Birth rate plummets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Social security was also set up to kick in around the average age of death, so maybe you could eek out a couple of years.

Now it is common to get paid out for several decades. Which is why the age of getting it needs to go up by 5-6 years.

I think something like 3-4% of the population receives social security for disability reasons. Maybe we can start by kicking that 3-4% off since they likely don't contribute anything to society. Then we could have an optional buy-out date for people. IE give them $50k one time and a large needle full or morphine to end their miserable leeching life. I'd imagine most 80 year olds would take this. This may also fix the housing crisis.

We need thanos so we can make some tough decisions.

How bout cutting off all illegal alien healthcare / housing / food spending and Ukraine death funding and student loan forgiveness and deadbeat able bodied welfare, and green energy boondoggles and military sex change surgeries and npr funding and moving the funding to social security whose tax contributions have been plundered for libtar d nonsense?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this a bad thing? I’m not understanding?

The adjustment to a smaller population will likely be traumatic. Fewer children means an older population. Older people are less productive and innovative. Society as a whole will be poorer.

I imagine humans will adapt, but the transition will probably be tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this a bad thing? I’m not understanding?

The adjustment to a smaller population will likely be traumatic. Fewer children means an older population. Older people are less productive and innovative. Society as a whole will be poorer.

I imagine humans will adapt, but the transition will probably be tough.

Okay, but I don't think the answer to that is to expect women to spread their legs for men they have no attraction to and do not love, much less decrease their mental and physical health disproportionately to prop up men who want to either get laid and/or have children.

Probably the answer is to bite the bullet, have all of us take it on the chin together, and then adjust to the new normal of fewer people being easier on the planet as a whole.

[Anonymous]

The world will have plenty of innovation with 3 billion humans. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this a bad thing? I’m not understanding?

The adjustment to a smaller population will likely be traumatic. Fewer children means an older population. Older people are less productive and innovative. Society as a whole will be poorer.

I imagine humans will adapt, but the transition will probably be tough.

Biden is old and very productive and innovative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this a bad thing? I’m not understanding?

The adjustment to a smaller population will likely be traumatic. Fewer children means an older population. Older people are less productive and innovative. Society as a whole will be poorer.

I imagine humans will adapt, but the transition will probably be tough.

Okay, but I don't think the answer to that is to expect women to spread their legs for men they have no attraction to and do not love, much less decrease their mental and physical health disproportionately to prop up men who want to either get laid and/or have children.

Probably the answer is to bite the bullet, have all of us take it on the chin together, and then adjust to the new normal of fewer people being easier on the planet as a whole.

I'm the PP predicting a tough transition.
I was responding to another poster who asked why declining fertility is a concern.

I agree with you, we'll likely have to figure out how to adapt to an older population. Although at some point, declining fertility, rapidly aging population and a shrinking population could lead to societal collapse or failed states, but I don't think anyone knows if or when this would happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to dating app data and anecdotal experience 80% of women tend to go for the 5% of men. Those men have little incentive to settle down because they have an abundance of options.

Women want to date a higher status male. A successful woman has a hard time dating a waiter, while the inverse is not true. The higher a woman's status, the smaller her dating pool becomes. The higher a man's status becomes, the larger his dating pool becomes.

Women have become highly educated and their statuses have climbed dramatically over the last several decades, but their dating preferences have only gotten stricter and stricter. So they end up not pairing off and having babies. And the birth rate drops. Women need to widen their dating preferences. Read the book “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb. It does a good job explaining this.

Why? The single childless women I know are some of the happiest people I know. Meanwhile the single childless men are often angry and miserable.

At least based on what I see, men are the ones that should be changing.

+1

This just in: men have really started to suck in weird ways in the last two decades and the cultural message is that women should fix it somehow? Gee, whyever are women opting out…

[Anonymous]

Automation, AI, robotics, self driving, etc. will require fewer humans while keeping the standard of living high. No worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having kids is an emotional choice. ALWAYS. Whether you have money or not, whether you are young or old, educated or not, etc.

My daughter has an MBA and let me tell you, she doesn't want kids. Being educated has nothing to do with it! In fact, I would suggest that the smarter and more educated you are, the less likely you'd want to have kids in this day and age. I totally don't blame her as I have 2. Given the current conditions, I would not want kids either and I do not have an MBA!

Who in their right mind wants the childcare, pressures and stress of having kids today, seriously. It's not about men v women, more about what to do with the kids for so many years. That's a real no joke reality. Whether you are a mom or a dad, you're in it. Balancing a career and parenthood in the US WELL is not even a hard thing to do but almost impossible thing to do. People do it but it's seriously hard.

I do think that higher education levels for women do reduce proportion that want children and the desired number of children. It’s a matter of opportunity costs. Women with greater career and professional prospects have more to lose by having kids. Unless you are very wealthy the cost of outside childcare is often a limiting factor for how many kids someone can afford.

And this is why affordable childcare and universal PreK and increasing the dependent care FSA (and also making it PER KID) and increasing the childcare tax credit would all help with MC dual-income families. UMC can afford continuous and reliable childcare and they tend to have at least 2, likely 3 kids. Every single couple I know who makes over 350k or has a trust/family money has 3+ kids.
Instead... we get forced birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this a bad thing? I’m not understanding?

The adjustment to a smaller population will likely be traumatic. Fewer children means an older population. Older people are less productive and innovative. Society as a whole will be poorer.

I imagine humans will adapt, but the transition will probably be tough.

Okay, but I don't think the answer to that is to expect women to spread their legs for men they have no attraction to and do not love, much less decrease their mental and physical health disproportionately to prop up men who want to either get laid and/or have children.

Probably the answer is to bite the bullet, have all of us take it on the chin together, and then adjust to the new normal of fewer people being easier on the planet as a whole.

I'm the PP predicting a tough transition.
I was responding to another poster who asked why declining fertility is a concern.

I agree with you, we'll likely have to figure out how to adapt to an older population. Although at some point, declining fertility, rapidly aging population and a shrinking population could lead to societal collapse or failed states, but I don't think anyone knows if or when this would happen.

Yes, a continuously declining population eventually leads to the end of societies. We've seen it throughout history. That's fine if it's what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to dating app data and anecdotal experience 80% of women tend to go for the 5% of men. Those men have little incentive to settle down because they have an abundance of options.

Women want to date a higher status male. A successful woman has a hard time dating a waiter, while the inverse is not true. The higher a woman's status, the smaller her dating pool becomes. The higher a man's status becomes, the larger his dating pool becomes.

Women have become highly educated and their statuses have climbed dramatically over the last several decades, but their dating preferences have only gotten stricter and stricter. So they end up not pairing off and having babies. And the birth rate drops. Women need to widen their dating preferences. Read the book “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb. It does a good job explaining this.

Why? The single childless women I know are some of the happiest people I know. Meanwhile the single childless men are often angry and miserable.

At least based on what I see, men are the ones that should be changing.

+1

This just in: men have really started to suck in weird ways in the last two decades and the cultural message is that women should fix it somehow? Gee, whyever are women opting out…

I'll be honest. Among my group of less than/greater than 40 year old marrieds and singles, the ones panicking who are single are all women. It's not a huge sample, just about seven in total men/women, but the men don't seem to give a crap... about anything. It's the women who are having a crisis. I imagine they'll accept things once they hit their late 40s and time is at an end, but right now it doesn't seem easy to me as an outsider looking in with no stake in the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to dating app data and anecdotal experience 80% of women tend to go for the 5% of men. Those men have little incentive to settle down because they have an abundance of options.

Women want to date a higher status male. A successful woman has a hard time dating a waiter, while the inverse is not true. The higher a woman's status, the smaller her dating pool becomes. The higher a man's status becomes, the larger his dating pool becomes.

Women have become highly educated and their statuses have climbed dramatically over the last several decades, but their dating preferences have only gotten stricter and stricter. So they end up not pairing off and having babies. And the birth rate drops. Women need to widen their dating preferences. Read the book “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb. It does a good job explaining this.

Why? The single childless women I know are some of the happiest people I know. Meanwhile the single childless men are often angry and miserable.

At least based on what I see, men are the ones that should be changing.

+1

This just in: men have really started to suck in weird ways in the last two decades and the cultural message is that women should fix it somehow? Gee, whyever are women opting out…

I'll be honest. Among my group of less than/greater than 40 year old marrieds and singles, the ones panicking who are single are all women. It's not a huge sample, just about seven in total men/women, but the men don't seem to give a crap... about anything. It's the women who are having a crisis. I imagine they'll accept things once they hit their late 40s and time is at an end, but right now it doesn't seem easy to me as an outsider looking in with no stake in the matter.

Their biological clocks will quiet down and they will be fine and eventually happier.
The men will cluelessly look around for the next decade and then be miserable afterward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to dating app data and anecdotal experience 80% of women tend to go for the 5% of men. Those men have little incentive to settle down because they have an abundance of options.

Women want to date a higher status male. A successful woman has a hard time dating a waiter, while the inverse is not true. The higher a woman's status, the smaller her dating pool becomes. The higher a man's status becomes, the larger his dating pool becomes.

Women have become highly educated and their statuses have climbed dramatically over the last several decades, but their dating preferences have only gotten stricter and stricter. So they end up not pairing off and having babies. And the birth rate drops. Women need to widen their dating preferences. Read the book “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb. It does a good job explaining this.

Why? The single childless women I know are some of the happiest people I know. Meanwhile the single childless men are often angry and miserable.

At least based on what I see, men are the ones that should be changing.

+1

This just in: men have really started to suck in weird ways in the last two decades and the cultural message is that women should fix it somehow? Gee, whyever are women opting out…

I'll be honest. Among my group of less than/greater than 40 year old marrieds and singles, the ones panicking who are single are all women. It's not a huge sample, just about seven in total men/women, but the men don't seem to give a crap... about anything. It's the women who are having a crisis. I imagine they'll accept things once they hit their late 40s and time is at an end, but right now it doesn't seem easy to me as an outsider looking in with no stake in the matter.

Their biological clocks will quiet down and they will be fine and eventually happier.
The men will cluelessly look around for the next decade and then be miserable afterward

Well, these men are already kinda careless. They have their things they do and are really into, but otherwise don't seem to care about much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Social security was also set up to kick in around the average age of death, so maybe you could eek out a couple of years.

Now it is common to get paid out for several decades. Which is why the age of getting it needs to go up by 5-6 years.

I think something like 3-4% of the population receives social security for disability reasons. Maybe we can start by kicking that 3-4% off since they likely don't contribute anything to society. Then we could have an optional buy-out date for people. IE give them $50k one time and a large needle full or morphine to end their miserable leeching life. I'd imagine most 80 year olds would take this. This may also fix the housing crisis.

We need thanos so we can make some tough decisions.

How bout cutting off all illegal alien healthcare / housing / food spending and Ukraine death funding and student loan forgiveness and deadbeat able bodied welfare, and green energy boondoggles and military sex change surgeries and npr funding and moving the funding to social security whose tax contributions have been plundered for libtar d nonsense?

Exactly.

If you think that is somehow going to create more pro-natal society, then you are sadly mistaken. That minimal amount of money, because it truly is in context of the US federal budget, is simply going to end up in GOP donor pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to dating app data and anecdotal experience 80% of women tend to go for the 5% of men. Those men have little incentive to settle down because they have an abundance of options.

Women want to date a higher status male. A successful woman has a hard time dating a waiter, while the inverse is not true. The higher a woman's status, the smaller her dating pool becomes. The higher a man's status becomes, the larger his dating pool becomes.

Women have become highly educated and their statuses have climbed dramatically over the last several decades, but their dating preferences have only gotten stricter and stricter. So they end up not pairing off and having babies. And the birth rate drops. Women need to widen their dating preferences. Read the book “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb. It does a good job explaining this.

Why? The single childless women I know are some of the happiest people I know. Meanwhile the single childless men are often angry and miserable.

At least based on what I see, men are the ones that should be changing.

+1

This just in: men have really started to suck in weird ways in the last two decades and the cultural message is that women should fix it somehow? Gee, whyever are women opting out…

I'll be honest. Among my group of less than/greater than 40 year old marrieds and singles, the ones panicking who are single are all women. It's not a huge sample, just about seven in total men/women, but the men don't seem to give a crap... about anything. It's the women who are having a crisis. I imagine they'll accept things once they hit their late 40s and time is at an end, but right now it doesn't seem easy to me as an outsider looking in with no stake in the matter.

Their biological clocks will quiet down and they will be fine and eventually happier.
The men will cluelessly look around for the next decade and then be miserable afterward

Well, these men are already kinda careless. They have their things they do and are really into, but otherwise don't seem to care about much.

That's because most men shouldn't even be having kids in the first place. Too immature and selfish and don't want the responsibility of raising children.

Women today expect more from men regarding childcare and housechores; they didn't as much 50 years ago, so men didn't mind getting the woman knocked up. They certainly don't complain about the process of making the baby, just what comes afterwards.

FWIW, my DH is 59 and does a lot with housechores etc without too much complaint, but I don't think most men are like this. Most men still largely see childcare and housechores as "woman's work". So, why would women want more children? I sure wouldn't if I had that kind of husband.

We have 2 kids, and that's enough. We don't have family support, and college is way too expensive.