• boardbyboard [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Anyone have some kind of even handed analysis on hand that explains whether or not all this panic for decades about birth/fertility rates has legs? I only ever give it a passing glance and i accidentally clicked a video the other day and it was some rightwing guy talking about some retvrn shit

    I asked bc like the article states: the real problem is the price of housing. It seems to me that falling birth rates are a symptom of capitalism’s decline. However, many article writers seem to dance around that

    • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Highly developed capitalist countries tend to have low birth rates because people are alienated and atomized and having children is an untenable burden for workers who are already working themselves to exhaustion and barely getting by.

      • boardbyboard [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        agree and i appreciate it, I think I was just getting too internet brained and thinking how often the issue is presented disingenuously in a vacuum or tied to a loss of ‘cultural values’ or w/e

    • iridaniotter [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes of course it is an issue. When TFR reaches 1 for example, the next generation becomes half the size as the last one. You can’t have a healthy economy with that. There’s also every indication that more and more countries are reaching low fertility levels, and there’s no precedent that it will reverse. Social democratic childcare policies haven’t succeeded. Personally I think only socialism can achieve sustainable population levels now.

      • tintory@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree for the most part.

        I been reading these guys for a bit and they seem to be hostile toward austerity and NIMBYism so far

          • tintory@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wait what?

            I read nothing in this site talking about that right wing nonsense

            Hell, they attack the Tories for cutting spending

              • jack [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are pretty straightforward, non-racist, economic reasons you be concerned about it. It’s an issue China is grappling with very directly, and not because they’re neo-Nazis.

                • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Aren’t they increasing automation in response? China also allowed provinces with larger minority populations to have more children than predominantly Han provinces, didn’t they? I think they get a pass.

              • tintory@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe? I haven’t seen anything to say that he is racist, or even share any sympathy for traditional right wing policy

    • tintory@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know

      All I known are examples of Japan’s economic stagnation and the rise as France as the economic engine of Western Europe (highest TFR)

    • Twink [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your wealth or lack there of has no meaning unless there’s people to perpetrate the capitalist cycle. Less people means less people without established capital. If your new people amount is lower than the dying out people amount you get empty housing which you therefore cannot pretend to have more value than it does. Furthermore, aging capitalists need a work force to take care of them. Humans live longer and longer, especially the rich. Without surplus of workforce it’s hard to staff these positions. And so on and so on.

    • tintory@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Makes sense, a lot of what’s written by the authors is hostility against austerity and they promote YIMBISM and more social spending