Comments 1 - 20 of 20 Search these comments
That is a pretty high number. I don't have stats, but I would venture a guess-those childless women are successful and not living off the govt teat and the deadbeats are the ones having children??
Women who turned 45 in 2016 had an average of 1.80 children, down from 2.21 for their mothers' generation, who turned 45 in 1944.That would have been their grandmother's generation--someone who turned 45 in 1944 would have been 71 by the time today's 45 year olds were born. Their mothers would be closer to the World War II or Silent Generation, but they were still having a lot of children in those years, probably the 2.21 or better, especially post-war.
I’m betting the Muslim women in the UK are having plenty of kids, probably enough to seriously skew the average towards something reasonable rather than the abysmal mess it actually is with the indigenous population.
Sad. All result of the leftoid, cultural-marxist identity politics and their hate for the nuclear family.
You do know that a woman doesn't need to have a committed guy to have a baby, right?
For reasons I don't understand, you can't even beat your kids when they misbehave.
Women who turned 45 in 2016 had an average of 1.80 children, down from 2.21 for their mothers' generation, who turned 45 in 1944.
The same generation also had fewer children by their 30th birthday, suggesting women are having children later in life. Women who turned 45 last year had 1.06 children by 30 compared to 1.8 in their mother's generation.
In total, 18 per cent of women who turned 45 last year had no children at all, compared with 11 per cent of women in their mother's generation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5114351/Women-having-fewer-children-ever.html
#misc