4 ms·

Low birth rates are happening because no one has enough money for kids and a place to house them even with two working parents. Not because of "woke excuses" an

Low birth rates are happening because no one has enough money for kids and a place to house them even with two working parents. Not because of "woke excuses" and "erosion of gender roles". Correlation does not imply causation. Try giving every couple in America a 5x raise and a free house and watch a ton of kids be born the next five years. Your argument is similar to saying "no one buys houses anymore because everyone is obsessed with tiny houses and van dwelling". No, they are obsessed with these things because it's the only thing they have any chance of affording. If you split up the wealth concentrated in the top 1%, so we have an economy more like the 1950s, every family is about 2.5 million dollars richer. That's a house, only one spouse working, maybe a vacation house, two cars, and several kids. Sounds like what life was like in the 1950 right? It wasn't the woke boogyman after all, it was unions and labor getting a fair share of their efforts. Instead we have people living with roommates and parents trying to save enough money just to survive. This nonsense that no one is having kids because of "family values" and "morals" is billionaire propaganda to distract everyone from the fact that they took all our money, and we need unions to get it back. Not more church, not getting rid of woke (whatever that means). Unions, we need unions and strong labor protections to get our money back from the billionaires who took it inch by inch for the last 70 years. [1] [1] https://youtu.be/mcgC-kuPEuo?si=KDvDPEYjTZtbqOeM https://youtu.be/mcgC-kuPEuo?si=KDvDPEYjTZtbqOeM

thedailymail 3y ago
Agree with many of your points, but to make the 84+ million families in the US richer by $2.5 million each would require more than 200 trillion dollars. (Current GDP is around $25 trillion.)
- JackMorgan 3y ago
  Good point, it seems the top 10% owns 100 trillion [1], so spreading that to the remaining 74 million families would only result in a net increase of 1.2 million per family. I must have found an inaccurate source for the previously stated 2.5 million. Math now corrected, I still want my extra 1.2 million back. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
xyzelement 3y ago
I appreciate your chain of logic but don’t agree with it. If what you are saying was true, rich families would have more kids than poor families in the US and the opposite is true. The families that had 5/7 kids a hundred years ago were objectively way poorer than the “I can’t afford a kid” crowd today.
- orwin 3y ago
  Rich families do have more kids than working poor families in all western nations. If you're a poor, 2 person household in a city, you have two main choices (all other choices means leaving the city you live in) : - Work and stay poor, but comfortable enough. This means maybe getting enough money on the side to buy a big appartement then start a family at 40-45 yo (20 years ago you had the same choice, except the age was 30-35. It's worst in more expensive cities). - Try to get on welfare and have kids asap. You'll have to live in a worse area, with less disposable income, you'll be a bit hungry sometimes, but it might be worth it. If you have family/support system in the area whose reputation can protect you from the worse, it's all good (hence 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants have more opportunities to make this choice, as their support system is often stronger than 5th-Xth gen immigrants or native Americans). Do you have kids yourself? Are you a low-income worker? How much do you have each months after paying rent+utilities+food? Because I remember clearly my parents earning less than that cost, and trying to do calculations to avoid downgrading to a smaller house. They couldn't avoid it and I shared a room with my brother until I was 16, when I joined a 'boarding school' (closest translation I could find, but it was public, free and not at all like Anglo boarding schools).
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    // Rich families do have more kids than working poor families in all western nations. Not true at all. Please see this data[1] for birth rate by income level (US, 2019) Lowest income women give 40% more births than the richest women. The relationship is consistent across income levels. The more you make the fewer kids you have. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

thedailymail 3y ago

Agree with many of your points, but to make the 84+ million families in the US richer by $2.5 million each would require more than 200 trillion dollars. (Current GDP is around $25 trillion.)

JackMorgan 3y ago
Good point, it seems the top 10% owns 100 trillion [1], so spreading that to the remaining 74 million families would only result in a net increase of 1.2 million per family. I must have found an inaccurate source for the previously stated 2.5 million. Math now corrected, I still want my extra 1.2 million back. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

xyzelement 3y ago

I appreciate your chain of logic but don’t agree with it. If what you are saying was true, rich families would have more kids than poor families in the US and the opposite is true. The families that had 5/7 kids a hundred years ago were objectively way poorer than the “I can’t afford a kid” crowd today.

orwin 3y ago
Rich families do have more kids than working poor families in all western nations. If you're a poor, 2 person household in a city, you have two main choices (all other choices means leaving the city you live in) : - Work and stay poor, but comfortable enough. This means maybe getting enough money on the side to buy a big appartement then start a family at 40-45 yo (20 years ago you had the same choice, except the age was 30-35. It's worst in more expensive cities). - Try to get on welfare and have kids asap. You'll have to live in a worse area, with less disposable income, you'll be a bit hungry sometimes, but it might be worth it. If you have family/support system in the area whose reputation can protect you from the worse, it's all good (hence 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants have more opportunities to make this choice, as their support system is often stronger than 5th-Xth gen immigrants or native Americans). Do you have kids yourself? Are you a low-income worker? How much do you have each months after paying rent+utilities+food? Because I remember clearly my parents earning less than that cost, and trying to do calculations to avoid downgrading to a smaller house. They couldn't avoid it and I shared a room with my brother until I was 16, when I joined a 'boarding school' (closest translation I could find, but it was public, free and not at all like Anglo boarding schools).
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // Rich families do have more kids than working poor families in all western nations. Not true at all. Please see this data[1] for birth rate by income level (US, 2019) Lowest income women give 40% more births than the richest women. The relationship is consistent across income levels. The more you make the fewer kids you have. [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...