That's why I am contributing to the fertility problem.
bayarearefugee 2 days ago [-]
These demographic trends, in the west at least, will continue until we solve wealth inequality which we seemingly aren't going to do until there is eventually violent revolt.
The correlation between inequality and fertility is one of the most counter-intuitive parts of demographics. While it's true that the poorest strata often have the most children, that doesn't necessarily mean "fixing inequality" is the lever. In many cases, it's the aspiration of the middle class that kills fertility - the high cost of maintaining a certain standard of living and providing a competitive "start" for one child makes having three or four feel financially impossible
eowln 2 days ago [-]
The more we solve economic inequality the less children people have since they have more interesting things to do with their lives.
2 days ago [-]
mc32 2 days ago [-]
I doubt it. Of do we’d see the supermajority wealthy people having lots of kids. As it is now the people most apt to reproduce are in the lower strata of the economy.
Neither you or parent have proven your position. Parent made a “conventional wisdom” statement without providing data; you shared three examples, and as the saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
Had a peek at Morland's book on Amazon and the headlines he pulls at the top of Chapter 1 for the impact of falling fertility on society:
'Russia running out of "single-use" soldiers; 'UK running low on fuel, truck drivers'; 'China's factories are wrestling with labor shortages'.
Are we supposed to feel bad that people aren't rushing to birth the next generation of cannon fodder, truck drivers, or work in factories for 60-70 hours a week? Are these roles that Morland would have his own children fill, or just other people's?
Genuinely bizarre choice of headlines to present a pro-natal argument with. Did he not read the actual book? Bad editor? AI slop?
lotsofpulp 2 days ago [-]
I like how there is a decline in the total fertility rate from 2012 to 2023, and the ONS decides to assume the decline will stop and the TFR will plateau starting 2026.
Rendered at 06:30:34 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/tree/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenaebarnes/2022/07/10/elon-mus...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertil...
US data:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Natalism/comments/1bwxsuj/total_us_...
'Russia running out of "single-use" soldiers; 'UK running low on fuel, truck drivers'; 'China's factories are wrestling with labor shortages'.
Are we supposed to feel bad that people aren't rushing to birth the next generation of cannon fodder, truck drivers, or work in factories for 60-70 hours a week? Are these roles that Morland would have his own children fill, or just other people's?
Genuinely bizarre choice of headlines to present a pro-natal argument with. Did he not read the actual book? Bad editor? AI slop?