6 ms·

It feels pretty obvious that everyone is crunched financially by the ruling class.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
What's even more amazing is that people keep voting for the ruling class that then continually turns around and takes more money and power from the people. People seem to do it because they think they are voting to have the money distributed more "equitably", and perhaps even redistributed into their own pockets, but the reality is that everyone is now poorer and worse off, and there is certainly no more justice in the world than there was before, arguably much less, in fact. I don't see a way out because it requires people to be wiser and morally better, and there's no quick solution to that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hammock 4y ago
We avoided the red wave in November so I would expect the birth rates to start reversing
- scottLobster 4y ago
  You expect something as population-spanning as birth rates to hinge on the outcome of a single congressional midterm election? If anything they're going to decline further, Republicans are back to their "obstruct literally everything" agenda that they always have when they're the minority. Any potential pro-natalist government policies will almost certainly require government spending, which will now die in the house. So we're stick with the status quo, which is low birth rates.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    What's most entertaining about you blaming Republicans for a low birth rates is that Republicans have far more kids than democrats: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democr... It goes to show that political tribalism trumps just about everything these days, including truth, objective facts, and the obvious. It should also be obvious that just about every single leftist movement is destabilizing towards both the family as a unit and society in general, which, as you can guess, results in people having fewer kids. But don't let your tribalism get in the way of that either. Chuck Schumer recently said that the solution to our population problem is to essentially encourage more illegal immigration. Note that his solution had nothing to do with supporting families. He couldn't do that even if he wanted to, because he would offend his left flank on every attempt.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      No, I'm blaming Republicans for blocking initiatives that might actually help the birth rate. Including things like better funded public education and funding for childcare. I can blame Democrats for a bunch of stuff too, but at least every once in a while they get something through that actually helps people. The current generation of Republicans are in "burn it all down" mode, and they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that they have more kids on average (perhaps unwisely) means nothing. If you want to get into quality of life statistics, Red States also on average have the highest suicide rates. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > No, I'm blaming Republicans for blocking initiatives that might actually help the birth rate. Including things like better funded public education and funding for childcare There’s pretty good evidence that weak public social safety nets, particularly around old age, disability, etc., contribute to higher birthrates, [0] so you should be applauding the Republicans and their attacks on Social Security and Medicare, if that is your highest concern. [0] speculation is because in the absence of state support, family are your social safety net, and particularly younger family members.
- xtian 4y ago
  Small pockets of dissent notwithstanding, the ruling class (i.e., international finance capital) owns both political parties.
  - hammock 4y ago
    Do you have any evidence?
    - mshake2 4y ago
      It's not blatantly self-evident that no matter which party you pick, the screws get tighter?
    - xtian 4y ago
      Yes: simply observe whose interests are always catered to regardless of the party in power. It’s not the average hard-working American. Check who the major political donors are, who funds the NGOs, think tanks, and PACs which guide policy-making. Check who employs politicians after they leave public office and who pays their speaking fees. Check who owns the major media outlets. Check who funds the endowments of academic institutions. Check declassified CIA documents which show direct collaboration with entrenched monopolies in carrying out foreign coups and military interventions. It’s a big club, and you’re not in it.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        Sorry for the nihilistic view, but sadly, we’d all probably be better off if we voted randomly regardless of the candidate’s party membership. Otherwise, we vote for the candidate that gets the most air time from our party of choice or issue de jeur, which is usually the most corrupt candidate. Till voters wake up and realize that the problem is not with other people’s representatives or the other party, we are doomed to repeatedly make the same mistakes.
        xtian 4y ago
        I don’t think there’s a reason to vote in most cases, but I’m not nihilistic.
saiya-jin 4y ago
Well I can tell you that even if recent price hikes don't change anything in our budgeting, having more than 2 kids is simply a no-go, which is number below maintaining current population. Its simply too effin' hard for most of us that have actual jobs, started from 0 and are not cruising on money/possibilities our parents showered us with. After 2 kids, I simply don't see the point in 3rd, the 'parental fulfillment' won't get higher, definitely happiness won't as numerous studies proven, just more chaos, less sleep and patience, more conflicts. People I casually ask about this all seem to agree, why more than 2, heck some are fine with 1 (I would call it parenting easy mode, it didn't feel like that back then, but when looking now with 2nd it was a very chill period). Also tons of young now feel far from rest of family which is cool for independence and such, but when SHTF with kids you realize that often grandparents and rest of family are not so bad despite their flaws. The bar for being a good parent is so damn high these days, compared to 'most kids survived into adulthood' not so long ago. And even most western countries do give very little in terms of support for new parents. So no wonder it looks intimidating to many

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

What's even more amazing is that people keep voting for the ruling class that then continually turns around and takes more money and power from the people. People seem to do it because they think they are voting to have the money distributed more "equitably", and perhaps even redistributed into their own pockets, but the reality is that everyone is now poorer and worse off, and there is certainly no more justice in the world than there was before, arguably much less, in fact. I don't see a way out because it requires people to be wiser and morally better, and there's no quick solution to that.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hammock 4y ago

We avoided the red wave in November so I would expect the birth rates to start reversing

scottLobster 4y ago
You expect something as population-spanning as birth rates to hinge on the outcome of a single congressional midterm election? If anything they're going to decline further, Republicans are back to their "obstruct literally everything" agenda that they always have when they're the minority. Any potential pro-natalist government policies will almost certainly require government spending, which will now die in the house. So we're stick with the status quo, which is low birth rates.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  What's most entertaining about you blaming Republicans for a low birth rates is that Republicans have far more kids than democrats: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democrats-lot-183722934.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republicans-more-kids-democr... It goes to show that political tribalism trumps just about everything these days, including truth, objective facts, and the obvious. It should also be obvious that just about every single leftist movement is destabilizing towards both the family as a unit and society in general, which, as you can guess, results in people having fewer kids. But don't let your tribalism get in the way of that either. Chuck Schumer recently said that the solution to our population problem is to essentially encourage more illegal immigration. Note that his solution had nothing to do with supporting families. He couldn't do that even if he wanted to, because he would offend his left flank on every attempt.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    No, I'm blaming Republicans for blocking initiatives that might actually help the birth rate. Including things like better funded public education and funding for childcare. I can blame Democrats for a bunch of stuff too, but at least every once in a while they get something through that actually helps people. The current generation of Republicans are in "burn it all down" mode, and they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that they have more kids on average (perhaps unwisely) means nothing. If you want to get into quality of life statistics, Red States also on average have the highest suicide rates. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > No, I'm blaming Republicans for blocking initiatives that might actually help the birth rate. Including things like better funded public education and funding for childcare There’s pretty good evidence that weak public social safety nets, particularly around old age, disability, etc., contribute to higher birthrates, [0] so you should be applauding the Republicans and their attacks on Social Security and Medicare, if that is your highest concern. [0] speculation is because in the absence of state support, family are your social safety net, and particularly younger family members.
xtian 4y ago
Small pockets of dissent notwithstanding, the ruling class (i.e., international finance capital) owns both political parties.
- hammock 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence?
  - mshake2 4y ago
    It's not blatantly self-evident that no matter which party you pick, the screws get tighter?
  - xtian 4y ago
    Yes: simply observe whose interests are always catered to regardless of the party in power. It’s not the average hard-working American. Check who the major political donors are, who funds the NGOs, think tanks, and PACs which guide policy-making. Check who employs politicians after they leave public office and who pays their speaking fees. Check who owns the major media outlets. Check who funds the endowments of academic institutions. Check declassified CIA documents which show direct collaboration with entrenched monopolies in carrying out foreign coups and military interventions. It’s a big club, and you’re not in it.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      Sorry for the nihilistic view, but sadly, we’d all probably be better off if we voted randomly regardless of the candidate’s party membership. Otherwise, we vote for the candidate that gets the most air time from our party of choice or issue de jeur, which is usually the most corrupt candidate. Till voters wake up and realize that the problem is not with other people’s representatives or the other party, we are doomed to repeatedly make the same mistakes.
      - xtian 4y ago
        I don’t think there’s a reason to vote in most cases, but I’m not nihilistic.

saiya-jin 4y ago

Well I can tell you that even if recent price hikes don't change anything in our budgeting, having more than 2 kids is simply a no-go, which is number below maintaining current population. Its simply too effin' hard for most of us that have actual jobs, started from 0 and are not cruising on money/possibilities our parents showered us with. After 2 kids, I simply don't see the point in 3rd, the 'parental fulfillment' won't get higher, definitely happiness won't as numerous studies proven, just more chaos, less sleep and patience, more conflicts. People I casually ask about this all seem to agree, why more than 2, heck some are fine with 1 (I would call it parenting easy mode, it didn't feel like that back then, but when looking now with 2nd it was a very chill period). Also tons of young now feel far from rest of family which is cool for independence and such, but when SHTF with kids you realize that often grandparents and rest of family are not so bad despite their flaws. The bar for being a good parent is so damn high these days, compared to 'most kids survived into adulthood' not so long ago. And even most western countries do give very little in terms of support for new parents. So no wonder it looks intimidating to many