3 ms·

Fewer babies are the results of the disastrous labour, wages and housing policies in the west, making having a family and a home super expensive for young coupl

Fewer babies are the results of the disastrous labour, wages and housing policies in the west, making having a family and a home super expensive for young couples, so everyone spends the prime of their fertility studying and slaving away at shitty stressful jobs hoping to get a leg up in this insane economy. Baby boomer made tons of babies because housing was cheap, and stable jobs requiring minimal education were plentiful. Both of those are gone now. Tinder didn't cause this, our governments did and they have the power to fix it but don't want to because "house prices must go up" so speculators can get a return.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Macha 4y ago
It's a longer term trend than even the "sexual revolution". My grandparents generation had plenty of families with 5-10 kids. My parents generation had 2.5 kids, mostly in their mid to late 20s. My generation will maybe start thinking about kids at 30. You could maybe argue that women in the workforce is a social change that contributed to this, as one thing that did change at the beginning of this trend, but surely this as much a fault of the incentives of capitalism turning "Women can work now" to "All working age adults must work, no more stay-at-home parents". Casual relationships, LGBT acceptance, etc. are much later than this trend starting.
chaostheory 4y ago
Surprisingly, it isn’t. Accounting for societal factors like the sexual evolution and the cost of living, researchers have found that the culprit is something else. Researchers found that starting in the 1950s, male fertility has been on a consecutive year after year decline in countries where enough industrialization has taken place. So far proposed culprits range from PFAS or endocrine disrupters like BPA, but there’s no definitive conclusion yet
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  I don't know about others, but in my circles very few couples don't have kids because they can't. Most of the time the decision not to have (another) baby is related to external factors such as high and rising costs of doing so.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    According to the research even if the economic factors weren’t a roadblock, people still will have trouble having two children. There are reports about couples in their late 20s needing IVF

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Macha 4y ago

It's a longer term trend than even the "sexual revolution". My grandparents generation had plenty of families with 5-10 kids. My parents generation had 2.5 kids, mostly in their mid to late 20s. My generation will maybe start thinking about kids at 30. You could maybe argue that women in the workforce is a social change that contributed to this, as one thing that did change at the beginning of this trend, but surely this as much a fault of the incentives of capitalism turning "Women can work now" to "All working age adults must work, no more stay-at-home parents". Casual relationships, LGBT acceptance, etc. are much later than this trend starting.

chaostheory 4y ago

Surprisingly, it isn’t. Accounting for societal factors like the sexual evolution and the cost of living, researchers have found that the culprit is something else. Researchers found that starting in the 1950s, male fertility has been on a consecutive year after year decline in countries where enough industrialization has taken place. So far proposed culprits range from PFAS or endocrine disrupters like BPA, but there’s no definitive conclusion yet

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
I don't know about others, but in my circles very few couples don't have kids because they can't. Most of the time the decision not to have (another) baby is related to external factors such as high and rising costs of doing so.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  According to the research even if the economic factors weren’t a roadblock, people still will have trouble having two children. There are reports about couples in their late 20s needing IVF