this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
662 points (97.4% liked)

News

36233 readers
2353 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/x98FV

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Federal minimum wage was to keep a family of four out of poverty, this is a 1938 labor law; this law was in effect during our 'golden years' 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s.

Today? They just ignore it as we have since the 80s; these are the results of steadily declining wages for 50 years.

BUT MUSK IS A TRILLIONAIRE HAHA STOCK MARKET 50K

They don't want babies. They want robots.

Since corporations are people, logic dictates that robots are also people. Robots are a construct run by humans, just like companies.

Oh, and money is free speech! Tee-hee we don't know what's happening this was all a coinkidink beep boop

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

They don’t want babies. They want robots.

Well, they want slaves. And they're still figuring out which direction to go

[–] ShergalFarkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The fortunes of a few matter more than the lives of rest of us, and we'll just watch from the sidelines I guess whilst dying of starvation.. They say social cohesion starts to fall apart when people can't feed their kids, but if they have no kids to feed, I guess it's a win win for the ultra wealthy. They get planet earth to themselves, whilst the rest of us just wither away and die, no societal uprising, no revolution, just distractions, everywhere, all by design, it's kinda genius to be fair.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

🤣🤣🤣🤣

My wife and I make 120k a year and we can barely afford rent a car payment and daycare.

All we do is basically work. We have no life.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And despite the horrors of reality, some people are still fighting and even dying to get into the US.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It must be worse where they are coming from

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, there's the Afghan who was gunned down in the US, while trying to settle down after evacuating with his family as refugees once the Taliban took over.

But otherwise not all of those trying to get in are from very impoverished countries, as others are coming from places where they would have been far well-off than being in the US. Such is the myth of healthcare and social security in the US, as it's usually the favorite subject of discussion among comfortable boomers in the Philippines.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

My household makes 120k and I have free childcare with family. I have no idea what I would do if I had to pay for childcare.

[–] Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 2 days ago (11 children)

* in the US

We currently pay something in the range of 250€ a month for after school care of our 2 kids, including lunch; full kindergarten care for both was around 500€ before in Germany.
Funny thing though: birthrates here are dropping even worse than in the US...

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Birth rate is, as inconvenient a truth that it is, inversely proportional to education and the liberty of women. You'd be hard pressed to give any developed nation that has a high birth rate.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 41 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Are you serious?

This shithole country I live in. We have funds to create a gestopo and ice camps here in the US and there's no real support for new parents.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Comical that Republicans constantly bitch about people not getting married or having kids, then make sure there's no way they can support said kids. Fucking dimwits

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 62 points 3 days ago (3 children)

In a viral Substack post in November, he took particular aim at the federal government’s poverty line, which traces back to the early 1960s and was calculated by tripling the cost of a minimum food diet at the time.

The poverty line’s narrow focus on food leaves out how much other expenses are now sucking up incomes and lowballing the minimum amount Americans need to get by.

Green estimated that food makes up just 5% to 7% of household spending, but put housing at 35% to 45%, childcare at 20% to 40%, and health care at 15% to 25%.

Base something on a single metric, and it doesn't take long for it to become pointless...

Because that's the only thing anyone is paying attention to.

Calories are cheap, and subsides for shit like corn syrup is hurting more than it helps. But it pumps the calorie count up which trades short term starvation for slightly longer term health issues.

It's nothing new, different demographics have been trying to raise the alarm for decades, generations even.

Everyone just ignored it till it hit the suburbs, and now want to act like it's brand new.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It’s almost self-reinforcing poverty. You can have one person stay home and take care of the kid(s) and lose the income, or you can give what amounts to an entire year’s wages to the daycare to take care of the kid while you work full time. Some may be able to squeeze some part time work in if they’re lucky enough to find a job that doesn’t try to make them work shifts outside of daycare hours. Day care is raising your kids for you, they start off life without you around much.

@ $200k a year, it would be more than 5x my current income. I sure hope somebody wants to take care of my soon-to-be kid for about tree fiddy.

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah back in the 'golden years' of the 90s the were saying you needed to earn twice as much as our family did to afford kids. Somehow we raised 2, through university and all without going bankrupt.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

You were still relatively close to the gold standard at that point, so housing was still affordable.

Look at median income to 3+ bedroom home values now.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Society has become outright hostile to parents. Cost is a major reason, but far from the only one.

The future does not look too promising.

[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Yes.

You can't let them explore on their own to build independence and confidence without CPS being called on you.

When kids misbehave in public, all the boomers get their panties in a wad. My parents get flustered when the grandkids get loud playing together in a back bedroom.

Getting kids launched well in life, with some chance of adult prosperity, requires thousands and thousands of dollars in private clubs/ competitions/ tutoring/ schools/ etc - the highly competitive nature of the US economy has reached down into elementary aged children at this point. Where I live, people even pay for tutoring to get their children into GT programs.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Financial demands on parents have increased, but so have non-financial demands.

Unless you have a lot of support from extended family (which also means that you live near them), I really don't see how parents do it.

[–] CtrlAltDelight@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lost my wife in September. Girls aged 6 and 3. I'm already a hollowed out husk of a human, without support from grandparents that live in the same city I don't know how I'd ever get by. I am a parent and I don't see how parents do it. Sorry to dump but this resonated with me.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Dad of girls myself and have experienced (and helped support my family through) a loss that felt similarly severe, when I was kinda too young to do so. Nothing you could say would bother or surprise me (at least not too much), so - with all sincerity, feel free to drop this random Internet stranger (me) a line anytime. Can be literally about anything, I don't know you and promise to never judge, no matter what you say. There is nothing about what you're going through that invites sanity, wellness, reasonableness, etc.

Good friend of mine is facing similar, on an unknown but not great timescale. It's rough out here. I've got some gas in the tank for now. Holla if ya wanna, don't feel any obligation, but don't talk yourself out of it for silly fruitless reasons either, I guess I mean.


Edit: and if me DMing you first and laying out some credibility on my own story helps you get the ball rolling, I can sum that up too. Again just saying, there's enough barriers in life, no need to introduce false ones (unless they're helpful, anyway).

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It doesn't help that the state of schooling and instruction here has grown abysmal, largely non-functional.

Kids, on average, aren't learning shit here.

While "preparing for" and entering the economy of today and tomorrow. Things are grim.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 days ago (32 children)

Also why bring a kid into this hellfire right now.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

From a pragmatic point of view?

"In a time of dragons, raise dragon slayers."

Those fighting for a better future now will get old. Thankfully, so will those seemingly-immortal bastards ruining that future.

We need future generations, educated and supported and prepared to take up the mantle.

As Bruce Lee put it: "Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to overcome a difficult one."

We need to come back around to the idea that we are here for a bigger purpose than to be comfortable and happily wither, as even ~~if~~ when we are victorious, someone needs to maintain the solemn responsibility to keep evil at bay, because it will try again.

We all want our children to be happy and healthy and safe. But we also must prepare them to bear the same responsibility we do. Part of resistance and war against the principalities and powers and forces of darkness in this world, is to make sure righteous ideals live on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Question:
Is the plan to make it so only very rich and poor people have kids?

The reasoning behind my question is that rich people are generally selfish and thus will vote in a selfish way. And poor people can usually be easily controlled or could be discounted/removed from the voting arena.

I realise I'm generalising here.
But the reasoning is there, if they 'wipe out' the generation of people who usually vote against then that helps, right? Or am I being too fantastical and conspiracy theorist?

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Generally declining birthrates and specifically the disappearance of the middle class are almost inevitable in late-stage capitalism (the stage where outward expansion is complete, so capitalists must turn their gaze inward and increase exploitation at home). Although, let's be clear, everyone except the capitalist loses in this scenario, and it will hurt people who are currently in poverty much harder than it will the middle class who are only beginning to drown.

But there isn't some conspiracy making this happen. It is only the machinery of the system that makes true the statement, "If I don't, someone else will."

I'm sure many of the educated oligarchs know that this is how the system works. It's why they're all building bunkers. It doesn't need a shadowy cabal in a smoky room, though. Profit inventivizes all.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The plan is to pillage the wealth of the local population via insane asset prices and extreme rentierism around essentials such as housing and then when the amounts being returned by the pillaging and exploitation start to slow down due to the impact from decades of lower birthrates because of living in such a dystopia, importing young adults from countries with higher birth rates - i.e. immigrants - and have far-right political forces funded by the very people pillaging the country loudly blame said immigrants for the feeling of life getting worse and even pain that most people feel as consequence of the pillaging of the country.

Certainly this is what I've seen in multiple countries in Europe.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The plan is dead for a long time now. Capitalism only works if the working poor population gets renewed. They lost track of the plot and focused too much on wealth growth. Now we are in the late stage of capitalism. The stage where it no longer works but they'll pretend it does until it collapses under their feet.

That stage might take decades though, most of us won't enjoy what comes next.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The plan is only for very rich and poor people to exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (12 children)

I've never quite understood this, because the birth rate is highest at the lowest income level. So, the people who are least able to afford child care have the most kids. I know people will say the reason is a lack of education or insufficient access to birth control, but if that's the case then what causes people to have fewer kids is a better education and more access to birth control, not unaffordability. And that seems to be supported by the fact that households making $50k to $75k have more kids than households making $150k to $200k. Yeah, they're both making less than $400k, but the people making $200k are much closer to $400k, yet they have fewer kids.

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Inequality is the primary factor. If people making $150k to $200k can reasonably conclude that having children would be a burden on their future economic prospects (in an already uncertain future), they will decide against it. $50k to $75k is probably more in the "fuck it, we might as well have more sources of potential labor and income and maybe a subsidy or two since we're already at this point", and people making $400k or above have nothing to fear from child expenses.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nah. The people having the kids aren't generally thinking about another source of labor. I come from a stinking, filthy kind of poverty. Sex is free entertainment and family planning costs money or time to get to the clinic and you have to deal with assholes who think the family planning clinics are abortion factories. So you think "if we're careful it won't happen, I'll just pull out".

A lot of quiverful ministries are also home to the very poor. Some of them are given teaching for how to get extra money from the government for every kid. The man works, the woman does not, and the older kids are in charge of the younger ones. Childcare solved, in their eyes. I could be mad at them for gaming the system, but I've already got too much anger in my heart over the government blaming it on the "welfare queen" stereotype. You know the lie. Black woman with 5 kids from 6 daddies, every one of the daddies is gone. When in reality the system gamers are poor white evangelicals of a specific flavor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I think you understand this pretty well. For educated people parenting is a choice. They wait for the right moment in the career, they make sure they will be able to provide their children with everything they may need and that their kids will have optimal conditions for growth and development, they consider their other passions and projects and weight them against having kids.

Uneducated people simply have kids and don't really give it a second thought. You have kids, you feed them some junk food, give them phone to play with and that's it. You're a happy family.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is an oversimplified explanation. I think its more complicated than this, there's a rural urban divide as well and kids have historically been effective farm workers in some capacity. So if pre-industrial areas or agricultural communities utilize child labor, then kids become a very immediate return on investment.

This cost for kids changes in industrial societies where work is overseen by factory managers and kids get put into dangerous positions without oversight. The incentives become fucked and kids start getting crippled. Sending kids off to school starts to become a better return.

This is also evident in demographics where industrialization is immediately followed by declining birth rates.

If you gave parents money for kids doing well in school, it would lead to a lot of weird conflicts but it might offset the basic financial incentives around children.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, I was talking about developed countries. In developing countries the incentives are different but they also work on a different level. The difference in birth rate between developed and developing countries is much bigger than between families with different incomes in developed countries.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›