• Ubermeisters
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It is after all, the only thing you people know how to call out as a systemic issue in the world, so it might as well be solely responsible for every gripe you have I suppose huh.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Let’s read the article and look the causes:

      “With the rising cost of living, I don’t think people feel they can afford to, or comfortably say they want to, have children,” said 23-year-old Anna Tanaka.

      In 2020, women got married for the first time at an average age of 29.4, or 3.9 years later than in 1985, government data shows.

      As people have fewer children, they are able to spend more on each child than families have in the past. That drives up the average cost of raising a child for the broader population

      Tuition at private universities jumped fivefold between 1975 and 2021, and by 19 times at public universities, data shows.

      These are all symptoms of capitalism. Alienation and seeking “class mobility” leads to people getting married later. The cost of living is a capitalist construct, and it rises primarily due to seeking profit. Colleges are also seeking to profit, and have successfully convinced people that taking debt early in life is good for individuals going into the labor pool. The debt also increases alienation and people who would have children are suddenly priced out of it due to education debt.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s hilarious to me that you linked this as somehow a result of capitalism

        In 2020, women got married for the first time at an average age of 29.4, or 3.9 years later than in 1985, government data shows.

        As people have fewer children, they are able to spend more on each child than families have in the past. That drives up the average cost of raising a child for the broader population

        I mean the whole post is silly but this part especially is just chef’s kiss as a response to the poster above.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I explained how they were symptoms of capitalism. If you can’t understand it, then maybe you need a deeper understanding of the topic. How doesn’t it make sense?

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            Having fewer children means you spend more on the fewer children, driving up average cost of raising children

            We have one President indicted 91 times so on average Presidents are indicted twice because we’ve had 46 of them.

            This is just how math works, and has nothing to do with any economic system

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              “average cost” can vary in meaning on this topic. I read it as “fewer people are buying goods necessary for children, leading to raised prices and a higher average cost of raising children”. Considering studies done on the cost of raising children, this is how I interpreted the quote. But your interpretation is also technically correct, and I won’t fault you for reading something differently than I did.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                10 months ago

                That’s the incorrect way to read this. Rather, people are spending more on their children, and people without children are seeing average cost of raising children.

                Effectively, the standard of living for children is going up and people who feel they cannot hit that standard of living are (in Japan’s case especially) opting not to have them.

                I assure you that poor people are still having children that survive.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “It’s all about the money.”

      Funny how it’s always you people pretending like we have our heads in the clouds, when you don’t understand this simple fact of life yet.

      It’s okay, maybe when you’ll older you’ll get it.

      Let’s be real though. You do understand it but you want things to stay how they are. You’re afraid to come out and say it and I don’t hold you above that behavior.

      There’s a term for people like you, useful something. I can’t remember it.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      Capitalism is surely partly to blame but it’s laughable to identify it as the sole cause.

      • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ll never understand statements like these. Capitalism is the #1 reason there’s a profit incentive for any given thing to be horrible.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Workers owning a company would also have a profit incentive because the workers would like to make more money.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Workers owning their own company would incentivize creating stable growth, since the workers aren’t going to willfully destroy the company they all have a stake in.

            Whereas now we have unstable growth because the C suites, executives and shareholders milk companies dry and then toss them. They have no concerns about whether the bottom rung guys are sustainable.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’re going to need to define “stable” and “unstable” growth here.

        • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          10 months ago

          So it was because of capitalism that the communist revolution killed millions of people around the world.

          Uh, the more you know…

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think people define capitalism vastly differently. To some capitalism is simply the ability to trade goods for personal profit, which exists in almost every society. To others its the dictionary definition of an economic and political system.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              What you’re missing is that the first group there is populated by idiots.

            • Ubermeisters
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s unfair, you made a valid point, but I’m going to make this goalposts flexible for others

              You, just now

              • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                What? I don’t even have a stake in this debate. I am just pointing out how often I notice that two people seem to be discussing entirely different ideas.

          • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            Actually, yeah. Trade embargos starved those countries and the CIA killed the few real communists who managed to garner any influence, eliminating any real movements towards a marxist ideal

            • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ah yes, it wasn’t the expropriation and execution/imprisonment of competent farmers and the general failures of central planning, it’s all about them trade embargos.

              • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                Sure, focus on half of what I said rather than actually read the whole thing

                • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Sure, go one and tell us who were the illuminated people touched by the grace of God that were just too powerful to wander around the Earth in the view of the CIA.

                  If it wasn’t for those pesky americans, the World would be the perfect kumbaya by now.

                  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Che Geuvara, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, Fidel Castro, Martin Luther King Jr (via FBI COINTELPRO, proven in a civil lawsuit) are a few names. Operation Condor, the Vietnam war, the Korean War, the Palmer Raids, and many more examples exist of violent oppression of communists by the US government

        • Ubermeisters
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I don’t know where you people get this concept. Humans are the issue, not capitalism. There’s literally no functioning system of trade without capitalism. It’s just human nature. We are greedy and we want more than others so that we feel secure in our own future. It’s not fucking rocket scientist, and it’s not fucking capitalism.

          Do you really Envision a world where everyone works equally and gets paid equally and nobody makes extra profit but somehow people are happy? That doesn’t sound like any of the humans I’ve ever known, even the nice ones. You need to be a little bit more realistic and get your childish ass out of the playground.

          We couldn’t even get people to wear masks to not kill each other and you’re over here holding your breath for agapelandia lmao

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              the cost of living is a capitalist concept

              No, it isn’t. Lol

              There are fundamental costs to human survival and those costs must be borne out somewhere. Hunter/gatherers also had a cost of living.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The things people choose to believe never cease to amaze me.

              • bobman@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                The rising disparity in wealth is a result of capitalism.

                The cost of living is so high because we’re funneling as much money as possible to as few people as possible.

                Every day it gets worse, and this is by design.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Disparity in wealth does not impact cost of living. That’s nonsensical.

                  • bobman@unilem.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Wow. I’m sorry you believe that.

                    Either you’re trolling or woefully ignorant about the world around you. Either way, I can’t communicate with people like you.

                    You need more life experience.

                    Goodbye.

          • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            There are innumerable functioning systems of trade without capitalism. My point is capitalism is intrinsically violent and wasteful. War is profit. But there ARE mutualist, communalist, and voluntary approaches to labor as well just to name a few. I also have to point out that the gold standard in the case of USD is effectively maintained by a obscenely expansive worldwide military presence which can’t be a good thing long term and how about that ongoing pandemic we don’t talk about? How long can we as species get away with ignoring the real, big, systemic problems? Capitalism is NOT fixing them, and won’t. Regardless you’re real mistaken, I don’t envision some perfect world, dont accuse me of naivety- I’m a tired, jaded anarchist, not a communist. Anyways I am truly sorry you’ve only ever known assholes… I’m not holding my breath for anything just speaking my mind, and maybe I change someone’s, at least I tried

      • Eggyhead@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Frankly it’s laughable to assert there is a sole cause in the first place when there’s a myriad of different people here with a myriad of their own personal factors at play.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        “It’s all about the money.”

        You’ll understand when you’re older.