Hacker News Reader

Comment by next_xibalba | Hacker News Reader

Ah, yes. Just like the thousands of generations of humanity who begat us, we should strike until our elders pay us to reproduce. Else, who is this "society" of which you write? Surely it's not those younger than us. So it must be us and our elders. And since we aren't going to pay ourselves to reproduce, I guess the bill then slides to our elders.

Perhaps this is the Great Filter–conscious species become so entitled, effete, and apathetic that they refuse to reproduce until they either fall back into the dark ages or go extinct.

View on HN

I mean, yeah, the previous generation had it easier, and society provided them with a reality in which they could buy a home for a family on a single income, for example

Now, the same people are buying up multiple properties that the next generation would otherwise live in, so they can rent-seek instead of earning the money improving society.

Indeed, the previous generation claiming the current generation is "entitled" is a story as old and boring as time, but the ones now obliviously claiming it without realizing they had it better, pretending they were "roughing it" with their 1-income mortgages, are truly the most entitled of all.

I think it's perfectly possible to follow your comment 100% and still expect "payment" to happen. In what sense is it a problem for the "us" group if society is doomed because the "us" group gets the short end of the stick compared to the "elders" group? You seem to be calling the "us" group entitled, but that's a matter of perspective. The "elders" group can perfectly well be called entitled if they don't want to chip in for continued survival.

Sounds to me like "us" and "elders" should get round the table and figure out a way to make having children more palatable.

"We" aren't a single unit. Some of "us" could lose billions of dollars and still never have to worry about money

It's always weird reading HN with over inflated egos, and those on good salaries.

I've been in debt for over a decade. For some that money would be chicken feed, but for me it has ensured I'm in perpetual debt. I never have spending money. Wear clothes until they totally fall apart. Found a pair of shoes that I have repurposed. And sometimes have barely anything to eat for weeks. If I'm lucky I get to the pub once a year. Can't afford Christmas presents etc.

Then I read that Boris Johnson will struggle for a place to live when he retreats from being a prime minister where he struggles to live on his 200k salary. And in the following months earns 5 million for doing a a few speeches.

Some of us indeed can have nothing but never have to worry.

How many billions are you talking here?

A billion dollars split evenly over the US population nets around $2.98 per person, so we're gonna need a lot to really make any appreciable difference.

About 41000 billions.

> The wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled about $41.52 trillion in the first quarter, according to Federal Reserve data released Monday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent...

> So it must be us and our elders. And since we aren't going to pay ourselves to reproduce, I guess the bill then slides to our elders.

I think it is pretty clear that employers must pay a fair wage.

If you work for a living but your income does not allow you to survive, let alone support kids, then your employer is failing to meet his end of the social contract.

It's entirely stupid how minimum wage simply does not cover the cost of existing, specially in times of record profits.

It's more like this: educated people don't have children for multiple reasons, because they can control their emotions enough to not succumb to them regarding the huge downsides of having them, because they are smart enough to have such existential questions that encourage nihilism and anti-natalism, and simply because they are better at using contraception.

Being smart has negative evolutionary pressure: natural selection selects for animals that do not question whether or not they should have children.

At least RMS proudly announced he doesn't plan on reproducing himself.

http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...

I'm getting some conservative vibes from the rhetoric about 'entitlement' and calling people overly feminine, as if the caricature we call 'manhood' has a real solution to today's issues. I don't know what to tell you, none of us asked to be here. When someone uses the entitlement angle, they try to push an idea that everyone deserves less than what is being proposed. What exactly is entitled about requiring stability before having children? If society cannot provide enough opportunity to sustain stability, then they have failed the people.

Society's not entitled to a working population, or a population at all. People are more than a means to an end, and if we have to burn down capitalism to prove it, I'll get my torch!

Otherwise, why should I have children? As a man, I stand only to lose from marriage and children. The legal and social atmosphere is all responsibility, no power or freedom.

I'm "conservative" and for the most part I agree. Another angle could be: most states have resorted to immigrarion to fix this and maybe encourage this. Perhaps that's the problem? A counterexample to my point would be Japan.

It’s not paying if they stole it from you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com