I am a top 15% earner in my area, have been for 7 years, and I'll be able to afford a home maybe in another 5-10 years.
If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children.
On top of the issues with people working so often and so hard that they rarely have time to meet anyone outside of work; no wonder people aren't marrying.
> If you consider starting a family with no hope of ever getting out of renting, as landlords constantly raise monthlies, you might reconsider children.
Generally the less money you make the more kids you have. It's really a question of prioritization. People say they're holding off on kids for X or Y reason but I think this is more of an expressed vs revealed preferences situation. They would rather chase material wealth for themselves than have kids, and to be clear I'm not judging just observing. Through most of human history mud huts weren't a blocker to having kids.
That’s because people pulling a nice paycheck have gotten a taste of stability and don’t want to risk losing it, and this is intensified when the economy is turbulent. People making less never had stability in the first place and don’t have as much to lose.
Aside from that, it's merely observations/anecdotes, but from what I’ve seen people who have managed to achieve a massive uplift in economic status (say from minimum wage in their mid-20s → net worth north of $500k-$1m in their mid-30s) are more likely to have children than people who’ve always been wealthy. I would theorize that such individuals feel a greater degree of economic freedom, having lived at the bottom and being able to make more effective use of what they have.
Mud huts didn't have you evicted 4 years after you built it.
A different scenario. It's one thing to function in a world where you have nothing but can always make ends meet because while you aren't earning anything more, at least your expenses aren't increasing. Currently we have a different system.
(your paper is five years old, and is lagging broad, rapid global fertility decline trends; it's not income-fertility, its "educated, empowered women with access to birth control have less kids, no kids, and/or delay childbirth" regardless of income, with the caveat being some higher income cohorts and ultra orthodox religions/cultures [Israel] having higher than baseline fertility)
The contrary findings section on Wikipedia starts quoting a 2002 article. Could you point to which part exactly you find more compelling?
Education and contraceptives as the article I linked are separately correlated and powerful, as is religious adherence. They're all factors. Note that each of these factors is differently important in different countries or regions, so just because you found a study that shows a positive correlation in the Netherlands that it is in isolation important or that it would work the same way in the US.
Right, I think we’re running into the limitations of a scarcity-based system here. Even many well compensated couples would face having to make major tradeoffs with their economic stability, careers, time spent with the kids, retirement, quality of life, etc, and are accordingly choosing the path of least risk.
Even the most generous countries aren’t fully compensating for the costs of raising a family, and the assistance offered by many is less than pocket change. It’s only natural that incentive is going to be low.
The use of the word "emergent" is concerning to me. I believe this to be an... exaggeration of the observed effect. Depending on the perspective and the knowledge of the domain, this might seem to some ad emergent, however we saw equally interesting developments with more complex Markov chaining given the sheer lack of computational resources and time. What we are observing is just another step up that ladder, another angle to enumerate and pick the best token next in the sequence given the information revealed by the proceeding words. Linguistics is all about efficient, lossless data-transfer. While it's "cool" and very surprising.. I don't believe we should be treating it as somewhere between a spell-checker and a sentient being. People aren't simple heuristic models, and to imply these machines are remotely close is woefully inaccurate and will lead to further confusion and disappointment in the future.
Young people also like to see if there is a way to have a better world, old people tend to keep the status quo.
While I'm sure the connection to technology and the Internet as a whole plays a role, but much more-so the gross and clearly corrupt government is the reason why they demonstrated.
No one is willing to die so they can just post on social media.
JREG is the only Canadian I would accept as a Presidential Candidate for the US, and i don't even agree with half of what he says. I just think he'd do a better job than most.
I've done this on a few smaller projects when I was in college. It's fun bringing something similar to OOP into C; however you can get into trouble really quickly if you are not careful.
