Best Of

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.

I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).

So learn something new. Anything.

Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.

I can recommend knitting. Compatible with watching TV or listening to the radio/music or just chatting too.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.

Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.

I have no qualms with part timers.

If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.

Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.

And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.

^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.

If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.

I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).

So learn something new. Anything.

Yes. That's what I'm thinking. A craft. Hands not brain.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.

Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.

I have no qualms with part timers.

If people want to work 3 days, and get 3 days worth of salary, then that's their choice.

Don't expect to work 3 days and get 5 days of salary though.

And if you are showing up for 5 days but not working in them, then standards aren't high enough and should be raised and people should be let go. Not satisfy ourselves with paying full time salaries to part timers.

^ if anyone wants to know why UK productivity growth is so slow, see this post.

If both those workers have the same output then they should be paid the same. If you're going to sack anyone, it's the stagnant full timer that needs to go.

Isn't that what I just said?

Pay the person doing 60% of the job, 60% of the salary.

Sack the full timer who is doing 60% of the job.

Don't pay anyone 100% of the wage for 60% of the job.

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.

British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children.
I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.

I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.

I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen.
I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.

I don't think the world is going to **** any more or less today than it was at any other point in time.

Those **** are ambiguous: not going to shit any more or less, or not going to fuck any more or less?

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.

Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.

I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.

But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.

I am sceptical...

I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.

Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.

What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.

Not an anthropologist, but I understand that for much of history most people groups had challenges or similar, which were effectively graduation ceremonies where the boys became men, round about 13 or so. That sort of thing is lost in our society.

That's the role of the Common Entrance examination to the English (historically) Public [sic] Schools, surely.

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.

Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.

I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.

But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.

I am sceptical...

I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.

Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.

I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.

Sure:

But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.

I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.

I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.

Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.

In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.

But sperm production has fallen by 50% over 50 years: https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/06/15/sperm-counts-are-declining-scientists-believe-they-have-pinpointed-the-main-causes-why

It seriously predates Netflix.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.

I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.

I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.

That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.

I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.

It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.

I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.

When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.

I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.

I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(

I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.