It's this guy and his ilk to blame. If they didn't take so much from women & children, if they weren't so brutal & rotten, there would be more children. Evil men stop blaming women... and children.
The cost of delivering a baby, in a hospital where I live, runs a little above $900. It can be 10 times as much in other areas. The federal minimum wage in my country is below $8 an hour. The cost of taking care of an infant per month goes around or above $1K. God forbid the child is born with a medical condition or is sick in later months. The cost of living in this country has more to do with declining birth rates than women's rights.
In the UK our NHS is free, and we have the same issues. So no, it's not the act of having a child. We have imported over 8 million people since 2010. Women are freezing their eggs should they want to have a child later in life. The declining birth rate is due to the requirement of two full time salaries to live when just a few generations ago only one breadwinner was required. Declining birth rates are due to women having entered the workforce, wage suppression, and now women can't leave the workforce as they 3either can't afford rent, or can't afford the mortgage with a single breadwinner. Some women take part time jobs while their husbands work, or vice versa, so they have just about enough money to manage to survive with one child. It's no use flipping your toys out of the pram because you've heard sopmething which might sound sexist, it would be exactly the same issue if the husband gave up work and stayed at home while the women become the main breadwinner. The cost of childcare is astronomical, so in effect there is a 4 year period from birth to school where someone has to be with the child at all times, or pay someone to be with the child at all times. Only very rich people in well paid jobs can afford such luxuries as childcare and stay working, but then you are in effect paying someone else to raise your child, much like state education is paying someone else to educate your child.
@NeonVisual What you wrote sounds logical but is incorrect. When the UK had dire poverty, it had a soaring birthrate. Most third world countries that are extremely poor, have high birthrates. Watch what the guys says, he's right. Equality for women actually leads to a drop in children. I know plenty of wealthy people who won't be having kids. It's not about wealth.
OMG, if you are struggling with the $900 (I agree it shouldn’t be this much to be clear) you shouldn’t be having a kid anyway. It costs at least $1,000,000 to raise a kid from birth to 18 these days. (I am in my mid 30’s male without a kid for financial reasons)
@@NeonVisualOkay, so the argument this person says which is an 'ironclad law' is that as folk get richer and women gain equal rights, they start having fewer children, which is why the birthrate is declining. My argument is that well over half of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Any sudden change to their daily routine can and will ruin them depending on the severity. Ignoring the delivering of the baby, doctor visits cost either out-of-pocket or comes out of your insurance. Then, there's the maternity wardrobe, the baby's clothes, furniture, baby-proofing the house, et cetera. It doesn't matter who's getting paid here, a child is a lifetime expense and to reduce the reason to a decline in population to increased wealth, equal rights, and even the cost of living is dismissive. There are many more reasons why people aren't having children, but those presented reasons the speaker made was nonsense to me.
@11ride4life Not all pregnancies are intended and, in some places, you cannot get an abortion. In those same areas, there are abortion trafficking laws where people can sue you for getting one or helping someone else get one. What is someone to do with an unintended pregnancy and they cannot receive an abortion? Even if they forsake the child/children to an orphanage, not delivering in a hospital or receiving proper aftercare is potentially lethal to both parties.
I’ll help you out, if you live HERE already and are not wealthy, aka work for a living not off of investments - ITS A BAD THING!!!! If you are wealthy then it is a GREAT thing for your pocket but you will soon be needing better security because most of the people coming for a better life want it and you have it.
If the money spent on importing people and taking care of them, was spent on the indigenous civilian population the result would be more indigenous population. People say its too expensive to have kids, because they don't know how much the states are expending on bringing and keeping immigrants, that's money that people could have going to creating their own children.
We don't need to maintain population levels at all, we just need less reserving of wealth by the rich. This is obvious if you look at the huge amount of people working in industries that do not need to exist instead of using their time in life to improve people's lives and they do this because there are many wealthy people paying for people to do things that serve no one but them, if they didn't chose this they wouldn't share their excess money without it being forcibly taken. The economy is available to serve population of people that are much smaller, there isn't an issue, we just need to motivate the wealthy to stop forcing the labour force into pointless work.
The world is overcrowded because (mostly speaking of the Unhealthy) OLD People being forced to be kept alive for the benefit of Medical/Legal & Religious GREED!!! If they're still healthy enough to enjoy continuing, then let them make up their own minds about it As an example, China has Over 300 Million people Over 60 - but young Chinese don't feel secure to even reproduce enough to sustain the next generation! Happens Everywhere!!!
@@televishenimoniker5546china had is own cyberpunk dystopia to contend with. But the workload and exploitation of women's time and Labor applies there too
I interpreted the O.P. saying "capitalism" as a claim that it was to blame. But China, run by the Chinese communist party, has the same depopulation (of yutes) going on.
I used to think that the correlation between women's opportunity and falling birthrates was a sign of increased welfare. Then, it occurred to me that birthrates fall as women are increasingly repaired to work full-time.
As the overall resources and the security of the resources of the future are dwindling away because all of our incentivization structures are based on narcissistic personality disorder
It’s not because we dont want kids. It’s because we now have to work and it’s too hard raising them and doing all the housework as well as working because men haven’t caught up and still expect us to do it all while they just work.
Its too expensive to have kids. Theres your answer
It's this guy and his ilk to blame. If they didn't take so much from women & children, if they weren't so brutal & rotten, there would be more children. Evil men stop blaming women... and children.
Expensive in developed countries. Meanwhile in the developing world, the population increases.
The answer is probably some sort of UBI.
But that's communism so it will never happen.
Depends
Governments are spending too much of our money
The cost of delivering a baby, in a hospital where I live, runs a little above $900. It can be 10 times as much in other areas. The federal minimum wage in my country is below $8 an hour. The cost of taking care of an infant per month goes around or above $1K. God forbid the child is born with a medical condition or is sick in later months.
The cost of living in this country has more to do with declining birth rates than women's rights.
In the UK our NHS is free, and we have the same issues. So no, it's not the act of having a child.
We have imported over 8 million people since 2010.
Women are freezing their eggs should they want to have a child later in life.
The declining birth rate is due to the requirement of two full time salaries to live when just a few generations ago only one breadwinner was required.
Declining birth rates are due to women having entered the workforce, wage suppression, and now women can't leave the workforce as they 3either can't afford rent, or can't afford the mortgage with a single breadwinner.
Some women take part time jobs while their husbands work, or vice versa, so they have just about enough money to manage to survive with one child.
It's no use flipping your toys out of the pram because you've heard sopmething which might sound sexist, it would be exactly the same issue if the husband gave up work and stayed at home while the women become the main breadwinner.
The cost of childcare is astronomical, so in effect there is a 4 year period from birth to school where someone has to be with the child at all times, or pay someone to be with the child at all times.
Only very rich people in well paid jobs can afford such luxuries as childcare and stay working, but then you are in effect paying someone else to raise your child, much like state education is paying someone else to educate your child.
@NeonVisual What you wrote sounds logical but is incorrect. When the UK had dire poverty, it had a soaring birthrate. Most third world countries that are extremely poor, have high birthrates. Watch what the guys says, he's right. Equality for women actually leads to a drop in children. I know plenty of wealthy people who won't be having kids. It's not about wealth.
OMG, if you are struggling with the $900 (I agree it shouldn’t be this much to be clear) you shouldn’t be having a kid anyway.
It costs at least $1,000,000 to raise a kid from birth to 18 these days. (I am in my mid 30’s male without a kid for financial reasons)
@@NeonVisualOkay, so the argument this person says which is an 'ironclad law' is that as folk get richer and women gain equal rights, they start having fewer children, which is why the birthrate is declining.
My argument is that well over half of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Any sudden change to their daily routine can and will ruin them depending on the severity. Ignoring the delivering of the baby, doctor visits cost either out-of-pocket or comes out of your insurance. Then, there's the maternity wardrobe, the baby's clothes, furniture, baby-proofing the house, et cetera.
It doesn't matter who's getting paid here, a child is a lifetime expense and to reduce the reason to a decline in population to increased wealth, equal rights, and even the cost of living is dismissive.
There are many more reasons why people aren't having children, but those presented reasons the speaker made was nonsense to me.
@11ride4life Not all pregnancies are intended and, in some places, you cannot get an abortion. In those same areas, there are abortion trafficking laws where people can sue you for getting one or helping someone else get one.
What is someone to do with an unintended pregnancy and they cannot receive an abortion?
Even if they forsake the child/children to an orphanage, not delivering in a hospital or receiving proper aftercare is potentially lethal to both parties.
On a different note he looks like the mean boss in The Incredibles 😂
People haven't been able to afford children for a long time. What is this guy talking about.
Literally China India and Africa the poorest places had population explosion
I’ll help you out, if you live HERE already and are not wealthy, aka work for a living not off of investments -
ITS A BAD THING!!!!
If you are wealthy then it is a GREAT thing for your pocket but you will soon be needing better security because most of the people coming for a better life want it and you have it.
The poor cannot afford a house they cannot afford children its a struggle to feed ourselves
8 billion people on Earth and still can't feed everyone.
Western countries have an obesity epidemic
It's all planned. Remember, poverty is man-made
If the money spent on importing people and taking care of them, was spent on the indigenous civilian population the result would be more indigenous population. People say its too expensive to have kids, because they don't know how much the states are expending on bringing and keeping immigrants, that's money that people could have going to creating their own children.
You got it wrong! Too expensive!
Dude, where did you dredge up that "ironclad" bullshit from?
We don't need to maintain population levels at all, we just need less reserving of wealth by the rich. This is obvious if you look at the huge amount of people working in industries that do not need to exist instead of using their time in life to improve people's lives and they do this because there are many wealthy people paying for people to do things that serve no one but them, if they didn't chose this they wouldn't share their excess money without it being forcibly taken. The economy is available to serve population of people that are much smaller, there isn't an issue, we just need to motivate the wealthy to stop forcing the labour force into pointless work.
This is dumb more people = less resources = resources cost more
This world is already too crowded imo. So I definitely ain’t mad about it dropping honestly!.
😏🤷🏻♂️
The world is overcrowded because (mostly speaking of the Unhealthy) OLD People being forced to be kept alive for the benefit of Medical/Legal & Religious GREED!!!
If they're still healthy enough to enjoy continuing, then let them make up their own minds about it
As an example, China has Over 300 Million people Over 60 - but young Chinese don't feel secure to even reproduce enough to sustain the next generation! Happens Everywhere!!!
Nope... On the contrary there's a demographic collapse in every developed country
Capitalism
China has falling birth rates, too. The gov will pay you to have more kids! A total flip from prior years there.
@@televishenimoniker5546china had is own cyberpunk dystopia to contend with. But the workload and exploitation of women's time and Labor applies there too
I interpreted the O.P. saying "capitalism" as a claim that it was to blame. But China, run by the Chinese communist party, has the same depopulation (of yutes) going on.
This guest is awesome
I used to think that the correlation between women's opportunity and falling birthrates was a sign of increased welfare. Then, it occurred to me that birthrates fall as women are increasingly repaired to work full-time.
CHECK THIS GUYS EARLY LIFE
Ahh, so that's why I don't know anyone with kids.
Migration? From where? The birth rate of most developing countries are as low as the United States
hey what's this guys name? I remember he used to appear on that fox news show called Red Eye
Nope too expensive to have kids people an barely afford for themselves bringing kids into this world without having and financial stability is selfish
Kids are also a pain in the rear.
As the overall resources and the security of the resources of the future are dwindling away because all of our incentivization structures are based on narcissistic personality disorder
SCORE!
Yes it's the nature of things and yet nationalists are always looking for scapegoats...
didn't have any so life much easier 4 me YaY ha, one love ❤️ hug
Good
It’s not because we dont want kids. It’s because we now have to work and it’s too hard raising them and doing all the housework as well as working because men haven’t caught up and still expect us to do it all while they just work.
The men our societies develop are not up to the standard either.