Inflation. War. Lack of jobs. No retirement. Global warming. How and why could anyone consider having children in a world like now!?
31-35, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ArishMell · 70-79, M
There are anecdotal accounts of couples choosing not to do so for those reasons, but how widespread this is, is probably unknowable.
No retirement though? In which countries? Some nations are increasing by a few years the normal retirement / State Pension ages, partly because people are living healthily for longer and partly for better balance between working and retired proportions of the population. This is necessary because state pensions in a system like that of the UK, are paid from taxes levied on those still in work. Some people want to continue working as long as they can, but by choice. No retirement at all though, is a different matter - I have not heard of any countries removing that need where it is currently met.
Inflation has always occurred: all that varies is the rate.
Less work available though, is a relatively newer problem, for various reasons. The main ones:
- Commercial competition moving a lot of production work to other countries;
- Machines (not only computers or so-called artificial-intelligence) replacing large swathes of work, or greatly reducing the number of staff necessary for the same or indeed greater volume of work.
- Large-scale moves to other fields of work such as the "service industries" (money-trading and IT, mostly) that can earn companies and nations' exchequers vast amounts of money but need relatively very few people to do so.
Climate change, to use the more formal term, is something warned of more than 100 years ago! The predictions then were based on the world-wide consumption of coal at the time as that was the prime fuel for almost everything; and their danger times forecast so far ahead that they were ignored. This was compounded by a touching faith in science and engineering being able to "tame Nature" and solve all the world's problems - not solve some but introduce new ones! Though to be fair much of the latter is at the behest of commerce and politics, not the science and engineering as such.
No retirement though? In which countries? Some nations are increasing by a few years the normal retirement / State Pension ages, partly because people are living healthily for longer and partly for better balance between working and retired proportions of the population. This is necessary because state pensions in a system like that of the UK, are paid from taxes levied on those still in work. Some people want to continue working as long as they can, but by choice. No retirement at all though, is a different matter - I have not heard of any countries removing that need where it is currently met.
Inflation has always occurred: all that varies is the rate.
Less work available though, is a relatively newer problem, for various reasons. The main ones:
- Commercial competition moving a lot of production work to other countries;
- Machines (not only computers or so-called artificial-intelligence) replacing large swathes of work, or greatly reducing the number of staff necessary for the same or indeed greater volume of work.
- Large-scale moves to other fields of work such as the "service industries" (money-trading and IT, mostly) that can earn companies and nations' exchequers vast amounts of money but need relatively very few people to do so.
Climate change, to use the more formal term, is something warned of more than 100 years ago! The predictions then were based on the world-wide consumption of coal at the time as that was the prime fuel for almost everything; and their danger times forecast so far ahead that they were ignored. This was compounded by a touching faith in science and engineering being able to "tame Nature" and solve all the world's problems - not solve some but introduce new ones! Though to be fair much of the latter is at the behest of commerce and politics, not the science and engineering as such.
brian29715 · 46-50, M
HumanEarth · 56-60, M
Handfull1 · 61-69, F
@MasterLee so not true! We as parents might not always do the best jobs and every generation screws up in different ways. If that’s all you see then maybe move to a different area. There are many kids that are far smarter than we could have ever dreamed of. That doesn’t mean I agree with some of their mindset but it is their world now. We had ours.
brian29715 · 46-50, M
One can always find the negative. I think the more time we spend away from the “news” and more time with nature and people we know the world seems a much better place.
IMO, global warming is a hoax. Inflation and war is a political problem because of poor leadership. Jobs and retirement are there, but it’s hard work. As they say if it’s easy, it’s not worth doing.
IMO, global warming is a hoax. Inflation and war is a political problem because of poor leadership. Jobs and retirement are there, but it’s hard work. As they say if it’s easy, it’s not worth doing.
View 5 more replies »
sunriselover · M
@Slade and the Antarctic is not melting.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego Interesting point, especially given today's News reporting S. Korea's even lower birth-rate than hitherto, potentially leading to problems in the future with fewer tax-payers supporting more pensioners.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@ArishMell if wages rose as the economy grows we could afford fewer workers because pensions would be easier to pay with payroll taxes. This poverty is inflicted because people don't want freedom. Foreigner people would enjoy the rights if we had them! Hate foreigners? Accept poverty. This poverty is a political choice designed to keep Americans in control of the globe.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego Oh, the more employment and the better the pay the more the total revenue, yes, but it's not as simple as that. It is also affected strongly by the balance of working and non-working adults - "working" for pay that is, as employees or self-employed.
It's not only payroll taxes either. The better-off are the more we pay by Duty, Value Added Tax or similar by buying more goods and services on which those are levied. Some of that is inescapable, but a lot of that expenditure is voluntary, on luxuries or habits.
''''
I live in a country that is free, and does have comprehensive national health and welfare systems, including a State Pension. So I know they are not cheap to run, nor perfect, but far better they exist than such protection being available only to the well-off.
So I can't readily compare it to the situation in the USA, which seems to have very limited national schemes to support its citizens; alongside much harder "sink-or-swim" attitudes with much laxer employee-protection rules than in many other countries. The impression I have is that a lot of Americans are terrified of comprehensive national welfare systems because they think them somehow "Communist".
The problem with fewer workers of course is less tax revenue, even with rising wages, both by payroll and indirect taxes; but lower employment available is not the only factor in higher numbers not paying Income-tax.
Co-incidentally this was examined in an item on the radio here yesterday: the UK seems to have high unemployment but it's not only due to a lack of opportunities. There are plenty of those but not readily available to everyone, and some industries are crying out for workers. There is too a growing number of retired folk (including me!) living longer but potentially needing more health care over more years, and many who choose not to work for whatever reason. Some don't see any need to work, but they must have very limited lives. Very many not in paid employment are so because they are caring for elderly relatives, usually their own parents.
All this is expensive of course, and many public services here are struggling as a result, but there is little appetite for a nation that reduces its taxes by removing those services already suffering from big funding cuts. Less appetite for what is happening - more tax but more cuts, simply because the cost of everything continues to rise, often by factors at least partly outside of any government's control.
There is a widespread something-for-nothing attitude, and that is encouraged by misleading terms like "government money" (there is no such thing) and titles like "National Insurance". Many older people grumble, " I have paid into it all my working life!" - no you haven't. They have paid Income Tax and NI all their working lives but to support those already on pensions or other benefits, and the NHS that they and everyone else needs for many reasons at many times throughout their lives.
You say "people don't want freedom". I don't understand what you mean there. If you are living in absolute grinding poverty that alone means you are not free to enjoy so many luxuries your better-off neighbours have. So freedom is perhaps rather academic. Nevertheless, Politically and socially you still have the same freedoms as them in a democratic (small 'd'!) sense, in a democracy - but your lack of money cramps your life.
Ideally of course we would all have both freedom and enough money to live at least in modest comfort with a few luxuries like hobbies and cultural events. I have to watch my spending and have cut down a lot, but I am lucky enough to enjoy both. There are many who have the freedom but very little money.
Notably, even before President Putin's actions, a lot of Russians expressed some yearning for what happened under Communism. The USSR was a terrifying dictatorship, and Russian has never been democratic anyway, but at least most of its citizens had a fairly stable life and despite continual shortages in the shops and strict limits on life even within Russia, they did have fairly good health and welfare systems. (As China does... if you are not a Uyghur.)
...
As for the USA controlling the world, yes, outside of the two World Wars she spent much of the 20C trying do that, including buying other countries' assets and industries often just to destroy them. Now though, her star is slowly falling as other nations and ideologies, far less benign, are rising. Helped ever since Chairman Mao's death by "The West", the People's Republic of China is likely to succeed in her long-term aim to overtake the United States of America as the World's Number One economy and political power.
''''
(In the UK system, you are still income-taxed even as a pensioner if the total of your State plus any private or employee pensions exceeds a certain level. You then pay Income-Tax on the extra. For most people the tax is paid by the pension administrators. Income from private sources like shares holdings is also taxed.
Just as employees' Income Tax and National Insurance - not "insurance" but a tax to support the welfare systems - are paid employers under the Pay As You Earn method.
Self-employed and private-income people are legally bound to pay the same taxes, too, and usually employ an accountant to do so because the system and laws are very complicated and HM Revenue & Customs pounce on the smallest mistake!)
It's not only payroll taxes either. The better-off are the more we pay by Duty, Value Added Tax or similar by buying more goods and services on which those are levied. Some of that is inescapable, but a lot of that expenditure is voluntary, on luxuries or habits.
''''
I live in a country that is free, and does have comprehensive national health and welfare systems, including a State Pension. So I know they are not cheap to run, nor perfect, but far better they exist than such protection being available only to the well-off.
So I can't readily compare it to the situation in the USA, which seems to have very limited national schemes to support its citizens; alongside much harder "sink-or-swim" attitudes with much laxer employee-protection rules than in many other countries. The impression I have is that a lot of Americans are terrified of comprehensive national welfare systems because they think them somehow "Communist".
The problem with fewer workers of course is less tax revenue, even with rising wages, both by payroll and indirect taxes; but lower employment available is not the only factor in higher numbers not paying Income-tax.
Co-incidentally this was examined in an item on the radio here yesterday: the UK seems to have high unemployment but it's not only due to a lack of opportunities. There are plenty of those but not readily available to everyone, and some industries are crying out for workers. There is too a growing number of retired folk (including me!) living longer but potentially needing more health care over more years, and many who choose not to work for whatever reason. Some don't see any need to work, but they must have very limited lives. Very many not in paid employment are so because they are caring for elderly relatives, usually their own parents.
All this is expensive of course, and many public services here are struggling as a result, but there is little appetite for a nation that reduces its taxes by removing those services already suffering from big funding cuts. Less appetite for what is happening - more tax but more cuts, simply because the cost of everything continues to rise, often by factors at least partly outside of any government's control.
There is a widespread something-for-nothing attitude, and that is encouraged by misleading terms like "government money" (there is no such thing) and titles like "National Insurance". Many older people grumble, " I have paid into it all my working life!" - no you haven't. They have paid Income Tax and NI all their working lives but to support those already on pensions or other benefits, and the NHS that they and everyone else needs for many reasons at many times throughout their lives.
You say "people don't want freedom". I don't understand what you mean there. If you are living in absolute grinding poverty that alone means you are not free to enjoy so many luxuries your better-off neighbours have. So freedom is perhaps rather academic. Nevertheless, Politically and socially you still have the same freedoms as them in a democratic (small 'd'!) sense, in a democracy - but your lack of money cramps your life.
Ideally of course we would all have both freedom and enough money to live at least in modest comfort with a few luxuries like hobbies and cultural events. I have to watch my spending and have cut down a lot, but I am lucky enough to enjoy both. There are many who have the freedom but very little money.
Notably, even before President Putin's actions, a lot of Russians expressed some yearning for what happened under Communism. The USSR was a terrifying dictatorship, and Russian has never been democratic anyway, but at least most of its citizens had a fairly stable life and despite continual shortages in the shops and strict limits on life even within Russia, they did have fairly good health and welfare systems. (As China does... if you are not a Uyghur.)
...
As for the USA controlling the world, yes, outside of the two World Wars she spent much of the 20C trying do that, including buying other countries' assets and industries often just to destroy them. Now though, her star is slowly falling as other nations and ideologies, far less benign, are rising. Helped ever since Chairman Mao's death by "The West", the People's Republic of China is likely to succeed in her long-term aim to overtake the United States of America as the World's Number One economy and political power.
''''
(In the UK system, you are still income-taxed even as a pensioner if the total of your State plus any private or employee pensions exceeds a certain level. You then pay Income-Tax on the extra. For most people the tax is paid by the pension administrators. Income from private sources like shares holdings is also taxed.
Just as employees' Income Tax and National Insurance - not "insurance" but a tax to support the welfare systems - are paid employers under the Pay As You Earn method.
Self-employed and private-income people are legally bound to pay the same taxes, too, and usually employ an accountant to do so because the system and laws are very complicated and HM Revenue & Customs pounce on the smallest mistake!)
beckyromero · 36-40, F
MissNoahLenFoxx · 31-35, F
@beckyromero Perhaps we should be exstinct? What good are we really doing anyway? For what reason?
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
We don't have lack of jobs, employers are just being stupid. There's jobs all the time but professional jobs are now 16 hourly and most trade jobs pay more so nobody wants them.
Reason10 · 61-69, M
Here's an original idea: Anyone whining about this is too stupid to reproduce. That person should do the human gene pool a favor and get a vasectomy.
RedBaron · M
Because people get pregnant, not always intentionally.
But for those who choose to, continuation of humanity comes to mind.
But for those who choose to, continuation of humanity comes to mind.
sarahcupcake · 36-40, F
I have been told that the most environmentally friendly thing we can do is not have children, weird tho that sounds
fanuc2013 · 51-55, F
Because our children will fix the problems just like they have for centuries!
C11111111111111 · M