United Kingdom

5577 readers

73 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Real reasons people do not have the number of children they want revealed in new report (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by SleafordMod@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article notes that "right-wing governments, including the US and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood", as if today's young adults just don't want children.

But the author suggests that actually people do want children, and one of the main reasons they're having fewer children is because they can't afford many children.

Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

This makes no sense

Millions of people are prevented from having the number of children they want by a toxic mix of economic barriers and sexism, a new UN report has warned.

How does that gel with the poorest countries in the world with societies that treat women like shit having the highest birth rate?

[–] filtoid@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

There's a difference between Women harming their careers by having children, and not being able to a career other than SAHM because you aren't able to get a career job in the first place. Both are sexist, and while it would work to increase the birth rate to remove women's rights, it is morally reprehensible, and yes looks sternly at the US, we see what you are doing!

[+] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] filtoid@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Honestly can't tell if you're trolling with this.

Any job that would give you an advantage when applying for a new job (ie. Prior experience) is part of a career. For more formal careers like Medicine and Law they are an absolute necessity and often formally defined, for careers like Bartender, the requirements are more fluid, but experience (and particularly unbroken experience) is very important when applying for jobs.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Any job that would give you an advantage when applying for a new job

Nope. Only true if the new job offers benefit over the previous jobs.

Sorry to tell you this. But for many in modern society that is simply not the case. The growth in income or benefit at best covers the increase in cost of living.

With the huge increases in housing costs alone. Long term employment. Stable or steady replacement. Often fails to pay the increased dost of surviving as low income workers age.

For many low income families jobs last as long as the company success followed by random layoffs to support company shareholders. Followed by inflation only replacement work.

This is in no way a career just survival.

load more comments (2 replies)