791
submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 82 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 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.

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Didn't a 2006 documentary explore something like this?

[-] Kill_John_Lennon@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Yes I remember it also had some surprising findings about electrolytes

[-] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Camacho was smarter than some candidates today as they are willing to let the SMEs handle shit

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 1 points 7 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 1 points 7 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 10 points 7 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.

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

Here is a source for within the USA.

The more money one makes, the more free they are to make the choice not to have children.

[-] mattreb@feddit.it 1 points 7 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 1 points 7 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.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Could it be its more lucrative to not have children?

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
791 points (97.3% liked)

News

22470 readers
4692 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS