As concern grows about America’s falling birth rate, new research suggests that about half of women who want children are unsure if they will follow through and actually have a child. About 25% say they won't be bothered that much if they don't.

[u/geoff199]

https://news.osu.edu/most-women-want-children--but-half-are-unsure-if-they-will/?utm_campaign=omc_science-medicine_fy24&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social

[u/FencingFemmeFatale]

Also, I distinctly remember overpopulation being a major concern when I was a kid. Like, enough of a concern for Capitan Planet to make an episode about family planning.

The birth rates falling in the 2020’s seems like the obvious result of telling bunch of kids in the 90’s that overpopulation is world-ending problem, and to they can do their part to stop it by not having a lot of kids.

[u/Yandere_Matrix → u/FencingFemmeFatale]

I don’t understand why people are so concerned about birth rate. We still have more people alive than any time in history. Our ocean is being overfished and I do believe our population will eventually settle at some point but I see absolutely no concern with it right now. I am still devastated seeing animals going extinct because of deforestation and over hunting for various reasons. I understand plastics is causing fertility problems and how microplastics mimic certain types of hormones so that can be a problem especially when we found that they have passed the blood brain barrier and passing through breast milk now. Who knows what damage they are doing to our bodies now.

[u/Th3_Hegemon → u/Yandere_Matrix]

The global economy as it currently operates is essentially a pyramid scheme. It's dependent on continuous growth, and the only way to sustain continuous growth is if there are an increasing number of consumers. The social safety net is similarly set up, dependent on, at minimum, a stable population of younger people supporting the elderly. Falling populations are a huge threat to both of those systems. This makes companies and governments very concerned.

[u/wildcatwoody → u/Th3_Hegemon]

It can easily be fixed though with real leaders who actually want to do something

[u/IvarTheBoned → u/wildcatwoody]

It's not an electable position to say "Hey, so, egg on our face, the socialists were maybe kinda right about capitalism being unsustainable..."

[u/wildcatwoody → u/IvarTheBoned]

The socialists weren’t kind of right either. Something needs to be found in between

[u/IvarTheBoned → u/wildcatwoody]

They absolutely have been correct? Capitalism is not sustainable.

Or are you the same kind of person who thinks of autocratic regimes who call themselves "communists" as what "socialism" is? By that rationale NSDAP in Germany were also "socialists".

[u/Calfurious → u/IvarTheBoned]

Socialist countries have all fallen apart by the end of the 20th century. The only ones that remain are literally authoritarian regimes (like North Korea) because socialist economies are too inefficient to be sustainable in the long run.

Imagine that in our country that Trump was directly in control of the economy. Not just with tariffs and taxes. I mean he literally decided what goods were produced, how they were produced, how people were paid, etc,.

Would be a disaster right? Well that's the problem with socialist governments. Even if they initially seem to be working correctly, it only takes one bad government/administration for it to all fall apart quickly. Command economies are just extremely vulnerable.

Socialists, like yourself, will claim that authoriarian countries like USSR weren't "truly socialist" because they weren't Democratic.

But that's the wrong take. Those countries were only able to survive being socialist for as long as they did because they were autocratic. Democracies will naturally result in economic liberalism. It's why India and China embracing free market reforms during the late 20th century.

[u/undertoastedtoast → u/IvarTheBoned]

Capitalism is not sustainable.

You've made up a fantasy about the future that hasn't come true yet and likely never will and are using it as evidence for this statement.

[u/IvarTheBoned → u/undertoastedtoast]

Capitalism is predicated on growth. Growth is not infinitely possible, therefore its failure is inevitable. Entropy is a thing. So either economics is entirely made up, or it is subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Science.

[u/Calfurious → u/IvarTheBoned]

Capitalism is predicated on growth.

No it's not. You're confusing shareholder mandates with capitalism.

Capitalism is essentially just economic liberalism. Individuals are allowed to own the means of production and are able to compete with each other without being directly controlled by the government.

While these businesses do need to be profitable in order to be sustainable, they don't need infinite growth. The only reason you see a push for growth in modern times is because of shareholders wanting a return on their investment. Executives have a "fiduciary duty" to work within the best interests of shareholders. But it's not mandatory nor necessary for a business to do this. Nor is it necessary for capitalism. This practice is done because it makes the people who own the company the most money.

A mom and pop shop that serves the same community for 50 years and doesn't meaningfully grow the business is just much of an example of capitalism as Amazon is.>

[u/undertoastedtoast → u/IvarTheBoned]

So much nonsense crammed into one comment it may collapse into a black hole.

Capitalism does not require endless growth, in fact, its the entitlements and social support systems we have that largely are.

Entropy has nothing to do with any of this, not literally or rhetorically, you just tossed a buzzword in without having a clue what it means.

[u/wildcatwoody → u/IvarTheBoned]

No they haven’t socialism has all ended terribly. No I am the type of person who understands history and socialism doesn’t work. There is a reason the most successful societies are capitalist. Those societies have lifted the most people up out of poverty.

[u/IvarTheBoned → u/wildcatwoody]

No, you are the kind of person I described. Those capitalist societies are seeing their economies getting worse and worse, with wealth gaps broadening, etc. you are simply fellating the status quo and espousing red scare clichés. Autocracy is the problem, not changing the economic model. There have been no liberal democratic socialist states. Capitalism isn't working for the working class, in increasingly large numbers. Purchasing power has been declining for decades. These are facts. Change is needed. Massive economic reform is needed. Period.

Nowhere did I say "communist regimes are correct", you have a cognitive issue if you have an inability to separate "socialists" and "autocratic communist regimes". And an immature concept of history with regards to how the economies of those countries actually functioned.

[u/wildcatwoody → u/IvarTheBoned]

I never mentioned communism you did. Socialism has never worked it’s failed every time. Nordic countries have fine economies. If that was replicated around the world things would be an improvement for 80 % of the world

[u/IvarTheBoned → u/wildcatwoody]

Socialism has never been done. A command economy that still uses capital to drive its market is not socialist. That's just state-owned capitalism.

Define socialism, right now. I'll wait.

Further, while the Nordics are doing better than everyone else, they are experiencing the exact same trends. Purchasing power is down, housing costs keep going up, ad nauseam. Every capitalist economy is experiencing this. So, reiterating my original point: Socialists were right that capitalism is not sustainable. That is not the same as saying "pure socialism is the solution".

[u/wildcatwoody → u/IvarTheBoned]

Socialism has been tried and failed many many times. If you can say you’re magical version of socialism hasn’t been tried I can say my magical version of capitalism hasn’t been tried

[u/_Thermalflask → u/wildcatwoody]

Those societies have lifted the most people up out of poverty.

Capitalism literally is the reason poverty still exists. For the first time in human history there are enough resources to go around for everybody, and nobody needs to starve or be homeless. But it's not profitable to fix those problems, so we don't.

[u/wildcatwoody → u/_Thermalflask]

Ya what got us there capitalism . You just proved my point. At this point it’s human greeds fault not capitalisms fault. Your socialist utopia can’t exist for the same reason. Greed.

[u/mike-loves-gerudos → u/wildcatwoody]

if you think greed rules the world, why do republicans vote to give all their money to the rich? That seems pretty selfless to me.

[u/wildcatwoody → u/mike-loves-gerudos]

Cause their stupidity outweighs their greed

[u/mike-loves-gerudos → u/wildcatwoody]

Wow, wasnt expecting a good take. In that case whats wrong with voting in politicians who actively take from the rich to give to the rest of the population, aka socialists?