• @d00ery
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      3 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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 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
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          3 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            3 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
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              3 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
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  3 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.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    03 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.