With a declining birth rate, unless you're Muslim, it's vital that people have children. This too has been impacted by the western society shift in women working.Originally Posted by Yevrah
The global birth rate has been declining for the past 70 years. In 1950, you had 5 children per woman, now it's 2.1 per woman and on a downward trajectory. I'm not saying we need to get back to 5 kids in every family but it is interesting to see where this will lead our economy and society as a whole.
Hopefully less people like you.
Child maintenance is not enough to make up the difference of what the husband would have been bringing in previously.
On your last question - there's a huge difference between wanting to spend time with your kids and wanting to spend every waking moment with them and having very little adult interaction and intellectual stimulation on a day-to-day basis.
How do the Nordics do things? Don't they have good childcare provision?
What does Germany do?
I suspect this is much more of an Anglo problem because we don't fucking design any aspect of society to make life easier or better for people.
We really live in an idiots everywhere world, don't we.
The Nordics also have terrible birth rates, as do the Germans.
There's a basically constant correlation between women's lib and declining birth rates in the world. Because why wouldn't there be? As a woman with wider life opportunity than having five kids by 23 and then putting clothes through the mangle for the rest of your life, you'd be insane to make that as a choice.
It's really more a cultural solution than a political one. In the post woman stays at home while the man goes out to work world, society will have to decouple economic efficiency from virtue at least for some people. What does that mean? Fucked if I know.
Is that in relation to Carney building houses?
Was he your supplier then?
Need to source a new Kidflix IPTV.
What bit did you disagree with?
Nothing, you're just a giant spaz.
You make no sense.
First talking about nationalising British steel and now this. Labour getting outflanked to the left on economics by Reform, the stupid fucking cunts.
At least I'll get to see the shit-eating grin wiped off Wesley Streeting's face when he loses his seat at the next election. I'm sure he has a cushy directorship or two lined up already though.
Re the water authorities, or train operators, I can't remember what the trains were like pre privatisation. However, it can't be choice between nationalised = shit performance, or privatised = money grabbing dividend paying owners who won't reinvest enough ŁŁŁ.
Plus shit performance.
I proper lost it at 'comparing *Adolescence* with Casualty' (2:15) like she's just said she could win Wimbledon. There is a lot to be said for just laughing at these people.
Has Starmer even watched it? He's called it a documentary a couple of times.
Naga Munchetty called it a documentary there too.
Fair play to Badenoch there, she's bang on for basically telling them they're fucking stupid cunts.
This is all genuinely absurd. Proper Emperor's New Clothes stuff.
What's the spin with this then? I enjoyed it and thought it was quite powerful, especially for parents with kids around that age or coming up to that age, but how is it suddenly being pushed as mandated viewing in schools with all this MP support?
Because MPs love to associate themselves with popular things.
There's a difference between associating and pushing it for it to be required viewing in schools though. There's no way in my opinion Labour have decided off their own back to push for this without some sort of lobbying. The vast majority of kids are absolutely fine and exposing them needlessly to this is completely reckless and could easily end up with the Government in court if it had the wrong effect and turned one of these otherwise-unsuspecting kids.
To come out and give it public backing is fair enough, but for then to go this one step further is all a bit suspicious to me. Unless I'm giving them too much credit and they're just morons who haven't thought it through.
You not seen game of thrones mate?
You don't know who Zammo is?!
Theory: someone involved in the production company is related to a cabinet minister.
There was also something about the production company remaking Threads.
A foray into Women that murder babies and somehow how that’s Men’s fault is much needed. Forced showing in schools too obvs.
Pumping their Netflix stocks. Straight out of the Tronald playbook.
I'm not sure how you get growth (growth, growth) when so many people have so little to spend.
You don’t, but as long as we’re all focused on the merits of Adolescence vs Casualty there’s nothing to see here.
17.8m having an annual income under Ł12,570 is pretty mental.
I wonder how many of them are entirely running on benefits?
This kind of disparity will always happen but it's stark to see so many on so little.
Well, according to the first reply, 12.7 million of them are retirees, so I imagine the rest are benefit claimants of one kind or another.
I would say the average UK wage being 35k is a bigger issue. Especially considering that's before tax and rent is rarely less than a grand.
Don't ask for higher wages though, plebs. Just keep taking in debt plz. Regards, BoE.
Last edited by Spikey M; 12-04-2025 at 07:00 AM.
How many are students in that number?
It's the thing I didn't realise when I first started work. The numbers get higher but you don't feel the difference. I remember thinking Ł25k a year was going to be life-changing money. I'm on that now and it's not far removed from minimum wage. It's also just Ł3k off the regional average.
It does start to make a difference as long as you don't rise all your expenses alongside it.
According to HESA, there's 2.9m students in higher education. I assume they'll all be part of the 55m because it was derived from how many people (well, it's estimated) don't meet the income tax threshold.
Last edited by Shindig; 12-04-2025 at 08:53 AM.
Not so much now because they froze the tax brackets, really they could do to review them so people felt the benefit more rather than essentially being punished for earning slightly more than they did before but then how do we pay for the Ukrainian front huh huh huh.
Lofty, how dare you question the money we’re spending on Ukraine. Jesus.
It's going to be interesting to see if the steel mill can outspend that military assistance.
I'd say any attempt to get our national assets back in British hands is to be commended, but short of everyone paying 100% tax, I fear that ship sailed some time ago.
How do you get higher wages without growth?
Tax the rich.
That's not going to reach any of our pockets.
The government and its peripherals likes Adolescence because it allows them to discuss juvenile stabbings and misogyny - important things - with reference to normal white boys from normal white families. If they attempted to study those things from scratch, and without reference to what the television says, they would rapidly end up having to back away from the obvious conclusions like when those viral videos of women being borderline molested in city centres die a death as soon as people clock that all of the men in them are foreign.
I really don't care at this point.
Our second largest city is currently waist-deep in its own rubbish because the bin men are on strike. Unfortunately, the local government can't just pay them off, because a judge recently woke up one morning and decided to interpret equal pay legislation to mean that completely different jobs were now of 'equal value' and must be paid the same. This means that if the local government chooses to pay them more it will have to raise the wages of thousands of other people doing all manner of jobs that have got nothing to do with rubbish collection (except it can't anyway because it is already bankrupt settling historic claims against it for not doing so previously).
So yeah, just tax the rich a bit more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
