• d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Lol, I have no idea, a million isn’t that much if one has a big house, staff, and private jets.

      I’m not quite sure what your point is?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Multimillionaires don’t need to work, they could stop working and live off the interest on their wealth, yet their fertility rate is lower than people who make under 50k/year, which is less than the interest you make on a million in savings.

        • d00ery@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s assuming they don’t want to keep their big houses, expensive holidays etc? Generally expenditure grows with income.

          I think your argument is that people don’t have children for reasons other than wealth. My argument is that wealth and the ability to live a certain life style does affect people’s decision on having children.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            That’s where you’re wrong, at a certain point you generate enough from interest that all you’re doing is accumulating more and more wealth, yet these people don’t have more kids.

            • d00ery@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              And where is this data? What are you basing this on?

              Because earning 200k doesn’t mean they have millions in savings, and I’m not quite sure how you’d be able to get that data.

                • d00ery@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  This shows me that people on high incomes have fewer babies, it doesn’t show whether those not having to work whilst maintaining that high standard of living (i.e. independently wealthy - millions in savings) have higher or lower numbers of children.

                  I think we’re arguing to the same end, that if it wasn’t a choice between high standard of living / interesting career Vs having children there wouldn’t be an issue. Capitalism, once again, is a victim of it’s own success and desire for short term gains.

                  We’ve done such a good job advertising a better life that everyone’s decided earning more and having a good career is the most important thing.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    It has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with women being allowed to make a choice. In a socialist system they don’t have more kids no matter how much support they get.

                    Fucking hell, I feel like I’m talking to someone who would love to see women being forced to have kids in exchange for being paid or something… “There you go lad, a nice check to make sure you and your kids don’t go hungry, now go and start making babies, that’s what you were meant for!”

                    I’m done, goodbye.