this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
213 points (94.2% liked)

News

23367 readers
2594 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s probably not selfishness, experts say. Even young adults who want children see an increasing number of obstacles.

For years, some conservatives have framed the declining fertility rate of the United States as an example of eroding family values, a moral catastrophe in slow motion.

JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, recently came under fire for saying in 2021 that the nation was run by “childless cat ladies” who “hate normal Americans for choosing family over these ridiculous D.C. and New York status games.”

Last year, Ashley St. Clair, a Fox News commentator, described childless Americans this way: “They just want to pursue pleasure and drinking all night and going to Beyoncé concerts. It’s this pursuit of self-pleasure in replace of fulfillment and having a family.”

Researchers who study trends in reproductive health see a more nuanced picture. The decision to forgo having children is most likely not a sign that Americans are becoming more hedonistic, they say. For one thing, fertility rates are declining throughout the developed world.

Rather, it indicates that larger societal factors — such as rising child care costs, increasingly expensive housing and slipping optimism about the future — have made it feel more untenable to raise children in the United States.

Non-paywall link

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 132 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s probably not selfishness, experts say. Even young adults who want children see an increasing number of obstacles.

Well, of course it's not selfishness. Having children is a purely selfish act, because who else are you reproducing for? You can't do something for someone that doesn't exist, and bringing existence to someone who hasn't asked for it, knowing what the world looks like, doesn't strike me as a kindness. So who else is benefiting? The capitalist machine?

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But the world really needs another little copy of me running around because I'm so unique and wonderful! /s

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The corporations need more worker meat for the grinder! How dare you selfishly keep that from them!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YaksDC@lemm.ee 80 points 3 months ago (9 children)

What about "I just don't want one." is that not a legitimate line of thought? That was what I based my decision on. I have never understood why the default state was marriage and then have a family. I can tell you that me and my childless wife are family.

[–] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 52 points 3 months ago

I agree. The opening line is an insult to me. Why would choosing not to have children be selfish? Forcing someone to live a whole ass life because you want a family is the selfish thing to do, not the other way around.

[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

Agreed, I don’t know why people don’t understand that “I don’t want one” is a completely legitimate reason to not have one by itself. Add to that any level of depth you’d like to choose from financial, climate or political reasons to there just being too many people in the world already and it further legitimizes it, but “I just don’t want one” is and should be completely valid on its own.

[–] noseatbelt@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago

Many people simply don't understand the idea of not wanting one. I moved to a more conservative area shortly before I got married, and after I got married I got all the usual questions about kids to which I replied “lol no”. Then I was asked why I even got married. Bro, if I wanted kids, I'd have them and I don't need to get married to do it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 73 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I bet if the billionaires shared just a bit more we could afford to have more kids and they wouldn’t be looking at their labor force drying up…

[–] 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No.. that couldn't be it.

/s

[–] Hule@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's the option of importing cheap workforce. It has been tried before.. /s

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You forgot to add... While that imported labour is scared they will get deported so they don't complain they are underpaid or taken advantage of. Just how the corporation's want it

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

weird how all those tax cuts for rich people lead to them going on real estate purchasing sprees, making housing unaffordable

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

I just downloaded the raw data from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN and ploted it in this graph for the countries I was interested in:

The USA is - according to the data - nothing special in this regard. It's even positioned best of all the countries with the flattest downwards curve. Just look at South Korea :D

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Drusas@kbin.run 49 points 3 months ago

Because children are expensive, a ton of work, and the world is dying.

Pick one or all.

[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago

Bruh I can't afford to support myself let alone more mouths to feed. Children lol

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Bank accounts are empty, and the air is full of smoke.

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

the car's on fire
and there's no driver at the wheel
and the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides
and a dark wind blows

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 37 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Who are these articles for?

Because it's been the same reasons for a decade and the idiots who keep asking still aren't reading them.

[–] another@discuss.online 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Boomers who just don’t get it

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Looking at some families around me, I would say it's Boomers that are estranged from their own children and hope grandchildren will somehow fix that. And they are not completely wrong, as having children is such a bad economic proposition that it basically forces people to come back and beg their parents for support, but it's all very one sided... typical Boomer mindset.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] knightly@pawb.social 14 points 3 months ago

Capitalists who need a new generation of workers to exploit.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I see two issues here. One is how expensive shit is. Having their own kids is the least of my kids' concerns for their future. They are concentrating on being able to afford to leave the house after college, and start their own lives. When it is so hard for young people to start out, they're not going to be motivated to have kids unless it's forced upon them....

.... which brings me to my second point:

“I want a baby boom!” [Trump] told a crowd of supporters. “You men are so lucky out there.”

Men these days are super cringey. Half the country views Trump as the Alpha Male, a serial sexual predator. Politicians (who are predominately white and male) are all up in women's business about their fertility. Is it any wonder why so many young women identify as non-straight these days? And why the traditional gender roles hold no appeal for them? Women have been getting the short end of the stick for millenia, and it's only recently where they have had enough agency to not participate if they are not being treated well.

You want women to have more babies? Stop treating them like shit, and manage the costs of everything so that having kids isn't an economic death sentence.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Is it any wonder why so many young women identify as non-straight these days?

Doesn't this imply they would be straight if men acted differently? I'm not sure a mass version of the "oh she's not really a lesbian, she just hasn't met the right man" thing is really the answer here

I don't think that you meant to imply this and the rest of your comment seems reasonable to me. That bit just stuck out

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

You're right, I'm looking for the right phrasing here.

It's not that these kids who identify as queer are temporarily embarrassed straight people who haven't found their soul mates. But if you are a young woman these days, and all the men you encounter are incel brats, it's quite easy to decide you want nothing to do with them. Women can do just fine on their own now, they don't need a man for validation. Some of them might discover that, for them, sexuality is a spectrum, and they'll be fine either way, but if all the men they encounter don't respect them then that leads them in the other direction. Does that mean they would be 100% straight if they found a man who was compatible? They may not feel that way, but very few external observers would describe a woman who is with a man as anything other than "straight".

What I'm trying to do is point out that all of these self-described "Alpha Males" who complain about the fertility rate are themselves the problem, because they are so insufferable that women would rather be with anyone else than with them.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 months ago

You want women to have more babies? Stop treating them like shit

Nope. They want to treat women like shit and still force them to have babies. Once their female children are 12/13, they also want to marry them.

I am quite sure that a Trump presidency would empower the Supreme Court to allow child marriage.

[–] userdata2@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

gestures broadly

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 months ago

Half of all Americans have less than $500

4 out of 5 Americans have less than $5000.

Cheap diapers are 50c each and you need a minimum of 5 a day, more often 10, so half of all Americans cannot afford one month of basic child care(diapers, food, checkups)

1 out of 5 Americans have enough money to pay for the bare essentials so a baby can survive for more than a couple months.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/24/how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings.html

[–] yournamehere@lemm.ee 28 points 3 months ago

remember when the 40hrs week made sense? gradpa could feed a family, have the life depicted in The Simpsons. that time is long gone and everybody too scared to change anything.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I love how the Republicans are blaming societal causes when in reality it's because of fucked up a economy due to businesses price gouging the fuck out of everyone while also not paying employees a living wage, not giving raises to keep up with inflation, and more economic certainty. They don't realize that not everyone is rich like they are. lmao

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 13 points 3 months ago

They know. They want a desperate and exploitable peasantry.

[–] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why have a child so they can grow up to fight in the water wars or die of famine during ecological collapse?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZeroTwo@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can't afford one. Jobs don't pay enough to afford one. They're annoying. They're shit machines. I prefer to have fun in life and do what I like more than take care of a kid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 23 points 3 months ago

The future isn't looking too good with all the rich fucks fucking the planet over. Everything is stupid expensive now, by the time you work and pay for childcare you're better off staying at home. It's really tough to get a house. It's pretty depressing what has become the norm in this country thanks to the ultra rich. It's about time to eat.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What a dumb, corporate, self-important headline. And limiting it to the United States is a particularly craven ploy to pump the political horse race.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 19 points 3 months ago

I no longer live in the US in part for reasons I wouldn't have a child there.

  • inequality increasing
  • education costs increasing
  • low employee protections
  • ridiculous and expensive healthcare system
  • few or poor social and community programs (not just social safety net but also libraries, public transit, etc.)
  • environmental and other protections backsliding

Because of many of those, I left. The secondary reasons for not having my own biological kids are some medical issues I have and, by the time I was stable enough, I was already coming into my 40s. I had considered adoption, but ultimately decided not to do that, either.

[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Because the earth is on fire and having kids is a good way to guarantee another human starves to death while having heat stroke?

[–] Mereo@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Everything is expensive now, housing, food, etc. How can you raise children in this era?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago
[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Every time I talk to a friend with children it sounds like they’re trying to stop Woodstock ‘99, and I’m too tired for that.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Because some people actually care about children? Instead of pretending to care and immediately abandoning that position as soon as the child is born?

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Oh... Well no money and general non-response to actual nazis to start

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I’d suspect there’s a high correlation with better birth control options.

In the 90s, women had to be diligent to take a pill every day. Hell, I can’t even be trusted to take a pain pill when I have a headache.

I can’t tell you how many times an SO and I had a scare because she forgot to take a pill for a few days. I think this is doubly so when you’re in your late teens/early 20s and still don’t have a good understanding of risk.

Now, women can get an injection that lasts 3-6 months, or an implant that works for years.

So we’ve lowered our risk significantly and now it’s more skewed towards family planning. I think that’s a great thing - let the people who want to have kids have them, let the rest live out their lives how they envision it.

But family planning is tough and there are important factors that others have mentioned in their comments here. Money, opportunity, timing, support. I didn’t start having kids until my 40s, but if things had lined up better, I certainly would have preferred to be a Dad a little sooner.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
load more comments
view more: next ›