this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
186 points (93.9% liked)

World News

39040 readers
3961 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Notably, Chang's report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line."

(...)

"The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students' early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eco anxiety wasn't a thing in the 70s and 80s, birthrate in rich nations was still under 2 for locals.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

During the time period when the highest tax brackets fell from 70% to 50%... Down to now 37%.

Surely the people holding the most money paying near half the taxes they used to didn't cause them to hold onto that money and drive more and more money up into their hands.

But I have it invested! So you can't tax it yet, but I rolled it into a company so you can't tax it or if you can you can't tax me the same way!

For capitalism to work there has to be strong legal bindings to taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor to make sure they don't get steamrolled by the system.

We having been pumping the breaks for years on those responsibilities, and more and more people in turn will get steamrolled and forced into starvation, homelessness. The mental health rates being low are directly tied to money in the middle and lower classes.

If we made a rule that for every 10 people who committed suicide do to scarcity that the richest person would be killed as well, we would run out of rich people not trying to promote subsidizing the poor pretty quick and trying to get the happiness of the people up instead of only worrying about profits.

That's crazy obviously... But we need healthier motivation to make the world a better place. That isn't a healthy one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Look at historical data, birthrate just goes down as nations develop, it's true everywhere no matter how taxed the rich are or how much fertility programs exist. The whole world isn't the USA.