3 ms·

It's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. And it's also not personal in the sense that the government often takes an active role

by toshk 4y ago

It's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. And it's also not personal in the sense that the government often takes an active role in raising and educating kids (wether you like it or not).

thefz 4y ago
> It's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. I hear this often and it's such an incorrect assumption. People had kids way before subsidies. Humans won't stop having kids if subsidies stop.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
knorker 4y ago
I do like it. I just wish parents stop acting as victims of their own choices, and that they should bare no consequences. And people won't stop having kids, subsidies or no subsidies. So that's a non-issue.
- marvin 4y ago
  Weeeeeeeeell..... Birth rates are below replacement levels in most Western countries.
  - knorker 4y ago
    That's not self-evidently bad, long term. What we do know is what we used to have, the population pyramid, definitely won't work going forward, long term.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pempem 4y ago
  People are slowing having kids. To the point of societal wide concern. Its possible that there is a frustration obscuring your view on the topic. Multiple countries in GDP leadership positions are incentivizing having and raising children because women who are able to - exercise bodily autonomy - pursue an education - and generally have rights, though in no country are they equal choose to have less kids. IMHO they choose to have less kids because its clear the current set-up is a raw deal for women at best. Not having enough kids to replace the current working generation is an issue in: the US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and a number of other countries. This greying of a population is a massive concern and also one of the reasons that some have pushed and bet on robotics. To replace human workers. Separately, its mostly women, if not exclusively women, bearing the consequences of the action of you know. propagating the species. Its absolutely mind-boggling when you think about the fact that propagation is a requirement of our continued existence and only half the species pays a massive tax
  - knorker 4y ago
    I'm all for equal cost for a couple who choose to have a child. At the same time you can't mandate it. And there's no denying that statistically women choose family more, when choice is given to them. I know several couples where the wife is essentially asking to retire (in their thirties), to be home with the children and video games, and that the man should continue working for them. Even if it jeopardizes their shared FIRE plans. If they do that, who is actually paying the tax? Financially the wife for sure. Life quality the husband for sure. As for replacement, the population age pyramid is not sustainable. It relies not on stability, but growth. The greying of population is inevitable (compared to the classic pyramid) thanks to medical advances and the fact that exponential growth has to stop, mathematically. We can choose starvation, war, plague, or reduced births.

by toshk 4y ago

thefz 4y ago

> It's hardly personal, society kinda collapse if people stop having kids. I hear this often and it's such an incorrect assumption. People had kids way before subsidies. Humans won't stop having kids if subsidies stop.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

knorker 4y ago

I do like it. I just wish parents stop acting as victims of their own choices, and that they should bare no consequences. And people won't stop having kids, subsidies or no subsidies. So that's a non-issue.

marvin 4y ago
Weeeeeeeeell..... Birth rates are below replacement levels in most Western countries.
- knorker 4y ago
  That's not self-evidently bad, long term. What we do know is what we used to have, the population pyramid, definitely won't work going forward, long term.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pempem 4y ago
People are slowing having kids. To the point of societal wide concern. Its possible that there is a frustration obscuring your view on the topic. Multiple countries in GDP leadership positions are incentivizing having and raising children because women who are able to - exercise bodily autonomy - pursue an education - and generally have rights, though in no country are they equal choose to have less kids. IMHO they choose to have less kids because its clear the current set-up is a raw deal for women at best. Not having enough kids to replace the current working generation is an issue in: the US, the UK, Italy, Spain, and a number of other countries. This greying of a population is a massive concern and also one of the reasons that some have pushed and bet on robotics. To replace human workers. Separately, its mostly women, if not exclusively women, bearing the consequences of the action of you know. propagating the species. Its absolutely mind-boggling when you think about the fact that propagation is a requirement of our continued existence and only half the species pays a massive tax
- knorker 4y ago
  I'm all for equal cost for a couple who choose to have a child. At the same time you can't mandate it. And there's no denying that statistically women choose family more, when choice is given to them. I know several couples where the wife is essentially asking to retire (in their thirties), to be home with the children and video games, and that the man should continue working for them. Even if it jeopardizes their shared FIRE plans. If they do that, who is actually paying the tax? Financially the wife for sure. Life quality the husband for sure. As for replacement, the population age pyramid is not sustainable. It relies not on stability, but growth. The greying of population is inevitable (compared to the classic pyramid) thanks to medical advances and the fact that exponential growth has to stop, mathematically. We can choose starvation, war, plague, or reduced births.