this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
163 points (95.0% liked)

World News

38797 readers
2005 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Only a fifth of Canadians younger than 50 plan on having kids

That's sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.

The poll found 51% say it is “not their responsibility” to fund other people’s childcare, with the most likely group to say this are those who have raised children to the age of 18 or older, where the proportion rises to 59%.

While I've got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it's taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don't have kids.

So if you don't want to pay for someone else's kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.

The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.

In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to "retire," if they don't already have the full funds to retire. Canada's right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.

[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

That's his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.

This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance.. if you don't need it.. it's not a waste.. you got lucky. But if you get unlucky.. if you go at it alone.. you will be up the creek without a paddle.

Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.