781
More couples are choosing a ‘dual income, no kids’ lifestyle
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
781 points (97.1% liked)
News
23267 readers
3077 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not sure you should default to burdening your children with elder care duties.
It's crazy how many people have kids because they view them as an eventual resource.
Like, they want the return on investment for bringing a life into this world.
Completely ignoring how much kids cost. Throw that shit in a 401k and you'll be able to retire early, enjoy yourself, and pay for elder care yourself when it's necessary.
Like, if it's just a random explanation they came up with to explain why they have kids it's one thing, but anyone that seriously believes this would be a good plan...
Back in the olden times there weren't 401Ks or other such safety nets. We've advanced but culture is lagging, as it often does.
Back in the day you got a pension from your company job...
And because the focus was on long term health of the company and not just a quarterly increase in profit, companies were around for generations.
Now giant corporations have bought them, destroyed pensions or even just "closed" the company and sold all the equipment and real estate to another that wasn't obligated to pay the pensions....
After the depression, FDR tried to set up Social Security as a "national pension" along with universal healthcare.
Moderate Dems (Dems co trolled all branches back then) stopped it, saying they needed more research before I plementing.
80 years later and the Dem president is still saying it...
401ks are the best available option. That doesn't mean they're better than what we used to have or we shouldn't demand more.
There won't be anyone to care for the elderly or work normal, service, or public service jobs. The economy will crash, and life will feel like a dystopia.
This isn't a hypothetical. There's been a lot of events that cause a sharp population decline. And everytime, the working class make out like bandits because their labor value skyrockets.
The wealthiest lose money, but I'm cool with that.
Maybe if we're lucky the next couple generations won't fuck it up again.
Yes, but those not having kids won't benefit; those who have kids will benefit.
No...
The next generation benefits if there isn't a lot of them.
The parents of the next generation are still raising them, which sucks right now and is expensive.
But expecting them to pay for you in your old age is pretty much the worst reason to have kids, and those people probably aren't going to have kids that want to be involved for very long.
And for some of us, we don't just care about our own offspring, we care about all humans.
And the next generation is going to be a lot better off if overpopulation stops being such a huge problem.
But you keep jumping between defenses for it. It makes it look like your just saying whatever best defends having children.
What does it feel like now?