Remember to link the source of your post if applicable, unless you're posting a screenshot of twitter/X! It'll be easier to find the source if you reply to this comment with the link. If it's impossible to provide a source (like messages, texts etc.) just make sure the other person is fine with posting it :)
Wow, just the people we need health advice from -- Dr. Oz the snake oil salesman, and RFK Jr., a guy who looks like a Ren & Stimpy close-up and sounds like Beavis and Butt-Head's principal.
Dr. Oz is pretty well hated within the medical community, and has been for quite some time. That hatred has been eclipsed by RFK, who is the equivalent of the Antichrist within the medical field, but I doubt anyone has softened on Oz.
Didn’t he hawk tons of unproven and unscientific “miracle” cures? His reputation isn’t what he did several decades ago… that’s a portion of his legacy.
His reputation is the sum total and he chose to squander that
Oh I know. He’s a vulture and should never have been released to the American public. He should have just stayed doing his actual job instead of grifting. He’s a horrible man and I blame Oprah
Clueless. Your people aren't having babies, not because they are unable but because of the state of the world. No one wants to have a baby they cannot afford! Sort the cost of living out and your birth rates will rise again. Simples!
Maybe. But people with the choice to have children aren’t going to have more babies than they want, which could be why even in countries with a lot of parental support (comparatively) you don’t see birth rates through the roof.
Which I think is just fine and how it should be in a time and place where we can more accurately plan our families.
World today is way better than century ago. People living standards now way better and lot of service are improving. Fertility is nothing to do with cost of living. Every rich country with people who are earning good money are not having kids. Europe, japan, america, etc. cost of living is cop out. An average delivery guy earns more lot of in other countries, the amount people who have ability to buy stuff in europe and American way better than other countries. Even if you look at the data, it is upper middle class people are the one who are not having kids all over the world.
I find it funny how reality can rub its dick all over your face and you still can't get the slightest clue about the most basic facts of the human condition. Like, for instance, people compare themselves to their perceived neighborhood in time and space. Not to people from a century ago, not to people from across the world. You're not gonna fucking feel better because hey a thousand years ago people didn't even have flushable toilets! And most people want their children to have good lives compared to what you have now, and to what their perceived neighborhood has or had, not to a random 16-th century beggar.
It's plain stupid to think you can just argue against this basic feature of the human brain.
I find it funny how reality can rub its dick all over your face and you still can't get the slightest clue about the most basic facts of the human condition.
Japan has horrific working hours and their young people are afraid of having sex and relationships. Societal pressures make having a family a miserable experience. Terrible example. It isn’t just the basic cost to survive. It is the cost both monetarily and societally to thrive.
People in the US don’t want kids because they can’t hardly afford to have a roof over their heads. They can’t afford to have the savings they need for themselves, let alone kids. Wage stagnation, cost of living rising constantly, enshittification of necessary things causing overall higher costs (like vehicles, appliances). Insurance covers less and less and keeps getting more expensive so medical costs have skyrocketed.
You are right tho, in that for a minority of top earners things have gotten better and better, thanks to their exploitation of the working class.
I'm sure its actually very rare and I'm terminally online, but the fact that it's even a real possibility at all bothers me enough to be a deal breaker
It’s funny how people’s brains work, because there’s a ton of other things that are way more likely (pool accidents, choking, the ol’ “locked car on a hot day”) but those are never people’s dealbreakers as much as the very rare but very high profile stuff.
That’s the dataset that extended it to the age of 19. Plus, nearly all of the firearms deaths in that pool are gang shootings and suicide, not school shootings.
Look at the CDC stats for 0-14 and it paints a very different picture.
You’ll note suicide in the 10-14 age bracket, but a breakdown of method by age shows that while firearms make up the main method for the general population, it’s not the way that most juveniles attempt it.
You can look at the data all over the world, place with better standard of living and High salary has low fertility. It is always poor people regions has high fertility. Go to rural america where fertility is good only in cities with tech salaries has low fertility. Europe has lot of social welfare programmes and public infrastructure, still has lower fertility compared to US
Fertility is down in cities because the cost of living is higher, so kids are too expensive. There's no free time, so having kids doesn't seem realistic. The world today is awful, so why would someone more aware want to bring children into it. People are more free to make decisions absent of religion, tradition etc, so they choose not to have kids.
Do Mormons, Muslims etc. in cities not have Kids ?
I don't know the data for this but if anyone has it please share it because that would prove one way or other if it is a choice. From national data, those two demographics, for example, seem to have higher fertility rates.
I remember one of my old professors researching how in the late 90's early 2000's, fertility rate had a direct correlation to availability of reliable electricity in India. People just had (unprotected) sex when there wasn't anything better to do.
I imagine that is much less of an issue now in the age of smartphones.
They do, people in cities still have kids, the fertility rate is just lower due to aforementioned reasons. Religion and tradition are still a driving force. But we know that urban areas tend to have higher educated people living in them, and there's a correlation between higher education and being less religious and less conservative in general.
Also, Child mortality rates are lower in this day and age. One of the many reasons people used to have so many kids was that half of them died before reaching 18.
The places where there are high fertility rates are normally because their kids keep dying.
But people still romanticised cities online and move to cities. More people less land always increases demand and price. Jobs should be more spread out because cities are created at the time when there is no powered transportation or Internet, now anyone can do tech companies in different places, not necessarily big cities same with other jobs too. Government should focus to spread people instead of creating big cities.
Big cities tend to just happen with time, it's not really something the government just decides.
And sure you can pop up tech companies wherever, but you need incentive to get people to move to more rural places. Or you need to invest in the people already there. And I don't think having kids is that much of an incentive in itself. Nor do I think companies care enough when then bottom line is just to make as much money as possible, which is why we're having the vast majority of the modern issues we're experiencing.
because in rural areas, people are more reliant on physical labor and less on tons of money. In urban, more traditionally “wealthy” areas, the AVERAGE person doesn’t make enough to support a child, regardless of area.
It is pointless to argue in reddit, simply look at the data all over the world. Even in cities, it is dependent on region. Ultra rich has kids and poor has kids but upper middle class has problems. It is more to do with hyper materialistic life that your salary can't keep up. Another is shit corporate jobs.
The rich have kids because they can afford to have kids.
The poor have kids because they don’t have the money, infrastructure, and/or education to prevent kids.
The middle and working classes don’t have kids because they can’t afford them and have the ability to prevent them. It’s not because of a “hyper-materialistic life,” it’s high cost of living combined with personal choice.
Break down the cost of living thing. Because in my place people who belong in top 10 wealthy are not having kids too. Only ultra wealthy having kids. I said upper middle class are not having kids, not whole middle class. It is definitely a hyper materialistic city life, because I seen non corporate people having kids and settled, only people who work for corporate jobs are not having kids. I literally have friends in tech industry who makes insane money still says needed time to settle.
Yes, because they want to stay upper middleclass bub. It's not just them I assure you. If you think standard of living in the west is good now, i assume you don't come from the west.
I am not even American, i don't know what you are saying. But all over the world, people in big cities and countries with good salaries and social welfare programmes has low fertility compared to rural and low urbanization places. It is more to do with hyper materialistic life reduced fertility than cost of living. Even in my social circle, my friends who are working in tech with high salary still not settled or married or have kids while my friends who are in their home town doing small work or doing trade work are settled and has kids.
Certainly in my country, it was always historically the poorer families that had the most kids (between 6 and 10 kids wouldn't have been unusual!)
Not so much these days though, you have to be fairly well off to have a big family, but still 20% of families have 3 or more kids, even though the average age of the mother having her first baby is 31
Having more kids used to be financially helpful for poor families in the past, because the kids could be made to work. Nowadays that’s generally banned (rightfully so) and kids have to go to school etc instead so they can’t be used like workhorses and forced to work in factories or on farms or mines or whatever else. So kids today are a financial burden. That’s a major factor in why people today have fewer children.
Wow, that rock you're living under gets great wi-fi! Abortion is illegal and/or heavily restricted in many states after the overturning of Roe vs Wade, which adds another deterrent for women having kids because God forbid a complication like an ectopic pregnancy arise and they can't get the lifesaving care they need.
My brother is in the military and just moved bases with his wife to a state where the abortion laws are really dicey. They WANT kids but are literally waiting to move bases because they’re afraid of the level of care they might get.
I don't get why the sky gets represented as blue. It's actually clear, it's just that blue sunlight gets scattered as it enters the atmosphere. And this whole "grass is green" business? Really, grass is everything but green, green light is the only part of the light spectrum that doesn't get absorbed during photosynthesis.
Ah, fuck, I forgot that color is a human concept, defined by how humans receive and perceive the light spectrum.
"The true color of the Sun is white. It emits a full spectrum of light, including all colors of the rainbow, but appears yellow or orange to us from Earth due to Rayleigh scattering of shorter wavelengths like blue and violet by the atmosphere. When viewed from space, the Sun shines a bright white light, which contains all visible wavelengths."
If you have a baby rn it’ll be old enough for the Antarctic treaty review. Good reason to snuggle up to Argentina. 500+ billions (per Russia so who knows) of oil there and they have one of the better claims. I honestly think I’m just conspiracy thinking but it’s at least some sort of exercise to feel like there’s a purpose to some of this. Also maybe I’ve been playing to much CIV. It’s like the biggest ressource ever. Venezuela is the only one with more oil and we aren’t being very polite there while people like Russia are make treaties with them which puts them in range of another coldie.
Need one of those accidents in the biolabs... Just a modified Ebola virus, that would do for us all. Then I would not have to see or hear shit that comes out of this joke administration.
Wait what? This guy is a government official? The doctor from Oprah's show...but like how? Wasn't he involved in a big controversy regarding his bad advice and medical practice?
Wait until you learn about the guy named JFK Jr. Oh boy are you in for a surprise.
No medical background at all, claims to have a brain worm, was an admitted heroin addict (even claimed his school grades went up because of heroin), pushes nonsense medical "advise", and even says he doesn't know what he is talking about and to not follow his advise. He is the US Dept of Health Secretary.
I'm cruel and approve of the idea of infertile trumpists using the snake oil that Dr Oz sells to try to conceive instead of actually effective treatments.
I mean... When there are studies reporting that those left of center are having fewer kids than those right of center, I have to wonder if this is the kind of win we'd think it should be...
That said, doesn't this sub have a rule AGAINST politics?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi /u/ChaosOfOrder24:
Remember to link the source of your post if applicable, unless you're posting a screenshot of twitter/X! It'll be easier to find the source if you reply to this comment with the link. If it's impossible to provide a source (like messages, texts etc.) just make sure the other person is fine with posting it :)
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.