Singapore Has a Demographics Problem.

[abbby]

C is the lowest

There are 4 Chinese ladies of varying ages in my team, 3 of whom are unmarried and no kids, 1 is married and has her first. But I also know several couples, both Indian and Chinese who remain childless. Personally, I feel sorry for those who don’t have kids, yes, it’s expensive and a lot of trouble at times, but it’s well worth it. Even if you don’t like kids, when it’s your kid, it’s different. My advice to couples is don’t wait until you’re ready, you will never be ready. Now that I’m older, I wish we would have had more than two kids.

Have to agree with you on this. So many of my friends and relatives are unmarried or no kids now. Some feel it's too costly, some feel it's a burden, some are just waiting for the right time (there's never a right time). Having your own kid is just so different, the whole experience. So well worth it.

[smoulder]

After speaking with the gynecologists through our attempts to bear a child, the impression that I have is that one of the issues is couples putting off kids till it's a bit too late. There are multiple reasons for that - in my own case I only moved to Singapore when I was 33 and met my wife a few years later.

Therein lies the difficulty - best to have kids when young (speaking from a woman's perspective at any rate), but that is also the peak employability and career building time. Clearly not many women choose stay home mom over career, and I find that totally understandable.

We could probably do more to make parenting easier though. I remember growing up in a neighbourhood where we kids were in and out of the neighbours houses all the time, and the neighbour "aunties" helped keep an eye on us, entertain us, give us snacks. I miss that, and would happily be a neighbourhood "auntie" now I am nearing retirement and have plenty of time. Most of our neighbours now are older folk though.

Yes precisely. When my wife and I started trying, we were both in our late 30s. It may not have been an issue for me but it certainly was for her. Getting pregnant wasn't difficult, but carrying till full term was just not possible, most likely due to age.

My mum was able to raise 3 kids while still working full time, but it's certainly not easy to do so. It's quite understandable when women choose building their career over getting bogged down with children.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Just for the record and our useless profile data collector members, My wife & I were in our late thirties when we got married (We were 36 & 37. So my wife being the eldest was right on the redline as it were. She was 38 and I 37 when our first was born and 43 & 42 when the 2nd came along. Another story behind the 1st one but not for here. It was my wife's 1st pregnancy which made the 1st one a very high risk pregnancy. All came out great, as did the 2nd 5 years later. (The first was a shock, then 2nd not so much but neither were planned for as it was supposed to be an impossibility). Both healthy (one of each gender), both are now married and both have given me 2 grandkids each. My eldest turns 40 next week.

As to marrying late? DON'T! Unless it can't be helped (took me three tries!)

I don't advise it although it worked for us, it was just happenstance as we married late. But for those who espouse late marriages, no children in the name of "CAREER" - I think that is stupid as hell in today's world. My father was a manual typesetter in a publishing house (worked 40 years for them). His job was replaced by the linotype machine which was replaced with the Teletype machine (I know how to use one as I spent my last summer of freedom before I left for the NAM working in the same company on a tele-typesetter machine.

What I'm saying is that nothing stands still and today the start and stop of technologies is getting faster and faster. What happens when you are 45 and your company and the technology you have has been made redundant and you find yourself out of work, with two kids in university and a mortgage you cannot afford on half of your salary IF you can find another job. However, have those kids 12 years younger and when that happens both kids will be out of university in the work force and can help you, not vice-versa, e.g., you can no longer afford to give them the education they will need. You will also probably have healthier children as well. I know how hard it can get as that is exactly what happened to us after I left the Oil Industry and had to find another profession and literally start from scratch.

I didn't marry late, I married at 21 the first time but I've been now married 41 years this time.

.....just another heavily condensed chapter of the book that everybody keeps telling me to write. (too many names would have to be changed).

Truth. When my Dad was 21 his son was born (me). When his son (me) got married the 1st time, Dad was 42 (and I was 21). When his son (me) was 42 my son was born (see how we skipped an entire generation).

[Wd40]

It's quite understandable when women choose building their career over getting bogged down with children.

I really doubt most women(or men for that matter) have "careers". Few do. Most dont. Most have a job which they have to go to, reluctantly, to make ends meets. Because Singapore is so expensive, just like Bombay, where 1 salary is not enough to take care of the family.

I like to use this brilliant analogy by Larry Summers:

.... If I stand up at a football game and everybody else is sitting down, I can see much better, but if everybody stands up, the views may get a little better, but they don’t get a lot better....

This is what has happened now. As more and more families become dual income or DINK, they can afford more and so they raise the cost for everyone else. So now everyone else has to become dual income, but quality of life is not that much better. The cost of housing just shot up to the new purchasing power of dual income households.

I know this is at a macro level and at individual level, you just have to do whatever it takes to live your lives. But I have seen both cases:
1) People use career as an excuse to not have children.
2) People have children as an excuse to not have a career.

My wife made the second one and I know there is no right or wrong.

[midlet2013]

It's quite understandable when women choose building their career over getting bogged down with children.

I really doubt most women(or men for that matter) have "careers". Few do. Most dont. Most have a job which they have to go to, reluctantly, to make ends meets. Because Singapore is so expensive, just like Bombay, where 1 salary is not enough to take care of the family.

I like to use this brilliant analogy by Larry Summers:

.... If I stand up at a football game and everybody else is sitting down, I can see much better, but if everybody stands up, the views may get a little better, but they don’t get a lot better....

This is what has happened now. As more and more families become dual income or DINK, they can afford more and so they raise the cost for everyone else. So now everyone else has to become dual income, but quality of life is not that much better. The cost of housing just shot up to the new purchasing power of dual income households.

I know this is at a macro level and at individual level, you just have to do whatever it takes to live your lives. But I have seen both cases:
1) People use career as an excuse to not have children.
2) People have children as an excuse to not have a career.

My wife made the second one and I know there is no right or wrong.

I never heard the term DINK before but makes sense. Even DINK is not sufficient if ones lifestyle depends on 2 incomes. Singapore does offer a third income which can be substantial if one invests given no capital gain taxes.

I do see a population issue but if people had more kids, I seriously see an infrastructure and support problem. I simply do not see enough schools, doctors, daycares, etc. It's a lifelong stress in the name of doing ones part.

[NYY1]

There is some research that suggests a household is better off having one earner focus on his/her career, rather than both people giving up a bit here and there. Probably makes sense in terms of very successful outcomes. However, I would think this also increases the chances of the household experiencing a very negative income shock (high earner loses job for whatever reason).

Also, there are jobs that allow one to have some balance rather than run run run 24/7. These and remote/hybrid work are good options for those who want to be in the workforce but have other obligations as well. That being said, I don't think remote/hybrid work is particularly good for the young, and there is more evidence that such workers are probably viewed as marginal swing capacity (or not viewed as the most promising employees). So, it depends what people are looking for.

[Wd40]

There is some research that suggests a household is better off having one earner focus on his/her career, rather than both people giving up a bit here and there. Probably makes sense in terms of very successful outcomes. However, I would think this also increases the chances of the household experiencing a very negative income shock (high earner loses job for whatever reason).

Also, there are jobs that allow one to have some balance rather than run run run 24/7. These and remote/hybrid work are good options for those who want to be in the workforce but have other obligations as well. That being said, I don't think remote/hybrid work is particularly good for the young, and there is more evidence that such workers are probably viewed as marginal swing capacity (or not viewed as the most promising employees). So, it depends what people are looking for.

There are a few dual income couples in my circle and from what I have seen I have noticed.
1)Dual income makes you complacent and risk averse. The urge to aim for high salary and take more risk is lower because your financials are okay.
2)Dual income restricts people from moving freely and taking up jobs in other countries. Especially when both have nearly equal salaries.
3)I have seen couple of cases where the husband makes twice or more than the wife and in these cases, the husband moves freely to other countries and the wife just follows and sacrifices her career.
4)It becomes that much more difficult to take vacations because there is dependency on 2 people rather just 1.

[NYY1]

There are a few dual income couples in my circle and from what I have seen I have noticed.
1)Dual income makes you complacent and risk averse. The urge to aim for high salary and take more risk is lower because your financials are okay.
2)Dual income restricts people from moving freely and taking up jobs in other countries. Especially when both have nearly equal salaries.
3)I have seen couple of cases where the husband makes twice or more than the wife and in these cases, the husband moves freely to other countries and the wife just follows and sacrifices her career.
4)It becomes that much more difficult to take vacations because there is dependency on 2 people rather just 1.

I'm not sure about 1). Many (probably most?) tend to get complacent and risk averse over time. Competing interests (family) and the amount of work it takes to get to the next level (especially if there is some type of minimum bar already established), among other things. More so than single income? Maybe. But a lot of dual income are maxed out on spending/lifestyle so there isn't much flex or wiggle room.

2) is a real constraint and 3) is quite common (of course, the wife could make more).

4) probably depends on a lot of things. Even when only one person is working, some jobs require trips to be cancelled or only one parent goes. There are others where most likely you can go on the holiday, but you will still need to work several hours a day. Also, keep in mind some positions have fewer peers all looking to take time off that the same time (school holidays, year-end, etc). For these, you are still constrained by the organization's calendar, but there is less direct conflict/competition for spots.