General News Thread

[Sampson]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4gpzep9n8et
 

Interesting statement by Putin on the bbc. I do wonder how much of this war and the Trump administration rather bizarre statement “Civilization erasure of Europe” ultimately comes down to some nationalistic panic over population ageing and the fact despite all the different types of policies tried over the past few decades that no country seems to be able to do anything to successfully reverse it. I do wonder how far we are from some nutjob leaders in some parts of the world trying forced pregnancies or withdrawal of any form of state support, benefits or state healthcare after your 65th birthday (or just straight up euthanasia after a certain age).

 

'Our long-term task is to preserve and increase our people' - Putin on population  declinepublished at 15:40

15:40

 

Vladimir Putin, pictured during a visit to India last week

In Russia, meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin, says efforts to stop the population decline in Russia have so far not borne fruit.

"Unfortunately, negative tendencies prevail and the birth rate continues to fall," he said at a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects.

"Our long-term historic task is to preserve and increase our people. Despite the current situation and objective difficulties, we must maintain focus on this objective," he said.

According to the World Bank, external, Russia's population has shrunk from 145.4m in 2019 to 143.5 in 2024.

Independent researchers and BBC Russian have identified more than 150,000 Russians, externalkilled in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 - although the total number is thought to be much higher.

 

Edited 8 December 2025 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4gpzep9n8et
 

Interesting statement by Putin on the bbc. I do wonder how much of this war and the Trump administration rather bizarre statement “Civilization erasure of Europe” ultimately comes down to some nationalistic panic over population ageing and the fact despite all the different types of policies tried over the past few decades that no country seems to be able to do anything to successfully reverse it. I do wonder how far we are from some nutjob leaders in some parts of the world trying forced pregnancies or withdrawal of any form of state support, benefits or state healthcare after your 65th birthday (or just straight up euthanasia after a certain age).

 

'Our long-term task is to preserve and increase our people' - Putin on population  declinepublished at 15:40

15:40

 

Vladimir Putin, pictured during a visit to India last week

In Russia, meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin, says efforts to stop the population decline in Russia have so far not borne fruit.

"Unfortunately, negative tendencies prevail and the birth rate continues to fall," he said at a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects.

"Our long-term historic task is to preserve and increase our people. Despite the current situation and objective difficulties, we must maintain focus on this objective," he said.

According to the World Bank, external, Russia's population has shrunk from 145.4m in 2019 to 143.5 in 2024.

Independent researchers and BBC Russian have identified more than 150,000 Russians, externalkilled in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 - although the total number is thought to be much higher.

 

I have no idea how these people haven't grasped the fact that it's either this steady decline followed by a plateau that must be managed as best we may... or a catastrophic population crash, including "theirs".

 

Perhaps they do know it, but denial is a strong emotion. 

[fox_up_north]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Andrew Menary KC was keen to talk about where the boundaries lie in the freedom of speech debate.

He told Joey Barton: "Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.

"But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.

"As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit - amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful."

 

He's an absolute cretin who should be in jail.

Not quite jail, for me but repeatedly calling on people to report a well known public figure to the police on false accusations (given his reach) should get the very top end of sentencing. 

[Sampson]

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I have no idea how these people haven't grasped the fact that it's either this steady decline followed by a plateau that must be managed as best we may... or a catastrophic population crash, including "theirs".

 

Perhaps they do know it, but denial is a strong emotion. 

I’m not sure you’re right, I mean there are alternatives that very clearly would work - inhumane ones of course that we would consider horrific today, but that’s never stopped some nutjobs trying these things before and then trying to convince the world that’s the only option. We’re already at the point where 30+ years of many different countries trying many different and opposing policies have been unable to successfully reverse birth rates and natural population decline and population ageing, and certain people see defending their tribe as their ultimately responsiblity, surely history shows us that we’re unfortunately bound to get nutjobs who’ll go down the path of forced pregnancy of every woman and forced euthanasia after a certain age?
 

I mean, Pol Pot just one day decided to start society again from day x and killed 1/4 of his county’s population in 4 years including allegedly killing people who wore glasses because he felt they were a sign of the old world before day x or something, why do you think there wouldn’t be dictators who’d go to those lengths to keep their “Civilization” going in their heads?

Edited 8 December 2025 by Sampson

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I’m not sure you’re right, I mean there are alternatives that very clearly would work - inhumane ones of course that we would consider horrific today, but that’s never stopped some nutjobs trying these things before and then trying to convince the world that’s the only option. We’re already at the point where 30+ years of many different countries trying many different and opposing policies have been unable to successfully reverse birth rates and natural population decline and population ageing, and certain people see defending their tribe as their ultimately responsiblity, surely history shows us that we’re unfortunately bound to get nutjobs who’ll go down the path of forced pregnancy of every woman and forced euthanasia after a certain age?
 

I mean, Pol Pot just one day decided to start society again from day x and killed 1/4 of his county’s population in 4 years including allegedly killing people who wore glasses because he felt they were a sign of the old world before day x or something, why do you think there wouldn’t be dictators who’d go to those lengths to keep their “Civilization” going in their heads?

Does not need to happen like that though. Reasons justifiable to some will be found, the cost cutting, the removal of rights, the greater good, all this claptrap will be disseminated and their will be enough of the vocal populace who support, accept or just nod along. There is no time for a unified response, only time to keep the lights on, buy the next iPhone and agree action is needed in your echo room.

 

Just need the causes for collective suffering to be attributable to someone who isn't you, and when reasons creak and strain under inspection, you scream fire, and point to this seasons arsonist.

 

Believe the reduction in population will occur one way or the other, and this time it will be with our reluctant blessing.

 

 

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I’m not sure you’re right, I mean there are alternatives that very clearly would work - inhumane ones of course that we would consider horrific today, but that’s never stopped some nutjobs trying these things before and then trying to convince the world that’s the only option. We’re already at the point where 30+ years of many different countries trying many different and opposing policies have been unable to successfully reverse birth rates and natural population decline and population ageing, and certain people see defending their tribe as their ultimately responsiblity, surely history shows us that we’re unfortunately bound to get nutjobs who’ll go down the path of forced pregnancy of every woman and forced euthanasia after a certain age?
 

I mean, Pol Pot just one day decided to start society again from day x and killed 1/4 of his county’s population in 4 years including allegedly killing people who wore glasses because he felt they were a sign of the old world before day x or something, why do you think there wouldn’t be dictators who’d go to those lengths to keep their “Civilization” going in their heads?

Oh, I absolutely agree that they could try in the way that you suggest, or even manufacture consent in the way @Dahnsouff suggests, and either could well work. They certainly have the mentality, and the power, to try and succeed at either.

 

I was thinking more that insular mindset in of itself, through looking at this issue and other issues in this particular way, would still end up failing because such a tribal mindset is doomed to failure anyway - in this instance, either through allowing birthrates to balloon and so resulting in resource crises, or through simple rebellion after enough time has passed. Or other possibilities that I've not considered.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4gpzep9n8et
 

Interesting statement by Putin on the bbc. I do wonder how much of this war and the Trump administration rather bizarre statement “Civilization erasure of Europe” ultimately comes down to some nationalistic panic over population ageing and the fact despite all the different types of policies tried over the past few decades that no country seems to be able to do anything to successfully reverse it. I do wonder how far we are from some nutjob leaders in some parts of the world trying forced pregnancies or withdrawal of any form of state support, benefits or state healthcare after your 65th birthday (or just straight up euthanasia after a certain age).

 

'Our long-term task is to preserve and increase our people' - Putin on population  declinepublished at 15:40

15:40

 

Vladimir Putin, pictured during a visit to India last week

In Russia, meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin, says efforts to stop the population decline in Russia have so far not borne fruit.

"Unfortunately, negative tendencies prevail and the birth rate continues to fall," he said at a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects.

"Our long-term historic task is to preserve and increase our people. Despite the current situation and objective difficulties, we must maintain focus on this objective," he said.

According to the World Bank, external, Russia's population has shrunk from 145.4m in 2019 to 143.5 in 2024.

Independent researchers and BBC Russian have identified more than 150,000 Russians, externalkilled in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 - although the total number is thought to be much higher.

 

Both Russia and Western Europe are utterly screwed. Both have terrible demographics, both have strategically pathetic leaders. 

[Md9]

The most transparent administration in history has just cancelled Octobers  PPI inflation report , as well as the jobs one not long ago and a few others . They don’t like when something is not easy to blag in their favour so they absolute s*** stains. 
all the farmers that voted for him also need bailing out again but they will never learn 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Both Russia and Western Europe are utterly screwed. Both have terrible demographics, both have strategically pathetic leaders. 

These demographics exist everywhere except for Africa, India and the Middle East though that’s the problem. I know you love to rant against the Liberal establishment and think everything is about individual “leaders”, but the low birth rates  are pretty much universal across all industrialised nations in Europe, Asia, North, Central & South America, Australia and New Zealand, regardless of dictatorships or institution led democracies, regardless of type or “strength” of leadership, regardless of capitalist economy, command socialist economy or Latin American populist black market and bung economies.
 

That’s the exact problem - different types of governments, different economic systems, different leaders have all tried to solve the demographic problems and nothing works. If we found a model that had we could use it and say “yes it’s the fault of weak leaders or capitalism or liberalism” but we haven’t and it isn’t, it just seems to be an inherent by-product of our industrialised world.

 

The worst problems are actually in Asia because they are so strictly anti-immigration. I mean South Korea, which has the single most devastating demographic train about to hit it of any county with very little immigration and a birth rate of about 0.7 children per woman, in 20-40 years you’ll probably have half the population living in retirement homes and the average worker having to pay more in tax than their average wages to support the countries incredible healthcare and pension costs. China is a couple of decades behind because it industrialised later but it’s already ageing rapidly and starting to see its pension funds running huge deficits.

Edited 8 December 2025 by Sampson

[Jon the Hat]

It's not that hard to encourage people to have kids.  They need a house they can afford, affordable childcare which makes going back to work actually pay money, and child benefit that doesn't go away because one of you has a good income.

[LCFCJohn]

14 hours ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4gpzep9n8et
 

Interesting statement by Putin on the bbc. I do wonder how much of this war and the Trump administration rather bizarre statement “Civilization erasure of Europe” ultimately comes down to some nationalistic panic over population ageing and the fact despite all the different types of policies tried over the past few decades that no country seems to be able to do anything to successfully reverse it. I do wonder how far we are from some nutjob leaders in some parts of the world trying forced pregnancies or withdrawal of any form of state support, benefits or state healthcare after your 65th birthday (or just straight up euthanasia after a certain age).

 

'Our long-term task is to preserve and increase our people' - Putin on population  declinepublished at 15:40

15:40

 

Vladimir Putin, pictured during a visit to India last week

In Russia, meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin, says efforts to stop the population decline in Russia have so far not borne fruit.

"Unfortunately, negative tendencies prevail and the birth rate continues to fall," he said at a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects.

"Our long-term historic task is to preserve and increase our people. Despite the current situation and objective difficulties, we must maintain focus on this objective," he said.

According to the World Bank, external, Russia's population has shrunk from 145.4m in 2019 to 143.5 in 2024.

Independent researchers and BBC Russian have identified more than 150,000 Russians, externalkilled in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 - although the total number is thought to be much higher.

 

I mean shocking revelation there that starting an unnecessary war could decrease population right! 
 

It’s not just those falling in Ukraine. Why would Russian’s be wanting to have kids in these times? I know if you have a child now, it’s 18 years before they are an adult but the thought they could be sent to the front line at 18 (in this version of this war or a future one) would play on minds. And also the economic side for the people there struggling.

 

Maybe if he prioritised peace and creating a country where the people can have families rather than a pointless land grab, when they are already the biggest country by area and clearly haven’t got the population to match!

[Sampson]

52 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's not that hard to encourage people to have kids.  They need a house they can afford, affordable childcare which makes going back to work actually pay money, and child benefit that doesn't go away because one of you has a good income.

Then why are the birth rates in Nordic countries with the high child benefits and very good maternity and paternity benefits on the floor? And when they even increased these it only increased birth rates in first generation immigrants from Africa but barely moved the needle in 2nd-3rd generation immigrants or people whose grandparents were all from the country?

 

What you have suggested is exactly the kind of thing governments also thought was going to be common sense over the past decades but just hasn’t worked in practice in modern industrialised or post-industrialised countries.

[Sampson]

27 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

I mean shocking revelation there that starting an unnecessary war could decrease population right! 
 

It’s not just those falling in Ukraine. Why would Russian’s be wanting to have kids in these times? I know if you have a child now, it’s 18 years before they are an adult but the thought they could be sent to the front line at 18 (in this version of this war or a future one) would play on minds. And also the economic side for the people there struggling.

 

Maybe if he prioritised peace and creating a country where the people can have families rather than a pointless land grab, when they are already the biggest country by area and clearly haven’t got the population to match!

I think you’re missing the point. These are decades old trends of low birth rates that exist from the old Soviet Union days. The point is, child mortality rates and life expectancy also grew rapidly in many countries over the past 50 years which means the low birth rates aren’t going to show in population crashes yet, but before that they absolutely are starting to show in ageing populations where you’re going to have to expect a small number of tax payers to support both economically, politically and culturally a population of majority of elderly people all who naturally need way more healthcare and support than the average 30-something.

 

Look in South Korea for example, in 1950, 75 years ago its population was around 20 million, now it’s around 50milliom. In 75 years in 2100 it will back down to 20million as if stands, but in 1950 the average age was 18, in 2100 it will be above 60 (and probably only a couple of million women left of child bearing age) Because this is exponential by 2175 it will probably be only a couple of million people left. While South Korea is the most drastic example, the general pattern exists pretty much uniformly across the non-Africa, India and the Middle Eastern world.

Edited 9 December 2025 by Sampson

[Sly]

The stereotypical dream was once marriage,  house, children.

The world has evolved and it isn’t that now.

 

I think bluntly put, the younger generation see less value in marriage and the financial impact of children stops them aspiring to be what they want to achieve. It just isn’t a priority like it was 20 to 30 years ago. 
 

The real challenge is that people will need to stand on their own two feet more when they age, or you raise the retirement age to a level where people work longer, thus putting more in and taking less out. 
 

Housing, always has and will continue to be a challenge for everyone.I see loads of people quoting things like a house is now 10x the cost of a salary, compared to 2x the cost 30 years ago. 
 

The reality is, you aren’t comparing apples to apples. You’ve just got to hustle and grind and buy something that’s half falling to bits to get yourself on the ladder and then slowly upgrade. 
 

People can still buy houses as a young age, they just need to temper expectations and stop aspiring to buy the brand new 4 bed house, to go with the brand new car, new phone etc, 

 

Joking aside, I see the “Boomers always talk about the daily coffees we buy from Starbucks / Costa”. It’s the little step changes that make a difference and add up.

 

5 x £4 / week on coffee is £20 - £1k a year

1 x Night out at £100 a week - £5k a year

New car on finance at £200 / month - £2.4k a year

Sky / Netflix / Disney - £700 a year

Holidays - £4k a year

 

The list is endless when you start budgeting and you don’t need to give it all up. However you cut that amount and put stuff away it’s easier to chase the dream.

 

People just live in a generation where everything is on finance, everything is needed now and the step reality is having children is a massive financial burden that is a huge obstacle in attaining what they aspire to be.  

 

 

[LCFCJohn]

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I think you’re missing the point. These are decades old trends of low birth rates that exist from the old Soviet Union days. The point is, child mortality rates and life expectancy also grew rapidly in many countries over the past 50 years which means the low birth rates aren’t going to show in population crashes yet, but before that they absolutely are starting to show in ageing populations where you’re going to have to expect a small number of tax payers to support both economically, politically and culturally a population of majority of elderly people all who naturally need way more healthcare and support than the average 30-something.

 

Look in South Korea for example, in 1950, 75 years ago its population was around 20 million, now it’s around 50milliom. In 75 years in 2100 it will back down to 20million as if stands, but in 1950 the average age was 18, in 2100 it will be above 60 (and probably only a couple of million women left of child bearing age) Because this is exponential by 2175 it will probably be only a couple of million people left. While South Korea is the most drastic example, the general pattern exists pretty much uniformly across the non-Africa, India and the Middle Eastern world.

Not missing the point in that I get it is a trend across the world and going back longer that 2022 so I was not suggesting that is the reason, even if framed poorly.

 

More pointing out the irony that of all people, Putin is ‘concerned’ about this when he is showing not regard for life and actively sending his people to be killed over a land grab basically. I wasn’t suggesting all would be fine if not for that, more that it could be a starting point as to how not to further reduce your population.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Sly said:

The stereotypical dream was once marriage,  house, children.

The world has evolved and it isn’t that now.

 

I think bluntly put, the younger generation see less value in marriage and the financial impact of children stops them aspiring to be what they want to achieve. It just isn’t a priority like it was 20 to 30 years ago. 
 

The real challenge is that people will need to stand on their own two feet more when they age, or you raise the retirement age to a level where people work longer, thus putting more in and taking less out. 
 

Housing, always has and will continue to be a challenge for everyone.I see loads of people quoting things like a house is now 10x the cost of a salary, compared to 2x the cost 30 years ago. 
 

The reality is, you aren’t comparing apples to apples. You’ve just got to hustle and grind and buy something that’s half falling to bits to get yourself on the ladder and then slowly upgrade. 
 

People can still buy houses as a young age, they just need to temper expectations and stop aspiring to buy the brand new 4 bed house, to go with the brand new car, new phone etc, 

 

Joking aside, I see the “Boomers always talk about the daily coffees we buy from Starbucks / Costa”. It’s the little step changes that make a difference and add up.

 

5 x £4 / week on coffee is £20 - £1k a year

1 x Night out at £100 a week - £5k a year

New car on finance at £200 / month - £2.4k a year

Sky / Netflix / Disney - £700 a year

Holidays - £4k a year

 

The list is endless when you start budgeting and you don’t need to give it all up. However you cut that amount and put stuff away it’s easier to chase the dream.

 

People just live in a generation where everything is on finance, everything is needed now and the step reality is having children is a massive financial burden that is a huge obstacle in attaining what they aspire to be.  

 

 

That's because it's rightly pointed out to be fallacious, and if you think that even a decent proportion of average younger folks are spending a little over 13k a year on the above, then quite frankly that's fallacious too.

 

In any case, systemic inequality is building and on the topic being discussed, while the population growth in developed nations both slowing and ageing resulting in a demographic issue described as by posters above is bad, it may remain the best possible bad option and I'm stumped to think of a future outcome that is better on this topic.

[Sly]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's because it's rightly pointed out to be fallacious, and if you think that even a decent proportion of average younger folks are spending a little over 13k a year on the above, then quite frankly that's fallacious too.

 

In any case, systemic inequality is building and on the topic being discussed, while the population growth in developed nations both slowing and ageing resulting in a demographic issue described as by posters above is bad, it may remain the best possible bad option and I'm stumped to think of a future outcome that is better on this topic.

I wouldn’t say it’s entirely fallacious. 
 

No one can deny that the world is a much, much closer place than it once was and has aspirations that exceed future generations.

 

On the topic of an inequality, it’s always existed hasn’t it? Surely we aren’t saying it’s wider than it was 300 years ago? 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

I wouldn’t say it’s entirely fallacious. 
 

No one can deny that the world is a much, much closer place than it once was and has aspirations that exceed future generations.

 

On the topic of an inequality, it’s always existed hasn’t it? Surely we aren’t saying it’s wider than it was 300 years ago? 

There certainly is an expectation that things should be easier for younger generations... but then IMO that's one of, if not the, key objective of society in the first place. To build on what's come before to make the world an easier, more comfortable, better place for those who come after us. Not look to screw them over in the name of self interest. That's the very nature of progress.

 

Which leads rather neatly into the next point; there certainly was more inequality 300 years ago, but then there was less 50 years ago (in terms of straight income figures anyway). And that suggests that societies are regressing, not progressing. Which, naturally, is a problem. 

Edited 9 December 2025 by leicsmac

[Sly]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There certainly is an expectation that things should be easier for younger generations... but then IMO that's one of, if not the, key objective of society in the first place. To build on what's come before to make the world an easier, more comfortable, better place for those who come after us. Not look to screw them over in the name of self interest. That's the very nature of progress.

 

Which leads rather neatly into the next point; there certainly was more inequality 300 years ago, but then there was less 50 years ago (in terms of straight income figures anyway). And that suggests that societies are regressing, not progressing. Which, naturally, is a problem. 

Oh, I don’t disagree on having less inequality 50 years ago.

 

I guess, playing devils advocate, had it maybe come too far the other way, whereby it was easier? 
 

Everyone should be able to aspire to do better and have a great quality of life. However do do that we would almost need to be in a very high functioning communist society. Capitalism will always lead to the rich getting richer and a tiered society that has varying degrees of equality. 
 

What is bonkers, is the likes of Musk, Bezos etc, potentially holding a larger % of the worlds entire wealth. I’d say that that number is growing and maybe since the .com boom, this has accelerated this. The worlds top 1% of population must be getting close to holding m 50% of the worlds wealth now, which means other people are getting richer. 

 

No right, or wrong answer really, as it’s all down to personal opinions, however for me, I’d say that doesn’t feel right. No point having, what you can’t spend. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

Oh, I don’t disagree on having less inequality 50 years ago.

 

I guess, playing devils advocate, had it maybe come too far the other way, whereby it was easier? 
 

Everyone should be able to aspire to do better and have a great quality of life. However do do that we would almost need to be in a very high functioning communist society. Capitalism will always lead to the rich getting richer and a tiered society that has varying degrees of equality. 
 

What is bonkers, is the likes of Musk, Bezos etc, potentially holding a larger % of the worlds entire wealth. I’d say that that number is growing and maybe since the .com boom, this has accelerated this. The worlds top 1% of population must be getting close to holding m 50% of the worlds wealth now, which means other people are getting richer. 

 

No right, or wrong answer really, as it’s all down to personal opinions, however for me, I’d say that doesn’t feel right. No point having, what you can’t spend. 
 

 

Nothing there to be disagreed with tbh. 

 

The only thing I'll add is that, yes, I do think every generation should strive to make things at least as easy for the next one as it was for them. Never bought into the Calvinist BS about excessive suffering being somehow necessary for character and/or simply a fact of life. 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

The stereotypical dream was once marriage,  house, children.

The world has evolved and it isn’t that now.

 

I think bluntly put, the younger generation see less value in marriage and the financial impact of children stops them aspiring to be what they want to achieve. It just isn’t a priority like it was 20 to 30 years ago. 
 

The real challenge is that people will need to stand on their own two feet more when they age, or you raise the retirement age to a level where people work longer, thus putting more in and taking less out. 
 

Housing, always has and will continue to be a challenge for everyone.I see loads of people quoting things like a house is now 10x the cost of a salary, compared to 2x the cost 30 years ago. 
 

The reality is, you aren’t comparing apples to apples. You’ve just got to hustle and grind and buy something that’s half falling to bits to get yourself on the ladder and then slowly upgrade. 
 

People can still buy houses as a young age, they just need to temper expectations and stop aspiring to buy the brand new 4 bed house, to go with the brand new car, new phone etc, 

 

Joking aside, I see the “Boomers always talk about the daily coffees we buy from Starbucks / Costa”. It’s the little step changes that make a difference and add up.

 

5 x £4 / week on coffee is £20 - £1k a year

1 x Night out at £100 a week - £5k a year

New car on finance at £200 / month - £2.4k a year

Sky / Netflix / Disney - £700 a year

Holidays - £4k a year

 

The list is endless when you start budgeting and you don’t need to give it all up. However you cut that amount and put stuff away it’s easier to chase the dream.

 

People just live in a generation where everything is on finance, everything is needed now and the step reality is having children is a massive financial burden that is a huge obstacle in attaining what they aspire to be.  

 

 

I understand the argument, but my gut feeling is more that the reasons for the low birth rates that seem impossible to shift are far more cultural than economic. They’re far more about society becoming inherently less face-to-face social and humans are social pack animals like wolves, penguins or ants, that’s how our brains are wired and how we survived.

 

I mean it’s one thing saying people spend too much money on small things like coffees or Netflix subscriptions mean they don’t have money so choose not to have children, but that doesn’t explain why all the research shows that younger generations have way less friends and have way less sex and way less close relationships (be it romantic or platonic) than they used to, and why you constantly hear adults (and I feel this myself) say how hard it is to make genuine long lasting friendships after school and university these days (which is also probably a major reason for the mental health crisis) when making friends was a rudimentarily easy thing to do for most of human history - but we’ve almost created a society where saying “I wish I had more friends” or asking other adults if they want to meet up in the evening is almost an embarrassing thing to do.
 

I’m not religious in the slightest, but losing that meeting space where everyone went to church every Sunday to meet each other in different parts of society is a big part of that I think. Pubs are almost losing their importance as social meeting places as people drink much less too.

Edited 9 December 2025 by Sampson

[Sly]

18 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I understand the argument, but my gut feeling is more that the reasons for the low birth rates that seem impossible to shift are far more cultural than economic. They’re far more about society becoming inherently less face-to-face social and humans are social pack animals like wolves, penguins or ants, that’s how our brains are wired and how we survived.

 

I mean it’s one thing saying people spend too much money on small things like coffees or Netflix subscriptions mean they don’t have money so choose not to have children, but that doesn’t explain why all the research shows that younger generations have way less friends and have way less sex and way less close relationships (be it romantic or platonic) than they used to, and why you constantly hear adults (and I feel this myself) say how hard it is to make genuine long lasting friendships after school and university these days (which is also probably a major reason for the mental health crisis) when making friends was a rudimentarily easy thing to do for most of human history - but we’ve almost created a society where saying “I wish I had more friends” or asking other adults if they want to meet up in the evening is almost an embarrassing thing to do.
 

I’m not religious in the slightest, but losing that meeting space where everyone went to church every Sunday to meet each other in different parts of society is a big part of that I think. Pubs are almost losing their importance as social meeting places as people drink much less too.

 Some definite truths in this also. 
 

I’d add that socialising has changed in itself, as the number of pubs, clubs, cafes etc has also declined. 
 

The world has changed ….

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

The stereotypical dream was once marriage,  house, children.

The world has evolved and it isn’t that now.

 

I think bluntly put, the younger generation see less value in marriage and the financial impact of children stops them aspiring to be what they want to achieve. It just isn’t a priority like it was 20 to 30 years ago. 
 

The real challenge is that people will need to stand on their own two feet more when they age, or you raise the retirement age to a level where people work longer, thus putting more in and taking less out. 
 

Housing, always has and will continue to be a challenge for everyone.I see loads of people quoting things like a house is now 10x the cost of a salary, compared to 2x the cost 30 years ago. 
 

The reality is, you aren’t comparing apples to apples. You’ve just got to hustle and grind and buy something that’s half falling to bits to get yourself on the ladder and then slowly upgrade. 
 

People can still buy houses as a young age, they just need to temper expectations and stop aspiring to buy the brand new 4 bed house, to go with the brand new car, new phone etc, 

 

Joking aside, I see the “Boomers always talk about the daily coffees we buy from Starbucks / Costa”. It’s the little step changes that make a difference and add up.

 

5 x £4 / week on coffee is £20 - £1k a year

1 x Night out at £100 a week - £5k a year

New car on finance at £200 / month - £2.4k a year

Sky / Netflix / Disney - £700 a year

Holidays - £4k a year

 

The list is endless when you start budgeting and you don’t need to give it all up. However you cut that amount and put stuff away it’s easier to chase the dream.

 

People just live in a generation where everything is on finance, everything is needed now and the step reality is having children is a massive financial burden that is a huge obstacle in attaining what they aspire to be.  

 

 

I've heard a quote, and I'm paraphrasing cos I can't remember the exact numbers, but the point remains - "50 years ago the average household had 8 needs and 10 wants; now they have 24 needs and 56 wants." 

 

And that was a quote from the 1950s as a remark on the impact of advertising (I've searched for it online, but can't find it, so can't guarantee its veracity, but it's highly believable).

 

It's all about attitudes and perceptions. As you point out, most people don't have to cut out much actually unnecessary stuff in order to save a bundle of money.

 

This especially comes to the fore with some people on benefits who, "can't get by", despite having more income than some working people.

 

Yet it equally applies to people who are actually very comfortable, but miserable, because they don't have a 5 bedroom house, a Bentley and a holiday home.

[kenny]

30 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I understand the argument, but my gut feeling is more that the reasons for the low birth rates that seem impossible to shift are far more cultural than economic. They’re far more about society becoming inherently less face-to-face social and humans are social pack animals like wolves, penguins or ants, that’s how our brains are wired and how we survived.

 

I mean it’s one thing saying people spend too much money on small things like coffees or Netflix subscriptions mean they don’t have money so choose not to have children, but that doesn’t explain why all the research shows that younger generations have way less friends and have way less sex and way less close relationships (be it romantic or platonic) than they used to, and why you constantly hear adults (and I feel this myself) say how hard it is to make genuine long lasting friendships after school and university these days (which is also probably a major reason for the mental health crisis) when making friends was a rudimentarily easy thing to do for most of human history - but we’ve almost created a society where saying “I wish I had more friends” or asking other adults if they want to meet up in the evening is almost an embarrassing thing to do.
 

I’m not religious in the slightest, but losing that meeting space where everyone went to church every Sunday to meet each other in different parts of society is a big part of that I think. Pubs are almost losing their importance as social meeting places as people drink much less too.

The WFH culture will make it worse too, particularly those that vehemently believe that working in an office and meeting people is a complete waste of time.

 

Now I am in my 40s, my new friends are typically people I work with or people I meet through my child. I attend work networking events purely as a social event with people I like being with.

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

The WFH culture will make it worse too, particularly those that vehemently believe that working in an office and meeting people is a complete waste of time.

 

Now I am in my 40s, my new friends are typically people I work with or people I meet through my child. I attend work networking events purely as a social event with people I like being with.

Covid was an opening for people to WFH and many can't seem to adjust returning back to the office. I guess the lockdown dogs aren't gonna walk themselves.