• Pirky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The challenge is that no single cause can be identified for the declining rate.” Sure you can: capitalism.

    • exohuman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      So true. Over and over again in the article it says that people can’t afford children and universities. It keeps saying the cost of living is up and then says there is no single cause people won’t have children.

    • Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with capitalism being a main cause. Additionally, many people also just don’t want to raise a child. They don’t want the added responsibilities and lack of freedom. Even people for whom capitalism works would rather enjoy their own life.

      • kofe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just don’t want to go through pregnancy, personally. Love kids but not enough to risk my life and permanent bodily changes. The being poor part is secondary

        • WhollyGuacamole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My mother had to have pelvic floor surgery after having three kids. Prior to that, she had to get her gallbladder removed shortly after my brother’s birth. Pregnancy is extremely unappealing to me, and I don’t think the long term effects of it are talked about enough.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even people for whom capitalism works would rather enjoy their own life.

        Is that why the ruling class has no problem having kids, usually with a bunch of different people?

        I guess you still have a point. They typically have these children and then go off to live their rich lives instead of being a parent.

    • virr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was going to say climate change, but really the underlying cause is capitalism there too…

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      So brave. What an insightful comment. If you people stub your toe you will find a way to blame capitalism. Such a vacuous statement with no real world application.

      • LuckyBoy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If people dont have enough time to spend and raise their kids, dont have enough money to raise them without despair, if they dont have where to drop them during work hours, people cant have kids.

        You really should think before doing a vacuous remark about anything.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “hey guys capitalism bad amirite? Haha”

          Now what? Walk us to the next step, because 99% of comments here are just declarations with no actionable framework. Give me more and I’ll listen, but if all you’ll do is repeat the same thing ad nauseam without a roadmap then people will get bored and move on.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can tell you’re mad he’s criticizing the system you’ve been indoctrinated to believe is flawless.

        I don’t think you’re above the behavior of saying something is ‘a vacuous statement with no real world application’ just because you don’t like what’s being said.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At the end of the day it’s just circlejerk with no real world discussion. All the same catchphrases diluted into meaningless statements with no intended outcome except for some feeling of moral superiority. DAE Les capitalism amirite guys? “Indoctrinated” “flawless system”. Are you 14?

    • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is after all, the only thing you people know how to call out as a systemic issue in the world, so it might as well be solely responsible for every gripe you have I suppose huh.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s read the article and look the causes:

        “With the rising cost of living, I don’t think people feel they can afford to, or comfortably say they want to, have children,” said 23-year-old Anna Tanaka.

        In 2020, women got married for the first time at an average age of 29.4, or 3.9 years later than in 1985, government data shows.

        As people have fewer children, they are able to spend more on each child than families have in the past. That drives up the average cost of raising a child for the broader population

        Tuition at private universities jumped fivefold between 1975 and 2021, and by 19 times at public universities, data shows.

        These are all symptoms of capitalism. Alienation and seeking “class mobility” leads to people getting married later. The cost of living is a capitalist construct, and it rises primarily due to seeking profit. Colleges are also seeking to profit, and have successfully convinced people that taking debt early in life is good for individuals going into the labor pool. The debt also increases alienation and people who would have children are suddenly priced out of it due to education debt.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s hilarious to me that you linked this as somehow a result of capitalism

          In 2020, women got married for the first time at an average age of 29.4, or 3.9 years later than in 1985, government data shows.

          As people have fewer children, they are able to spend more on each child than families have in the past. That drives up the average cost of raising a child for the broader population

          I mean the whole post is silly but this part especially is just chef’s kiss as a response to the poster above.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I explained how they were symptoms of capitalism. If you can’t understand it, then maybe you need a deeper understanding of the topic. How doesn’t it make sense?

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Having fewer children means you spend more on the fewer children, driving up average cost of raising children

              We have one President indicted 91 times so on average Presidents are indicted twice because we’ve had 46 of them.

              This is just how math works, and has nothing to do with any economic system

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “average cost” can vary in meaning on this topic. I read it as “fewer people are buying goods necessary for children, leading to raised prices and a higher average cost of raising children”. Considering studies done on the cost of raising children, this is how I interpreted the quote. But your interpretation is also technically correct, and I won’t fault you for reading something differently than I did.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s the incorrect way to read this. Rather, people are spending more on their children, and people without children are seeing average cost of raising children.

                  Effectively, the standard of living for children is going up and people who feel they cannot hit that standard of living are (in Japan’s case especially) opting not to have them.

                  I assure you that poor people are still having children that survive.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “It’s all about the money.”

        Funny how it’s always you people pretending like we have our heads in the clouds, when you don’t understand this simple fact of life yet.

        It’s okay, maybe when you’ll older you’ll get it.

        Let’s be real though. You do understand it but you want things to stay how they are. You’re afraid to come out and say it and I don’t hold you above that behavior.

        There’s a term for people like you, useful something. I can’t remember it.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism is surely partly to blame but it’s laughable to identify it as the sole cause.

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ll never understand statements like these. Capitalism is the #1 reason there’s a profit incentive for any given thing to be horrible.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Workers owning a company would also have a profit incentive because the workers would like to make more money.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Workers owning their own company would incentivize creating stable growth, since the workers aren’t going to willfully destroy the company they all have a stake in.

              Whereas now we have unstable growth because the C suites, executives and shareholders milk companies dry and then toss them. They have no concerns about whether the bottom rung guys are sustainable.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re going to need to define “stable” and “unstable” growth here.

          • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            So it was because of capitalism that the communist revolution killed millions of people around the world.

            Uh, the more you know…

            • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Actually, yeah. Trade embargos starved those countries and the CIA killed the few real communists who managed to garner any influence, eliminating any real movements towards a marxist ideal

              • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes, it wasn’t the expropriation and execution/imprisonment of competent farmers and the general failures of central planning, it’s all about them trade embargos.

                • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, focus on half of what I said rather than actually read the whole thing

          • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t know where you people get this concept. Humans are the issue, not capitalism. There’s literally no functioning system of trade without capitalism. It’s just human nature. We are greedy and we want more than others so that we feel secure in our own future. It’s not fucking rocket scientist, and it’s not fucking capitalism.

            Do you really Envision a world where everyone works equally and gets paid equally and nobody makes extra profit but somehow people are happy? That doesn’t sound like any of the humans I’ve ever known, even the nice ones. You need to be a little bit more realistic and get your childish ass out of the playground.

            We couldn’t even get people to wear masks to not kill each other and you’re over here holding your breath for agapelandia lmao

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                the cost of living is a capitalist concept

                No, it isn’t. Lol

                There are fundamental costs to human survival and those costs must be borne out somewhere. Hunter/gatherers also had a cost of living.

                • bobman@unilem.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The rising disparity in wealth is a result of capitalism.

                  The cost of living is so high because we’re funneling as much money as possible to as few people as possible.

                  Every day it gets worse, and this is by design.

            • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There are innumerable functioning systems of trade without capitalism. My point is capitalism is intrinsically violent and wasteful. War is profit. But there ARE mutualist, communalist, and voluntary approaches to labor as well just to name a few. I also have to point out that the gold standard in the case of USD is effectively maintained by a obscenely expansive worldwide military presence which can’t be a good thing long term and how about that ongoing pandemic we don’t talk about? How long can we as species get away with ignoring the real, big, systemic problems? Capitalism is NOT fixing them, and won’t. Regardless you’re real mistaken, I don’t envision some perfect world, dont accuse me of naivety- I’m a tired, jaded anarchist, not a communist. Anyways I am truly sorry you’ve only ever known assholes… I’m not holding my breath for anything just speaking my mind, and maybe I change someone’s, at least I tried

        • Eggyhead@artemis.camp
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Frankly it’s laughable to assert there is a sole cause in the first place when there’s a myriad of different people here with a myriad of their own personal factors at play.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Declining birthrates can be good when controlled and slow but like this in Japan it’s not a good thing and it will cause many issues and suffering.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Get real, the only reason it’s a problem for them is they’re too racist to encourage immigration from more populous nations.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is a whole different problem.

          Declining birthrates like japan has can cause huge problems that immigrants alone can’t fix and that is not mentioning that the required amount of immigration to fix it would cause a whole set of other problems

        • Redex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is not a sustainable solution. What’ll happen when countries with currently high birth rates develop, reduce their birthrates and you don’t have as much immigration as before?

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It appears a lot more are comming globally, and into a world we’ve badly treated and poorly prepaired for them. I bet we mostly agree on that.

        Do you prefer the population size as it is, or a bit more?

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    To add onto the capitalist blame: people are conditioned to think in a capitalist way, and raising a child is a definite losing venture, hence people won’t invest in that shit.

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you can hardly feed and house yourself … you can’t afford to woo a wife or raise a kid :/ but that won’t stop some people trying to half-ass it I guess

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quite the opposite, capitalists want more human resources, human capital. There’s an entire ideology, at least centuries old, about this. You can most easily read about it as: pronatalism.

      People aren’t conditioned to think in a capitalist way, they’re conditioned to think about their kids future not being worse than their present, since having kids can throw you into poverty.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some wrong language I guess. You talk capitalists as those who possess stuff, and you’re right in this way. I talk about the liberal ideology of capitalism that produces consumer citizens and the glorification of individualism. The people a capitalist society produce.

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, it takes a village to raise a child. The capitalist culture also brings this idea of “nuclear family” which generates this impossible situation for the “nuclear family” to afford kids. Of course, the other aspect of this is the eugenicist/fascist aspect of: only the rich can afford kids, so them it makes sense, this nuclear family. It’s not a problem to have a nuclear family if you’re rich, and you can just replace the village by paying for extra caretakers… another type of commodified relationship. The rich can afford to pay a woman to babysit for years, while that woman can’t afford to have a family or to see her kids (often because her family is in a different country). Family for me, but not for thee.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re not just brainwashed they are living a capitalist reality where those thoughts are rational observations of the truth around them.

      definite losing venture

      I get it now. You’re some teenager who doesn’t know that raising kids is literally massively expensive. Gee you must think you’re so bright for coming up with this idea that people are conditioned to think of kids as revenue negative enterprise! I can’t believe the size of the whoosh here.