• Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Millennials and Gen-Z are truly the lost generation.

    Imagine still living with parents in your late twenties or even early thirties because you simply cannot afford to even rent your own place. Now imagine that work pays like shit and you are busting your ass working long hours to chase an eternal pipe dream of economic prosperity. You can’t even seek psychiatric help for your ailing mental health because it’s expensive, inaccessible and oversubscribed.

    For a man, being in that situation makes you downright undateable so it’s not like you can rely on the joint incomes that couples do either.

    And we wonder why toxic masculinity is on the rise…

    The rich have done a smash & grab on the economy and made everybody poorer as a result of their own greed. It’s a dangerous game.

  • morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you wanted the younger generation to continue producing workers for the capitalist machine, you should have made sure that potential parents had enough resources to actually maintain a family if they started one.

    But yeah, that would have slightly reduced quarterly profits, and we can’t have that kind of long-sightedness messing with the short-term returns of our shareholders.

  • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m 33 and me and my so are not having children. Cope you capitalist pigs. I’m living my one life the way I want and you can fk off with your credit cards and apple pies.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can always move to North Korea if you don’t like capitalism that much.

        • Mereo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do we have to go to the extreme. The scandanavian countries are socialist/capitalist countries and they have one of the best living conditions.

  • AnnaPlusPlus@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The part I don’t understand is why it’s important to hit the “replacement level”. Wouldn’t it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?

    • seeCseas@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but then the megacorporations can’t hit their iNfInItE gRoWtH and we can’t keep making the billionaires richer.

    • drkt@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be, but the economy was built on perpetual growth schemes.
      Don’t forget, the economy is here to be served by us, not the other way around!

      • Sahqon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The economy will crumble if we don’t get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I’m not holding out hope…

    • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.

      But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.

        • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you figure. If the workforce becomes by and large robotic, taxing the businesses, based on that, like you would humans, would work well enough. If not, then there needs to be some concession from businesses to pay the same or more as when humans were doing the jobs.

  • sailsperson@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looking at the way things have been going for years (decades) now, giving someone a birth would be a huge disservice - they’ll inherit a simultaneously more globalized and divided world, a world with technology that has the potential to trivialize sharing knowledge and experience, which is instead use to drive up engagement for the sake of profits, effectively breeding hate groups and echo chambers, a world with economy consisting of bubbles and not-so-careful manipulations, leaving our offspring in a position few would probably envy. Oh, and there’s rapid climate change that is being ignored and actively accelerated by the people and other entities that are capable of doing anything about it.

    I know more than a few people who have never considered any of the above, and I’m sure many people here know such people as well, so it’s more than safe to say that whatever the humanity is facing in the near future, it’s nothing similar to extinction through lack of birth.

    The future seems really good for certain groups of people, but I doubt my kids could be a part of these groups, or even want to a part of these groups. Not that I would actively indoctrinate them, but I’d imagine that living with me through the years when they’re developing and shaping themselves is going to leave its mark regardless.

    Maybe I’ll regret that decision when it’s already too late, of course, but then again, this is not going to be a world-ending decision by no merit.

  • Domille@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That, and the planet cannot sustain our population with our current systems. Why have a kid when you know their future is doomed?

    • Navi1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I forget where I heard this stat, but the Earth could support 12 billion people if resources were distributed equitably. But, alas, :gestures broadly:

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, the Earth can sustain 12b people if everyone lives in barracks and eats shit. If you want to have any comforts in your life, current population should be reduced dramatically.

  • HollandJim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not just millennials. I was born 5 years after the end of the Baby Boomers and by the time I was 20 everything was becoming out of reach. Add a energy crisis or two, 40 years of Republican austerity for anyone but themselves, and a few financial crashes We the People ended-up bailing out, and I never got anywhere enough traction to do more than just get by without a mountain of debt. We never outran the entitlement of the Boomer generation.

    Good luck Millennials - and I mean it - but the only way out is to get out of the US while you can.

  • Tyson712@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Accused”, by who, YPulse? Why the fuck would I care about some shitpost article from a dumpster site?

  • Evono@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Me and my gf make ends meet ( sometimes not) just by being alive and eat, we go super rarely out and didn’t had vacation the last 10 years.

    Doesn’t help that I got I’ll and need to hold now a special food diet till I die which makes mostly everything I can eat like 2x as expensive and it was rough for us before my illness.

  • refugeered@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hasn’t the fertility rate in the US been going down from the 1960s? With immigrations covering the shortfall?

    Actually looking at the data. It went down significantly in the 60 and 70s. Then picked up in the 80s, 90s and early 2000. Then started dropping again from 2010.

    But one thing to note to seem to be that it never went past replacement rate after 1972. 2.1 is considered to the global number for replacement. So for the last 60 years or so immigration has kept the population growing in absolute terms.

    Not making a political statement, I find it weird when people club a huge group of people into one bucket and brand them.

    I do not like the terms but sticking to the terms here. It looks like the young boomers had a similar number of children to today and the older boomers were already dropping the number of children they were having.

    But Gen-X had a higher rate for some reason.

  • literallyacat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hoooooo boyyyy, just wait until the next few generations are up to bat for breeding more worker bees. Population’s gonna plummet :)

    • Corvidae@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the ability to automate production, its not really a bad thing for the population to decrease. Of course the process of decreasing and the sociatal adjustments are going to be… difficult.

  • hurricane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am a member of Gen X and I think Millenials are doing the best they can with the shitshow they inherited. Earth needs fewer humans, not more.