And here I thought 6 inches was the average.

Phthalates migrating from plastics to food and drink not doing d*ck sizes any favors, I guess.

Microplastics evolve to microdick.

Just got to listen to the former IC champ and eat watermelon while avoiding soy.

/photo/1

medium.com/the-savanna-post/45-of-women-estimated-to-be-single-and-childless-by-2030-1faf959b26cf


I do believe there is a conspiracy towards driving global depopulation.
If this is what these women want then fine, if society is being conspired against though,that's a bad thing.

I don't think there is any global conspiracy... it's not like anyone unleashed a virus on the world to even out the numbers..

Wait.

Back on topic : there's plenty of men in the same boat. And 25 to 35, it isn't unusual for someone to be still single. A lot of people are still figuing it all out - life that is. And by then, you should at least have some dating history to teach you what you do and don't like in a relationship.

I was 26 when I met my wife, and I had a couple of girlfriends in my early 20s in-between the usual hook-ups, dating and misadventures we all should experience before we settle down.

Some people just take a little longer. 40 is, as you know the new 30.

I don’t think there’s anything of the sort. This trend has been apparent for decades. The more industrialized the nation, the lower the birth rates. European women have been having fewer children for decades, American women have slowed down dramatically since.

Make childcare affordable, reduce the harm to a career caused by child birth, offer fully paid parental leave, etc. There’s no real movement towards anything to incentivize women to have more children, and the ones that do have more kids are often the ones being told they should stop because they can’t afford them.

I don’t have numbers, but I’d be curious the financial impact of having a child in terms of lost income/cost of childcare now versus 50 years ago.

(Personally had our one and only kiddo at 30, being a child of a teenage parent who was divorced with two kids in her early 20’s also played heavily in my preference to wait)

It is almost like as costs and inequality rise the bottom demographics start to have less kids since they cannot afford them or something.

In CT average cost of childcare a week is $350. Ave min wage after taxes is $420. Leaves you $320 bucks a month to pay the median rent of $2000.  So with two min wage workers you can afford rent and daycare, but not electricity, food, healthcare, transportation costs or any other daily cost of living expenses.

50 years ago normally only one parent worked because they could afford to.  Now even two parents working struggle to make enough to afford a single child.

And sure I know people believe in a world where everyone is making well above average wages, but things really do not work that way.  Income demographics are skewed towards lower wages, and these people realized that like owning a home, having kids is not out of their price range.  And no skipping their morning coffee or breakfast is not gonna get them the extra cash they will need to suddenly afford it.  A single iphone is not same as a year of childcare costs.

A lot of people prioritise being financially stable first, having a home and having had experiences - such as travel, before deciding to have kids.

The reality is, if you shack up with the first person you meet and knock out a kid at 18 or 20, you may as well press pause of any of your personal hopes or dreams for the next 15 or 20 years.

That, and as c mentioned, kids are expensive. If you're not financially stable, or already a big earner at a young age, or have the prospect to be one and in addition, lacking your own home - you're likely spending the rest of your life playing catch up. Hence the cycle of poverty that we see in lower social-economic communities/families.

If you look as well, the people who think everyone should have more kids, are the same people that oppose any public money goes towards helping raise those kids.

Ironic that after generations of them saying that if poor people cannot afford to have kids they should not be having kids, they now basically demand that poor people start pounding out the babies again after poor people started to their their prior advice.

But likely this has nothing to do with children perse, but more of a conservative backlash to liberals deciding that they do not need children to be happy.

It is good to know though we solved overpopulation though.

For the sake of avoiding this thread becoming another dumping ground, keep the politics in the politics thread maybe.

Aug 25, 2024 3:30:59 GMT mikec said:

I don’t think there’s anything of the sort. This trend has been apparent for decades. The more industrialized the nation, the lower the birth rates. European women have been having fewer children for decades, American women have slowed down dramatically since.

Make childcare affordable, reduce the harm to a career caused by child birth, offer fully paid parental leave, etc. There’s no real movement towards anything to incentivize women to have more children, and the ones that do have more kids are often the ones being told they should stop because they can’t afford them.

I don’t have numbers, but I’d be curious the financial impact of having a child in terms of lost income/cost of childcare now versus 50 years ago.

(Personally had our one and only kiddo at 30, being a child of a teenage parent who was divorced with two kids in her early 20’s also played heavily in my preference to wait)

^This.

From the article:

"Meanwhile, young women in their “prime working years” devote themselves to a career and a boss who doesn’t truly care about them, have promiscuous sex that has a negative impact on their mental health, and miss out on the true, lifelong fulfillment that comes with being a wife and mother."

:kane:

What am absolutely sexist statement! 

Nobody's boss cares about them! Promiscuous sex is not relegated to young “prime working years” women over young “prime working years” men any more than poor mental health. Why aren't they pushing the same narrative to men? 

The world is overpopulated anyway. Lots of kids who need good homes. Adopt. 





 

According to these people we solved overpopulation. Got to get the numbers up now. How else can consumer growth continue at the levels it has been if the consumer population does not also grow at record numbers.

To be fair, I was mostly taken by the headline of the article.
If women don't want to have children then it's their choice, I don't expect everyone to follow my line of interest, but depopulation is the greatest short to medium term threat to the country.

On the topic of parenting and affordability, I'm not saying this is good but the system got broken.
Back in to 60s we saw the rise in two income housing, initially it was a strategy by the few to get ahead.
Then as more households became dual income we had upwards pressure on house prices with downward pressure on wages... Again I'm not saying it's a good thing, it's just a thing. Now that most houses are dual income households inflation rises to soak up all that money, it's not planned or deliberate it's just how the economy works.

It's the same deal with 25k home owner grants, give those out and house prices will rise, it's unavoidable.

Aug 25, 2024 8:05:09 GMT iNCY said:

To be fair, I was mostly taken by the headline of the article.
If women don't want to have children then it's their choice, I don't expect everyone to follow my line of interest, but depopulation is the greatest short to medium term threat to the country.

Which country? Because depopulation, especially in several of the countries that are falling behind, is also a significant benefit to the planet’s availability of resources. I’m not a big believer in the overpopulation crisis stuff, we’ve shown an amazing resilience as a species to adapt to our circumstances, but the US slowing down population growth means a handful fewer bodies using fossil fuels we use almost as fast as our corn syrupy sodas.

I’d disagree with it being the greatest threat to the US, but there are other countries further down the path that maybe I could be convinced.

US population growth rate returned to .5% in 2023. Reason it was down was the pandemic deaths.

And really hitting zero or a slight decrease does not hard anyone but corporations as it means the status quo is retained. Corporations will lose out on future growth though as a static population means they will not see additional consumers be added to the market, which is why most right wing places are saying this is the end times. For corporations merely making what you did the last quarter the next quarter is seen as a sign of failure in the era of infinite growth.

Of course, the US could just take in more migrants to increase its population growth rates, but that is also the greatest threat to the country.

Getting back to the 666 thing, I think it originally took off due to the revolutionary idea that (1) insipid men being informed that yes, women in fact can have preferences and (2) the difference between a preference and a deal-breaker

like, women are supposed to be the evolved ones who don't care about looks! what do you mean they have opinions on physical appearances?

But it comes about when you ask women to design their dream mate in a lab, kinda like that scene in Total Recall,

and surprise surprise many women would want someone tall, fit and makes good money. What a shocker!

Of course, that's just all on paper and preferences are not deal breakers and no one would actually pass on someone because she's brunette rather than redhead / only 5'9 and not six feet

unless they're stupid. or online dating where the same person but slightly taller might be three swipes away, in which case refer back to the beginning of this sentence

getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4b44cca1-2bc9-4ed5-b016-8340b88aa37a

I haven’t dated since 2010, and I never had much of a challenge finding partners from HS through age 25 when I met my wife. I’m also 6’1”, used to be in phenomenal shape, and had a decent career path.

But I think there’s a lot of truth to the idea women today have a flawed POV on their value in the dating market.

I do genuinely believe women conflate who they can fuck with who they can date. A guy, even a really good looking one, will sleep with average/below average women if they just want to get laid. I’ve done it, and I’m sure others here have as well.

So those women now think they’re also above average, and they think they’re above normal dudes that are equal.

A lot of this is fueled by how casual sex is treated in America. I think the “free love” era was as damaging a cultural movement as anything in the last century.

None of that says women should be forced to date creepy incels, which tends to be the hyperbolic rebuttal to these points. Women are allowed to bang whoever they want. But I think it will continue to drive a loneliness epidemic millennials are going through right now, and that’ll continue with the next generation.

I saw IM ask why it’s different for a guy and a woman to sleep around. One … it just “is.” Men value virtue more than women do. Two … pair bonding (or the ability to do so) decreases with more partners, and it tends to hit women harder.

Saw this on the front page of Yahoo, and these kinds of traits can't be helping anybody.

After complaining that Gen Z grads are difficult to work with for the best part of two years, bosses are no longer all talk, no action—now they’re rapidly firing young workers who aren’t up to scratch just months after hiring them.


According to a new report, six in 10 employers say they have already sacked some of the Gen Z workers they hired fresh out of college earlier this year.


After experiencing a raft of problems with young new hires, one in six bosses say they’re hesitant to hire college grads again.


The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included . . . struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

They weren't kidding when they named the work app "Slack" ...

666 and dating

Eve did fall for the original bad boy, the devil.

Sept 27, 2024 8:04:14 GMT sting said:

Saw this on the front page of Yahoo, and these kinds of traits can't be helping anybody.

After complaining that Gen Z grads are difficult to work with for the best part of two years, bosses are no longer all talk, no action—now they’re rapidly firing young workers who aren’t up to scratch just months after hiring them.


According to a new report, six in 10 employers say they have already sacked some of the Gen Z workers they hired fresh out of college earlier this year.


After experiencing a raft of problems with young new hires, one in six bosses say they’re hesitant to hire college grads again.


The most frequently cited reasons for why these hires didn’t work out were a lack of motivation or initiative (50%), poor communication skills (39%), and a lack of professionalism (46%). Other factors included . . . struggles with feedback (38%), and inadequate problem-solving abilities (34%).

They weren't kidding when they named the work app "Slack" ...

And yet they don't want to hire older people either. Whatever will they do?

Only people aged 30-45 get hired anymore iron maiden

Will shrink the work force a wee bit!

Sept 27, 2024 15:16:17 GMT iron maiden said:

Sept 27, 2024 8:04:14 GMT sting said:

Saw this on the front page of Yahoo, and these kinds of traits can't be helping anybody.

They weren't kidding when they named the work app "Slack" ...

And yet they don't want to hire older people either. Whatever will they do?

Honestly, fuck younger workers that bring an entitled, unprofessional attitude to the workplace.

LMAO 666

Go outside your mom's basement. You will see that there are plenty of short fat ugly broke guys in loving relationships.

Most women have EXTREMELY low standards. To believe otherwise is to admit that you don't spend much time interacting with them.

Sept 27, 2024 16:55:19 GMT KJ said:

Sept 27, 2024 15:16:17 GMT iron maiden said:

And yet they don't want to hire older people either. Whatever will they do?

Honestly, fuck younger workers that bring an entitled, unprofessional attitude to the workplace.

What about me? I'm 35 and I also bring an entitled, unprofessional attitude to my workplace? Am I young enough to be the subject of your ire?

plz say yes

Sept 27, 2024 15:16:17 GMT iron maiden said:

Sept 27, 2024 8:04:14 GMT sting said:

Saw this on the front page of Yahoo, and these kinds of traits can't be helping anybody.

They weren't kidding when they named the work app "Slack" ...

And yet they don't want to hire older people either. Whatever will they do?

When unemployment is below 5% companies are all about understanding Gen Z and working from home...

Economy has started to turn and it's LOL JUST J/K and it's all about hustle culture again.
Pro tip: It always was.

Watch every one of these valid look at me day in the life video makers get sacked.
I have a friend who accidentally employed an influencer and without asking started filming videos in the office and in clients offices... When this was raised she couldn't see what the problem was and was outraged to be dismissed, and then started bad talking my friend online. These people are going to realise they are unemployable and it's going to come as the hard lesson that their parents should have taught them growing up.

That they're not special and nobody is irreplaceable.

Sept 28, 2024 2:15:32 GMT Bitch said:

Sept 27, 2024 16:55:19 GMT KJ said:

Honestly, fuck younger workers that bring an entitled, unprofessional attitude to the workplace.

What about me? I'm 35 and I also bring an entitled, unprofessional attitude to my workplace? Am I young enough to be the subject of your ire?

plz say yes

I mean, yes. Fuck anyone with that attitude.

Sept 28, 2024 2:33:58 GMT iNCY said:

Sept 27, 2024 15:16:17 GMT iron maiden said:

And yet they don't want to hire older people either. Whatever will they do?

That they're not special and nobody is irreplaceable.

Wrong. I flagrantly violate my workplace rules everyday but there's nothing they can do about it because I'm the only one who knows how to use the terrible company software.

My boss learned to accept this years ago. He is at peace. A zen master, really.

Sept 28, 2024 2:48:01 GMT Bitch said:

Sept 28, 2024 2:33:58 GMT iNCY said:

That they're not special and nobody is irreplaceable.

Wrong. I flagrantly violate my workplace rules everyday but there's nothing they can do about it because I'm the only one who knows how to use the terrible company software.

My boss learned to accept this years ago. He is at peace. A zen master, really.

I also was an unmanageable turd in my last job, not that I meant to be... But I made my boss a gazillion dollars and he was happy to live with my quirks.

But being a turd who generates revenue is different from someone incompetent who comes in late, offers nothing and needs mental health day after a staff meeting.