• njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can’t imagine a lot of 40-year-olds are still planning to have kids so this number seems a little suspect to me.

      • Girru00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thanks for this, so I redid the math using the two youngest categories (up to 34 years old) and the % goes from 21% to 26% 🤷‍♂️

        • eatthecake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It only surveyed people who don’t have children. Says on the left ‘Do not have children, n = 1300’. This result says nothing about the general intention to have children as those with children in each age group are excluded. Naturally, as people age, the number who still think they’re going to have children goes down.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The light blue section doesn’t count towards either yes or no, right? Because it’s the “I don’t know” answer.

          I was sitting here wondering how they came to 21% at all without only looking at the oldest category, and even then it’s only a fourth that would not get children.

          • Girru00@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            For sure, good call out, I think they just mean only 21% of people feel sure about wanting kids, and if we remove the age bias it goes to 26%. Honestly it would be more interesting to compare the categories to answers from 10, 20 or 30 years ago to have a better benchmark for how we could interperet this.

            • vxx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, I got distracted by the headline and didn’t notice the bottom text that says it exactly that way.

              I suppose I’m not alone, because I doubt it would’ve been interesting enough to make my feed without the confusion.

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t basic biology say that it gets more dangerous for people to have kids the older they are? Let alone the virility of men over 40.

        • Sparhawk87@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s a risk to have a child at any age but the risk does raise as you get older scare tactics says it doubles and such after 40 but that doubling is like a 0.5% chance changing to a 1% chance. Adam ruins everything did a piece on this that explains it pretty well.

      • bighatchester@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        I never understood how someone gets pregnant accidentally. I have 2 kids and both where very on purpose.

          • bighatchester@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah you don’t want to get the girl pregnant you don’t cum in her pussy . It’s that easy I did it for many years .

            • leisesprecher@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you see the world that simplistic, maybe you should have refrained from procreating.

              Birth control can fail. Pills can be forgotten or interfere with other medications, IUDs can fall out unnoticed, condoms can break or slip off, etc.

              If you have sex often enough, the chances of having birth control fail at some point creep up to 100%, and if you’re “lucky” that results in a pregnancy, and if the mother either has no access to abortions, or simply doesn’t want one, you have a child.

              Unplanned doesn’t mean unwanted or unloved. Many people in principle would like a child but don’t know if now is the right time and this person is the right partner, but if random chance over, they’ll take that hint and become parents.

            • hazeebabee@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              My brother had 2 unplanned children using the pull out method. First time should have taught him it’s not an effective birth control, but it wasn’t until the second kid that he really accepted it.

              So ummm I guess it’s not that easy for everyone lol

              • Clent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s likely this guy has a lower sperm count and doesn’t realize it. If it took him more than one month of trying, I am certain of it.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Only a fifth of Canadians younger than 50 plan on having kids

    That’s sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.

    The poll found 51% say it is “not their responsibility” to fund other people’s childcare, with the most likely group to say this are those who have raised children to the age of 18 or older, where the proportion rises to 59%.

    While I’ve got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it’s taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don’t have kids.

    So if you don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.

    The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.

    • Aggravationstation@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.

        This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance… if you don’t need it… it’s not a waste… you got lucky. But if you get unlucky… if you go at it alone… you will be up the creek without a paddle.

        Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.

    • basmati@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.

      In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to “retire,” if they don’t already have the full funds to retire. Canada’s right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.

        • leisesprecher@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          And Hitler planned to conquer the world.

          There’s a good chance, you simply cannot retire in 30 years. Or at least not fully. State funded pensions are struggling worldwide. If less new tax payers are coming in, whose taxes pay your pension?

        • basmati@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Retirement age for you is 67 with a max 1200/mo in ss, and most pension funds have gone bankrupt. Unless you have a military/federal pension or already have the 2-4 mil needed for “fun” retirement and eol care saved you’re not retiring.

          More 70 year olds than ever before are returning to the workforce, and they had everything handed to them.

  • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    the 35-44 year olds skew the data quite heavily. In that age it’s dangerous for women to have kids so over 50% of them saying no makes sense.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep. We had one kid when my wife was in hear early 30s. It was not a fun pregnancy for her in any way (morning sickness the entire time, for instance) and, on top of that, we decided against any more once she turned 35 since we didn’t want to increase any risk factors.

      Lots of people are getting married later in life. If you get married at 35 and you don’t want to take the risk of having a kid, I don’t blame you.

  • Toes♀
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    In this economy you gotta wait until your 70s before you humour the thought of having children.

    Besides, to match the government budgets we probably should hold off until we reach 1830s population numbers.

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe if they created an environment conducive to having kids, more people would have them. Failing and underfunded public education, increasingly expensive cost of childcare, lower standard of living. I could go on about climate and geopolitical uncertainty but you get the idea.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Once you’re 50, you got everything together, the house, the car, the job… That’s when you should start dating! There’s a bunch of 45 year old hotties out there with big tiddies! Just gotta know where to look…like like forward, to the left, and to the right. Usually you don’t need to look up to find a hottie.

    Anyway, the thing about 45 year old hotties is that they don’t live with their parents anymore. Usually their parents already died. It’s tragic, So know, but believe me! It’s for the best! You don’t wanna end up getting chased around the neighborhood by a 90 year old with a shotgun. At best the guy hurts himself and you’re still the guilty party. Nah. Find yourself a 45 year old orphan.

    And get a job you laisy sonobabich! How are you gonna provide to your girlfriend if you got no job! 😜