This is a difficult one, and in all honesty accounts for the drop in the number of births in Britain over the last 10 years, not withstanding the baby boom which is allegedly on its way.

The fact is in Britain the cost of raising a baby from birth to the age of 16, is GB£50 000, and that does not allow for inflation. The macro-family is increasingly common with the birth rate standing at 1.8 per couple (marriage is no longer a guide line) and the issue compounded by fewer couples having children at all, particularly proffessionals such as lawyers, accountants, solicitors, teachers etc.

The problem is going to compounded after 2025, when the number of people out of work through either redundancy or those growing up, i.e. under 16 years, retirement, are going to be greater than those who are able and willing to work, indeed in work.

in the 1960's, the last population expolosion the birth rate was 2.4, with 80% of couples having children. The baby boomers of the 1940's were not such a problem mainly because their life expectancy was shorter.

When the original "new plan" for National Insurance was introduced in the early1950's "the benefits for all budget", assumed that there was still going to be an average of 2.4 to 2.6 children per family, but with a life expectancy of the parents to be between 73 and 78 overall (women tend to live longer than men).

However that "triangle" has now been turned on its head with people having fewer children as outlined above, and the average age of cessation of life now extended to between 78 and 85. In itself that doesn't sound much, but with an overall population approaching 65 million, by 2025 (at least) there will be more people of retirement age than those able to work.

This leads us to the interesting scenario regarding people actually securing longer term employment. The days when you left school at 16 and got your gold watch at 65, having worked for the same company for that period has gone. Indeed the average life expectancy of a company is roughly ten years.

To that end there are more people passing through the unemployment gates than ever before, whether that be short-term or long-term basis. There is a far greater turn over of staff generally and an increase in people temping, not out of choice but necessity. In the latter case with companies being more pedantic regarding experience, qualifications and less flexibility in trining their staff from scratch means the turn over of staff is only going to get larger, with people claiming benefits longer than they did previously; up to six months plus in some cases.

In the 1960's if you were out of work for more than three months, it was assume that you were a lazy person and couldn't be bothered to find work. Since 1990 that is far from the case. One only has to look at the electronic job boards, from say, Reed and Job-site to see that in some cases there are over 100 applicants for one position advertised.


The problem has been compounded by the fact that more of the work in the UK has been sent overseas to call centres and the number of jobs which the average school leaver used to take up, like shop assistants and Warehouse operators have been reduced as well, leaving the less educated fewer options to change direction. Ironically the same situation occurs with people of over 40.

Although few will admit it "ageism" (another dreadful buzz word) is actually becomming a large problem, partly due to the increase in longevity and other reasons given above. Since we have become a button pushing society, the average employer is not interested in qualifications but "productivity", i.e. we have actually gone backwards in so far as we have a production line attitude to business. This is often highlighted in areas such as call centre staff being told that they must make X number of calls per hour/day otherwise they are not considerd competent.

In my business, which is Credit Management, this call centre mentality has crept in too. In fact to call it a proffession now is a little of a misnomer since it is so automated now, that the computers are actually doing the work that a telephone clerk used to do. One example is the computer actually telephoning the would be defaulter or leaving a text message on their mobile to contact the Creditor. Of course this is great news for the company, since it cuts back the number of staff they need to employ and a text message is a lot cheaper than a telephone call from a land-line and the person who makes it.

In fact we have become such a push button society, that having a qualification is a liability not an asset. As for those wanting to have children, they are seen as a greater liability because the employer is expected to provide both paternity and maternity pay. Temporary staff are expensive, and a serious consideration from the employer's point of view whether to engage someone who is likely to have a baby over the course of the next five years; and as an interviewer, one can usually tell.

If they feel that the interviewee is likely to need time off to raise a child, whether that whilst in confinement and post-natal context up to 5 years after the birth, the employer is likely to engage that person. In short, yes suggesting that you are likely to start a family is likely to cause an employer to think twice. Ironically employers want it both ways, as they do not want to pay for experienced staff, over the age of 40 who are not likely to want/able to have children in the future because they are too expensive to employ.

In short, it is highly likely that for a woman, starting a family is going to shorten your ability to find work and more likely to hit the "glass ceiling" in terms of promotion. Little wonder then that the birth rate is falling.

From here on we have a dilema, which only SENSIBLE Government can solve. Less buzz words and phrases, and clever speaches, and more reasearching how we (The Government) are going to get around the problem.

Reply