Lockdown "Baby Bust"

[brad465]

A number of colleagues have in the last 6-9 months got married, many having postponed them of course from 2020. I now know a number of them, plus a few others, who have recently had a child or are expecting early next year. I wonder if as a result we'll have a year or two of school years where there's a lack of children compared to previous years, but then we have a year or two which are larger than normal?

 

[ScotGG]

Another factor stopping people settling down is high housing costs.

Govt fuelling very high housing increases is great for those that own. Those wanting to settle down? Not so much

 

[21C101]

Another factor stopping people settling down is high housing costs.

Govt fuelling very high housing increases is great for those that own. Those wanting to settle down? Not so much

Government fuelling high housing costs is also great for government in inheritance tax receipts and avoiding having to pay care home costs for longer as selling of house funds it for longer if prices are higher.

Its also bad news for many owners who can no longer afford to buy a bigger house as their family grows or move for work reasons etc. due to increasing differentials, stamp duty etc.

I suspect that if we have a bad enough setback then peoples houses would be included in means tests for welfare as happens in South Africa.

 

[ainsworth74]

I suspect that if we have a bad enough setback then peoples houses would be included in means tests for welfare as happens in South Africa.

I doubt it. Working age people with mortgages are already disadvantaged by the existing system as they cannot access any significant support to cover their housing costs. Best the Government can do is help to pay the interest part of your mortgage which is capped at an interest rate of 2.09%, only available on loans up to £200,000 and is, itself, a loan with an interest rate of 0.6% and is repaid upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property. With the final kicker being that you can only access it after nine months of claiming Universal Credit or 39 weeks for other legacy benefits (Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support, etc).

Considering a decent chunk of the Tory base (at least in the Shires) are mortgage holders and further chunks, of course, own their properties outright making things even trickier for them is likely to be a vote loser. More likely to go after the usual targets of welfare benefit cuts. The unemployed, the disabled and the working poor. Far easier targets. Even if they've basically already wrung that stone dry of all the blood it has to offer.

 

[21C101]

I doubt it. Working age people with mortgages are already disadvantaged by the existing system as they cannot access any significant support to cover their housing costs. Best the Government can do is help to pay the interest part of your mortgage which is capped at an interest rate of 2.09%, only available on loans up to £200,000 and is, itself, a loan with an interest rate of 0.6% and is repaid upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property. With the final kicker being that you can only access it after nine months of claiming Universal Credit or 39 weeks for other legacy benefits (Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support, etc).

Considering a decent chunk of the Tory base (at least in the Shires) are mortgage holders and further chunks, of course, own their properties outright making things even trickier for them is likely to be a vote loser. More likely to go after the usual targets of welfare benefit cuts. The unemployed, the disabled and the working poor. Far easier targets. Even if they've basically already wrung that stone dry of all the blood it has to offer.

a big enough setback as in the sort of economic calamity that happened in Greece a few years bavk

 

[Reliablebeam]

A number of my friends and colleagues have had babies during this time, it's fair to say their experiences haven't been great, with new mums being left alone with new baby and no support as the partners are very limited in when/where they can help abe visit. I'm also hearing of a drastic increase in late miscarriages and stillbirths in my peer group, to a worrying extent....

 

[brad465]

The Financial Time's are producing a series of articles about the pandemic baby bust, which, while largely reporting statistics and explanations, does have a bias towards dwindling population growth being a problem:

Baby bust: How the pandemic affected population growth

This series examines the trend of shrinking populations, the impact of the pandemic and policymakers’ response

www.ft.com

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

The number of births in advanced economies has largely rebounded to levels before the coronavirus pandemic, a Financial Times analysis shows...

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

When Choi Yoon-seo became pregnant in 2020, South Korea paid her $500 — a reward for helping the country address its dire demographic crunch. That year it hit its lowest fertility rate on record at 0.84 children per woman...

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Population trends are some of the strongest forces in economics, affecting global prosperity, the growth of individual nations and the strength of public finances...

 

[kristiang85]

Given the cost of raising a child to 18 in England is around £200k, the UK government will need to give a lot more than £500 if they want to encourage people to procreate....

 

[Watershed]

Given the cost of raising a child to 18 in England is around £200k, the UK government will need to give a lot more than £500 if they want to encourage people to procreate....

You'd be surprised what would convince some people. For example Hungary now makes women who have 4 or more children permanently exempt from income tax. Quite how much of a benefit that is is questionable, given that if you're having 4 children, it's highly likely you'll be sacrificing any semblance of a career to do so... But I suppose it must be enough for some.

 

[takno]

You'd be surprised what would convince some people. For example Hungary now makes women who have 4 or more children permanently exempt from income tax. Quite how much of a benefit that is is questionable, given that if you're having 4 children, it's highly likely you'll be sacrificing any semblance of a career to do so... But I suppose it must be enough for some.

I'm not aware of any of these incentives actually being shown to slow the decline in fertility anywhere in Europe. It's possible that fertility would be falling even faster without them if course, but not necessarily very likely

 

[johncrossley]

I suspect the active desire to have children has been low for a long time throughout Europe and in the more developed countries in the rest of the world, not just in recent years. In the modern urban world, having a child is not an asset. Until a few decades ago, you were simply expected to have children once you got married. Such peer pressure is not what it was. In the UK it was common for poorly educated girls to get pregnant to get a council house, but teenage pregnancies have dropped dramatically. So it might be the case that a lot of the reduction in fertility is because fewer people are having children for less than optimal reasons.

 

[kristiang85]

The other factor is that, biologically, it seems male fertility in general is dropping, and nobody is sure why. Maybe it's something to do with the modern world? (Eg phones in pockets, toxins, diet - nothing is proven, I have no idea).

 

[2192]

Wasn't Sunday school invented (unofficially of course) to give married couples a little alone time?

That was certainly a spin off when Sunday Schools were in the afternoon. It also enabled the teachers (who were mostly single women for whom there were no partners because of wartime deaths) a chance to look after children, albeit other peoples children.

A fall in birth rate in developed countries is nothing to worry about: immigration will supply the younger folk needed to look after the old.

 

[Yew]

I'm not aware of any of these incentives actually being shown to slow the decline in fertility anywhere in Europe. It's possible that fertility would be falling even faster without them if course, but not necessarily very likely

Perhaps the issue is the economic and regulatory situation making having a child look rather unappealing. You'll need a bigger house (the prices of which have been going up faster than wages for 40 years), increased living costs (which have also been going up faster than wages) and then after all this pressure, you'd better hope that when the Child is at school you don't want to take them out of school during term time to save money on a holiday.


We are a long way from the idea what a reasonable middle class existence can be had on a single wage.

 

[raspberrypeel]

That was certainly a spin off when Sunday Schools were in the afternoon. It also enabled the teachers (who were mostly single women for whom there were no partners because of wartime deaths) a chance to look after children, albeit other peoples children.

A fall in birth rate in developed countries is nothing to worry about: immigration will supply the younger folk needed to look after the old.

This is very simplistic. What happens once those younger folk who have immigrated turn old? Even more immigration, further increasing the population?

I don't know what the exact ratio is, but given our (the UK's) current productivity and social support structure, there is clearly a minimum worker : retiree/child ratio that needs to be maintained. Let's say it's 3 : 1.

Without either careful (and I mean managed at the Government-level) population pyramid planning or productivity increases (robots, automation, etc) then this ratio cannot fall without removing the social support structure that currently exists for pensioners and children.

As some have mentioned, you can keep this ratio at 3 : 1 by inviting working-age immigrants into the country. However this just pushes back the problem by a generation. The focus should be on:

a) Improving productivity, particularly in the health and social care sectors
b) Pension and old-age financial reform
c) Improving the health of the population and by extension the health of the elderly population.

Therefore if you can get the required ratio of worker : retiree/child down to 2 : 1 then it could be possible to have a shrinking population while maintaining previous levels of wellbeing and financial support for dependents.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Given the cost of raising a child to 18 in England is around £200k, the UK government will need to give a lot more than £500 if they want to encourage people to procreate....

It isn't just cost of raising the child directly either. I know a lot of people my age don't want to have children whilst they are renting because of how insecure and horrible the rental market in the UK is. If we actually had longer term protection for renters (e.g. you can't be just kicked out of the flat you are renting for no reason) then maybe that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but certainly at the when you may well have to move a significant distance and worry about schools etc all at very short notice just because your landlord has decided they don't like you (or want to raise the rent etc etc).

 

[johncrossley]

It isn't just cost of raising the child directly either. I know a lot of people my age don't want to have children whilst they are renting because of how insecure and horrible the rental market in the UK is. If we actually had longer term protection for renters (e.g. you can't be just kicked out of the flat you are renting for no reason) then maybe that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but certainly at the when you may well have to move a significant distance and worry about schools etc all at very short notice just because your landlord has decided they don't like you (or want to raise the rent etc etc).

That makes sense, but one of the countries noted for particularly good terms for renters (Germany) has a particularly low birth rate.

 

[Enthusiast]

Given the cost of raising a child to 18 in England is around £200k, the UK government will need to give a lot more than £500 if they want to encourage people to procreate....

There's no need for the UK government to encourage people to have children. One estimate published today suggests that around 100,000 migrants will arrive from France this year. This is four times the number last year and is based on the fact that four times as many have already arrived this year as arrived by this time last year. That is around 15% of the number needed to replace the population annually.

I always chuckle at the argument that an increasing population is necessary pay for the pensions and provide care for older people. Those subscribing to that philosophy seem to have overlooked the fact - incredible as it may seem - that the new arrivals eventually become old and similarly need more and more people to provide their care and pensions. It's a bit like encouraging cats to have litter after litter of kittens because many of the litters end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal.

An increasing global population is unsustainable on many levels and governments need to find a different model to deal with an ageing population that does not depend on ever increasing numbers.

 

[kristiang85]

There's no need for the UK government to encourage people to have children. One estimate published today suggests that around 100,000 migrants will arrive from France this year. This is four times the number last year and is based on the fact that four times as many have already arrived this year as arrived by this time last year. That is around 15% of the number needed to replace the population annually.

I always chuckle at the argument that an increasing population is necessary pay for the pensions and provide care for older people. Those subscribing to that philosophy seem to have overlooked the fact - incredible as it may seem - that the new arrivals eventually become old and similarly need more and more people to provide their care and pensions. It's a bit like encouraging cats to have litter after litter of kittens because many of the litters end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal.

An increasing global population is unsustainable on many levels and governments need to find a different model to deal with an ageing population that does not depend on ever increasing numbers.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree with this, just if government policy is to encourage more children then it needs to be financially very beneficial for parents.

We have a year or two more to decide whether to have them or not. I'm very much in the not bothered camp at the moment, but my wife does love children so I can see her wanting them at some point, which I will support if she does. But ideally I would like to limit it to one child.

 

[brad465]

A fall in birth rate in developed countries is nothing to worry about: immigration will supply the younger folk needed to look after the old.

There are two problems here, firstly immigrants are usually the go to source of blame to distract from other policy failures, such that more immigration won't be welcome. Secondly, there are a lot of developed countries who will have this problem, and there'll come a point where they are all fighting over other countries' population, and there'll be losers.

Alternatively, we pursue a managed decline to a sustainable level and stop thinking we can boost GDP ad infinitum.

 

[Yew]

Without either careful (and I mean managed at the Government-level) population pyramid planning or productivity increases (robots, automation, etc) then this ratio cannot fall without removing the social support structure that currently exists for pensioners and children.

As some have mentioned, you can keep this ratio at 3 : 1 by inviting working-age immigrants into the country. However this just pushes back the problem by a generation. The focus should be on:

a) Improving productivity, particularly in the health and social care sectors
b) Pension and old-age financial reform
c) Improving the health of the population and by extension the health of the elderly population.

So surely a generation of immigrants would be a great boon in giving us time to make these productivity improvements?

 

[johncrossley]

You can still have economic growth (per capita) without population growth, as that comes through improvements in technology

 

[The Ham]

There's no need for the UK government to encourage people to have children. One estimate published today suggests that around 100,000 migrants will arrive from France this year. This is four times the number last year and is based on the fact that four times as many have already arrived this year as arrived by this time last year. That is around 15% of the number needed to replace the population annually.

I always chuckle at the argument that an increasing population is necessary pay for the pensions and provide care for older people. Those subscribing to that philosophy seem to have overlooked the fact - incredible as it may seem - that the new arrivals eventually become old and similarly need more and more people to provide their care and pensions. It's a bit like encouraging cats to have litter after litter of kittens because many of the litters end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal.

An increasing global population is unsustainable on many levels and governments need to find a different model to deal with an ageing population that does not depend on ever increasing numbers.

I have previously said (on another thread) that we could do with allowing more people into this country. However that doesn't mean I think that we should have unlimited numbers.

The problem that we have is that the UK population is aging and so the numbers of the working population is falling significantly.

As such there's likely to be somewhere between the two extremes (zero immigration - unlimited immigration), the problem is that often the debate ends up with someone arguing that either end would cause issues and so someone with the opposite view says that the opposite end would also cause issues.

Now both are correct, however rarely does anyone actual think that either end of the spectrum is the right answer as there will be problems.

 

[nw1]

Given the cost of raising a child to 18 in England is around £200k, the UK government will need to give a lot more than £500 if they want to encourage people to procreate....

Controversial - but - do we really want to encourage people to have children if they don't want to?

The same government appears to believe that immigration is a bad thing (I tend to disagree) - one given reason is ostensibly overpopulation - so why is encouraging people to have children when they might not have done otherwise a good thing?

 

[brad465]

The same government appears to believe that immigration is a bad thing (I tend to disagree) - one given reason is ostensibly overpopulation - so why is encouraging people to have children when they might not have done otherwise a good thing?

They say it's a bad thing, but that's not the same as doing anything about it. The points-based system effectively allows an unlimited flow of skilled workers, and realistically immigrants are far more easy to exploit than domestic workers, which is why the rhetoric to reduce immigration to "tens of thousands" under Theresa May has Home Secretary never came close to being met.

 

[Yew]

They say it's a bad thing, but that's not the same as doing anything about it. The points-based system effectively allows an unlimited flow of skilled workers, and realistically immigrants are far more easy to exploit than domestic workers, which is why the rhetoric to reduce immigration to "tens of thousands" under Theresa May has Home Secretary never came close to being met.

I mean, technically it was, it was just a lot of tens!

 

[brad465]

Global population grew by <1% for the first time during the covid pandemic years, while in Europe total population actually fell:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

The global population grew by less than 1 per cent a year for the first time since the aftermath of the second world war in 2020 and 2021...

 

[jon0844]

I assume that in bad economic times, people are less likely to want children given the cost of upbringing (and maybe even concerns about what jobs they might be able to get, how they might ever afford a home etc).

 

[Bald Rick]

Global population grew by <1% for the first time during the covid pandemic years, while in Europe total population actually fell:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

it is interesting how global population forecasts seem to be consistently overestimating future growth, with the peak of World population being routinely revised downwards.

 

[brad465]

We now have confirmation from research that the birth rate dropped as a result of lockdowns, citing that births were on average 14% lower in January 2021 in Europe:

Study links coronavirus lockdowns to birth rate drop in Europe

January 2021 saw a 14% birth rate drop in Europe in comparison with previous years, research suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

Europe saw a 14% drop in its birth rate in January 2021 compared to previous years - a decline probably triggered by the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, research suggests.

January 2021 was nine to 10 months after the imposition of Covid-related lockdowns.
Longer lockdowns led to fewer pregnancies, the research suggests.
The decline was more common in countries where health systems struggled.
Lithuania and Romania saw the biggest drops - at 28% and 23% respectively - while Sweden, which had no lockdown, saw normal birth rates, according to findings published in the journal Human Reproduction.
Researchers say the findings may lead to "long-term consequences on demographics particularly in western Europe where there are aging populations".
"The longer the lockdowns the fewer pregnancies occurred in this period, even in countries not severely affected by the pandemic," said Dr Leo Pomar, a midwife sonographer at Lausanne University Hospital, who wrote the study.
"We think that couples' fears of a health and social crisis at the time of the first wave of Covid-19 contributed to the decrease in live births nine months later."
Social distancing measures, fears related to the virus, and the social and economic crisis caused as a result may be "indirect factors that played a role in the decision of couples to postpone pregnancies", the report states.
England and Wales saw a 13% drop in January 2021, compared with January 2018 and 2019 - while the number of babies born in Scotland decreased by 14%.
France and Spain saw a 14% and 23% drop respectively.
In March 2021, births returned to a similar rate to the pre-pandemic level, corresponding to a rebound nine to 10 months after the end of lockdowns, the study says.
But researchers say that this rebound does not appear to have compensated for the drop in birth rates two months before.
"The fact that the rebound in births does not seem to compensate for the decrease in January 2021 could have long-term consequences on demographics, particularly in western Europe where there are aging populations," Dr Pomar said.