4 ms·

It's the economy, stupid. Most younger people can't afford homes. People's money doesn't go as far as it used to. Academic qualifications are worth less than t

by sjw987 1y ago

It's the economy, stupid. Most younger people can't afford homes. People's money doesn't go as far as it used to. Academic qualifications are worth less than they used to be. Many people currently working now won't see a pension. Many won't see a good paying job, even with good academic qualifications and work experience. General health and wellbeing is getting worse, with businesses abusing human psychology to shift product that knowingly causes worse health outcomes. Many people are concerned about the political direction of the countries they live in, and many are concerned about the changes in the community and culture around them. Many might see the first shockwaves of climate change (climate refugees, more extreme weather, water shortages). War is growing, and will grow further when states start fighting over dwindling resources. All generations, especially the young and impressionable are becoming addicted to information (not in a good way) and media consumption, the only upside of which is an inverse relationship to alcohol and substance consumption. And their kids will have it worse than them. The world is getting worse to live in, and we (or many of us) have just enough education this time around to not want to burden another generation with that. In the past, and in certain places today, a lack of education would mean people would procreate even as society collapsed around them. We've lived through a very small golden age of being alive (in select places) the last 70 years. It was unsustainable, and we are now seeing the undoing of those times. We might not see such a boom of prosperity again.

giingyui 1y ago
No, it’s not the economy. All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents. Yet they are doing fine.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents Well, yes. Because they've not quite got the heavily broadcast message that having children is a bad financial decision. The West is a society that respects wealth and has a vague distaste for children and parents. The UK has an ongoing debate about the two-child limit on child benefit payments. Whenever this is discussed, furious people appear out of the woodwork to condemn those who dare to have three children as financially irresponsible. An additional child at £17.25 a week is an intolerable cost to the taxpayer, apparently. And you wonder why people don't have more children.
  - sjw987 1y ago
    In the UK, more often than not, when a couple has more than 2 children they are often part of a certain demographic. The idea of this demographic and its culture becoming over-represented is not popular amongst a large portion of the population, regardless of what societal wide effects that may have. In addition and in general, paying people to have kids is not a good solution. More often than not, it leads to less educated, less capable people becoming baby mills and ruining the rest of society with their poorly raised children. 2 children is fine. It's almost replacement level.
- cogman10 1y ago
  > Yet they are doing fine. Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes? There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know they can't work forever and they know that the current political environment is one of removing and undoing every single social safety net out there. Meaning, a mistake today very well could mean homelessness/eating cat food/etc or ultimately starving to death. My father-in-law is 72 and still needs to work to pay the bills. He can't retire. That's the future for the less financially and intellectually equipped parents and their kids in the current political climate.
  - giingyui 1y ago
    [dead]
  - broken-kebab 1y ago
    When aging population cannot be supported by enough young hands joining the economy, retirement accounts won't mean much. One can't eat digits, or take them as medicine. Money is as useful as you can exchange them for somebody's work.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      I agree. That doesn't change the reality of self-interest. If someone is struggling to take care of themselves, why would they have children? Heck, if you have people working 80+ hours a week just to stay housed, when can they find time to have kids? Cruel societies punish people for having kids. We have a cruel society. The 90s "welfare queen" talk caused the US federal and state governments to gut social programs specifically designed to aid and support people in having families. For so many people, affording the necessities requires 2 incomes. Childcare either takes out an income or it incurs a huge new necessity. And then there's always the impact of "what if the child has a disability" in that case most people are really truly screwed in the US if that happens.
broken-kebab 1y ago
It's popular opinion, but it's demonstrably wrong. In terms of procreation richer countries doesn't do better, richer communities doesn't do better, and while economic incentives may shift needle a little temporarily, so far no consistent effects have been shown with them. Since condoms/pills/abortion detached sexual intercourse from its original biological function, it's only ideals, and culture which make people to choose becoming parents. It's too big a part of life to be paid with money for if you simply don't want it.
sebmellen 1y ago
There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4.5 billion years of evolution from the very first organism to you. Every one of our ancestors made it, and chances are they did so in more difficult and perilous circumstances than we can imagine. You can as well. This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. Throughout the history of civilization, we have made such incredible progress in medicine, technology, science, the standard of human living, energy production, space exploration, you name it. The world is a very bright place. Any prophecy of economic or climactic doom or cultural doom is just pessimism. In the long-term optimism is the most rational strategy. In line with this, you can raise a family on a smaller budget than you'd imagine. Children are way less expensive than adults. Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. (At least this has been my experience; I had my first child at 24 on a small budget and in a small apartment with not all that much help.)
- watwut 1y ago
  > Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. That is really not the case. > And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. Honestly, they actually quite often do. You are not allowed to talk about it, but reality of it is that you loose a lot.
  - sebmellen 1y ago
    Well, it depends on where you live. It’s certainly the case in Texas and much of the southern United States in my experience. San Francisco — yes, unlikely. And it depends on what you think you are losing (FYI loose = not tight, lose = opposite of win). I think I have gained far more than I have lost.
- doublerabbit 1y ago
  > This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. I have zero social media, don't read the news, and have a happy stable lifestyle. I can afford to raise kids and ten years ago, yeah go for it. I wanted to have children. Now? no way. My generation stops with me and many others my age (36) echo the same statement. I don't want to push kids through the next up-generations of the shite that's starting to pile up now. "it's you because of X" is a strawman argurement. The world is bleak it's not a happy place but your welcome to keep that illusion. We have wars, we have povetry, we have divide. Will it get better? Maybe, the future will decide but with my history of life doesn't feel like it will be anytime soon, I've seen in the past twenty years; how long do I wait for? I like to think the good will always outweigh the evil however until something does come along and dethrones the current evil, issue consquences for their actions we are stuck here in a swurling-black-hole of dispair. That's realism and will that be you? Because I like to think it will be me. I can walk outside my apartment and see how shite it all is. We have achieved so much, people are more educated than past generations, vaccines, advance technologies and the rest which is great. And now have a text box where you can ask a silly question of your choice and some robot will spit out the answer. Amazing stuff, the caveat being those running these systems are those who are producing the dysoptian mist. > you can raise a family on a smaller budget than you'd imagine. Children are way less expensive than adults. This is fallacy, i'm no father but there is much more expense then just feeding kids. What if your child get's ill? Need's special tutoring? Has a disability? Wants to learn to horse ride? Fair assumption if all kids were born equal but life isn't like that. What if the "budget" ends up being cancelled, say losing your job because of some political reform and cuts? How do you raise children when themselves have no money; poverty is only increasing. Please tell because I'm sure their are plenty of homeless who would love to have that life hack. The past didn't have rapid game changing technology like we have now. Just because we are always evolving doesn't mean we can afford to in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if the next stage of evolution are desiginer-babies. Artfically created in a lab and ready to be posted to you to cradle. Some exec's wet dream and it's already in the making. This isn't doomerism, this is real life, reality. Try looking outside the walled gardens and maybe you'll see the past, the present and the curtian of the future holding futuristic lies and corruption of the real world that shroud the real harmony of humanity. We are at the best time in humanity but that can only be said by those who can afford it. Being pesstistmic is a downer, but being optistmic is bloody hard at the moment and to think some angel will come down from the sky and save us all, I won't stop you from dreaming.
cedws 1y ago
Your comment reminds me of the "housing economic theory of everything." I watched this video a while back about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc It used to take one income to run a household. Now it takes two.

by sjw987 1y ago

giingyui 1y ago

No, it’s not the economy. All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents. Yet they are doing fine.

pjc50 1y ago
> All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents Well, yes. Because they've not quite got the heavily broadcast message that having children is a bad financial decision. The West is a society that respects wealth and has a vague distaste for children and parents. The UK has an ongoing debate about the two-child limit on child benefit payments. Whenever this is discussed, furious people appear out of the woodwork to condemn those who dare to have three children as financially irresponsible. An additional child at £17.25 a week is an intolerable cost to the taxpayer, apparently. And you wonder why people don't have more children.
- sjw987 1y ago
  In the UK, more often than not, when a couple has more than 2 children they are often part of a certain demographic. The idea of this demographic and its culture becoming over-represented is not popular amongst a large portion of the population, regardless of what societal wide effects that may have. In addition and in general, paying people to have kids is not a good solution. More often than not, it leads to less educated, less capable people becoming baby mills and ruining the rest of society with their poorly raised children. 2 children is fine. It's almost replacement level.
cogman10 1y ago
> Yet they are doing fine. Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes? There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know they can't work forever and they know that the current political environment is one of removing and undoing every single social safety net out there. Meaning, a mistake today very well could mean homelessness/eating cat food/etc or ultimately starving to death. My father-in-law is 72 and still needs to work to pay the bills. He can't retire. That's the future for the less financially and intellectually equipped parents and their kids in the current political climate.
- giingyui 1y ago
  [dead]
- broken-kebab 1y ago
  When aging population cannot be supported by enough young hands joining the economy, retirement accounts won't mean much. One can't eat digits, or take them as medicine. Money is as useful as you can exchange them for somebody's work.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    I agree. That doesn't change the reality of self-interest. If someone is struggling to take care of themselves, why would they have children? Heck, if you have people working 80+ hours a week just to stay housed, when can they find time to have kids? Cruel societies punish people for having kids. We have a cruel society. The 90s "welfare queen" talk caused the US federal and state governments to gut social programs specifically designed to aid and support people in having families. For so many people, affording the necessities requires 2 incomes. Childcare either takes out an income or it incurs a huge new necessity. And then there's always the impact of "what if the child has a disability" in that case most people are really truly screwed in the US if that happens.

broken-kebab 1y ago

It's popular opinion, but it's demonstrably wrong. In terms of procreation richer countries doesn't do better, richer communities doesn't do better, and while economic incentives may shift needle a little temporarily, so far no consistent effects have been shown with them. Since condoms/pills/abortion detached sexual intercourse from its original biological function, it's only ideals, and culture which make people to choose becoming parents. It's too big a part of life to be paid with money for if you simply don't want it.

sebmellen 1y ago

There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4.5 billion years of evolution from the very first organism to you. Every one of our ancestors made it, and chances are they did so in more difficult and perilous circumstances than we can imagine. You can as well. This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. Throughout the history of civilization, we have made such incredible progress in medicine, technology, science, the standard of human living, energy production, space exploration, you name it. The world is a very bright place. Any prophecy of economic or climactic doom or cultural doom is just pessimism. In the long-term optimism is the most rational strategy. In line with this, you can raise a family on a smaller budget than you'd imagine. Children are way less expensive than adults. Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. (At least this has been my experience; I had my first child at 24 on a small budget and in a small apartment with not all that much help.)

watwut 1y ago
> Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. That is really not the case. > And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. Honestly, they actually quite often do. You are not allowed to talk about it, but reality of it is that you loose a lot.
- sebmellen 1y ago
  Well, it depends on where you live. It’s certainly the case in Texas and much of the southern United States in my experience. San Francisco — yes, unlikely. And it depends on what you think you are losing (FYI loose = not tight, lose = opposite of win). I think I have gained far more than I have lost.
doublerabbit 1y ago
> This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. I have zero social media, don't read the news, and have a happy stable lifestyle. I can afford to raise kids and ten years ago, yeah go for it. I wanted to have children. Now? no way. My generation stops with me and many others my age (36) echo the same statement. I don't want to push kids through the next up-generations of the shite that's starting to pile up now. "it's you because of X" is a strawman argurement. The world is bleak it's not a happy place but your welcome to keep that illusion. We have wars, we have povetry, we have divide. Will it get better? Maybe, the future will decide but with my history of life doesn't feel like it will be anytime soon, I've seen in the past twenty years; how long do I wait for? I like to think the good will always outweigh the evil however until something does come along and dethrones the current evil, issue consquences for their actions we are stuck here in a swurling-black-hole of dispair. That's realism and will that be you? Because I like to think it will be me. I can walk outside my apartment and see how shite it all is. We have achieved so much, people are more educated than past generations, vaccines, advance technologies and the rest which is great. And now have a text box where you can ask a silly question of your choice and some robot will spit out the answer. Amazing stuff, the caveat being those running these systems are those who are producing the dysoptian mist. > you can raise a family on a smaller budget than you'd imagine. Children are way less expensive than adults. This is fallacy, i'm no father but there is much more expense then just feeding kids. What if your child get's ill? Need's special tutoring? Has a disability? Wants to learn to horse ride? Fair assumption if all kids were born equal but life isn't like that. What if the "budget" ends up being cancelled, say losing your job because of some political reform and cuts? How do you raise children when themselves have no money; poverty is only increasing. Please tell because I'm sure their are plenty of homeless who would love to have that life hack. The past didn't have rapid game changing technology like we have now. Just because we are always evolving doesn't mean we can afford to in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if the next stage of evolution are desiginer-babies. Artfically created in a lab and ready to be posted to you to cradle. Some exec's wet dream and it's already in the making. This isn't doomerism, this is real life, reality. Try looking outside the walled gardens and maybe you'll see the past, the present and the curtian of the future holding futuristic lies and corruption of the real world that shroud the real harmony of humanity. We are at the best time in humanity but that can only be said by those who can afford it. Being pesstistmic is a downer, but being optistmic is bloody hard at the moment and to think some angel will come down from the sky and save us all, I won't stop you from dreaming.

cedws 1y ago

Your comment reminds me of the "housing economic theory of everything." I watched this video a while back about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc It used to take one income to run a household. Now it takes two.