blarghly

joined 1 year ago
[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you are saving for retirement, you should keep your savings in the market, which would make your $100 worth significantly more than in 2013

Emergency funds should be small enough that changes in value due to inflation over more than a decade cause negligible financial hardship

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Surely there is a standardized economic metric for consumer purchasing power strictly for necessities as well. I assume this, because economists throw the best parties.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I mean, on the housing front (in the US at least), it has far more to do with the government backed 30 year mortgage (cheap money drives prices up) and zoning regulations (which constrain supply and also drive prices up).

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not how economics works. The price of gold fluxuates wildly because demand for it fluxuates wildly, because people keep gambling on the value of gold.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

FOSS ponzi scheme

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

This is the best thing I've seen on the internet all week. A whole 8 days!

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Also in 2005: a forum post about gingerbread recipies hijacked for a 20 page long debate about the existance of God

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

Well now we've just reinvented the victorian concept of a woman

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey get a load of this loser! Interacting with the real world! Ha! Everyone laugh! Hahahaha!

cries in terminally online

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I did a quick google search and found this article. It seems like it is a conservative news source, so I am skeptical of the bent - but the facts seem to support my view:

Israeli Jewish parents and particularly mothers deserve recognition. Raising children requires sacrifice, patience, and devotion. These mothers achieve this with just 14 weeks of paid maternity leave per child—less than the OECD average of 19 weeks and far less than many European nations. Israeli mothers return to work earlier yet still have more children.

This growth comes overwhelmingly from those closest to Jewish traditional values. Haredi families lead with an average of over six children. Religious families have nearly four, and traditional Jews exceed the replacement rate with almost three children, while secular Israelis fall short with just two children. Those who preserve tradition are building the future.

The narrative I see here is that Israel has moderate support for families, and the reversal of birth rates is being driven by religious conservatives responding to a call to outcompete Palestinian birth rates. I'm open to other interpretations of the phenomenon from other sources, or your own interpretation of the article - but I feel like this matches up with my prior assumptions.

The driving force in low birth rates is emancipation and secularization of women. Providing more maternity leave, more child-rearing stipends, better health care, etc, simply won't sway women who take a rational look at the process of birthing and raising children - destroying your body to be chained to a thankless responsibility for 18 years - and decide that they would rather have more money and free time instead. I will say my personal opinion on this descision is "that makes a lot of sense to me, good for you, snowboarding does sound a lot more fun than trying to control a child's temper tantrum in a starbucks." Of course, there are people on the margins, who would have a child if their economic conditions were better - but my feeling here is that this is a moving target. What counts as "ready" has less to do with actual physical needs, and more to do with being able to essentially keep up with the Joneses. Ie, the prospective secular mother wrings her hands, worrying that if her child can't get into an Ivy League college then they will be miserable and so what is the point of giving them life in the first place? The religious mother, on the other hand, has absolute clarity (as reinforced weekly at her religious services) that motherhood is the greatest honor and responsibility she will have in her life, and that every life she gives birth to is a fantastic gift, regardless of how miserable it might be, and so gives birth while deeply in debt and living in a trailer park.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I have to say, this feels like a take that I'd like to see some evidence for. Because often those immigrants are coming from countries with essentially no social safety net and very regressive social customs. They have 7 kids because the mom was raised in a tight knit religious community where it was made very clear that her worth as a person was dependent on birthing and raising many children, and she carried that belief into adulthood. When these nations gain access to birth control, better education and autonomy for women, and more knowledge of the outside world, birth rates drop.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear of any developed nation successfully reversing declining birth rates via social welfare programs. I'm not saying that a properly executed program couldn't work - I'm just saying I haven't seen one yet.

If anything, based on the evidence I can see, we should expect the exact opposite effect. Welfare states will need to import population from more virile regressive states

view more: next ›