• CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      people used to look at children as a way to pass on knowledge, culture, adn ofc, genes

      nowadays our genes dont matter so much unless youre a super athlete or mega genius, so passing them on seems frivolous to many. then theres the interent, which houses knowledge on damn near everything. so i guess it makes sense why the desire to carry on would be outweighed at this point

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was gonna say. the phrase “double income no kids” arose in the 90s when “single income + kids” was a possibility.

  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    ·
    11 months ago

    Honestly at this point there are only a handful of headlines that cover about 90% of news stories:
    -Young people ‘choose’ lifestyle choice that was forced upon them by external conditions.
    -Young people are ‘killing industry’ that they are not paid enough to even dream of participating in.
    -Rich person/people found guilty of or admitted to enormous crime will go unpunished.
    -Someones totally unqualified opinion on a subject that we’re reporting as news because they’re rich.
    -World ending, shareholders rejoice.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      11 months ago

      Rich people doing stupid things with money because they aren’t being taxed like they should so that the economy actually can survive.

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        FDR taxes the shit out of rich people so they had to re-invest the money into their companies or lose it to the government. That built a strong, industrialized America with good paying jobs. Ronald Reagan reversed everything and we’ve been in decline ever since. Still a huge number of poor people continue to vote Republican, against their country, and their own interests.

  • Gazumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    11 months ago

    By choosing, I think we mean that it’s not an affordable luxury to do otherwise

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    “Why aren’t the poors having more workers??” - the same people continually reducing the status and security of the working class

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago
      • low wages
      • no unions
      • housing is either a lifetime’s savings for down payment on mortgage or a never ending escalator of rent fees
      • states taking reproductive rights away
      • states threatening contraception
      • climate change dooming the future
      • war - war in ukraine, war in palestine, war in africa, civil war being threatened by the chud down the street

      Gee Mr Wizard, why don’t millennials want babies instead of avocado toast?

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    they arent choosing it.

    They are being forced into it because its the only fucking way to have a chance at NOT being homeless and crippled.

    • TK420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Oh no, make no mistake, I chose it.

      However, even if I wanted them, how the fuck does one even afford them?

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Don’t get it twisted, many of us absolutely chose to not have kids because we don’t want them.

      • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You can both be right, you know. Many of us also agree with what this person was saying.

        I used to want kids. I will refuse to have kids unless I can afford them, and until I can GUARANTEE that their human rights won’t be stripped away by the whims of stupid people who are completely disconnected from reality. I won’t bring a new life into a world that’s rushing towards climate oblivion, either.

        I’ll sterilize myself before I’m ever forced to have kids.

        • Plopp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          OP: everyone in group x does y

          Me: not everyone

          You: you’re both right - not everyone

          ?

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          And there is part of the problem in the eyes of those with power… That thought that you have a choice in sterility. A choice to not have kids didn’t used to exist and you attempting to keep warm and have some pleasure basically guaranteed that you would have more eventually. So that must be stripped in order for you to continue the cycle of having kids not by choice and add to the population that gets fucked over.

      • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Agreed. These people are trying to leverage something many of us absolutely aren’t interested in to push for necessities such as fixing inflation, universal Healthcare etc. Except that if those things were fixed it wouldn’t change the birth rate much at all. That’s why Republicans are forcing people to be breeding machines. Educated well off people know better to engage in an activity that is detrimental to their physical and mental health. And making a human means you’re responsible for them until you or they die. That’s the biggest mistake people make. They make a human, then wash their hands of then.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    No one should have a child unless they are willing to commit themselves to that child 100%. I have a daughter. She’s the most wonderful thing that ever happened to me. And if anyone willingly took substantially less effort than I’ve taken to try to raise her in a safe, healthy environment and prepare her for her future as best I can- fuck you, you should have worn a fucking condom.

    No child deserves to be neglected.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Interesting/sad how simply due to circumstance, somebody’s absolute honest best at max effort/sacrifice can still be raising a kid in a favela.

      Consider the top vs. bottom billion: I expect the latter half’s kids would appear neglected if they were suddenly transported to the former’s McMansions overnight.

      That’s not to say the kisses and the love are any less, but the clothes and the education and the soccer practice? I’d bet certainly.

      I hope within by two generations from now this kind of pondering is only possible from a historical perspective. The kids deserve it.

    • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      I also have kids and love them dearly. However I think that it is important that parents have their own interests and time for their own lives, independent of their roles as parents. Of course with very young children there’s barely time to sleep, but humans grow up quickly! 😄

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m not suggesting otherwise. You can put the effort in to do all that I said and still have time to do your own thing.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Less of a choice and more of a survival tactic. Plus, my foregone children would thank me.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Those with higher income levels are the ones deciding to have less kids, whereas those with the lowest incomes are the ones having more. Source

      If people are being forced into not having children for economic reasons, wouldn’t it be the opposite?

      But I don’t disagree about it being in the best interest of my future children not to exist with the way things are heading lol.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If having kids causes you to be poorer what would the results look like?

        The reality is that the more kids you have the worse you are at capitalism: You can’t work as much, you can’t take on more demanding jobs and you’ll make life choices that are less lucrative to care for the kids.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Can only speak for myself, but thankfully I have no interest in more demanding, lucrative jobs to improve my stats in such a rigged and inherently evil game as modern capitalism.

          Doing just well enough with a loving family sounds well-lived to me. They can keep their McMansions and rooftop wine tastings.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah but you also don’t get trashed at the bars every weekend and you live longer healthier life. It isn’t as clear cut as you are making it. I agree being a dad has hurt parts of my career but it has probably helped other parts.

      • mattreb@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        The source you linked tells that more developed countries have less kids, which is almost unrelated to how “affordable” having a child is, which infact have the opposite trend.

          • mattreb@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Thanks much better, however “Correlation does not imply causation” which is obvious in this case (and as the source itself say, the correlation is probably about education instead etc). The problem is much more complex and trying to explain it with a simple correlation is a bit naive, however you can’t deny how much of an economic struggle raising a kid is for the average income family…

            • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I never claimed having kids wasn’t a financial endeavor. I’m just pointing out that people with more income have on average less kids… because they do. I didn’t suppose the cause of this correlation at any point. But yes, I’d agree education is a huge part of the cause of this correlation.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        When contraception is expensive, career paths look bleak (or non-existent) and sex is the one fun activity you have… surprisedpikachu.jpg

  • M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    11 months ago

    My wife finally are in a point where we can afford to have children, but we are kinda getting a bit old to have children. So we are also choosing the dual income no children life style,

    But a big part of that is our age and how long it took to get to a comfortable place financially.

    Now we want to focus on saving for a house and retirement.

  • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    I make ~$200K a year. As a father of 5, I wish I had not had a single one. I love them, but the stress of taking care of them coupled with the future of the planet makes me regret life choices.

  • AwkwardTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because we can’t afford our own lives, how are we supposed to support children? Not even taking into account for how absolutely fucked we all are. Our planet is dying, how can we bring children into this world if it’s all falling apart?

    • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean a lot of us wouldn’t even if it they paid us. We finally live in a time where we know better and can choose not to be barefoot and pregnant (unless you live in tx).

    • G020B@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      But you can’t forget that your children can save the planet, if your generation won’t.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        My parents set the house on fire, I’m looking for a fire extinguisher, and some newsie wants me to know that if I just had kids they could grow up to be firemen.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think that’s what is being said at all. I think what’s being said is that if the future belongs to the next generation, it’s in all of our interests that intelligent and responsible people do not simply give up and allow the idiots to dominate the future. In other words, we all have a stake in the coming generations and simply opting out because we find it somehow inconvenient is not a moral decision.

          This is not to say that we all need to have kids, but rather, is to say that we shouldn’t necessarily fault those who do choose to have them. Again, if the children are our future, it would be nice if at least some of them were raised by responsible, intelligent and well-educated parents.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            intelligent and responsible people do not simply give up and allow the idiots to dominate the future

            That would ring truer if not spoken by an idiot who dominates the present. CNBC is replete with these know-nothing goobers, and even assuming I bought in to their selective breeding strategy for repopulation after the apocolypse, I sure as hell wouldn’t endorse their target audience to handle the job.

            This is not to say that we all need to have kids, but rather, is to say that we shouldn’t necessarily fault those who do choose to have them

            That’s fair on its face, but more as a practical consequence. At some point you have to ask, what would we even do about people having more kids than we’d like. And the answers - from trying to shame them by screaming at them to doing old school Nixon-era sterilizations of whole populations - are incredibly grim and gross.

            it would be nice if at least some of them were raised by responsible, intelligent and well-educated parents

            If you want responsible, intelligent, and well-educated parents tomorrow, you’re going to need to house and feed and educate and generally provide quality of life for kids today.

            But we hate kids today. That’s why, despite the economy growing at a steady clip for the last 20 years, we’re at record high child poverty with 1 in 5 kids living in poverty in the 40 richest countries. The current generation does not want to pay money to see them grow up health, strong, and capable.

            Given the poor treatment they’ve received, why would Zoomers be expected to have lots of kids of their own? They have known nothing but declining standards of living, with a promise of worse to come.

      • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        What an asshole thing to do. Hey we had fun using up this planet now here, we made you to clean up up the mess. That’s what AI and robots are for. Not humans.

      • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        11 months ago

        Man, fuck them negative votes. Humans do best understand pressure. We need humans to solve this crisis because, humans manufactured it. We make more humans and roll the dice.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Humans do best understand pressure.

          Pure selection bias. You primarily hear about the humans who did well under pressure, because the humans that didn’t do well rarely make for popular reading material.

          We make more humans and roll the dice.

          I would argue that by the time a child born today is old enough to participate in the solution, the dice will have already landed. Either they’ll be living in a city/country/planet whose prior generation has positioned themselves to preserver, or they’ll be dying in one whose prior generation didn’t.

          Having more kids won’t solve the problem. We’ve got 8B people already. One more or less won’t tip the scales.

          Not having more kids won’t solve the problem, either. So no point in getting mad at folks who did choose to have children.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          When the problem is too much of something, the solution is less of it. Make of that what you will.

          • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s time to put funding into solutions. Making less people isn’t the solution. Managing our resources responsibility is the better solution.

            Don’t stop making people, start making better quality people.

  • Szymon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    11 months ago

    Gee, it’s almost like it’s important for the long term success of society to have systems in place that make sure it’s not a burden to create new people to take over for your generation after their bodies are too old and broken to keep working and society functioning.

    Then again, the decisions have already been made by the people with the power to make them, and technology/automation are in line to replace workers. They’ll be a little loud and problematic until the numbers naturally even themselves out, but we’ll be left with an enlightened society of capitalist asset owners being supported by a massive technological network.

    • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It would be a shame if a new Luddite movement came and broke the machines putting humans out of work they want to do.

      Or give us a universal basic income and let humans do what they want to do to make themselves happy while the machines do all the work.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Makes a fascinating short story:

        Jimmy thought his job at the data center was easy, clock in, watch the cameras, do the rounds, clock out. Good pay, low effort…

        then 10,000 people showed up with hammers and crow bars. Jimmy was about to have a very bad day.

        • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          What value is a universal basic income to the shareholders? That is the question to ask in this capitalist hellscape.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d say that sometimes it may even be beneficial to shareholders because they will not have to deal with people in the company that are there only to up the workspace numbers. You know, those job positions that only exist because of how wrecked the system is now

        • tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Maybe one day many, many years from now when there are far fewer humans and machines have taken over nearly all production. UBI isn’t feasible on this side of the coming demographic boogaloo.

  • CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Put the value back into my income then, ye cunts.

    I make the same number as my dad used to. His was a different currency but the number was the same which makes it awfully simple to put everything into perspective.

    His house: 350 Mine: a little under half the size: 900

    I’m already down 550 in comparison.

    His insurance: 90 Mine: 160

    I’m down 620.

    His medicine cost and doctor visits: basically zero. Mine: 385 and half the medicine comes out of pocket nowadays.

    This difference is hard to put into perspectice as the 385 is once a year and medicine depends on the situation.

    Him: unemployed wife, groceries cost about 200 for a full month, owns a car and has 4 children.

    Me: wife works and has a hobby that makes money, no car because no money left. Groceries: we eat about 2/3rd of what they did and pay 200 a week. No children.

    We are down 1220 if we forget about insurance and medicine. I don’t make 1220 more than he did.

    Fuck this hellhole, you stole our life and i hope there is a hell for you scumbags.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      you stole our life

      Don’t blame your dad - however much you resent him it’s not like he has any influence over the economy. Instead blame the super rich who have real influence and are actively pushing policy to widen this social divide.

      • veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But it is partially their fault: they have the largest political clout by generation so welfare and zoning policies have always suited them at the behest of everyone else.

        And even if people don’t have kids, the rich aren’t going to be impacted. They just use immigration as a stop gap until everything is automated away and we see wealth imbalance get taken to 11. I’m talking gated communities everywhere with poverty in-between (e.g South Africa)

    • Russty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re choosing to be wilfully ignorant about inflation. You don’t make as much as he did in a real sense.