> Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards.
I can only assume OP is talking about people who work here? Here in the UK if you don't work you're fast-tracked a home for having a kid and if you have a few you're generally given a very nice 3 bed house so I'm not sure this applies generally. Typically you're very poor you're much better off for having a kid here.
I'd personally love a kid or two or three. My girlfriend too. And it upsets me deeply that I'll probably never be able to afford to have one. It's just so hard to afford a home, taxes, bills, student loans and all the costs of a kid on top of that. I've considered just giving up and going on benefits more times than I care to admit, but I think we both agree that wouldn't be the life we want either.
I don't want support, but the one thing that annoys me is how I know pensioners living in 5 bed homes who are receiving state pensions which unlike my salary goes up in line with inflation, while receiving help for energy bills and getting a host of other perks like discounted bus tickets, etc.
The fact the only people I know with homes are 60+ or on benefits seems weird and deeply immoral to me. Literally all my friends who work are in their 30s and living with there parents while my sister is a single mum in her 20s and somehow has her own house and a BMW (also partly given to her by the government). If we care to solve the birth rate problem it seems to me prioritising homes and resources for working families instead of the unemployed and pensioners would be the way to go.
Sorry for ranting, and I know I've brought this up before. But I feel this is the most important issue of my generation and no one is seriously discussing it. Happy to receive insults about how I don't care about the elderly and poor people now.