I remember in the early 00s seeing some surprising statistic that one-third of births followed unintended conceptions. I don't know how reliable such a statistic is, or whether it is routinely measured, but it would be interesting to see whether that has changed.
If the internet is a strong factor in declining fertility then you'd expect that to have a stronger effect on unintended conceptions. Whereas if it is a response to housing costs then you'd expect to see a decline in intended conceptions.
If there are environmental factors that are reducing fertility biologically then you'd see this evenly.
The other thought I have is that the decline in the over-20 fertility rate is I think coincidental with the change to welfare rules in 2017, and the introduction of a two-child limit.
Just so we’re clear, are we using “the internet” as a polite proxy for availability of porn?
An interesting feature of Japanese society is how normal it is for men to pay for sexual services. No doubt this cuts down the unintended conceptions figure. Easy to see how internet porn is achieving similar everywhere else.
Not just porn, but also other addictive aspects - social media, mobile games, doomscrolling news. Also, potentially, the effect of internet dating encouraging people to increase their standards to levels less likely to be attained.
I do wonder whether that last point has something to it. A surprisingly large number of my wife’s friends growing up are single (in their 40s) having never met anyone who hit their standards (which were probably unrealistic). I’ve no idea whether this proportion is higher than in the past (although Jane Austen et so have lots of maiden aunts).
If you were to exclude the single / unmarried from the data set what does the fertility rate look like - ie are we having the same level of breeding but only from a subset of the population
I guess you can draw a line of negative correlation between western birthrates and preponderance of Disney princes.
Speaking for myself, the reason I will clock in 0.1 below the replacement ratio is I started too old and feel too tired now to do it again.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
Yes this seems true to me too and is very odd.
I am sure when I was a teenager back in the 70s people were complaining that kids were growing up too fast. (I could be looking back through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I guess.)
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
I suppose the follow up to that is, "should government do more to discourage people from having children?"
I see another pointless but arrogant measure in bringing in facemasks for classrooms today. We really have a miserable society dont we where the old rule and the young get life sucked out of them
Oddly, the only misery I see on here is from your post...
Children as young as six in France will have to wear masks outdoors and in most public spaces from Monday, according to details published by the French government Saturday.
I thought it was initially a thing that the very young weren't a Covid transmission vector as they didn't pass on a significant viral load. Perhaps with Omicron being so ridiculously infectious, that has changed? And the snot-goblins are as much of a threat as adults - which would make the French decision sensible?
Yeah, but would you be happy for your six year old to be made to wear a mask?
What I'm getting at is, everyone has there limits. I was just interested to see if French had crossed a boundary even for those who are generally pro-mask.
I can see a case for it in schools, given Omicron's increased infectiveness. What makes me think it might be too far is the 'outside' requirement, even with the exercising exemption.
Given omicron's infectiveness, I think the only options are let it go or lockdown, and even a full, hard lockdown might not be enough to stop it.
When I was a small child I had a gas mask. Didn't have to wear it all the time, of course, but had to have one somewhere.
A few years back my dad was overjoyed when he visited a museum and saw a Mickey Mouse gas mask: "I had one of those!"
I demolished a tin shed in a field last month. Found a ww2 tin helmet in it.
Mr. Charles, I recall hearing, perhaps here, that (historically) 40% of men and 80% of women have had children. A relatively high number of women not becoming mothers by choice would, I'd tentatively suggest, be quite unusual.
And my observation is purely anecdotal- just wondering if there are stats to back it up.
(Surprised about the disparity between men, although it might go somewhat to explain the x% descended from Edward Longshanks factoid which always seemed implausible to me)
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
I remember in the early 00s seeing some surprising statistic that one-third of births followed unintended conceptions. I don't know how reliable such a statistic is, or whether it is routinely measured, but it would be interesting to see whether that has changed.
If the internet is a strong factor in declining fertility then you'd expect that to have a stronger effect on unintended conceptions. Whereas if it is a response to housing costs then you'd expect to see a decline in intended conceptions.
If there are environmental factors that are reducing fertility biologically then you'd see this evenly.
The other thought I have is that the decline in the over-20 fertility rate is I think coincidental with the change to welfare rules in 2017, and the introduction of a two-child limit.
Just so we’re clear, are we using “the internet” as a polite proxy for availability of porn?
An interesting feature of Japanese society is how normal it is for men to pay for sexual services. No doubt this cuts down the unintended conceptions figure. Easy to see how internet porn is achieving similar everywhere else.
Not just porn, but also other addictive aspects - social media, mobile games, doomscrolling news. Also, potentially, the effect of internet dating encouraging people to increase their standards to levels less likely to be attained.
I do wonder whether that last point has something to it. A surprisingly large number of my wife’s friends growing up are single (in their 40s) having never met anyone who hit their standards (which were probably unrealistic). I’ve no idea whether this proportion is higher than in the past (although Jane Austen et so have lots of maiden aunts).
If you were to exclude the single / unmarried from the data set what does the fertility rate look like - ie are we having the same level of breeding but only from a subset of the population
Charles, surely it is a case of your wife's friends looking at what she has and thinking "I want that - or nothing...."?
I wish I had the face of Adonis, the body of a fireman and the cheque book of tech entrepreneur!
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
In the early 90s, there was the looming "pensions gap" crisis - due to falling birthrates, all the pay-as-you-go social security systems were due to go bankrupt.
The mooted solution was defined pension pots, per tax payer.
The politicians really didn't like this, since it meant telling people to pay more and (at least initially) get less.
A major part of the advocacy for mass immigration was, that instead of such measures, we would just import enough young people to "re-inflate" the population pyramid.
IF, as seems quite likely, the world population stops growing and begins the shrink, that will become less and less of an option.
The pay-as-you-go schemes can't survive a shrinking population, during the phase when we have lots of old people living longer, and less employed people paying for them.
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
I suppose the follow up to that is, "should government do more to discourage people from having children?"
Well that's happened before very successfully in China of course.
And it could well be argued that our government did exactly that by introducing the two child benefit cap in 2017 (although hard to see that that has impacted much, looking at your first graph).
Generally though, I suspect such things are largely beyond direct government influence. The dramatic historic fall in fertility rates that accompanied industrialisation / improved healthcare in just about every country happened without direct government influence.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
I know people working in the schools sector who factored in a potential boom looking ahead to needed school places down the line, but that was pretty early on in this thing so may have just been a simple contingency model.
And to correct this record, I was right. Winterbourne Stoke always get more focus though.
Yes, but I didn't know there was a mega city in that region. I am sure loads of people have heard of Stone Henge but no idea about any of the towns / cities in the vicinity.
Why Winterbourne Stoke, of course. As anyone who drives the 303 knows. That megapolis.
I had thought the it was actually within the parish of Amesbury, due to the town having an extended hinterland, but my phone is not able to check the precise line for some reason. Which if so would place it by the Amesbury/Durrington/Bulford enormity.
On population thing, whether anything should be done about this is an interesting question. Places already struggling with it and wanting to do something about it don't seem to have been very effective at doing so. And while glibly people can talk about it being better for the planet, even us, in the long term if there was a decline, I don't see governmental policy driving that, and would be worried if it did.
Sounds like country needs to invest in universal, high quality childcare and early years support.
Something like surestart that Osbourne binned - Rishi is bringing some of it back and we do now have 30 hours of free quality childcare just not the early years support we used to have.
I see another pointless but arrogant measure in bringing in facemasks for classrooms today. We really have a miserable society dont we where the old rule and the young get life sucked out of them
Oddly, the only misery I see on here is from your post...
The restrictions they had at my daughters old school really damaged her mental health. Going back to that would be a retrograde step.
Very sorry to hear that Charles.
The government doesn't seem to understand that at three jabs and the virus not going anywhere this is as good as it gets.
Introducing what must be a hugely damaging measure for children, most of whom AAUI have already had the virus is just corrosive gesture politics.
She’s recovered except for planes where she still gloves up
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Mr. Charles, I recall hearing, perhaps here, that (historically) 40% of men and 80% of women have had children. A relatively high number of women not becoming mothers by choice would, I'd tentatively suggest, be quite unusual.
And my observation is purely anecdotal- just wondering if there are stats to back it up.
(Surprised about the disparity between men, although it might go somewhat to explain the x% descended from Edward Longshanks factoid which always seemed implausible to me)
Let's see what the Census shows. Plenty of opportunities for thread headers from that.
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Housing, of course, is only one factor. There's also the cost of childcare; less pressure/expectation from wider family for people to reproduce; children getting in the way of other lifestyle choices, such as the desire to go travelling or save to buy nicer stuff; and having children getting in the way of people's (typically women's, of course,) career development.
(Snip)
Another issue related to childcare: many people rely on close family members to help raise their kids: uncles and aunts babysitting for an evening; grandparents doing the school run. If you move more than (say) half an hour from family, this can become very difficult to arrange, and means either a greater lifestyle shift or much more expense.
Anecdotally, when I look at my friends and acquaintances of my own age, there seems to be a correlation between proximity of family and the number of kids: the people who have family nearby have an extra child or two over those of us who do not. It'd be interesting to see if others agree with this.
So a question is: are people moving more (as in between areas/regions of the UK) than they did in (say) the 1980s and 1990s?
It's not at all uncommon for posts to appear on our small town's Facebook page to the effect that the poster has just moved here, has a young child and would like to meet other mothers for peer group support. Maybe, of course, we'll see less of such posts as Facebook's demographic changes.
And good morning to one and all.
Another thing to note is that it seems to me that more men are giving up careers to raise children, whilst their wives work. I did this, and so did our best friend (who blames me, as his wife saw me doing it and 'suggested' he might try the same). Again, this might be just my immediate grouping, though. Another friend-of-a-friend in Yorkshire does the same - he chucked in his job in a supermarket and they live on her small wage.
Other parents seem much more into 'shared' parenting: it's yet another anecdote, but probably about a third of the people at pick-ups at our school in the afternoon are male. I'm sure when I was at school, it was almost all the mothers picking kids up.
When I was at school, we walked to and from school by ourselves.
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Funny isn't it. Whenever I point out that the biggest environment problem is the 9billion humans, I'm told that as people become more educated the birth rate drops so this will self-correct the issue. Yet, when evidence shows this happening the lack of human numbers is suddenly a problem.
The Daily Star reports that thousands of young people in the UK believe alien lizards are ruling the planet. "Perhaps they've spotted that our leaders speak with forked tongues?" the paper jokes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-59849323
The Star's front page also promises a new hangover cure, so you might want to nip down to your newsagent. (Hmm. Are paper boys and girls still a thing? I'm not sure I've seen one recently. Perhaps another consequence of declining birthrates.)
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Yes, housing type and tenure matter a lot. Perhaps there's evidence that we've started to build houses that people want to raise a family in, but it's obviously a very complicated area.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
I know people working in the schools sector who factored in a potential boom looking ahead to needed school places down the line, but that was pretty early on in this thing so may have just been a simple contingency model.
And to correct this record, I was right. Winterbourne Stoke always get more focus though.
Yes, but I didn't know there was a mega city in that region. I am sure loads of people have heard of Stone Henge but no idea about any of the towns / cities in the vicinity.
Why Winterbourne Stoke, of course. As anyone who drives the 303 knows. That megapolis.
I had thought the it was actually within the parish of Amesbury, due to the town having an extended hinterland, but my phone is not able to check the precise line for some reason. Which if so would place it by the Amesbury/Durrington/Bulford enormity.
On population thing, whether anything should be done about this is an interesting question. Places already struggling with it and wanting to do something about it don't seem to have been very effective at doing so. And while glibly people can talk about it being better for the planet, even us, in the long term if there was a decline, I don't see governmental policy driving that, and would be worried if it did.
Amesbury is about 2 mike's east, larkhill 2 mike's north. My parents village, Shrewton, 4 mike's west. Growing up we had residents rights to access the stones for free. Not sure about now though. The closure of the road to the north of Stonehenge has led to huge traffic issues in the area, with Shrewton blighted by people avoiding the single carriageway section at Stonehenge. The sooner the tunnel is built the better. Been waiting about 35 years already.
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
I suppose the follow up to that is, "should government do more to discourage people from having children?"
Can't see it being enthusiastically promoted by the current PM.....
Interesting piece, Harrow is an interesting one. At least from my perspective the pressure from parents and grandparents to have at least two kids among Indian families is huge. All of my cousins are married and almost all of them have got at least one kid and will have at least two. Around half of them live in and around Harrow/Pinner.
I think that pressure for grandchildren makes a huge difference to people's outlook, even if they don't realise it. Having kids just sort of becomes normalised. My wife was very unsure about the idea when we were dating, after we got married literally every time we saw my parents we'd get asked the question. Now we're in a slightly odd place where we want to and are struggling to do so (happily my sister has quietly informed my mum so the questions went away).
In general I actually think it's a net benefit because all Indians I know plan their adult lives around one day having two or three kids. In terms of housing, money, jobs etc... the focus is pretty standard - will this be good enough to have a decently sized family. Additionally a lot of family help is available. My sister and her family straight up moved in with my parents when their second kid was born last year.
However it's happened, I really think Indian culture in the UK has figured out having reasonable sized families for middle classes. It's something my middle class white friends struggle with a lot more. Our kids generation is going to have a lot of only children who have grown up around screens rather than siblings. It's going to be very odd.
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Over what sort of time period did all that happen? Could it not be that if housing costs force down fertility rates for an extended period of time, it fundamentally changes society?
It looks to me like a false correlation, created by a handful of outliers - take away the small number of London Boroughs bottom right, and Coventry, and the apparently clear correlation disappears and you are left with a bunch of data and likely mostly random variation. It isn’t difficult to find special factors for a handful of areas in mostly east London; I don’t know Coventry but maybe it has similar, or is simply a random outlier.
Really? Give me the local authorities to exclude and I'll rerun the analysis and see what happens.
Of course, those local authorities you want to ignore are part of the country so I'm not sure why we would want to exclude them.
It's not about "wanting" to exclude any part of the country; you will know that an apparent correlation that is largely being created by a minority of the data points strongly suggests some other factor or variable at play, since if the two modelled variables were strongly correlated, you'd expect to see the relationship in the body of the data and not just the outliers. I'm only trying to assess by eye, but it would be interesting to see what correlation you have left without any of the London Boroughs or Coventry?
Here you go. No London and no Coventry...
Interesting, thanks. The R2 has dropped from 37% to 17%, so I was right that the London dots were doing a lot of the heavy lifting. But there does appear to be a weak relationship remaining. My suspicion is still that we have a more significant missing variable - the hidden factor that made London different likely applies elsewhere.
I should really have made this point in the header, but the analysis is limited by the fact that the points carry the same weight irrespective of size. It's a shame that the shire counties are aggregated. For example, I'd like to see Oxford and Cambridge as distinct from the surrounding areas.
But I find it interesting that you want to exclude London. Why? Isn't it part of England?
And if this correlation is incidental, I'd be curious to know what you think the hidden factor is.
An excellent header @tlg86 though brought to mind my rather more anecdotal one of last year, which concluded:
"Not just in the UK, but also across the world, politicians may need to rethink policy to support young people and families, rather than just lay heavier and heavier burdens on their shoulders. That essential rebalancing in favour of the young has been growing for some time, but is now needed more than ever. The Triple Lock and similar pensioner benefits are not sustainable, and we grey haired voters need to be a bit less selfish about them."
Though anecdotally, I think there is a rebound in conceptions, at least for established couples. My obstetric colleagues are busy. Some now want a baby, rather like last years fashion was a puppy!
There is a real problem for younger couples forming. Many youngsters seem to struggle to find someone that they actually want to share a life with, not just share a night of passion.
I think a large part is down to atomisation of social lives, particularly with Social Media and online. Soon people will be living in a Matrix like meta-verse rather than in Real Life, if the tech companies get their way.
Fortunately my boys are sorted. Fox Jr lives with his lovely girlfriend of 5 years and now is a homeowner, with a growing career. Fox Jr2 is back on the razzle in London's acting world, and never seems short of female company. I know plenty who aren't dating though in the wider circle of family and friends, of both sexes.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
maybe people wisening up to all this testing is doing f all to stop the spread of a relatively mild illness and the results of testing are doing more damage to society by keeping people from essential work
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Tit for tat for treasury lockdown party leak a couple of weeks back
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
If you model the global population with a relatively low fertility rate of 1.5 from now, the global population is still above 1 billion in the mid 23rd century, but then what happens?
After two centuries of declining population and low fertility rates would it be possible to stabilise the population?
I do think there's a danger for future generations that we create a cultural change now that is hard to shift in the future and the human race - possibly the only consciousness able to appreciate the beauty of the universe - simply can't be bothered to perpetuate itself.
I see another pointless but arrogant measure in bringing in facemasks for classrooms today. We really have a miserable society dont we where the old rule and the young get life sucked out of them
Oddly, the only misery I see on here is from your post...
Children as young as six in France will have to wear masks outdoors and in most public spaces from Monday, according to details published by the French government Saturday.
I thought it was initially a thing that the very young weren't a Covid transmission vector as they didn't pass on a significant viral load. Perhaps with Omicron being so ridiculously infectious, that has changed? And the snot-goblins are as much of a threat as adults - which would make the French decision sensible?
Yeah, but would you be happy for your six year old to be made to wear a mask?
What I'm getting at is, everyone has there limits. I was just interested to see if French had crossed a boundary even for those who are generally pro-mask.
I can see a case for it in schools, given Omicron's increased infectiveness. What makes me think it might be too far is the 'outside' requirement, even with the exercising exemption.
Given omicron's infectiveness, I think the only options are let it go or lockdown, and even a full, hard lockdown might not be enough to stop it.
When I was a small child I had a gas mask. Didn't have to wear it all the time, of course, but had to have one somewhere.
Yeah, but that was for your own protection. These masks do nothing to help kids.
Suppose you have proof that those ones worked and these ones do not. Not many successful gas attacks in UK in WW2 and at worst the current masks do no harm and one would expect they at least stop some germs etc being spread even if they do not 100% stop covid spread.
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Funny isn't it. Whenever I point out that the biggest environment problem is the 9billion humans, I'm told that as people become more educated the birth rate drops so this will self-correct the issue. Yet, when evidence shows this happening the lack of human numbers is suddenly a problem.
yes its the way of the world that we seem to crave issues and problems for governments to "solve" . Covid is a good case but this also - King Canute syndrome i call it that government can solve all issues and make everything just right
I see another pointless but arrogant measure in bringing in facemasks for classrooms today. We really have a miserable society dont we where the old rule and the young get life sucked out of them
Oddly, the only misery I see on here is from your post...
The restrictions they had at my daughters old school really damaged her mental health. Going back to that would be a retrograde step.
Very sorry to hear that Charles.
The government doesn't seem to understand that at three jabs and the virus not going anywhere this is as good as it gets.
Introducing what must be a hugely damaging measure for children, most of whom AAUI have already had the virus is just corrosive gesture politics.
It’s deeply frustrating how casually people swat aside any concerns that things like mandated mask wearing and frequent testing have on children. “Snowflakes don’t know they’re born, it’s hardly the blitz” etc… We’ve committed a crime against childhood the last two years.
The Daily Star reports that thousands of young people in the UK believe alien lizards are ruling the planet. "Perhaps they've spotted that our leaders speak with forked tongues?" the paper jokes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-59849323
The Star's front page also promises a new hangover cure, so you might want to nip down to your newsagent. (Hmm. Are paper boys and girls still a thing? I'm not sure I've seen one recently. Perhaps another consequence of declining birthrates.)
Our paper boy still delivers our Grauniad every day.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Over what sort of time period did all that happen? Could it not be that if housing costs force down fertility rates for an extended period of time, it fundamentally changes society?
It looks to me like a false correlation, created by a handful of outliers - take away the small number of London Boroughs bottom right, and Coventry, and the apparently clear correlation disappears and you are left with a bunch of data and likely mostly random variation. It isn’t difficult to find special factors for a handful of areas in mostly east London; I don’t know Coventry but maybe it has similar, or is simply a random outlier.
Really? Give me the local authorities to exclude and I'll rerun the analysis and see what happens.
Of course, those local authorities you want to ignore are part of the country so I'm not sure why we would want to exclude them.
It's not about "wanting" to exclude any part of the country; you will know that an apparent correlation that is largely being created by a minority of the data points strongly suggests some other factor or variable at play, since if the two modelled variables were strongly correlated, you'd expect to see the relationship in the body of the data and not just the outliers. I'm only trying to assess by eye, but it would be interesting to see what correlation you have left without any of the London Boroughs or Coventry?
Here you go. No London and no Coventry...
Interesting, thanks. The R2 has dropped from 37% to 17%, so I was right that the London dots were doing a lot of the heavy lifting. But there does appear to be a weak relationship remaining. My suspicion is still that we have a more significant missing variable - the hidden factor that made London different likely applies elsewhere.
I should really have made this point in the header, but the analysis is limited by the fact that the points carry the same weight irrespective of size. It's a shame that the shire counties are aggregated. For example, I'd like to see Oxford and Cambridge as distinct from the surrounding areas.
But I find it interesting that you want to exclude London. Why? Isn't it part of England?
And if this correlation is incidental, I'd be curious to know what you think the hidden factor is.
I don't know - but London is exceptional in some respects and it is noticeable that the original correlation you identified is about half due to a small number of London datapoints.
London has experienced significant demographic change over recent decades - the replacement of white British people with white Eastern Europeans and Asians - the shift from owner occupation to rented - the sub-division of family homes into flats and bedsits - the significantly higher birth rate among asian Brits (see Max's post above) - the replacement of older people with younger ones - and new property construction significantly biased toward one- and two-bed flats. My guess is that somewhere in this mix is the explanation to the overall reduction in conception rate, which isn't therefore being driven directly by rising house prices per se (although some of the factors I list are of course partly consequential on the housing market).
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
I suppose the follow up to that is, "should government do more to discourage people from having children?"
Can't see it being enthusiastically promoted by the current PM.....
Interesting piece, Harrow is an interesting one. At least from my perspective the pressure from parents and grandparents to have at least two kids among Indian families is huge. All of my cousins are married and almost all of them have got at least one kid and will have at least two. Around half of them live in and around Harrow/Pinner.
I think that pressure for grandchildren makes a huge difference to people's outlook, even if they don't realise it. Having kids just sort of becomes normalised. My wife was very unsure about the idea when we were dating, after we got married literally every time we saw my parents we'd get asked the question. Now we're in a slightly odd place where we want to and are struggling to do so (happily my sister has quietly informed my mum so the questions went away).
In general I actually think it's a net benefit because all Indians I know plan their adult lives around one day having two or three kids. In terms of housing, money, jobs etc... the focus is pretty standard - will this be good enough to have a decently sized family. Additionally a lot of family help is available. My sister and her family straight up moved in with my parents when their second kid was born last year.
However it's happened, I really think Indian culture in the UK has figured out having reasonable sized families for middle classes. It's something my middle class white friends struggle with a lot more. Our kids generation is going to have a lot of only children who have grown up around screens rather than siblings. It's going to be very odd.
I think fertility rates have dropped quite a lot for British Hindus and Sikhs, and to a lesser extent Muslims, but there is definitely a persisting cultural drive for marriage and children. I do know a fair number though who never marry, and only sometimes through choice. Not just educated professionals either, but also some of our HCA's and admin staff.
Best of luck with the fertility yourself, we had 3 years of it for Foxjr2 and it is really quite stressful and emotionally gruelling. Worth it in the end. Being open about it with family and friends is helpful, I found. Otherwise people do put their foot in it.
Hmm...thought provoking. Personally, I find it troubling that abortion is being used as birth control to such an extent. I respect the woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, I just wish they made different choices and we tried a bit harder to give them other options. Perhaps if we get into a panic about fertility rates we might.
Looked at more globally there are clearly far too many humans on the planet. We are destroying the habitats of far too many other creatures as a result causing a mass extinction event. Whether a gradual reduction is enough given the rapid increase of the carbon footprint of those coming out of poverty remains to be seen. I suspect that we are going to find that this is something of a race with the planet being the loser.
Musk has been talking about this problem for years. “Civilisation ending with a whimper”. I’ve little doubt Tesla’s foray into humanoid robotics is motivated by his fear of this. How else to maintain humanity’s standard of living with an ever declining labour force?
If Musk is saying it, it isn't true. The guy's a hilarious charlatan.
Humankind will muddle on, as we've always done. It doesn't require lying mega-billionaires to 'invent' solutions to the problems they themselves define.
Lol. Anyone that looks at his set of achievements and thinks him a charlatan has no clue what they’re talking about.
I mean he's been hugely successful on building businesses based on government handouts. I'll give him that.
The french system of being able to transfer the tax-free allowance of the non-working spouse would go a long way of encouraging people to have children.
In general I think any future government needs to address the balance of financial burden between working and non-working people. Non working people, pensioners mostly, need to contribute more or benefit less and working people need to have their financial burden eased through the tax system, especially those with kids. Potentially additional tax free allowances for parents, better childcare provision, family/household tax rates rather than individual.
No one's asking for a free ride (well except the baby boomer generation) it just needs to be a little bit easier than it currently is. How that is achieved I don't know, I'd start, as usual, with multiple residential property owners and taxing them out of business.
I remember in the early 00s seeing some surprising statistic that one-third of births followed unintended conceptions. I don't know how reliable such a statistic is, or whether it is routinely measured, but it would be interesting to see whether that has changed.
If the internet is a strong factor in declining fertility then you'd expect that to have a stronger effect on unintended conceptions. Whereas if it is a response to housing costs then you'd expect to see a decline in intended conceptions.
If there are environmental factors that are reducing fertility biologically then you'd see this evenly.
The other thought I have is that the decline in the over-20 fertility rate is I think coincidental with the change to welfare rules in 2017, and the introduction of a two-child limit.
Just so we’re clear, are we using “the internet” as a polite proxy for availability of porn?
An interesting feature of Japanese society is how normal it is for men to pay for sexual services. No doubt this cuts down the unintended conceptions figure. Easy to see how internet porn is achieving similar everywhere else.
Not just porn, but also other addictive aspects - social media, mobile games, doomscrolling news. Also, potentially, the effect of internet dating encouraging people to increase their standards to levels less likely to be attained.
I do wonder whether that last point has something to it. A surprisingly large number of my wife’s friends growing up are single (in their 40s) having never met anyone who hit their standards (which were probably unrealistic). I’ve no idea whether this proportion is higher than in the past (although Jane Austen et so have lots of maiden aunts).
If you were to exclude the single / unmarried from the data set what does the fertility rate look like - ie are we having the same level of breeding but only from a subset of the population
Charles, surely it is a case of your wife's friends looking at what she has and thinking "I want that - or nothing...."?
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Funny isn't it. Whenever I point out that the biggest environment problem is the 9billion humans, I'm told that as people become more educated the birth rate drops so this will self-correct the issue. Yet, when evidence shows this happening the lack of human numbers is suddenly a problem.
Without a culling programme it takes at least two centuries to reduce the global population to one billion, so if we can't save the planet without drastically reducing the population either we are doomed, or we have to take some very violent measures.
I refuse to believe that technology and cooperation is unable to bridge the gap.
Fertility rate will only drop in the next few years.
My gf and other women I know consider the last two years written off, wasted, so will delay any children until that year in Australia is done, or all the Munros climbed, or a Masters degree etc etc
I'm fully onboard with this cos I want to do all that too.
Fertility rate will only drop in the next few years.
My gf and other women I know consider the last two years written off, wasted, so will delay any children until that year in Australia is done, or all the Munros climbed, or a Masters degree etc etc
I'm fully onboard with this cos I want to do all that too.
Holy crap , I can just imagine all the ladies deciding which of those 3 are the top of their list, only on PB awash with Hooray's and Henrietta's could you read such puerile crap.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
Surely Scott's question still stands though - someone is leaking this to damage Truss.
I don't think we have to cudgel our brains too long to get the answer though, any more than when an Iranian nuclear physicist gets knocked off by an unknown state player.
In general I think any future government needs to address the balance of financial burden between working and non-working people. Non working people, pensioners mostly, need to contribute more or benefit less and working people need to have their financial burden eased through the tax system, especially those with kids. Potentially additional tax free allowances for parents, better childcare provision, family/household tax rates rather than individual.
No one's asking for a free ride (well except the baby boomer generation) it just needs to be a little bit easier than it currently is. How that is achieved I don't know, I'd start, as usual, with multiple residential property owners and taxing them out of business.
yes totally agree with all that - For the (small) amount the state does need to spend it should come mainly from wealth not income (especially average income) . If the state is bad news generally then so is entitled feudalism also and land should not be used to exploit people or enterprise (by charging rent ) especially as it generally comes from family hand downs of wealth
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
The french system of being able to transfer the tax-free allowance of the non-working spouse would go a long way of encouraging people to have children.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
The suggestion from so many people I both know and have been reading about is that you feel less sexy when down / depressed, don't get dressed as often and eat too much...
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
The suggestion from so many people I both know and have been reading about is that you feel less sexy when down / depressed, don't get dressed as often and eat too much...
I think far fewer unplanned pregnancies and one night stands in 2020 was the major driver of lower fertility rates during 2021.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
The suggestion from so many people I both know and have been reading about is that you feel less sexy when down / depressed, don't get dressed as often and eat too much...
I think far fewer unplanned pregnancies and one night stands in 2020 was the major driver of lower fertility rates during 2021.
Also the mental elf thing doesn't help. The one thing more desexing than major depression, is antidepressants.
Stepping back a bit from the data here and now, isn't it fairly well established that, as countries become richer and more stable, fewer children are born?
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
Increasingly not. This has been the problem with so much of the excess house-building of the last 10 years: building the wrong houses in the wrong places. Towns do not need more Twatty Meadows a development of executive 3 and 4 bedroom homes where the wildflower meadow used to be. They need more starter homes for people moving out of flats - and more flats for people just starting off.
What has so alarmed so many people living on Twatty Meadows-type developments is just how many homes on them are high-turnover private rentals where people can't afford to buy them, can't afford to rent them either but don't have many other options, and end up moving through quickly. Several of them on Teesside became the new council estates in the most negative sense.
I would have thought with this pandemic you would have seen some kind of baby boom with people staying at home because of lockdowns, working from home and shielding and perhaps not having much to do?
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
The suggestion from so many people I both know and have been reading about is that you feel less sexy when down / depressed, don't get dressed as often and eat too much...
I think far fewer unplanned pregnancies and one night stands in 2020 was the major driver of lower fertility rates during 2021.
I think you mean 2020 (2021 figures not yet available AFAIK)
You may be right but the reduction in the 2020 rate was in line with the trend for the previous 5 years.
Stepping back, I wonder whether we should accept the falling conception rates as a generally good thing - raising difficult challenges for society and civilisation but good for the planet.
There are nearly 8bn people on earth - if that fell by half, or even by 90%, it would not be a 'bad thing' overall.
I look forward to part 2 of this header but remain to be convinced that HMG should be incentivising people to have children.
And not just the planet - if robotics and AI take off as many expect, we won't need so many people and there will be a lot fewer jobs, especially of the unskilled sort that can be replaced by technology. So a reducing population may benefit people as well as the planet.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
I remember in the early 00s seeing some surprising statistic that one-third of births followed unintended conceptions. I don't know how reliable such a statistic is, or whether it is routinely measured, but it would be interesting to see whether that has changed.
If the internet is a strong factor in declining fertility then you'd expect that to have a stronger effect on unintended conceptions. Whereas if it is a response to housing costs then you'd expect to see a decline in intended conceptions.
If there are environmental factors that are reducing fertility biologically then you'd see this evenly.
The other thought I have is that the decline in the over-20 fertility rate is I think coincidental with the change to welfare rules in 2017, and the introduction of a two-child limit.
Just so we’re clear, are we using “the internet” as a polite proxy for availability of porn?
An interesting feature of Japanese society is how normal it is for men to pay for sexual services. No doubt this cuts down the unintended conceptions figure. Easy to see how internet porn is achieving similar everywhere else.
Not just porn, but also other addictive aspects - social media, mobile games, doomscrolling news. Also, potentially, the effect of internet dating encouraging people to increase their standards to levels less likely to be attained.
I do wonder whether that last point has something to it. A surprisingly large number of my wife’s friends growing up are single (in their 40s) having never met anyone who hit their standards (which were probably unrealistic). I’ve no idea whether this proportion is higher than in the past (although Jane Austen et so have lots of maiden aunts).
If you were to exclude the single / unmarried from the data set what does the fertility rate look like - ie are we having the same level of breeding but only from a subset of the population
I guess you can draw a line of negative correlation between western birthrates and preponderance of Disney princes.
Speaking for myself, the reason I will clock in 0.1 below the replacement ratio is I started too old and feel too tired now to do it again.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
Yes this seems true to me too and is very odd.
I am sure when I was a teenager back in the 70s people were complaining that kids were growing up too fast. (I could be looking back through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I guess.)
Difficult to know whether they grow up more slowly or quickly now.
Free confidential contraception available from early teens. Yet anyone under 18 is a child when it comes to being a victim, or various other things. And 16s can no longer get married with parental permission, so they'll just have to move in together instead without whatever protection that gives. Yet iirc rental contracts cannot be signed under 18 unless that has changed. Full time education age is now 18, with many (not most, yet, I think) people staying on for higher education keeps individuals away from the real world.
(And do the activities supporting IB, XR, Pen Farthing and Geronimo the Alpaca(?) argue for an increasing infantilisation amongst older people?)
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Tory reality
depends where the diplomat was from and what sort of trade deal we got with him. Could be money well spent.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
It’s either been leaked to make her look bad or it’s done junior who’s been taken for drinks by a journalist and shared a bit of gossip. More likely the second as I don’t see who would know outside her private office as it’s so mundane
‘You can meet 1 other person from outside your household in an outdoor, public place. But please keep 2 metres apart. Please stick with the rules and don’t take risks’ -Matt Hancock to the nation 15 May 2020
maybeb a reason for the falling birth rate is that potential parents dont see a good future for kids - given high taxes, high rents , high house prices , being outnumbered by entitled boomers who cannot even be arsed to fund their own care expecting workers to pay an extra 2 % National insurance .
The ballot box is useless to address this as the old continue to outnumber the young , the young need to use other strengths like withdrawing labour and demanding higher wages - If prices rise because of it that wll be fine as it will (at last ) effect the old
The french system of being able to transfer the tax-free allowance of the non-working spouse would go a long way of encouraging people to have children.
Yes, as I remember my demographics course from university long ago, it is possible to advance a credible theory for family size that rests almost entirely on economic assumptions - the decisions in aggregate for societies driven not by social or cultural factors but by the relative costs (child-raising and opportunity cost mostly for the mother) and benefits (cheap labour for family enterprises and care in later life) of having children.
A part of the explanation for Italy's remarkably low fertility is the absence of any real financial benefits, such as tax breaks or child allowances.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Tory reality
depends where the diplomat was from and what sort of trade deal we got with him. Could be money well spent.
What diplomat? (I can't read the paywalled Times article)
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
This is deathwish behaviour. I think carrie and the gang have taken Boris hostage.
I can't see that article - are the anti foxhunters now seeking to ban trail hunting which was the replacement agreed to hunting?
Yes, because there's solid evidence that a number of hunts (hard to tell whether it's most or not) are actively using trail hunts as a cover for actual hunting - videos of MFHs telling people how to pretend that it's a trail hunt (officially you are pursuing the artificial trail, but oh dear, the dogs seem to have veered off to chase a real fox). Nobody objects to genuine trail hunts.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
But there were huge, huge interventions in terms of marriage laws and societal disapproval to enforce monogamy. The theory is than in early non-authoritarian societies where women don't count the dominant force by weight of numbers is the beta males, who realise their best chance of getting lucky is if the alphas are not allowed harems. If you are Genghis Khan otoh you get all the women, hand out a few of them to your principal generals, and the betas lose out
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Reading btl I would have thought it was the guest who insisted on the venue.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Anecdote:
20-something niece just WhatsApp'ed to say she had a positive LFT. Was she going to do a PCR? She's already ordered one apparently - 'helps with the overall tracking of covid'. Sensible girl.
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
You're a medic - a saviour! You're fucking catnip.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
You lie with dogs..... you always expect these crooks to be on the make or enriching their chums, it is second nature to them.
Nah. I suspect she thought it was a nice place to go. May be she knew it was owned by Birley. Unlikely she knew he was a donor to Boris. Very unlikely that influenced her decision.
‘You can meet 1 other person from outside your household in an outdoor, public place. But please keep 2 metres apart. Please stick with the rules and don’t take risks’ -Matt Hancock to the nation 15 May 2020
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
You lie with dogs..... you always expect these crooks to be on the make or enriching their chums, it is second nature to them.
Nah. I suspect she thought it was a nice place to go. May be she knew it was owned by Birley. Unlikely she knew he was a donor to Boris. Very unlikely that influenced her decision.
A nice place to go? She should have taken him to Nandos like the rest of us.
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
and being a doctor?
No. Indeed I know plenty of single doctors without mates, of both sexes.
Marriage and family has been possible for the vast majority of men in this country for centuries. The idea that only 10% of men can attract mates by being dominant, rich and handsome is an incel myth to justify misogyny.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
You lie with dogs..... you always expect these crooks to be on the make or enriching their chums, it is second nature to them.
Nah. I suspect she thought it was a nice place to go. May be she knew it was owned by Birley. Unlikely she knew he was a donor to Boris. Very unlikely that influenced her decision.
A nice place to go? She should have taken him to Nandos like the rest of us.
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
and being a doctor?
No. Indeed I know plenty of single doctors without mates, of both sexes.
Marriage and family has been possible for the vast majority of men in this country for centuries. The idea that only 10% of men can attract mates by being dominant, rich and handsome is an incel myth to justify misogyny.
This is correct.
I managed to attract my current girlfriend (who is very good looking, if I say so myself) on Tinder whilst I was unemployed and had a stoma.
Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
You're a medic - a saviour! You're fucking catnip.
It certainly helps as a male to work in a predominantly female environment, less so for female staff. Most people meet their partners through education or work, and the socialising around it. Obviously less so the last 2 years.
Comments
I am sure when I was a teenager back in the 70s people were complaining that kids were growing up too fast. (I could be looking back through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses I guess.)
(Surprised about the disparity between men, although it might go somewhat to explain the x% descended from Edward Longshanks factoid which always seemed implausible to me)
Perhaps it's too early to tell?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
And it could well be argued that our government did exactly that by introducing the two child benefit cap in 2017 (although hard to see that that has impacted much, looking at your first graph).
Generally though, I suspect such things are largely beyond direct government influence. The dramatic historic fall in fertility rates that accompanied industrialisation / improved healthcare in just about every country happened without direct government influence.
And to correct this record, I was right. Winterbourne Stoke always get more focus though. On population thing, whether anything should be done about this is an interesting question. Places already struggling with it and wanting to do something about it don't seem to have been very effective at doing so. And while glibly people can talk about it being better for the planet, even us, in the long term if there was a decline, I don't see governmental policy driving that, and would be worried if it did.
In the west, at least, we've crossed the line from too many to too few, but we're following the same trend, and that's going to be tricky to reverse.
Anyone know how/when attitudes to contraception have changed in Italy? That feels important in shoving the balance between the amount of sex people enjoy and the number of children they want.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-59849323
The Star's front page also promises a new hangover cure, so you might want to nip down to your newsagent. (Hmm. Are paper boys and girls still a thing? I'm not sure I've seen one recently. Perhaps another consequence of declining birthrates.)
The closure of the road to the north of Stonehenge has led to huge traffic issues in the area, with Shrewton blighted by people avoiding the single carriageway section at Stonehenge. The sooner the tunnel is built the better. Been waiting about 35 years already.
I think that pressure for grandchildren makes a huge difference to people's outlook, even if they don't realise it. Having kids just sort of becomes normalised. My wife was very unsure about the idea when we were dating, after we got married literally every time we saw my parents we'd get asked the question. Now we're in a slightly odd place where we want to and are struggling to do so (happily my sister has quietly informed my mum so the questions went away).
In general I actually think it's a net benefit because all Indians I know plan their adult lives around one day having two or three kids. In terms of housing, money, jobs etc... the focus is pretty standard - will this be good enough to have a decently sized family. Additionally a lot of family help is available. My sister and her family straight up moved in with my parents when their second kid was born last year.
However it's happened, I really think Indian culture in the UK has figured out having reasonable sized families for middle classes. It's something my middle class white friends struggle with a lot more. Our kids generation is going to have a lot of only children who have grown up around screens rather than siblings. It's going to be very odd.
"Not just in the UK, but also across the world, politicians may need to rethink policy to support young people and families, rather than just lay heavier and heavier burdens on their shoulders. That essential rebalancing in favour of the young has been growing for some time, but is now needed more than ever. The Triple Lock and similar pensioner benefits are not sustainable, and we grey haired voters need to be a bit less selfish about them."
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/11/26/hatchings-matchings-and-dispatchings/
Though anecdotally, I think there is a rebound in conceptions, at least for established couples. My obstetric colleagues are busy. Some now want a baby, rather like last years fashion was a puppy!
There is a real problem for younger couples forming. Many youngsters seem to struggle to find someone that they actually want to share a life with, not just share a night of passion.
I think a large part is down to atomisation of social lives, particularly with Social Media and online. Soon people will be living in a Matrix like meta-verse rather than in Real Life, if the tech companies get their way.
Fortunately my boys are sorted. Fox Jr lives with his lovely girlfriend of 5 years and now is a homeowner, with a growing career. Fox Jr2 is back on the razzle in London's acting world, and never seems short of female company. I know plenty who aren't dating though in the wider circle of family and friends, of both sexes.
This is deathwish behaviour. I think carrie and the gang have taken Boris hostage.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-wants-to-lunch-and-only-a-tory-donors-place-will-do-z0gq8pknc (£££)
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
And that is a potential problem for her.
After two centuries of declining population and low fertility rates would it be possible to stabilise the population?
I do think there's a danger for future generations that we create a cultural change now that is hard to shift in the future and the human race - possibly the only consciousness able to appreciate the beauty of the universe - simply can't be bothered to perpetuate itself.
He's well into his 60s mind.
London has experienced significant demographic change over recent decades - the replacement of white British people with white Eastern Europeans and Asians - the shift from owner occupation to rented - the sub-division of family homes into flats and bedsits - the significantly higher birth rate among asian Brits (see Max's post above) - the replacement of older people with younger ones - and new property construction significantly biased toward one- and two-bed flats. My guess is that somewhere in this mix is the explanation to the overall reduction in conception rate, which isn't therefore being driven directly by rising house prices per se (although some of the factors I list are of course partly consequential on the housing market).
Surely Scott's question still stands though - someone is leaking this to damage Truss.
One rule for him, another for the rest of us.
Best of luck with the fertility yourself, we had 3 years of it for Foxjr2 and it is really quite stressful and emotionally gruelling. Worth it in the end. Being open about it with family and friends is helpful, I found. Otherwise people do put their foot in it.
Looked at more globally there are clearly far too many humans on the planet. We are destroying the habitats of far too many other creatures as a result causing a mass extinction event. Whether a gradual reduction is enough given the rapid increase of the carbon footprint of those coming out of poverty remains to be seen. I suspect that we are going to find that this is something of a race with the planet being the loser.
No one's asking for a free ride (well except the baby boomer generation) it just needs to be a little bit easier than it currently is. How that is achieved I don't know, I'd start, as usual, with multiple residential property owners and taxing them out of business.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I refuse to believe that technology and cooperation is unable to bridge the gap.
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
If the the latter falls that implies a biological issue which might be due to environmental or genetic causes.
If the former falls that could be due to fertility issues but may just as well due to be societal or attitude changes.
Important distinction I think. @TLG's article seems to be about the reproduction rate rather than the fertility rate.
What has so alarmed so many people living on Twatty Meadows-type developments is just how many homes on them are high-turnover private rentals where people can't afford to buy them, can't afford to rent them either but don't have many other options, and end up moving through quickly. Several of them on Teesside became the new council estates in the most negative sense.
But generally I think it's easier to focus on conceptions/maternities.
You may be right but the reduction in the 2020 rate was in line with the trend for the previous 5 years.
PS - You header has (largely) kept us off covid, Johnson, Brexit etc, in a way that most headers, no matter how worthy, struggle to do - so well done!
Free confidential contraception available from early teens.
Yet anyone under 18 is a child when it comes to being a victim, or various other things.
And 16s can no longer get married with parental permission, so they'll just have to move in together instead without whatever protection that gives.
Yet iirc rental contracts cannot be signed under 18 unless that has changed.
Full time education age is now 18, with many (not most, yet, I think) people staying on for higher education keeps individuals away from the real world.
(And do the activities supporting IB, XR, Pen Farthing and Geronimo the Alpaca(?) argue for an increasing infantilisation amongst older people?)
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
-Matt Hancock to the nation 15 May 2020
-Two hours later https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/matt-hancock-lover-were-downing-25832663
The ballot box is useless to address this as the old continue to outnumber the young , the young need to use other strengths like withdrawing labour and demanding higher wages - If prices rise because of it that wll be fine as it will (at last ) effect the old
A part of the explanation for Italy's remarkably low fertility is the absence of any real financial benefits, such as tax breaks or child allowances.
Diversity targets apply to "LGB" community after methodology quietly "revised"
Priti Patel's "war on woke" revealed in new annual accounts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-one-could-say-he-lacks-polish-59lz39bmr https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1477578504380289024/photo/1
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
20-something niece just WhatsApp'ed to say she had a positive LFT. Was she going to do a PCR? She's already ordered one apparently - 'helps with the overall tracking of covid'. Sensible girl.
Marriage and family has been possible for the vast majority of men in this country for centuries. The idea that only 10% of men can attract mates by being dominant, rich and handsome is an incel myth to justify misogyny.
A further step would be not asking at all.
I managed to attract my current girlfriend (who is very good looking, if I say so myself) on Tinder whilst I was unemployed and had a stoma.
I'm not exactly Brad Pitt either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59850904
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/02/keir-starmer-gaining-traction-has-he-got-enough-to-trouble-tories
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10361049/DAN-HODGES-Apocalyptic-Sage-scenario-failed-materialise.html