this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
792 points (97.5% liked)

World News

45370 readers
5256 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 340 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The biggest issue that no one ever wants to talk about is ....

... it's isn't about the QUANTITY of life

.... it's about the QUALITY of life.

If people are able to have a comfortable, stable and prosperous life, with plenty of their own free time to enjoy without worrying about losing everything then they'll make time and an effort to have a family and children.

If all our wealthy overlords ever want to do is squeeze every penny out of us all the time, then people will be less likely to want to have children.

[–] [email protected] 181 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It also strongly correlates to women's rights and access to education. The more educated women are, the less likely they are to have a lot of kids.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data

It's why you see a renewed attack on women in some developed countries, especially in the US.

[–] [email protected] 128 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Here's what happened in America.

In the 1960s the "Women's Lib" movement started. They got a lot of press coverage because it was a good stroy, but didn't actually change things a lot.

In 1973 the Oil Embargo hit and suddenly one job wasn't enough for the family to survive. Lots of wives had to go out and look for work to keep paying the bills.

The Right has been lying that women getting jobs is what destroyed the one income family.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Tying the mortgage repayment rate to the median salary of a single individual would go some way towards fixing things then, but that would mean putting price caps on houses which would devalue the currency and also need anti-cartel laws (eg. Laws mandating a maximum amount of homes one can own, as cartels might see artificially low prices as an opportunity to buy up more houses).

Artificially constraining parts of banking and all of residential real estate is likely to have other unforeseen effects on the economy, but may still be worth it.

Another alternative is starting a state bank in which citizens can be part of a rent-to-own mortgage, with minimum but achievable life time repayments. If they don't meet those minimum payments, the house is sold and the profit from the sale is portioned out between the state bank and the mortgage payer in proportion to how much % they paid off.

That's a win win, as theyre probably getting a big cash payment when struggling, and the state bank then gets to relist the home.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

Frankly, I LOVE the idea of cartel laws for ownership of residences.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sounds like you figured it out, since the debasement of the gold standard we locked away an inelastic good behind a mountain of debt, where prices rose to whatever interest rates would allow, providing a massive first mover advantage to those born prior. Then we wonder why nobody has kids.

If housing didn't continue to rise how many boomers would hold it as an investment instead of downsizing and buying an appreciating asset?

This is also why Bitcoin will keep going up and everyone should own at least a little, it leverages the cantillon effect as central banks get looser and looser due to aging demographics and shrinking aggregate demand.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The more appropriate fix would be no land ownership by people or countries that don't reside in the US, a banishment of investment companies from purchasing houses, and a hard cap of like 5 properties for any individual or company that can be owned as rental properties.

Far too many people/corporations are being landlords as a big business.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

We might even expand it to all private ownership, maybe…

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a win win, as theyre probably getting a big cash payment when struggling, and the state bank then gets to relist the home.

I like your ideas, but where do they live once they get foreclosed on by the State?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They use their profits from the house sale (which may be substantial depending on how long they've been there + market inflation), to rent somewhere.

That nest egg (which they've been paying into all this time) would give them breathing room and time to recover and get back on their feet to try again at a more stable point in thier lives.

It's a win win because the mortgage payer gets a lump sum, and space to reassess what went wrong. The state bank gets the unpaid percentage of the home's sale price, and then to sell the house again (under a new rent to buy mortgage arrangement).

P.S Part of how this works financially is that most of the money in an economy is created by loans issued from banks, those banks then buy Government Bonds periodically... A state bank would be another entity doing much the same thing, just with a specific purpose in mind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

and also need anti-cartel laws

Bring it on. Maximum 5 “homes” allowed per person, 7 for any family unit, children under 25 ineligible for ownership except as a post-death inheritance.

Anything above those limits is landlording-as-a-business, and combined with laws that make ANY business ownership of residential properly illegal, would force landlords to actually work for a living by getting day jobs.

Plus, have an extended “speculation tax” that hits any place being sold with a 100% tax on the first 2 years of owner-occupancy, with a straight-line decline to 0% in the eighth year. Any home being sold where the owner has never lived in it for a minimum of 2 years? 100% tax on the sale of the house straight out of the gate, with all proceeds going to a fund for first-time home owners. Exemptions, of course, for military deployment or death or a few other issues that cannot be leveraged for fraud.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which is the plot to Idiocracy and why the movie is no longer a fantasy and it is now a prophecy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I love that movie, except for the premise which is actually based on eugenics.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, the idea that intelligence can only be inherited is the major flaw to it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

It doesn't have to ONLY be inherited for the effect to be present, it's about 75% inherited, which is quite enough for a scifi premise to stand up better than most scifi plots.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wouldn't say that it's entirely eugenics. Most of the point they were making is environmental factors like having uneducated parents that don't enrich the child's life or being too poor for education because the parents were too poor because they had 10 kids. It's where we are headed because they are trying to actively destroy our education system and force people into unwanted births.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

First, the comparison and core of the intro is about reproduction. Second, welcome to the Internet, where not everyone is from the USA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But the movie was based in USA

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I think it is a wonderful movie exactly because it is applicable everywhere. Berlusconi was already walking that path in the early 2000s in Italy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You mean eugenics, but it shouldn't be an ideological position, reality in this case is that intelligence is actually very inheritable, around three quarters is a summary of decades of research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yea sorry, I accidentally anglicized.

Skimming over the link, I can see that a clear explanation is still lacking and that environmental theory is showing results.

Believing it is mostly genetic reinforces the claims of the class who has access to better education to maintain those accesses and resources.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Intelligence is inherited, but evenly distributed over the population/across (so called) ethnic groups You're skimming over a wikipedia article, but the guy you're replying to isn't off the mark.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It's either developed countries or the US, you can't have both

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

... which is a serious threat to said overlords, ironically.