• dave@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Don’t be ridiculous–it’s obviously 1 child each. But what’s not clear from the article is how those who already have more than 1 decide which to get rid of before they turn 35.

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        No no no, they’ll clearly each have 35 children - arranged in a rectangle of one child by 35.

  • zaxvenz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Says it in the last paragraph, financial pressures & not having your own home.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      The global birth rate is already at or even below the replacement rate. The only reason we’re not seeing population shrinkage right now is due to inertia. It takes decades for changes in the birth rate to reflect in the actual population figures, but it will happen. It won’t however happen in time to prevent environmental catastrophe, which is what most people think of when they cheer dropping birth rates. It will just be the social catastrophe of the next century.

    • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The problem is that you need young people to pay for social security and retirement funds, work jobs, live and work in small cities and villages. Without them the services in smaller places will decline, eventually resulting in them to become ghost towns. Once the retirement funds are depleted the older generation will slide into poverty and won’t be able to pay for any goods and services, meaning business has to fire staff, causing more poverty.

      • HansGruber@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s not a generation conflict, it’s a class conflict.

        Aren’t we producing enough food and goods for all people? It’s a distribution problem. The generation contract failed due to declining birthrates since the boomer era. Everyone knew the day will be coming. But still we clinge on the current economy design and feed the leeches (ultra rich people obviously).

        The generation now 30-40 is much poorer as the boomers were at that age. How could that be? They’re less than the boomers, workers are desperately needed and the generation is working hard. But they’re getting paid pennies in comparison.