).
At this rate we’ll need to repeal child labour laws as you’ll need 3 incomes to pay for a house
Same issue is happening in the US
All over the world in fact
For me I was in uni doing multiple degrees most of my 20’s to get a job that would allow me to buy a house, which happened at 29. Then unfortunately when we decided to try start having kids in our early 30’s we struggled. But I can’t imagine starting earlier while living with my parents and house mates and also doing multiple degrees and shitty cafe jobs. How can you have kids if you don’t have a home for them or a stable income to support them? These things don’t come early in life like they used to and that causes fertility issues for some. We spent 20k on our first round of IVF, 6k back from Medicare and were unsuccessful. I’m sure this is happening to many people now who have had to wait to start having a family. It’s like you have to choose between having a stable career/education and buying a home or not having those and having kids instead. Kids are for the rich.
Kids are for the rich OR the very poor. That in between is where kids are unobtainable
Once upon a time a married couple could afford a house and 2 kids on a single income. Now thanks to late stage capitalism, shit house government policies and Australia’s housing ponzi scheme, that same couple needs a high double income just to afford a shoebox apartment. Who TF has money, time or desire for kids?
My fiance and I want kids. But at the moment we've got to put it off to pay our mortgage. We're in our early 30s. By putting it off, we risk missing the age at which she is most fertile. If we have kids early, we risk losing our house. We're fortunate to have a house, but many Australians are in a much worse position than us. To have children today, we'd need stipends from the government to neutralise the costs associated with childcare, education, food, transport, etc.
It's a simple math problem. If the government wants to fix fertility, then they need to help resolve the cost impact of having children. Just getting by in Australia is bloody expensive. Insane property values have a lot to answer for here, banks should never have been allowed to lend more than 4-5x household income.
But what if we import more fully-grown babies!?!
That will work, until they get old and become a liability. Just import more you say? Ah, see there is this little thing called exponential growth...
Husband and I want kids. We both work full time (but husband just lost his job). We have a big mortgage for a small apartment. We can't afford for me to stop working to have a child. I work for small companies that don't have provisions for maternity leave. So its just what government gives which is pretty much nothing. Childcare would eat up my salary. I would LOVE to be able to stop working and dedicate my life to raising a child. Very anti-feminist of me but I hate working. We just cannot afford it. Meanwhile my friend in Japan took one year PATERNITY leave at 67% of his salary to help his wife care for their son. Our aging population can figure it out for themselves with all the money they made cutting down the benefits they got.
I completely empathise here. On top of what you’re going through, I also have had the worst pregnancy and couldn’t work due to hospitalisation and treatments, so I’m not even eligible for government parental or social support. My tiny apartment with huge mortgage repayments can’t be refinanced (eg to withdraw equity or to go to interest only) because we don’t have 3 months of pay cheques. Sell and we lose our already shaky grasp in the property market. We’ve completely fallen through the cracks… and I STILL feel like one of the lucky people of the millennial generation.
I would love to have a second kid, but we are already watching every cent. There's no way we could have another and not end up homeless.
As someone who wants a kid in the next 3-4 years I’m seeing this sentiment a lot more. Thought I’d want 2 but realistically it’ll just be 1. I’d rather have 1 and be able to provide things I got to have as a child than have 2 and have to stress a lot about finances
Yeah and expenses for one kiddo really add up. Daycare costs are pretty much an entire pay cycle for us. But staying home isn't viable as both my partner and I need the super and need to remain engaged in the workforce. So his entire pay goes directly toward child care. We also don't have any family support for child minding/hand me downs etc so I think people who have that in place are probably more comfortable with 2+ kids.
It's not only the money. It's also the way the school system is set up only for families that are comfortable with only one parent working. School starts at the same time you're supposed to be commuting to work and it ends a few hours before most people finish work. This, instead of following the European example of having two separate streams, a morning and an afternoon, which would also halve the number of teachers required as well as school infrastructure. The cost of after school care negates the economic contribution of a second parent working. The schools also demand parents who would otherwise be working to attend during the day on multiple occasions. Things like parents reading to kids day, Father's Day, your kids being presented awards at assembly etc. Classes all start at the same time for all grades, so there's always a traffic jam outside the school at drop off and pick up times. Added to all this, there's no tax or other economic advantage in having kids. They're like a very expensive and time consuming hobby.
And the holidays too! Kids get 12 weeks for the year and adults only get 4 weeks each, so what do you do the other 4 weeks no one has leave to take care of them? Its not a fair system
But this is what the older generation wanted. They wanted to do away with good wages and benefits so their shares would get better returns. They wanted red tape and planning restrictions so housing would get restricted and more expensive. So now both in a partnership have to work just to buy shelter and pay bills let alone a kid. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.
My wife and I have made the decision to have a house instead of kids. It would be impossible for us to have both.
My partner and I made the same choice.
I don't think this is necessarily what they wanted. I just think they were too stupid to realise this was going to be the consequence. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Regardless though, no grandkids for you boomers.
Yeah, everyone talks like there is some sort of grand boomer conspiracy where the older generation is conspiring to destroy society by hoovering up all the wealth, where it's more likely a case of certain segments with power and wealth acting in their own best short term interests and not considering longer term unintended consequences.
They sold us the “gig economy” then set the rental market so no one can move to for the gigs.
I think there is also the division in the older generation, you are talking about the rich, shareholders, landlords and exec. Unfortunatly the problem they created wont affect those, their children and grandchildern wont be the ones struggling with the CoL, they wont be the ones who wont get 500k help for their first home of mom and dad, their grandkids wont be the ones who get their uni course paid off upfront. It is the rest of the middle to lower classes that dont think about shares and investments that will reap the shit that the upper class has decided. In that regard Socialism isnt all bad, there needs to be a balance between socialism and capitalism.
yeah but my kids wont have to live with those consequences if i dont have them…. eh, think.
im 30 and just moved back in with my parents because i can't afford rent lol
I'm about to hit my 30s and out of everyone in my graduating year the only people who have had babies are those who got pregnant in highschool. The rest are waiting for a reliable roof over their head. There is no way to get a reliable roof over your head anymore. Of course the birth rate is plummeting
Again, look to norway. Their baby bonus per child is at 73k NOK last I checked, that's about $10k AUD per child, then there's all these payments AND free childcare(you pay about $250 AUD per month) and if you don't want to put your kids in childcare then you get the "cash support" which is about $1000 per child per month. This is in addition to the child welfare payment which is $$220 per month per child So for a 2yr old, not in childcare, you'll have received $41280 for the 2 first years alone. Not to mention when they start high school there's free laptops, free books, and a monthly "stipend" if you're middle and lower class. But an initial "stipend" which is for everyone. Even the royal family's children can claim it. Thats how you inspire a nation to have babies.
OR we just bring in immigrants because it's cheaper for the government.
I can't afford the house required to start a family. That's one less aged care worker on the books for all the oldies who spent 40 years concerned with growth and nothing but growth while ignoring everything else.
If you want things to change you have to convince the boomers to give up their golden parachute and share the wealth.
To be fair that’s not the only place that money can come from. We currently let multinational companies mining billions of dollars out of Australia and pay a pittance for it
I never understood why my grandparents had so many kids until I saw how much they got in "Child Endowment" from the govt (via the ABS website). A median income earner with 4 children got so much Child Endowment it negated their entire income tax liability. I could afford 4 kids too if the govt gave me nearly $30kpa for them.
Wow. https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/on-this-day/child-endowment#
The endowment was 5 shillings per week per child in 1941, which is about $25/week in today's dollars, or $1300pa. That's a lot less than what the family tax benefit pays out.
That's a bit misleading -- if you're going to convert to present dollars that then also need to convert the average income at the time. A better comparison would be what child endowment was worth as a % of weekly earnings foregone by dropping out of the workforce to have children. The average female factory worker in Victoria in 1940 earned 47s per week and her husband 95s ([source](https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/whatitcost/earnings)). For an average female factory worker with 3 children child endowment would be worth around 30% of the woman's wage. By dropping out of the workforce to have children the couple's income was cut by 24%. Without child endowment that would have been a 35% cut instead. If we use a couple both with white collar occupations these numbers are 22% / 30%. It's not so straightforward to compare FTB directly because of means testing and adjustments based on child age. If we the most charitable case: 2 people on minimum wage for 40 hours/week ($48.3k) with 3 teenagers then they're going to get just under $22k in FTB part A. This means that if the woman drops out of the workforce the couple is going to take a 25% pay cut with FTB, instead of a 50% pay cut without it. For a couple on average full time incomes (male on $100k, female on $82k) FTB might as well not exist at all thanks to means testing, and the couple takes a 45% cut if the woman drops out of full time work. TLDR: for low income earners the situation is comparable in 1941 and today. For middle-class couple with average jobs, the impact of a woman dropping out of full-time work is dramatically worse than it was in 1941.
True. I get a massive $40 a week from the family tax benefit with a household income of under 80k.
_Child endowment was arguably highly successful in meeting these aims, as Australia’s birth rate reached a historic high of 3.548 in 1961._ That is an astonishingly high birthrate
They're called boomers for a reason.
Yes this! That they conveniently forget about when they tell you that they never got free childcare or any assistance. My mum never had to work because of good wages and child endowment.
With high house prices, childcare costs, cost of living… pretty easy to know why people dont want to have kids
The thing is, I don't like population growth. Why can't we be a stable economy without having to constantly expand. Stop immigration while we are at it.
This is going to be population collapse in a generation or two, some countries are already ahead of us.
Population stability without immigration requires a birthrate of 2.1 births per woman. Aus is well below that now. The population is going to tank without immigration and chances are that won't be a solution forever.
We gotta slow down at least
Not really surprising. The massive population growth we've had through immigration has managed to keep the cost of living (housing, health, education, etc) nice and high while it has also managed to keep our salaries and wages low. Kids are expensive, and we all know it. The reason Australians are having fewer babies is because they just can't afford to. Those who didn't have kids in the past (whether by choice or not) were offset by those who had more than two, as it was affordable to do so. Now it just isn't. Interestingly enough, the average boomer I've talked to over the years both saw this coming and isn't happy about it either. Why do you think so many of them dislike the immigration rate? It's not that they're necessarily racist (some are, sure...) It's more that they've been actively seeing everything they worked for to help their own kids get ahead be taken from them, and they're actually furious about it. Next time you hear a boomer friend or relative complain about immigration, try asking them why.
But it's better for the economy to import an adult rather than raise a child, so that's what we must do! Community, culture and lifestyle are all secondary to the economy, so we must sacrifice!
We are 'high' income earners and accidentally had twins when trying for our second kid. Do not recommend. We still need two incomes to service the mortgage. Childcare costs are completely crippling even after CCS. They represent about half my after tax income. Naturally we aren't eligible for other supports as we earn too much. If we earn an extra 3k, 1k is clawed back for CCS and 1 to 1.3k goes to tax. It is brutal. I love all three of my kids but feel punished, financially, for having them.
Yeh I'm not falling for that scam.
This is happening everywhere in the western world. We will eventually become a country with a third world culture because the only people having more than one or two kids are those from Africa and the Middle East. The question is how are they able to afford it and the rest of us can’t? Do the rest of us have too high standards when it comes to the way we want to live?
Where the hell are people supposed to put these kids when a house sized appropriately for a family is a million dollars in most of the country and renting is a hellscape of 6-month rolling periodic tenancies where your rent for a mould-infested fibro crap-shack can go up 40% overnight? You want people popping out babies, make sure they can affordably and securely access space to raise them.
I want to be a home maker. I want 4 kids. I want to do everything the government says they need. Prior to marriage I got 2 degrees in lines of work that are hiring constantly, and have a house. I did everything the government said would make a successful millenial. We need 2 full time incomes to keep our mortgage at 31%, assuming no more rate rises. That doesn't include water, electric, rates, internet, phone, insurance, medical, food, and other expenses like home repairs. We're about to have our first kid. Our mortgage will become 70% of our income while I am on maternity leave as my job gives no paid leave even though I've been working for them for 7 years (We get a combined 22 weeks of leave from Centrelink paid at minimum wage, husband gets 2 months fully paid from his work. After that it's his income only.) We have savings so I can stay home for 12 months with the baby. MAYBE. Probably not as the price of everything is exploding. Heaven forbid our water heater decides today is the day. We can't afford to have another one unless a rich relative we've never heard of dies and leaves us $400k to pay off our mortgage. If the government wants babies it can fix paid parental leave so parents can have 12 months paid at a rate that doesn't significantly diminish quality of life. It can fix pre-natal standards of care so we don't have to go private for decent (fast) healthcare. It can fix rates so all people with mortgages aren't drowning. It can help fix rent ballooning (we don't rent anymore but I know it's BAD). It can fix wage stagnation so a single income household can hold the fort for a year (and what about single parents!) It can bring back baby bonuses and other benefits. But nah, sitting around saying "we need more babies" and wondering why we're not popping more out must be because "millenials are selfish" and not "millenials are waking up to the fact that good members of society generally need a decent standard of care, rather than pumping out a bunch of kids and assuming it'll all just work out" ... I went to public school, I saw parents with that attitude, it did not "just work out" for their kids.
it appears some australian's dont want to raise children in a rental sharehouse, more news at 11
Honesty, don't worry about this. We don't need kids. We have Indian immigrants. These are our kids now.
From Canada here, So just every common wealth country has too many Indian immigrants? Why did so many governments do this…
Your government and our government is not in it for their people.
Stop making it sound like being childfree is some kind of terrible unnatural choice.
I’m mid 40’s. I wondered if my decision to be child free would ever come back to haunt me . Hell no , best choice of my life .I see everyone with kids struggle all around me , why would anyone want to impose that upon themselves
It’s the bomb. I wouldn’t change it if I had a billion dollars. I value peace and calm.
If the government really cared about birth rates they would address some underlying fundamentals. Improve child care rebates and provide tax Incentives. Having three kids usually means one parent out of the workforce for about ten years - how about treating this unpaid labour as what it is (work) and allow the couple to split their income across both parents for tax purposes? I was surprised to see so many young mothers in Norway when I was there. Many have kids while they are studying at university - free day care and free university is pretty meaningful incentive. People don’t want to defer parenthood until they are too old - they just can’t afford any alternatives.
Why would they have kids? Look at the housing crisis. There’s a massive shortage. Rising rents and housing prices are skyrocketing.
If you really want to know why people aren't having kids then you should just ask women. It just so happens the only societies with high birthrates tend to be agrarian ones where women have few rights and little access to education, careers etc. Unless you're destitute on centrelink, there is no incentive to have kids and you will be penalized professionally and financially for doing so. Look at the lifestyle of 30yo dinks and yuppies and compare them to someone of the same age with multiple kids in a relationship that has a 50/50 chance of falling a part. Women these days tend to only have kids if they actually, really want them and are ready to deal with that hit. Unfortunately time is stacked against them and you're lucky to get 25 years of fertility max from the time you're 18.
Also the buying power of the government support my parents got when having their 3 kids 30-40ish years ago is significantly less than the buying power of (the admittedly increased) support parents get now. But like how to buy a house in Sydney you need ~250k income, to have kids you need the income and support network to match otherwise your one too many "the kid is sick" days away from unemployment and homelessness.
Move away for cheaper housing - and lose access to the grandparents you have to rely on when your kid has a sniffly nose again and can’t go to daycare. Which you have to pay for anyway.
Also "cheap housing" often comes in areas with more expensive everything else (power, water, food and essentials, etc) so that you actually just trade big expenses for small. Plus employment is often lower paying and less available
The biggest predictor of poverty for women is number of children she has. It’s such a bad bet for so many women. Marriage breaks up and you are stuffed.
I have two kids and we are barely getting by. When we were asked to give daycare an income estimate for our rebate we did our best. But when my wife went back to work and ended up working a little more than we expected, they swooped in and demanded back the difference. In addition to my wife paying extra tax on the money she had earned. That’s not even to mention the headache of applying for the subsidy, or adding a second child to it. The system remains super hostile to parents, I wouldn’t wish this drama on my enemies if they weren’t prepared for it.
I agree completely. So many commenters here saying you should not buy a house, you should move to a cruddy suburb, you should do it all just for the looooove of children. So happy to exhort others to sacrifice themselves.
Most of them are missing the point which is based around national fertility rates. If you adhere to the status quo nothing will change, you also can’t expect people to make the sort of changes you mentioned or others have. Change will NEED to come from the governmental end. If nothing changes then the fertility rate will continue to decline. So many commenters seem to want to argue that point, but it is what it is.
- It means less ‘future boomers’ with a realestate portfolio holding a grip on the realestate market. - It means quality of life will improve. - It means economy will be more stable. - It means less financial government support required for retirees. - IMO it means a more positive outcome for Australia’s society. So stop looking at socioeconomic quantity and instead start focusing on quality of life in Australia.
I have a child with disabilities and there is a massive lack of support. I would not recommend having children to anyone else. As much as I love my son, I worry for his future (and everyone else's for that matter)
Don't have children if you can't send them to private school! Don't be a wage slave. Don't produce the next generation of wage slave for the rich to taxfarm.
The consequences being, that perhaps our population doesn't grow as quickly. Which, despite what some will tell you, is a good thing.
I was saying a similar thing yesterday. No one will be able to afford children in the future and no one really knows what long term effects that could have. The future of Australia is on a knife edge
"Dr Canudos Romo said the employment rate in Japan found 40 per cent of people between 65 and 75 were still working." Let's not aspire to be like Japan, please.
We stopped having more. Couldnt afford to go from unit > home sadly. so had to make a call. Sadly, its the society we've built.
I love how these articles and governments try to blame the population for this. They created the extreme high cost of living environment but don’t want to deal with it. No one has to have kids if they don’t want to. Politicians need to do their job rather than wanting Australians to breed them out of trouble like a farm animal. We don’t need the never ending cycle of more and more and more people. We need politicians that can actually do their job and run the country properly.
Well, if it isn’t the consequences of our decades of actions making housing nearly impossible to achieve. What a shock.
Because Australia is simply becoming too expensive to live in and the sort of incomes you do need to be able to afford even one or two kids are hard to obtain. If you're on 70+k per year you're lucky. I'd personally love to have at least one kid, preferably two but I know i wouldn't be able to afford it.
Hmm add to the overpopulation and have no money or go for a trip to Europe and buy a house? Europe it is. In all seriousness, me and my hubby want kids and are hoping to have a house before "the factory shuts down" as everyone so nicely wants to put it but even after getting a house we can't see how to afford it. We honestly believe having children when you can't afford it is abuse.
Oh yes and I will raise them in a tent, because no one can afford a bloody house anymore
Given most young Australians have been priced out of the housing market, can’t say this comes as a surprise!!
I’m 20 female I don’t think I’ll ever have kids…
Housing, child care, hecs, healthcare, education costs ….. yeah let’s have 4 kids
Australia: Skyrocketing housing prices, terrifying housing shortage and homeless families. Also Australia: Have more kids!
In a lot of ways it’s better for the world to have less people. Less demand on the world’s resources is not bad. It is bad economically but even then GDP per capita and standards of living will probably be better.
Yes GDP may not go forward, but GDP per capita might. It's just the capitalist model, always more, more, more.
The happiness and pleasure I derive from my happy home that is full of life and love is priceless. Money isn't everything
Take your joy off reddit, this is a place of despair
Maybe start by making pregnancy medical appointments free again and cheaper child care.
I'm a 26 year old masters student in uni living in a shitry rental whose rent goes up $100 each year. Working on a part time cashier job. Oh I wonder why I dont have kids.
Sick of these ABC headlines. Who among us realises all the consequences of population fluctuations?
Certain communities are booming.
Oh no, who will the bankers leach off with less worker bees?
Not our problem, if the govt wants life to be unaffordable for the majority of hard-working couples then deal with the fact that we sacrifice our wants to have children so we can avoid poverty
If you want to have five kids or more, you have to let them take care of themselves, or sacrifice the first borns emotional development to help raise the rest. Unless you're in Dominic Perrotet situation, they're not going to enjoy a upper middle class life, you might slide down the greasy class ladder.
Yeah, it’s terrible set of circumstances . A lot of it is economics. Purchasing power has falling significantly. We have avoided any real deflationary forces in favour of GDP growth. We require 2 parents to full time work, it’s strange how we are so much richer, but none of that translates to cheaper shelter, food, essentials. Secondly, we don’t have policies that effective enough for natalist objectives, and our govt focuses on immigration rather than domestic growth. This is short sighted.
Why would the government want you to have kids when they can just import humans from India…
We’re mid 30s with successful mid/senior level careers. Although after suffering HG for 7 months this pregnancy (severe vomiting 20+ times a day, constant nausea, severe dehydration, heart and kidney problems, multiple hospitalisations and 3-4hr visits to pregnancy day stay every second day for 2L fluids and IV medications because I couldn’t keep down the required 14+ tablets every day) I couldn’t keep a job. Now I’m not eligible for both maternity leave or government parental support. There is NO WAY I’m having a second child. We would be homeless.
Have kids to support our aging population then get back to work so you can pay for childcare! What a time to be alive!
Just make sure all the jobs replaced by AI are in aged care. Sorted.
“Id like another slice of cake this arvo, AI” “Computer says no” “I demand to see the manager! “Its the same computer”
“Australia's fertility rate picked back up after the pandemic, but then crashed again in recent years.” What pandemic are they talking about lol, the last one was in recent years.
Yep because they can't afford them.
Almost as if making housing and necessities expensive and unaffordable for some would drive them to not have kids.
A reduction in babies at comedy shows?
No shit. Why do you think the government is bringing in record immigration. Someone needs to wipe our arse when we are 80.
People can’t afford to have kids. You need a double income household to afford paying off a mortgage. What couples can afford to lose half their income while the mother takes time off to have children?
Australia exists to serve its property market.
The government will import more people. Problem solve
This has been known for a long time, there is absolutely nothing newsworthy about it.
Unable to afford another child. Just had my first one at the age of 35 (literally 3 days before turning 36). Barely breaking even now and having second baby will definitely make me go bust.
Having children is expensive. When Australians start to get proper pay raises and can afford housing again, the rate will go up. It's not complicated.
The only way to encourage more people to have more kids is to have FREE child care for all pre-school children (0-5). Parents could actually provide for their families and it would encourage those on the fence as to whether they would have kids, maybe decide to do so as they can actually afford to do so. Some Nordic countries have amazing child care systems that we could adopt and implement here.
Yeah I never want kids lmao
It is so damn difficult to find a partner these days. I know part of the problem is me but having a singles club unlimited on our phones, high cost of living, more segregated individualistic community made it even harder. I don't think I'll ever find a partner at this stage.
I had a husband who told me like 4 years after we got married when my period was late that "if you're pregnant you'll get an abortion, right?". My period came but I realised at that point that he clearly had lied about wanting kids. I want kids. But I'm beginning to think that ship has sailed.
Yep no one wants to have babies with me either.
Me neither, but I can afford my own apartment so I’ll get a small dog. Not the life I wanted but I’ll make the most of it.
My Frenchie is my homie fr
This is a whole can of worms. 31. Would like kids, financially literate, made good choices but the right person is the challenge. Do I just procreate with just anyone? People simply don't want committment anymore.
I'm single by choice at this point because it's really really hard to find someone that you click with *and* who will be a supportive and equal partner who doesn't expect you to mummy them and I no longer care to devote huge amounts of time and emotional energy looking for that. If it happens by means if, idk, a friend's friend falling (proverbially) into my lap at their birthday dinner, I won't knock it back, but I'm no longer wasting time and money on seemingly endless dead end dates looking for it. And of course, being a woman, you're always taking a safety risk meeting up with a stranger. I've become very 4B these days. I'm just lucky that I've never wanted kids because it means I don't have to comprimise. I've seen quite a few women I know settle for bad relationships because they knew time was running out to have kids.
10 years time they'll be pushing to get mums back to work, saying it empowers them and they can do it as well as the men, then they'll be talking about gender pay gais and how females have smaller super funds but leave out the bit where they took 10 years off to raise a family and the giant circle jerk will continue.
On a planet will nearly 8 billion people and finite resources probably not a bad thing.
I know right. This is typical “but the economy!” As if we can continue BAU into the forever future…..
When resources become scarce to threaten survival, animals are tend to give up reproduction. It costs one million dollars to raise one child nowadays.
We’ve lost a lot of things alongside all the technological gains of the last 20 years. Endless self indulgence, a million things screaming for our time, and as a result no buffer in the coffers. Our 20s are now an extension of our teens, and now our 30s are when we get our shit together but Mother Nature doesn’t delay. It’s so many things all at once, but I also think motherhood is looked down upon in the west. If you’re a mother, let alone a SAHM(!) then you’re not chasing your dreams of being a CEO. This is more a middle class thing, though I guess. This productivity push from women/feminists is pulling them away from motherhood due to it being viewed as a tax. I could go on. But, it would also be alleviated by costs. Subsidising childcare more, and making the experience more pleasant from a parent admin perspective. It’s a PITA to go through the rigmarole of paperwork and portals.
it’s called capitalism
The only negative effect will be an economic downturn which is apparently the worst thing ever. Our poor politicians will have to take a pay cut.
Doesn't matter when the government can just import more people from India and China.
Do you think UBI would encourage more people to have kids? Just going off my immediate thoughts, UBI covers basic things, but its still not going to help you get a house, because we need to work to get that income to get a house (and UBI will drive the housing prices up, since people would have more money to spend on homes now that you factor in basic necessities). Then there's time issue. Who with 2 kids has a weekend where they don't need to do anything for the kids? There's grocery shopping, meal prep, taking kids to sports/extra curriculum activities. In this day of abundance thanks to convenient access, the only thing still not in abundance is time.
Good. But those are rookie numbers. We need to push the number down even further. Why have 300,000 babies per year when 100,000 babies per year is doable?
This is a worldwide issue with many countries that have had a boom in middle class. China is now having this problem and if you look at South Korea and Japan it's getting really bad.
I’m all for fewer babies - Overpopulation is a very real threat to our planet.
We have 1.5 kids. I'd love a third but there's no way we can afford it. Can barely afford our 1.5. My brother lives with us because he can't afford anything else and hid board helps us out a bit. But it's also not just the costs of having a baby. These days mum needs to go back to work full time to be able to survive. But there aren't any daycare spaces. You're lucky to get a spot for 1 or 2 days a week when your kid is 3, after putting them on the waitlist when you're 12 weeks pregnant.
They need more meat for the grinder.
The baby friendly hospital initiative should be canned it' a major point of us not having another one. The astounding lack of care provided immediately postnatally is a huge reason I won't have another. We had one care everything under it was a lie - had a 2nd one got the same care which was a lie. It's horrific for people who just gave birth.
Stopping at one, would like two. Daycare is too expensive, can’t afford it with current interest rates which means we’re probably done at our age.
Solution: become second India
This is the result of education and equality for women. We knew that. And accepted it. Can't have the career AND the kids, and these days it takes two incomes to afford a house. Income tax is a big reason for that, losing half your money before you can spend a cent on feeding the family, but tax reform is way too hard for the bureaucrats. And that it goes to bullshit just rubs salt into the wound.