this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
268 points (96.5% liked)

News

36043 readers
3131 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/anyBg

Like Ms. McKay, a growing number of U.S. adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.

When asked why kids were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other things, like their career or interests; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 67 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not having kids is the only way some of them are gonna be able to afford to live, and less people 30 years from now means they might even be able to afford a place to live if they can retire.

There's always fearmongering when populations god down, but historically it's the only time periods normal people can claw back some wealth from the 0.1%

Which is why the wealthy always freak the fuck out. They do t care about people, they care about labor supply, and the more people the cheaper labor.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Having fewer children is something that is positively-correlated with a society being wealthy, rather than the other way around.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity

The phenomenon of societies having their birth rate fall off as they become wealthier is called the demographic transition.

And further, that correlation exists across a number of axes:

  • Time (that is, as societies have become wealthier, the number of children they have has dropped).

  • Space (poorer societies today tend to have more children than wealthier societies do).

  • Within a society. Poorer people in society tend to have more children. Here's the US, and more-generally:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

    Income and fertility is the association between monetary gain on one hand, and the tendency to produce offspring on the other. There is generally an inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations.[3][4] The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any developed country.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Within a society. Poorer people in society tend to have more children.

That’s why the very wealthy want people to keep having lots of kids. Kids make you more willing to take shit in order to feed them and make you poorer and more dependent on your job. That’s not a bad thing about kids, it’s a good thing about parents, but it also makes parents easier to exploit.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Having fewer children is something that is positively-correlated with a society being wealthy, rather than the other way around.

Correlation is not causation, there's no "other way around"...

But what you're talking about is the drop in fertility due to industrialization and other periods where children worked less and cost more.

That's different than what I'm talking about; when a labor supply shrinks it means workers get paid more.

That's just basic supply and demand.

We're both right, just talking about different things.

[–] phcorcoran@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I took "rather than the other way around" to mean "rather than negatively-correlated" in this context, since positively was emphasized

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

There is the real issue of how a society will support its aged population with significantly less young people working than in the past. It requires changes to regulations and taxation and many nations arent ready to accept that and instead somehow expect the smaller number of young people to just pick up the slack and accept they won't get to retire when they age.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or we could just tax the wealthy...

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Yes, i mentioned it requires changes to taxation. A lot of the wealthy are the older so they won't vote in a way that helps young people, they vote in a way to preserve their wealth, even if it means poor social services for people the same age as them but "poor".

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Robots for care

maybe giving people the option for an early peaceful end on thier own terms. It was disgusting watching my great grandfather be trapped in his own body for 10 years. What a horror show. Already planned my way out if it looks like im going to be the same.

Maybe even Basic income for people taking care of elderly family members.

Or better yet basic income for sahm up to 1st grade. Lol could you imagine the pop increase.

[–] card797@champserver.net 2 points 2 years ago

Just die at a reasonable age.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just look at Japan. They're screwed.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Maybe if hours reduced to 30 for full time people have more kids. Korea talking about upping hours.