Anyone who understands global warming feedback loops would not have to ask that question. It is clear that the predator class is incinerating the planet to line their pockets and that is not going to end well for most of us.
Let’s try to convince everybody you must have a traditional looking family from a 50s TV show. Like it’s a religious caliber requirement.
Oh but number must go up, so we’re gonna put every economic stress we can on them to make that impossible.
And we might screw up some childhoods and send some adults over the edge. It’s a real shame. But hey let’s find that silver lining: cheap prison slave labor! Number go up again!
Yeah, ladies, what are you up to?
Is parthenogenesis no longer an option?
All the local over the air news stations in my area…
(super cheery voice, on the verge of giddiness) Tonight we learn more from local investigators about the tragic bus accident that left 14 orphans dead and 10 others in critical condition. (almost laughing, kind of giggly voice) So tragic.
But first, who will Mandy pick tonight on The Surrogate Show, find out at 9 p.m. right here on channel 8 WPPV-TV. And stick around to meet the Dachshund that adopted an abandoned baby squirrel and find out what you can do to help support her family.
I want to hear more about the Dachshund and squirrel
I have no words for this headline. “Breaking news” with nothing else. I mean, wow.
So perfect that all news stories should have this headline right?
More of a title than a headline, really
Like Broken 💔 News?
I prefer Borking News and it’d just be videos of dogs.
Don’t forget the backsliding civil rights and ecological doom
I’m hung up on the fascism. Call me picky 🤷♂️
I made this diagram a while ago:
Basically, human labor is required to make the economy grow, but to sustain it doesn’t need so much labor.
That’s like when you’re building a house, a lot of working hours goes into building it (10 men for 1000 hours each), but sustaining it can be done by a housewife in her spare time after she took care of children all day. (I’m deeply sorry about the gendered language but i feel it gets the point across more clearly - maintenance requires significantly less work than building something in the first place.)
This leads to the following phenomenon:
As time goes forward, we have more resources available due to better automation (consider farming robots) but at the same time there’s less demand for human labor also due to automation.
This changes the way that society operates significantly. And it also makes it very displeasant for the people who only identify through the labor they produce to have children, because these children will have a difficult time finding meaningful employment.
Note that this phenomenon takes decades to roll out, but that’s also the time in which children would grow up, so it matches on the timescale and that’s why it’s relevant.
Graphs without axis labels 💀 what do the numbers mean
PS the word “homemaker” exists. …Just wanted to tell you!
I’m genuinely curious, where are theses numbers from? Could you please cite the source of your graphs?
it doesn’t seem that they are based on any data, it just illustrates their point
yep
I just want to add to my description above that the cost of living is actually decreasing if you looked at it from an objective perspective. However, we are humans and don’t look at things from an objective perspective, but from a subjective one instead, i.e. how much can i buy with my money.
And that is becoming less. Because the wages decrease faster and more dramatically than the cost of various products. As a consequence, if you divide the cost of products by our wages, things still seem to get more expensive in relation to our own buying power.
So what is this “objective” perspective? Could you break it down like you broke down the subjective one?
the objective perspective is if you compare prices to food.
historically, food was one of the first type of products to be optimized as much as can be, because people in the 19th and 20th century understood very well how central and important food is for a society. like, for example, under hitler, in nazi germany a whole lot of focus was put on how to produce as much food as possible on the area available. as a consequence, everything about the food production process got optimized as much as possible. the same happened everywhere else in the west at roughly the same time btw, i was just citing nazi germany as an example because there’s extensive literature about that one, but you can probably find fair amounts of literature about the situation in england and the US as well.
anyways, food production got optimized as much as possible early on, in the first half of the 20th century, and as a consequence, food production could not ever be truly improved (from an economics point of view) ever since, because it’s already “maximum performance”. as a consequence, the price of food production (in terms of real resource use and labor use) is already the lowest it could be and did not change in the last 75 years. that is why, from a realist point of view (i.e. one that looks at objective reality such as materials used and labor hours worked) its cost has stayed constant for a long time.
on the other hand, luxury products like TV screens, entertainment, and such had not experienced similar optimization in the first half of the 20th century, instead these things got tackled only much later starting around 1970 when companies realized that there was still a lot of improvement among these products so they continued to invest and develop the production processes for these products. as a consequence, from a realist point of view, the production processes for these products got much more efficient in the last 50 years.
thank you
so you consider the price basket excluding luxuries to be objective?
yeah, more or less, especially food.
I just don’t like children so I chose not to have any
Pretty simple
It didn’t happen for me. I wanted to meet someone I’d like to have them with first. That has happened, but she’s past the child rearing agree.
And that’s fine!
I just don’t like children, so with the current situation, I choose to have as many as I could.
Pretty simple.
“Tonight, 96 Half-Hours investigates how a Trad Fam Man was ‘disappeared’ by Trump Thugs after inadvertently speaking the quiet part out loud.”
speaking the quiet part out loud.
Specifically, while not being rich.
Evil
I love it!
You don’t like children? Wow. Ok. We have WILDLY different takes on this. I love children…with bbq sauce, and a side salad. Really hits the spot!
I prefer the taste of billionaire
It’s not just more people choosing not to have children at all. People who want to have children are having a lot fewer. In my grandparents’ time families would have 10+ and sometimes 20+ children. Now even having 4 kids is considered a lot!
Gee, I wonder why? What could it possibly be?
(/s)
Huge room, huge TV- they’re well off.
TV b𝖾ing 𝖾xp𝖾nsiv𝖾 is an outdat𝖾d m𝖾ntality. Early TVs w𝖾r𝖾 incr𝖾dibly 𝖾xp𝖾nsiv𝖾, and boom𝖾rs had to pay d𝖾arly for th𝖾ir 𝖾nt𝖾rtainm𝖾nt, but that isn’t the cas𝖾 any mor𝖾.
R𝖾gardl𝖾ss, poor p𝖾opl𝖾, w𝖾ll-off p𝖾ople, and p𝖾ople in comics ar𝖾 allow𝖾d to choos𝖾 to buy a TV.Well, as long as you are ok with a TV that spies on you, annoys you and blast you with adds. Also it will stop getting security updates and have to be trashed when planned obsolecence kicks in.
I find that TV backlights just don’t last. Most flat panels made in the last ten years I’ve seen have at least some dead areas of backlighting.
Dude, it’s a TV. No one forces you to use “smart” features at all.
If you want to use the product, there’s a computer built into it you can’t shut down while using the TV, that will connect to any open Wi-Fi it finds. They’re insidious.
Oh thank goodness, I was almost worried about the state of things for the country. Relax guys, the people in this comic are well off because they can fit a couch in a room, all is well. 😌
