“The real barrier is the soaring cost of marriage and child-rearing. Many young people simply can’t afford to get married. To truly raise marriage rates, the government needs to lower these economic burdens.”

  • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s the wrong approach. Earth is in a gross state of ecological overshoot. We should be embracing the demographic decline that will bring our populations and consumption back in line with earths resources.

    A shrinking society due to aging is far prefereable than one due to resource exhaustion, deprivation and conflict.

    Embrace a smaller population and a bigger world.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 hours ago

      And this is where unregulated capitalism and the constant craze for GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH comes into the picture. With a failing demographic AND an aging society, economic collapse is inevitable. I mean, it could be just a long, smooth slope in theory, but not with this dystopian economic system where you have already spent the money you’re getting back in 10 years’ time, with the greedy shareholders dictating everything.

      I mean, these demographic changes will happen regardless, but the effects of currently having such a flawed and short sighted system will be painfully drastic.

    • LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The issue is that under our current economic model consumption always has increase because revenue and growth for businesses is essential and CEOs are mandated by law to increase shareholder value as much as possible. While the number of people will and is decreasing, the ammount each individual will consume will have to rise so much as to increase overall despite the smaller number of consumers.

      That, or the system, as it currently stands, will collapse - degrowth means recession and our society isn’t built to embrace recession yet.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 hours ago

        CEOs are mandated by law to increase shareholder value as much as possible

        One slight correction, this applies to publicly traded companies that appear on stock markets, yes. This isn’t a requirement in privately held companies.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          It actually is for both. In the case of private firms, it’s not necessarily to increase shareholder value, but instead to increase profits and market share due to competition. If they don’t, they’re outcompeted, ran out of business and/or taken over by their competitors.

          Besides that, many many private firms are owned by private equity investment companies which can be even more persistent in pushing for higher profits.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Thats a bit different. There isn’t a mandate to do those things which is where OP was going. Many private companies may engage in the same behavior but there isn’t a legal requirement they do so. There are companies that don’t just look one quarter ahead and run their businesses for the long term customer satisfaction. I’ll admit they are getting more rare though.

            • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              Yes but it’s important for onlookers to understand this mechanism. I often hear people believing that private firms don’t have to profit maximize. I used to think that too but it doesn’t match reality. The competition mechanism explains what we see around us.

              And of course there are exceptions depending on the exact context and market conditions of a private firm but they don’t negate the mechanism under the assumptions it operates.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            And if they aren’t they are often sold into one of those systems once the younger generation of the family decides they have no interest in running their parents’ company.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Thats certainly possible, but there’s no legal requirement they do so. With publicly traded companies the CEOs have a legal fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value.

      • blakenong@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Humans will never be able to embrace each other. We only embrace money and power. There should be no “economy” or “borders.” But that isn’t how human brains work. We can have small pockets of this way of thinking, but it always gets destroyed.

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      All that means is extinction right now.

      It’s the poorer classes that understand how to live in the world, but they’ll be the ones to die with the rich clueless gentry inheriting an earth they can ever live in.