this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Political Humor

797 readers
1 users here now

Political Shitposting

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You'd have to provide some data about not having to work and birthrates. According to table 2, by far the largest proportion of births is to those who are unclassified. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/anoteonchildbearingbysocioeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016#births-by-socio-economic-status-and-age-of-mothers

However it doesn't distinguish between being wealthy, on benefits or perhaps being a student!

This paper suggests that the fall coincides with the industrial revolution. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44289704?seq=1

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's GDP of the country, and is not related to the number of children born to parents who don't have to work. It states that rich countries have a lower birth rate.

ignores the fact that rich people (who don't have to work) have less kids

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Do you think multimillionaires have to work and that people who make under 25k don't?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This chart does backup your statement that low income families have the highest birthrate.

It does not show whether people have to work, which is the point I was disputing (that rich people who don't have to work have fewer children)

Looking at the ONS data the percentage of women who's employment status is 'unclassified' is, by far, the largest proportion of women giving birth

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do

You

Believe

That

Multimillionaires

NEED

To

Work

?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Lol, I have no idea, a million isn't that much if one has a big house, staff, and private jets.

I'm not quite sure what your point is?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Multimillionaires don't need to work, they could stop working and live off the interest on their wealth, yet their fertility rate is lower than people who make under 50k/year, which is less than the interest you make on a million in savings.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's assuming they don't want to keep their big houses, expensive holidays etc? Generally expenditure grows with income.

I think your argument is that people don't have children for reasons other than wealth. My argument is that wealth and the ability to live a certain life style does affect people's decision on having children.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's where you're wrong, at a certain point you generate enough from interest that all you're doing is accumulating more and more wealth, yet these people don't have more kids.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And where is this data? What are you basing this on?

Because earning 200k doesn't mean they have millions in savings, and I'm not quite sure how you'd be able to get that data.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This shows me that people on high incomes have fewer babies, it doesn't show whether those not having to work whilst maintaining that high standard of living (i.e. independently wealthy - millions in savings) have higher or lower numbers of children.

I think we're arguing to the same end, that if it wasn't a choice between high standard of living / interesting career Vs having children there wouldn't be an issue. Capitalism, once again, is a victim of it's own success and desire for short term gains.

We've done such a good job advertising a better life that everyone's decided earning more and having a good career is the most important thing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with women being allowed to make a choice. In a socialist system they don't have more kids no matter how much support they get.

Fucking hell, I feel like I'm talking to someone who would love to see women being forced to have kids in exchange for being paid or something... "There you go lad, a nice check to make sure you and your kids don't go hungry, now go and start making babies, that's what you were meant for!"

I'm done, goodbye.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think we're arguing to the same end, that if it wasn't a choice between high standard of living / interesting career Vs having children there wouldn't be an issue. Capitalism, once again, is a victim of it's own success and desire for short term gains.

Lol, have you any data for your assumptions?

If you've run out of points by all means turn this into a personal attack.