52
319
u/SwedishFlopper 1d ago
If the economy was better, I'd consider it.
1
u/KaptainSaki 1h ago
Downside is that the economy is only getting worse with smaller generations, but that's not our fault. The circumstances for having a baby should be better
-255
u/WeFightTheLongDefeat 1d ago
Tell that to the lady in the Great Depression with 10 kids or whatever
38
u/Chaps_Jr 23h ago
Oh, you mean back when people had children to help tend the farms and ranches that kept their families alive, when mortality and illness rates were much higher?
5
159
u/OhShitWhatUp 1d ago
The idea is to provide a better life to your kids than you had, otherwise what was the point in subjecting a child to a lesser life. That's what people complain about now, boomers had it better (financially).
-45
u/WeFightTheLongDefeat 22h ago
That’s a very modern notion.
And yes, boomers got to have literally the best material experience for anyone ever to have lived, but we’re complaining about having maybe the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best. People who complain about the economic conditions we’re in now, have just not read history.
What we really lack is social and spiritual connection. Modern life has isolated us from each other and atomized so we’re alone, anxious and purposeless. People in the past had these things and were far happier despite far worse material conditions.
You can find these things, but you have actively push against the currents of culture to find them. First thing I would recommend people who want to have kids but are worried about finances, move back to where your parents, or some other relative, who can help with childcare. Also, find a community to help you through tough times (traditionally these have been churches, which also help with the purposelessness of our age).
17
u/OhShitWhatUp 21h ago
Okay but people who are young adults now have lived multiple once in a lifetime events. Multiple previous and ongoing wars since the early 2000s, a worldwide financial crisis, and worldwide pandemic with additional lifetime government borrowing debt passed on to the tax payer.
The UK is also facing the highest taxation since records began, ongoing cost of living crisis with far beyond average inflation on essential like food and the highest energy costs despite substantially lower cost over europe and not to mention out of control government spending on putting up illegal migrants in hotels with 3 meals a day while cutting pensioner heating allowance. And on the topic of children, exorbitant childcare costs.
So I wouldn't quite go as far as 2nd 3rd or even 4th best economic stability in recent decades.
-7
u/WeFightTheLongDefeat 19h ago
I lived through all those things and what helped me most was being close to family and community. My parents help watch my kids and I was able to get connected to a job through my church. It’s about having a support structure.
Can you name a time and place that had better material conditions than millennials and Gen Z? Excluding boomers and Gen X.
1
u/Plukkert 14h ago
Uhu and kids are too expensive nowadays to live a comfortable life on a couples paycheck in middleclass.
-4
3
-43
u/Pro-Epic-Gamer-Man 20h ago
You’re telling me the people having “10 kids during the Great Depression” were doing it because they thought their kids would have a better life than themselves during the worst economic period in America?
43
u/OhShitWhatUp 20h ago
Nothing more selfish than subjecting 10 of your own children to poverty in the financial crisis because you didn't want to stop you from being responsible.
-22
u/Pro-Epic-Gamer-Man 19h ago
Okay but the kids born during the Great Depression did live a better lives than their parents (New Deal policies, post war boom, 50s America) so I don’t see what your point is.
4
u/SebashG13 16h ago
Did they know that was going to be the case when they had the kids? Absolutely not. Similarly, who is to say kids born now will have a better future? Maybe they will, but we can't be sure of that.
1
u/Pro-Epic-Gamer-Man 16h ago
Okay so then the whole “having kids to give them a better life than us” thing doesn’t make sense because you’re saying there’s no way to know whether they will have a better or worse life.
-2
u/1chomp2chomp3chomp 13h ago
If born in America, those kids then probably fought in the forgotten war, Korea. That one has quite the death toll. It was WWII, Korea, and Vietnam back to back before we finally ended conscription.
3
u/Pro-Epic-Gamer-Man 13h ago
Alright but they’re lives were still generally better than their parents tho? Thats the point I was responding to
1
u/1chomp2chomp3chomp 13h ago
Spoken like someone that's never been in combat. Yeah, "great life minus the whole fighting in a war," lol lmao
2
u/Pro-Epic-Gamer-Man 13h ago
Because their parents also had WW1? Spanish American War? Cherry-picking the bad things isn’t gonna make their lives worse than their parents bro
44
u/J_train13 Blue 1d ago
Wasn't much else to do.
And realistically only 5 or 6 of them turned out healthy.
10
u/Pozos1996 23h ago
Cut off your electricity while you are at it, you don't need it people 300 years ago did just fine without it.
8
u/rexus_mundi 22h ago
People were selling their children during the great depression, because they couldn't afford them.
22
83
53
u/ChaosKeeshond 1d ago
When I was just entering the workforce as a millennial I remember at least hoping things would be different for the next generation.
Granted they were technically only a couple of years behind me and it turned out that wasn't enough time but even the younger end of Gen Z continues to be just as fucked as we were and at this rate I don't see things picking up for Alpha.
13
u/Sir_Maxwell_378 19h ago edited 17h ago
I can't have kids anymore, Thanks cancer, but even if I still could, I'd need to 1) find a woman who actually liked me enough want to procreate with me, 2) have an income that could support a family , 3) have a house or decently sized apartment/condo large enough to raise a family in, and 4) have my mental health in check enough to be a good parent to said family, all of that might as well be a fairy tale for me at this point.
Its not that I don't want a family, its that its all just too far out of reach now.
8
u/PTSDDeadInside 21h ago
I hate how the most profit efficient method is to bleed all of your people to death financially and then just import newer, poorer ones repeat the process, not help the ones you already have. "they make more money throwing away paper plates instead of washing dishes" we're are the dishes ha ha
500
u/BigJSteal 1d ago
blame capitalism
83
u/Shadowborn_paladin 20h ago edited 15h ago
Oh boy, TWO, heavily down voted comments. This sounds like fun...
1
7
-414
u/M1QN mods gay lol 1d ago
It doesn’t have much to do with it
228
u/StxnedTxTheBxne 1d ago
It has everything to do with it when people can barely afford to feed themselves let alone a baby.
-160
u/Kryslor 1d ago
That is demonstrably false though. Richer countries have WAY fewer kids than poorer ones, and even in developed countries, richer households have fewer kids than poorer ones.
It's a choice, just own yours.
38
u/goentillsundown 18h ago
Just because the country is rich, doesn't mean the masses living there are.
-34
u/Kryslor 18h ago
Why did you willingly ignore the part where even households with more money have less kids?
You people are insufferably ignorant, either post some data if you want to further this discussion or stfu.
12
u/datpimppinkiepie 17h ago
Proceeds to talk out of his ass about data with no proof.
-25
u/Kryslor 17h ago
Here's a whole ass Wikipedia page dedicated to your ignorance on a well known worldwide phenomenon. Jesus Christ, please be one of the people that does not have kids because we do not need more people like you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Edit: quick glance at your profile shows I have nothing to worry about so that's a relief
1
u/CountBrackmoor 1h ago
Why are you even mentioning data when it takes one second to realize: kids are very expensive, and people don’t have money?
1
u/Kryslor 1h ago
Because data is concrete and verifiable whereas your "vibes" are not. Here's a whole ass Wikipedia page dedicated to this very well known worldwide phenomenon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
That's why.
-211
u/M1QN mods gay lol 1d ago
There are African countries where this is true for a much larger part of the population. In fact, while being the poorest continent in the world, most African countries have fertility rates over 3 and only Tunisia is lower than replacement rate(1.9)
117
u/Azustorm 1d ago
Having high fertility rates is easy to achieve when your standard of living is have at least 1 meal a day, sleep in a shack with no electricity and maybe go to school til 3rd grade (optional).
-112
u/M1QN mods gay lol 1d ago
Lack of standard of living increase is what I believe to be one of the biggest factors in this, if you can’t provide at least as much for your kids as your parents provided for you, chances are you are not going to have kids(at least in a society where having kids is commodity rather than necessity). But again blaming a system that has consistently led to improvements in standards of living for hundreds of years in different countries and regions for not improving standards of living is a weak take at best. There are a lot of factors unrelated or weakly related to capitalism that affect this.
46
u/Temelios 1d ago
Seeing as society can’t exist without children, children can never be a commodity. Our leaders are failing us at the most fundamental level by ignoring and gaslighting us about the CoL crisis that is one of the primary causes for our decrease in birthrates.
→ More replies (4)-9
u/SushiCatx 23h ago
That's a non sequitur. Many things are essential for mere existence (IE food, water and labor). But we regularly treat them as commodities in an economic sense. Morally and philosophically speaking, children SHOULDN'T be treated as a commodity, but to present that as a logical deduction to your point does not make sense. The necessity of something does not logically prevent its commodification.
7
28
u/Menination 1d ago edited 9h ago
You do know Africa is also one of the countries with the largest number of starving and malnutritioned children right? It's not about fertility
Edit: to those saying africa isn't a country, yes it isn't but I used it as an umbrella term since more than 30 of the 54 countries in Africa are under the international poverty line
6
9
u/saveasseatgrass69420 1d ago
The actual answer is that they just aren’t as developed leading to worse access to healthcare and higher infant mortality rates. Fertility rates and infant mortality rates go hand in hand. So while yes in more underdeveloped parts of the world the fertility rates are higher, in more developed parts of the world capitalism is a very large part of why birth rates are declining.
5
u/Log_Zero_Fox 1d ago
Because there's a threshold in any society when it comes to fertility. If you can’t keep all your children alive past a certain age, the logic would be to have multiples so at least one woule survive. This then become a cultural thing more than anything else.
When you're certain your kids won’t starve to death, you begin as a population to have fewer and fewer, until all your needs are met.
But then you have depression, hopelessness, lack of funds, etc... all because of capitalism, that prevents people from having children. Why have a child when you don’t know how your life will go in 2 years ?
And this is not something new, a similar fashion appeared during the cold war, because people were scared and depressed.
1
u/Perfect-Whereas-1478 1d ago
Cuz a lot of us are dumb and broke, and we're not as developed, so people still have kids for farms.
1
u/AutisticPenguin2 22h ago
This is the "red wine cures cancer" thing again. It's not the poverty, it's the lack of education that goes with it. Among well educated people one of the most common reasons for not wanting children is financial burden.
-17
18
u/tappy100 Late to everything 1d ago edited 10h ago
i’m gen z, i won’t be having kids because capitalism has made it in my country so that on average i won’t be able to buy a house until im 36 years old (and that statistics is steadily rising). the cost of living and AI greed is so fucked here that my friends who spent years in university doing various tech related degrees are now being laid off or having a hard time just getting into the industries they studies for. if you can’t see how capitalism has fucked our society then you have your head in the sand
-7
u/RudeJeweler4 19h ago
The economy has been much worse and people were having more kids at the time. Nobody is talking about the value of capitalism or whatever. Not everyone talks about the conversation you’ve tied your value as a person to all the time. Sometimes facts can be neutral. Poorer people have more kids than richer people and that statement gets truer and truer the bigger groups of people you’re looking at.
And do not ignore that last part. This is a pattern much bigger than you that mathematically disagrees with your fundamental view on this topic.
I’m sorry you wanted it to just be a punchy talking point, but there’s levels to this shit.
3
u/tappy100 Late to everything 10h ago edited 4h ago
capitalism is directly tied to our distribution of resources since it’s a political ideology and more important economic policy. in nature when resources are scarce the smartest of the species will have less kids because they can recognise they won’t be able to support their offspring, in our society resources are hoard by the wealthy which naturally has led the majority to have children less on average. when global economies have been worse in the past people still have access to resources because our society was still in the tranisitional phase from having feudal survival capabilities such as growing our own food and preparing dishes with as little as possible, however nowadays our society is heavily reliant on the money to access resources to the point where we are not taught these basic survival skills in school anymore meaning the majority of people need companies to survive, if those companies provide less resources by doing things like raising the price of food or education or childcare without raising wages then we naturally have less access to resources. which brings it all back to the fact that when resources are scarce the smartest of the species will not reproduce.
if you have any questions i’ll be glad to answer them, i wrote entire study papers in university about this exact topic 👍
edit: looking back i forgot to mention your claim about poorer people having more kids than rich people, it isn’t due to income, it’s due to access to healthcare, poorer people who want kids, will have to give birth more because some will die. since income is correlated to access to healthcare that makes it appear like wealth is the deciding factor of how many children you have. similar to how rabbits breed like crazy, its because of survival since a lot of their children will die, not because they want more kids
24
u/SheevPalpatine32BBY 1d ago
Pretty irresponsible to have kids in this economy. Especially with the current political climate.
21
2
u/Interface- 5h ago
I can't fucking afford to live alone. Why would I have children? My own needs aren't being met because homes are overpriced and sitting around empty and unused because profits are more important than people.
-416
u/Kiyan1159 1d ago
It's not capitalisms fault. It's socialism's. Literally remove social security and Medicaid and the kids will finally have financial breathing room to start families.
Capitalism brings the goods, socialism takes it away.
263
u/Binx13 1d ago
Literally what the fuck are you talking about.
→ More replies (17)85
u/MERKINSEASON3807 23h ago
That Kiyan guy is definitely trolling there's no way someone can be this ignorant
59
u/Calibruh ☣️ 1d ago edited 20h ago
Absolute delusion. There's only 1 thing to blame for our real pay being stagnant for the last 50 years while the 1% gets richer, and it's sure as hell isn't "socialism".
22
u/J_train13 Blue 1d ago
If you took away social security and Medicaid gen Z might never have kids at all.
20
5
2
u/Unable-Cellist-4277 14h ago
lmao, this is such a room temperature IQ take.
The problem isn’t Medicaid, which if anything makes it easier to afford having a child.
38
u/MRoss279 23h ago
The demographic collapse is probably the greatest problem facing humanity today, alongside AI and the climate crisis.
24
10
u/VirtueSignalLost 21h ago
If AI goes wrong it will get us way sooner than the other problems
8
u/MRoss279 21h ago
Yes and If it doesn't go completely wrong, it will make the other two issues worse via massive power demand probably fueled by more fossil fuels and massive unemployment making people even less willing to have kids than they currently are.
212
u/party_in_my_head 1d ago
did you know that children born 2020 and after have a 0% chance of having a comfortable life after the age of 70 given the current policies in the world? Now you do.
102
u/ninoski404 1d ago
Children born 2020 without rich parents, that won't enter the tiny wildly successful group, but yes.
7
2
u/Obnoxiousdonkey 7h ago
stop with the fear mongering. what happened to raising your kids healthily and responsibly? don't kick them out at 18 and cut contact, be a good fuckin parent.
0
-68
u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago
In 1998 we were told by 2025 that most people would be wearing some sort of ozone filtering respirator and large chucks of Florida would be permanently submerged.
Me waiting for my ozone mask like.....
89
u/BayTranscendentalist 1d ago
Wow, turns out we don’t have to do this because politicians actually decided to do something about it! Who could’ve known???
50
u/NewSauerKraus 1d ago
And no serious person ever made those claims anyways lmao.
53
u/BayTranscendentalist 1d ago
The ozone layer stuff was a legitimate concern but it was relatively easy to solve since it was proven what damaged it
18
u/NewSauerKraus 1d ago
The ozone thing was a lack of ozone in the atmosphere. Not so much that you would need a respirator to prevent inhaling it. The commenter above seems to have mixed up conspiracy theorists with reasonable people.
-38
u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago
No it was extremist BS. Because when you look at the studies and tests that were being done back then they don't line up with what was being repeated to the public
Back then they had the mentality that if they presented the worst case scenario it would result in scaring people into action. This was before we had such precise models and simulators as we do today.
Unfortunately them doing that for so long made people not believe them anymore. Once people started to realize that they were exaggerating and being over the top..
And now that they're trying to be more honest today and present more factual information related to our climate and weather so many people don't believe them. Because they lied and exaggerated about their findings in the past.
This is why so many people over the age of 50 just don't buy into climate change science and warnings. Because most of their lives it was just exaggerations and over the top findings presented to the public as scientific fact.
21
u/wickwack246 1d ago
lololol when were people, on any meaningful scale, scared into action?
-29
u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago
Ever hear of World War II? I mean that's just the easiest one to come up with. Enough so to where your questions shouldn't even have been asked because you should automatically know that was an
You want more? I mean Google could solve this problem for you but I guess I can do your research for you if you want.....
14
12
u/tappy100 Late to everything 1d ago
who was saying that? there was a scientifically backed ozone scare back in the 80s but thanks to things like the Montreal protocol CFCs were pretty well phased out by the late 90s because back then governments actually listened to scientists. i also can’t find anything about people saying florida would be submerged, back in the 90s the IPCC projected that by 2100 florida would see a sea level rise of tens of centimetres which is enough to really fuck florida
4
u/party_in_my_head 1d ago
This was a statement from the oecd, but note that it's given the current policies. This means that this wel be the outcome if we carry on like this without changing a lot.
3
u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago
I'm not saying that they were altering the science back then. That they were manipulating their findings. A lot of the studies being done back then were accurate in their predictions of sea level rise and temperature change. But that's not the stuff that was being presented to the public.
The worst case scenario findings and the most fringe results were the ones being presented to the public. We still do that today. But way less frequently. A lot less
If a news agency is going to interview somebody when it comes to the climate do you think they're going to interview somebody who's entire presentation is going to be scientific fact? Or do you think they're going to interview somebody who can provide the most extreme and sensationalist view to the viewers?
Back then they usually chose the latter. The sensationalist and the extreme. Cause that's what gets ratings.
Nowadays we are more fact-based and scientific based in these presentations. But only because the public has access to the raw data from these studies and research groups. So they can't play the sensationalist and extreme card like they used to
1
u/edgethrasherx 7h ago
“Nowadays we are more fact-based and scientific” I know you were referencing the specific situation over how climate change was/is presented to the general public, but still reading that sentence word-for-word in the year 2025 felt like a fever dream. Maybe somehow climate change specifically is presented in a way that’s less based on fear-mongering and catering to extreme viewpoints, but overall I think our media and information environment has taken the exact opposite trend to a shocking degree. Media literacy is at worryingly abysmal levels; bias, misinformation, bots, echo-chambers, the way most people consume information now compared to 30 years ago and other distortions have created this surreal landscape wherein everyone has their own “reality” and “truth” has become this nebulous subjective concept more influenced by personal beliefs and the above factors rather than any indisputable facts or objective evidence.
Three different people can hear about the same story three different ways, from three different sources, with three different belief systems and all walk away with completely different understandings of what happened and what “the truth of the matter” is. Rather than hearing from sources first hand or hearing the same story and reaching different conclusions people get their information through so many different layers of filters, interpretations, opinions, biases, etc, I really feel like pretty soon it will be like we’re all living in different realities and all experiencing a different world from one each other
7
u/yukwot PC Master Race 1d ago
Because we got rid of cfc gases in hair care products and refrigeration units
3
u/ProfessionalCreme119 1d ago
CFCs were not about climate change. They did add to our greenhouse gasses but their effects in the environment are pretty low on the list as far as severity. In comparison to things like sulfur, carbon monoxide and methane
Banning CFCs was all about the ozone layer. Because they were causing significant damage to it.
0
u/RudeJeweler4 19h ago
It’s a good thing the dude didn’t say it was about climate change. Bro threw in a fun fact.
1
u/TheLuckySpades 23h ago
If only there were a global push to fix the ozone layer that had international bans of the pollutants most responsible for it, but guess since we are absolutely still using them everywhere the ozone layer must have fixed itself sithout human intervention whatsoever.
Like seriously there was a warning given with steps to prevent it and they were taken and the worst didn't happen.
1
u/ProfessionalCreme119 23h ago
I said the word ozone and people thought I was talking about the ozone layer and cfcs. I was just talking about the particulate and pollutant filtering respirators that you have to wear while you're outside.
Some of you half read a comment, read what you want to read and then smash reply before comprehension kicks in.....
0
u/TheLuckySpades 23h ago
Well in that case the stuff you claim people were saying is even more wrong? Like if there were any climate scientists outside of the fringe saying that I'd be shocked.
24
u/Cr0ma_Nuva 1d ago
Also most of us are in our mid 20s. It's far too early to have a child and offer it a life worth beeing born into.
1
u/Semthepro I am fucking hilarious 4h ago
Economically you are correct its just that biology doesnt care about human made constructs. We are in the prime age to make children but wont. No generation ever was this isolated - blame modern media and the prior generations that just cant pass down sociable lifes apparently.
3
3
4
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Jadenyoung1 1d ago
Many parents: Youre just selfish.
Or the classic: You shouldn’t think about it too hard. It will work out, you know?
6
u/Fanatic_Atheist 1d ago
People have woken up to the fact that there are other paths in life besides "get a job, get married, get kids".
4
u/imashu07 22h ago
Best thing is that people who want them to have children can't do anything about it. Maybe except rant, beg or cry or blackmail sorry forgot that.
6
u/pooooooooo 22h ago
Love it when Americans think it's expensive where they are yet over here in Canada cost of living is probably double considering our wages and real estate cost. You guys still have it pretty good, that's why so many people want to move there.
6
2
17
u/Head-Contribution393 1d ago
Just fuck and get pregnant
108
69
u/xXDJjonesXx Plain Text Flair [Insert Your Own] 1d ago
You going to pay for the aftermath?
43
26
5
u/ScepticalReciptical 1d ago
In some cultures they eat the aftermath as it contains alot of vital nutrients
17
u/xXDJjonesXx Plain Text Flair [Insert Your Own] 1d ago
Net loss. You lose way too many nutrients creating the thing.
24
u/The_Knife_Pie 1d ago
Offer me the ~250 thousand euro it costs to raise a child from 0-18 and sure!
12
1
-5
u/N0skittles 23h ago
They do and then they get an abortion.
1
u/young-steve 18h ago
I've personally funded five abortions and I'm looking forward to the sixth.
1
u/N0skittles 15h ago
Why are you booing me, i'm right. That's exactly why genZ doesn't have any kids. Not saying abortion is good or bad, just statistics.
3
4
4
2
2
u/Am_Very_Stupid 15h ago
Yeah, none for me thank you. Don't want to put myself through that or a child through having me as a father
2
1
1d ago
[deleted]
12
6
4
2
1
1
u/killian_jenkins 8h ago
Yea its political cause everything exists in a socio economic context therefore political
1
u/Aratingettar 4h ago
Yeah because I want a smelly ugly parasite to destroy my stuff, take away most of my earnings and drastically reduce time for my hobbies. It wasnt even my choice to exist so why would I be bothered by the demigraphic crisis?
1
1
-24
u/DukeSC2 1d ago
People who weren't going to have kids anyway for anti-human reasons pretending it's because of capitalism or climate change.
15
-2
u/FJkookser00 13h ago
Me when I DO do that because I’m not a lazy victim playing kook who is willing to work to undo the sins of my father and forge a new paradise in the world for my children:
-56
u/chalkymints 1d ago
Y’all need to grow up
22
u/tappy100 Late to everything 1d ago
you need to get in touch with reality
-33
u/chalkymints 1d ago
Literally the poorest people in America and the world have the most kids. So can you
21
u/tappy100 Late to everything 1d ago
in nature the smartest of the species will not have children when resources are scarce
-24
u/chalkymints 1d ago
If resources are really so scarce then all wellfare needs to be cut off immediately because we’re funding idiocracy into existence at the expense of the educated.
13
13
u/gamerfacederp I am fucking hilarious 1d ago
“Lets give people less money so that they’re more poor with more kids” that sound right?
-3
u/chalkymints 1d ago
The argument is that people can’t afford kids. But poor people can’t afford kids, so we give them welfare. But, if they can’t afford the kids without welfare, they’ll stop having them, because they can’t afford them. Right?
5
u/Mistake209 21h ago
Wealthy people don't even fucking have that many kids.
Poor single moms are carrying population production on their fucking back.
-23
u/Zandonus Don't you want to grow up to be just like me? 1d ago
Not even considering it. But if I did have a child, I'd name him SoftPower. Sounds better in the native, trust me.
117
u/Dracogame End Me Please 1d ago
you need to have sex to make kids