this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1135 points (99.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

5582 readers
2688 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The reason why people aren't having kids anymore isn't because of abortion, its because: wages are decreasing (accounting for inflation), the cost of living is skyrocketing (yes even accounting for inflation), the cost of owning a home is now far too much for young people, people are working longer and more stressful hours in worse jobs for worse bosses, public areas have been destroyed leading to less in person interaction, online dating is toxic, the internet has given people heightened expectations, an unresolved mental health crisis, and people are finally becoming responsible enough to understand that you shouldn't have kids you cant afford.

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 3 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

You just listed 6 reasons why people are losing their minds then casually throw out "being responsible enough to not have kids they can't afford"

Which is if? Everyone's losing their goddamn minds of people have their shit together? Which is it damn it!!

/S

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago) (1 children)

I forgot that only one thing can be true at once, its actually none of the reasons listed. The true reason is that the 5g radio waves connect with the vaccine autism to produce gay frog chemicals (that are spread by chemtrails in planes piloted by lizard people) so that everyone becomes trans.

/s /j

[–] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 2 points 3 minutes ago

This makes way more sense

[–] Frostbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago (2 children)

Tbf. Norway has a fertility rate of 1,4 I think. And that is in a country with (compared to many other places) quite generous benefits like a year paid maternity/paternity leave. Relative cheap and abundant kindergartens and a less horrible work situation. Think everyone are feeling the zeitgeist

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 57 seconds ago

People want stability before they have kids. Generous government benefits matter little if you're living in a cardboard box. No one wants to raise a child in a cardboard box. Look up the cost of housing in the Nordic countries. They aren't the socialist paradise you're making them out to be.

[–] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago

The world is on fire around us, even in places where it's only smoldering people don't want to consign their children to the flames.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I have a modest proposal.

Let’s all just skip a generation and no one have kids this time. We can easily start having kids again later with a nice clean slate.

Good idea, right?

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 26 minutes ago

Good call! Next gen can have children for our pensions!

[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

Poland has super strict abortion bans in 2021. Wait until 2035 to see that place turn into a shithole

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 37 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

well that is because shareholders are wetting their pants realizing that with low birth rates they are losing both slaves and customers. Well, jokes on them, it is because of the shitty world they spearheaded (and that we followed)

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 20 points 6 hours ago

It's almost like if people are able to mature enough to make an informed choice, they get a choice.

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

That person and the author of the article obviously suck at reading/understanding crafts. Teen pregnancies did not have a high enough percentage (and it’s good that it went down).

Also, how do you miss the drop in the age range 20 - 24 and the rise in the age ranges above 30. It’s even indicated in the title to “40 is the new 20”.

This is indicative of a bad economy. I bet if you add a graph showing the rise in rent, you will see an inverse correlation.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 hours ago

I bet if you add a graph showing the rise in rent, you will see an inverse correlation.

Or about inequality of income.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Not much of a bet, really. More of a fact.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 58 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (5 children)

I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture. The GOP thinks they can do it by destroying reproductive rights, civil rights, and marriage laws, if they harm women enough they'll HAVE to be baby makers! Dehumanized baby factories! And even conservative voters are fighting against it, because it's insane and it's against our current culture. It has to work for everyone. It would be more intelligent to create free childcare, better pregnancy and birth leave for both parents, and child tax credits. They could use WIC to absorb the cost of having a child and public education sooner with preschool. If people are hopeful their children will have high education access and a stable life they will be a lot more likely to have kids. Being horrified that your children will live in a fascist theocracy and intentionally kept uneducated and poverty stricken, they might actually voluntarily avoid sex to not have kids.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 24 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

What if we don't want infinite growth? What about stability? Or (gasp) a population reduction so we don't destroy the planet. Have less babies. Feed the ones we have. Educate them.

[–] blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Sure, easing into a deflating population over several hundred years is fine but tanking it and ending up with a society having to support a vastly older population ain't easy either. Better for governments to provide positive reasons to have children but there's zero chance of that.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

We won't starve our old people, there's plenty of wealth to go around, it's just that a tiny portion of the population has stolen it all. Maybe even the average person will have to make some sacrifices if birth rates don't stay at a certain level but our lifestyles are hugely inflated compared to even 50 years ago.

We can live sustainable lives with a reducing population, our productivity per capita is higher than it's ever been, we're all just seeing so little of it.

Instead of Musks and Bezos, instead of all of our creative minds working in advertising and finance, instead of 10 different streaming services, we can have a good quality of life for everyone.

Our economy being efficient is the biggest lie. The economy is only profitable, and it only has good outcomes when those outcomes are aligned with profit. It's time for a new economy that serves the people

[–] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Our government has no issue going into debt for anything and everything they want, aside from social services. The whole concept of a younger generation having to take care of a growing older one means nothing to me. If they care, they can shift their priorities on reckless spending. If they don't (they dont) then the population can take to the streets and demand they start caring.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

We're going to run into a crisis within our life time whether we like it or not. Within 10-20 years, possibly longer if legislation somehow hampers it, pretty much the entire working class will be unemployable because machine labor will be cheaper and more readily available than any human. Yes, some people will still have jobs, but not the working class.

Long before we have a crisis of too many elderly for the working to care and provide for, we are going to have a crisis of not enough jobs paying a liveable wage for one, let alone a family, because corporations are going to be able to replace large swathes of their workforces with machines that cost less to maintain per unit than minimum wage, so why would they ever hire a person?

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I just have to pont out, If you have to have a job, you are working class. It doesn’t matter if it’s a well-paying automation job, you are still working class.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Technically yes, as there are many definitions. But practically, no. Tthe commonly accepted and popular definitions break down with the working class being those without college degrees, those who'se living expenses and day to day expenses is most if not all of their income, where another common definition specifically list unskilled labourers, artisans, outworkers, and factory workers as working class.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago

My understanding is that it's more about where people get their wealth and income. Working class primarily gets it from labour. Middle class has a mix of capital and labour income. And upper class / capitalists get it mostly from capital.

Degrees and jobs align with those but don't define them, as far as I understand it.

Then again in my mind the only distinction worth a damn is "contributor" and "parasite" and so we're all working class and we should see ourselves as aligned against the individuals and families who have enough wealth that generations of them will never need to work a day in their lives.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 3 points 7 hours ago

Both arguments are valid. Less children, better education and growth perspectives = better humanity. And still there are some sick fucks down voting. Which shows how fucked we are.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago

I mean yes, children should be an affordable option and please take my tax money to make it practically free. But also I think a lot more people don't want children than is generally assumed it expected. Just lots of societal pressure pushing vulnerable people to make a decision that's not necessarily in their best interest.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago

Let's not pretend the GOP are doing it for the good of humanity....

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

let kids be kids. when you force kids to be parents, you are stealing their childhood. all you have to do is explain "sex" in bits and pieces, when it's appropriate, and eventually they're ready for the anatomy explanations and maybe you can help soften the trauma of puberty.

[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago

EVERYBODY is mad!!!!

[–] Reggie@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 14 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

Been there. What are you drinking? I'm sipping on some Bushmills Black (sherry cask). Got a bit project out today. Spent a year writing this beast:

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›