>>513793372
>>513814214
>>513815451
Wtf is this red herring? Derailing into an anti-woman rant by blaming women’s consumer spending habits has nothing to do with fertility. The image I posted was about employment going down showing a weakening labor force, aka shits fucked atm.
If consumer spending were the cause, you would expect higher spending to equal more children since spending shows disposable income but the opposite is happening.
"Women's spending is the problem" most of that is on behalf of families groceries, children’s clothing, household supplies. Pretending women alone are responsible for “useless garbage” is cherry-picking as hellllll.
Countries that suppress women (e.g., Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) do not magically become baby booms of healthy, stable families. Birthrates tend to crash when women lose economic and social security.
Declining fertility in the U.S. is about structural economics, not this lazy scapegoat you're arguing.
>It's currently estimated that about 60% of the wealth of the last 30 years has been wasted on literal microplastic garbage.
Thats a different problem? Overconsumption and environmental waste. You could ban all “useless” spending tomorrow and you’d still have sky-high rent, $2k/month daycare, $30k hospital bills for childbirth, and $1.7 trillion in student debt. That’s why people aren’t having kids.