LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

The cost of bringing children up has not decreased relative to income.

It is the opposite.

Given real wages have barely risen for a decade but rent and house prices certainly have, where are you establishing that after housing and childcare, disposable income is higher? I’d love to understand how that occurred.

And given on a global scale, there are virtually no macro exceptions to the inverse correlation between income and fertility, and it’s proven that that is the single biggest impact, why is it unreasonable to attribute cause an effect?

focuszing723

ddraver said:

focuszing723 said:

If Rick's right the only answer is to go on a no excuses mass homes to live in initiative. That would drive the cost of living down and give younger families some hope.

As another millennial, yes that would work very well actually.

The council could provide it perhaps. We could call it council housing.

What would be really stupid though is if we let people buy them afterwards without building any more...

Bootiful Bwitish babies from bootiful white... Bwitish mothers

Half the problem with council housing was the maintenance on them all though. Some kind of Co-ownership sounds better to me, as it encourages people to maintain and look after the homes to live in.

I'm coming around to the idea that more developments should be given the go-ahead, it's the only thing which will drive prices down and give young people without rich parents hope.

The BoE/Government are going to drive down IR's as soon as they can and the asset bubble will continue, only supply will change that.

focuszing723

CPI is relative and relative to a young person a mortgage take a hideous percentage of that.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

The cost of bringing children up has not decreased relative to income.

It is the opposite.

Given real wages have barely risen for a decade but rent and house prices certainly have, where are you establishing that after housing and childcare, disposable income is higher? I’d love to understand how that occurred.

And given on a global scale, there are virtually no macro exceptions to the inverse correlation between income and fertility, and it’s proven that that is the single biggest impact, why is it unreasonable to attribute cause an effect?

You are arguing, it seems, that getting poorer over time is decreasing birth rates, because birth rates are consistently lower at higher incomes.

You REALLY need to get more sleep.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

The cost of bringing children up has not decreased relative to income.

It is the opposite.

Given real wages have barely risen for a decade but rent and house prices certainly have, where are you establishing that after housing and childcare, disposable income is higher? I’d love to understand how that occurred.

And given on a global scale, there are virtually no macro exceptions to the inverse correlation between income and fertility, and it’s proven that that is the single biggest impact, why is it unreasonable to attribute cause an effect?

You are arguing, it seems, that getting poorer over time is decreasing birth rates, because birth rates are consistently lower at higher incomes.

You REALLY need to get more sleep.

What about the bold hit argues that?

Rising incomes raise the expected cost of children (time, attention etc) hence the inverse correlation between

I’m suggesting once those expectations rise, if the following generation cannot meet those, that has an impact.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

The cost of bringing children up has not decreased relative to income.

It is the opposite.

Given real wages have barely risen for a decade but rent and house prices certainly have, where are you establishing that after housing and childcare, disposable income is higher? I’d love to understand how that occurred.

And given on a global scale, there are virtually no macro exceptions to the inverse correlation between income and fertility, and it’s proven that that is the single biggest impact, why is it unreasonable to attribute cause an effect?

You are arguing, it seems, that getting poorer over time is decreasing birth rates, because birth rates are consistently lower at higher incomes.

You REALLY need to get more sleep.

What about the bold hit argues that?

Rising incomes raise the expected cost of children (time, attention etc) hence the inverse correlation between

I’m suggesting once those expectations rise, if the following generation cannot meet those, that has an impact.

Yes we know thats what you are suggesting, there's just nothing to back it up.

rick_chasey

I’m not getting the sense you do know tbh, as every time you summarise my argument you summarise a different one I didn’t make.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I’m not getting the sense you do know tbh, as every time you summarise my argument you summarise a different one I didn’t make.

No, its just that I don't agree with you. I do try to parody your arguments, but setting that aside, if the summary seems daft, it could be because your argument is daft.

rick_chasey

Does anyone else think it’s daft that the challenges around housing /renting costs in the places where work is to be found, rising cost in childcare, having an impact on how many people have kids?

I definitely put off trying for that very reason.

pblakeney

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

rick_chasey

I mean it’s so outlandish it’s in….The Times?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/cost-of-living-we-cannot-afford-kids/

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Does anyone else think it’s daft that the challenges around housing /renting costs in the places where work is to be found, rising cost in childcare, having an impact on how many people have kids?

I definitely put off trying for that very reason.

I don't think it is daft at all, but there's no supporting data. So all you have is an anecdote or at best an insignificant factor.

The point I'm making is that you are robustly presenting a cyclic argument and, as usual, you are closed minded about it and think the rest of the forum is populated by simpletons.

I'm really surprised, you know, that you aren't more critical in your reading of junk you pull of the internet. You keep making this mistake that if someone posts it and seems to be credible, it must be right and the rest of us are keyboard warriors.

We should start a technobabble thread, and I'll find you lots of well informed stuff about homeopathy to get you started. Then follow up with some very highly qualified commentaries about the climate change hoax and the indisputible fact that 5G signals cause cancer.

super_davo

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

The cost of bringing children up has not decreased relative to income.

It is the opposite.

Given real wages have barely risen for a decade but rent and house prices certainly have, where are you establishing that after housing and childcare, disposable income is higher? I’d love to understand how that occurred.

And given on a global scale, there are virtually no macro exceptions to the inverse correlation between income and fertility, and it’s proven that that is the single biggest impact, why is it unreasonable to attribute cause an effect?

BIRTH RATE.

First.Aspect

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

We started a family in 2009 just as work went down to a four day week to keep the company afloat. Don't wait for the conditions to be right because they never will be.

First.Aspect

You know, and sorry to labour the point, but this discussion is a bit like the bright cycle clothing debate.

You know...it stands to reason that dressing in bright colours reduces accidents, but it is very difficult to find conclusive evidence in population level data. But it stands to reason. Therefore you should.

But it doesn't make any difference.

Makes sense though because it should.

I got knocked off my bike dressed like a police car and wearing 18 blinkies.

But some people wear black. They should wear bright clothing.

Etc.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

I was going to hypothesise that child bearing age has risen along with the increase in people going to Uni. I don't think a sample of one and opinion of two counts but what the hey...

PS - The rugby is boring. We could do that the government is wanting us to get pissed on a Sunday morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

focuszing723

I think Rick just likes an argument.

super_davo

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

We started a family in 2009 just as work went down to a four day week to keep the company afloat. Don't wait for the conditions to be right because they never will be.

I think this is exactly the point.

Some people do wait for the conditions to be right, which they never are, end result being they don't have kids.

The ones that didn't and didn't work / claimed benefits have been demonized in some quarters for a long time, nobody wants to be "one of them" (and they were certainly looked down upon at my kids schools).

First.Aspect

You know what, cycling has increased in popularity.

Those saddles. Fertility.

There's nothing to prove I'm wrong.

First.Aspect

super_davo said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

We started a family in 2009 just as work went down to a four day week to keep the company afloat. Don't wait for the conditions to be right because they never will be.

I think this is exactly the point.

Some people do wait for the conditions to be right, which they never are, end result being they don't have kids.

The ones that didn't and didn't work / claimed benefits have been demonized in some quarters for a long time, nobody wants to be "one of them" (and they were certainly looked down upon at my kids schools).

Is this a shadow account for Rick?

(See comment above: some cyclists wear black...)

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

I was going to hypothesise that child bearing age has risen along with the increase in people going to Uni. I don't think a sample of one and opinion of two counts but what the hey...

PS - The rugby is boring. We could do that the government is wanting us to get pissed on a Sunday morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

But wait, what if I decided not to have kids and THAT's why I decided to stay on at university? How would we ever know?

EDIT: I'm intrigued by the image selected for that article. She's quite cute, which is I assume why its been chosen, but I can't see any evidence that it was taken in a pub, in Britain, while anyone was watching football, or that she has been served alcohol, let alone before noon.
EDIT EDIT: There's a football shirt, looks like an England shirt. But she's happy so it has to have been photoshopped.

super_davo

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

We started a family in 2009 just as work went down to a four day week to keep the company afloat. Don't wait for the conditions to be right because they never will be.

I think this is exactly the point.

Some people do wait for the conditions to be right, which they never are, end result being they don't have kids.

The ones that didn't and didn't work / claimed benefits have been demonized in some quarters for a long time, nobody wants to be "one of them" (and they were certainly looked down upon at my kids schools).

Is this a shadow account for Rick?

(See comment above: some cyclists wear black...)

I'm very much not, but I've witnessed the same thing myself and even read the same article Rick found. It isn't everybody by any means, but on a national scale, it makes a difference

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

I was going to hypothesise that child bearing age has risen along with the increase in people going to Uni. I don't think a sample of one and opinion of two counts but what the hey...

PS - The rugby is boring. We could do that the government is wanting us to get pissed on a Sunday morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

But wait, what if I decided not to have kids and THAT's why I decided to stay on at university? How would we ever know?

Depends on the answer you you are looking to prove.

First.Aspect

super_davo said:

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

You ≠ Everyone.
If everyone did a cost analysis we would be extinct.

Where did I say that?

It’s just basically all my mates talk about when it comes up. So it’s not just me.

Same in the office for the grads.

I’m surprised it’s such an outlandish thing to say.

I wish I could have had mine at 25 but the finances were precarious. If I knew what position I’d be in now I’d have had them much earlier.

We started a family in 2009 just as work went down to a four day week to keep the company afloat. Don't wait for the conditions to be right because they never will be.

I think this is exactly the point.

Some people do wait for the conditions to be right, which they never are, end result being they don't have kids.

The ones that didn't and didn't work / claimed benefits have been demonized in some quarters for a long time, nobody wants to be "one of them" (and they were certainly looked down upon at my kids schools).

Is this a shadow account for Rick?

(See comment above: some cyclists wear black...)

I'm very much not, but I've witnessed the same thing myself and even read the same article Rick found. It isn't everybody by any means, but on a national scale, it makes a difference

And yet it doesn't show up in the data being used to support the argument.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

I was going to hypothesise that child bearing age has risen along with the increase in people going to Uni. I don't think a sample of one and opinion of two counts but what the hey...

PS - The rugby is boring. We could do that the government is wanting us to get pissed on a Sunday morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

But wait, what if I decided not to have kids and THAT's why I decided to stay on at university? How would we ever know?

Depends on the answer you you are looking to prove.

Education inflation kills birds. This is a direct consequence of the increased uptake of cats by lonely childless people.

secretsqirrel

When was the golden age of parenting? When we we could pop sprogs like a Rees-Mogg* without sacrifice and ‘make do and mend’.



*subtly trying to steer back to tories.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

super_davo said:

Can we all get back to slagging off the Tories please?

FWIW most of my friends have had the same dilemma Rick refers to and put off having children till they could afford to get married, buy a house, stable career, live a little.

Some are now in late 40s with no kids and probably never will. That's the effect he's trying to explain. I've read articles on this effect (though none I could find on a quick Google to link to).

I'm going to venture that most of the articles are written by Rick.

I delayed having kids because I was a student until I was 29, then I was single, then I moved house etc. I could afford it once I started working and had settled somewhere, but it all seemed too tiring by that time in my life and I didn't want to bother and we got cats instead.

So, my hypothesis based on the datum that is me - is that the birth rate has fallen due to education inflation. In reality, I never used the PhD, or even the MSc, and all that wasted time for people exactly like me lowers the birth rate.

I was going to hypothesise that child bearing age has risen along with the increase in people going to Uni. I don't think a sample of one and opinion of two counts but what the hey...

PS - The rugby is boring. We could do that the government is wanting us to get pissed on a Sunday morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

But wait, what if I decided not to have kids and THAT's why I decided to stay on at university? How would we ever know?

EDIT: I'm intrigued by the image selected for that article. She's quite cute, which is I assume why its been chosen, but I can't see any evidence that it was taken in a pub, in Britain, while anyone was watching football, or that she has been served alcohol, let alone before noon.
EDIT EDIT: There's a football shirt, looks like an England shirt. But she's happy so it has to have been photoshopped.

Don't care. Strikes me as a good time to go for a bike ride, weather dependent.
Should I thank the tories?