3 ms·

Did you actually read the article?

by wecky 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago
I did. The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics, and then instead of blaming the economy they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed. It is the same dog-and-pony opinion column they've paraded out for the past 2 years. It's why I'm shocked anyone would even submit this, except to make people angry. There's a reason Unherd articles always get flagged; they very often violate the HN guidelines.
- wecky 2y ago
  > The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics You may have skipped past this paragraph: "Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as motherhood, an ancient political battleground, is electrified by the ever more frightening socioeconomic outlook. Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible." Given the very short amount of time between my post and your comment, it's clear you must have written your retort without having read the article.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    That's not blaming socioeconomics. They're acknowledging it, writing it off and then saying that it's a political problem and not a market-related one. It's buried at the end of a litany of blame write-offs demanding change without identifying the problem. When you make your next alt account, please don't waste our time with another one of these godforsaken opinion pieces. They are low-quality and so obviously outrage bait, you will have your post flagged before it reaches the frontpage and your account(s) will be banned if you exclusively promote low-quality, single-source material. I guarantee you this is not worth your time.
- trealira 2y ago
  > they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed Where did they say this?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue Instead of identifying this as a market deficiency, they promote the idea that actually it's a collectivist cause. This isn't true, and it's an attempt to frame pronatalism as a "good versus evil" fight instead of a "cost optimization versus human interests" one. Again, Unherd will blame literally every single possible culprit except the concept of a free market betraying human interests. They deserve what they get, at this point.
    - trealira 2y ago
      You seem unreasonably angry at this article for not immediately denouncing capitalism, and ignoring any possibility that there's a cultural aspect. The free market is not a new concept; why wasn't the birth rate as much of a problem 70 years ago when the market was just as free then? It's because young people today don't want kids as much as the previous generations did. That said, I don't like having these kinds of articles on HN either.

Did you actually read the article?

by wecky 2y ago

Did you actually read the article?

I did. The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics, and then instead of blaming the economy they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed. It is the same dog-and-pony opinion column they've paraded out for the past 2 years. It's why I'm shocked anyone would even submit this, except to make people angry. There's a reason Unherd articles always get flagged; they very often violate the HN guidelines.

wecky 2y ago
> The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics You may have skipped past this paragraph: "Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as motherhood, an ancient political battleground, is electrified by the ever more frightening socioeconomic outlook. Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible." Given the very short amount of time between my post and your comment, it's clear you must have written your retort without having read the article.
- talldayo 2y ago
  That's not blaming socioeconomics. They're acknowledging it, writing it off and then saying that it's a political problem and not a market-related one. It's buried at the end of a litany of blame write-offs demanding change without identifying the problem. When you make your next alt account, please don't waste our time with another one of these godforsaken opinion pieces. They are low-quality and so obviously outrage bait, you will have your post flagged before it reaches the frontpage and your account(s) will be banned if you exclusively promote low-quality, single-source material. I guarantee you this is not worth your time.
trealira 2y ago
> they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed Where did they say this?
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue Instead of identifying this as a market deficiency, they promote the idea that actually it's a collectivist cause. This isn't true, and it's an attempt to frame pronatalism as a "good versus evil" fight instead of a "cost optimization versus human interests" one. Again, Unherd will blame literally every single possible culprit except the concept of a free market betraying human interests. They deserve what they get, at this point.
  - trealira 2y ago
    You seem unreasonably angry at this article for not immediately denouncing capitalism, and ignoring any possibility that there's a cultural aspect. The free market is not a new concept; why wasn't the birth rate as much of a problem 70 years ago when the market was just as free then? It's because young people today don't want kids as much as the previous generations did. That said, I don't like having these kinds of articles on HN either.