Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah OK, you're just being intentionally obtuse and ignoring my point.
This is your personal opinion. (Not that we need birth rates back where they were, we just need them at a more sustainable level). It should be obvious that most would-be parents today do not have the financial security they would need to have more kids. This applies even in those countries in your examples, because those benefits are a tiny fraction of the costs of raising a child.
That's not in dispute, but the reason for that choice is in part financial.
I'm not ignoring it, the economy being shit does have an impact.
Birth rates are falling even in countries that have strong social programs and wages. It's a multi-faceted problem, but the driving force is that women have access to abortion, birth control, education, and career opportunities that they've never had before.
More money isn't enough to force women to have more children than they desire. When women are given the choice, they choose to have fewer children and they have them later in life.
I've lived in Norway, one of the countries with the best QoL and support for kids. I have family in Singapore. I can assure you 'strong social programs and wages' are nowhere close to what kids actually cost. Finance is a huge factor.
I'm not even disputing that they're factors. Go back to my original post and you'll note the only thing I asserted was WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA ON WHETHER ACTUALLY REMOVING THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF KIDS WILL HELP. You're not addressing my point, you're just busy with your own talking point that nobody's disputing.
I posted an article about this topic just recently:
Here's the full paper called "The Downside of Fertility"
You said there are no stats and there are. That's what I responded to - the stats are showing the trend of women's freedoms tied to the falling birth rates. And since women have more options to delay children or not have them at all, the economy will play a factor into them using those options that are available. And despite the economic hardships, women overall are not going to choose to have as many children as they did before gaining those freedoms and medical advancements.
I don't think it's helpful to discuss falling birth rates without acknowledging that access to education, career advancements, and reproductive health options have a huge impact. That's one of the reasons conservatives across the globe are pushing to limit abortion access and take away birth control.
Yeah I'm talking to a stone wall here. You keep pointing to a very different situation and claiming it as data to prove your point when my entire point is that they're very different situations.
They aren't different, they're related. They are intertwined.
I'm having a discussion with you and bringing stats and sources. You don't want to engage in back and forth discussion? Don't push that there's no data or no statistics on this.
There's a lot of stats on this subject.
I'm tapping out. You keep posting your stuff. I'm just rolling my eyes here.
Aw you're no fun. Did you even read any of the sources I gave you?
I'm not even disagreeing with you completely and I haven't been an asshole lol. There's a prevailing idea here that more money will make women want enough children to solve the falling birth rates and I think that doesn't show the full picture.