[giraffe_lady]

What do you call a low experience worker, who only has access to jobs that pay insufficient to the cost of living? Underclass works fine for me. It seems like you do agree, you just either don't see that you do, or aren't honest enough to admit what the agreement means for the people who work these jobs. Their status as students or "other low skill" is irrelevant to their need to pay for food, housing, transport, healthcare etc.

[BytesAndGears]

It’s totally relevant because someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents, or has multiple roommates etc. The amount of money that they need is much less than that of someone more established.

It is a really interesting contrast though, that in Amsterdam where I now live (and many other parts of Europe), this divide doesn’t exist as strongly.

We have a perfectly happy and healthy ~40 year old woman come to the office to tend to the plants, and she’s paid a totally fair livable wage. The guy who works at the cafeteria for the office complex supports his family in that job (and I’ve talked to him about it). Same with many other “low skill” workers that I talk to.

Baristas at a cafe seem to still be mostly 20 year olds, but maybe a bit less so than in the US

[ohdannyboy]

This used to be the case in the United States. As recently as the 70s blue collar laborers owned homes, had families and their wife stayed at home with the kids. The idea that you need two mid to high level incomes to afford a house is very new.

[bombcar]

And this still exists in the USA - it's just much MUCH less common in the high-cost areas, for obvious reasons.

[ohyes]

And then people wonder why none of us are having families. You’re too poor in your 20s, then you aren’t able to biologically by the time you’re in your 40s. But by then everyone in their 40s has the “I’ve got mine” mentality so nothing changes.

We live in the stupidest timeline.

[shrimp_emoji]

I don't wonder why people aren't having families because the reason is obviously that they don't want to.

It's not because things are worse now than ever in human history; that's pure rationalization/delusion/cope.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I believe a more accurate description is that people are choosing not to have children in the current environment; maybe something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children, since human biology hasn’t changed but the birth rate has gone down.

If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs.

[shrimp_emoji]

> something in the environment is detected as unsuitable for children

Yep: compelling alternatives and contraceptives have appeared, and the pressures to have children have diminished.

People in the past didn't have many of those, so they "chose" to have kids.

Having kids is hard. If you have other options, you're gonna take them. It's as simple as that. I genuinely think people complaining about the conditions haven't done enough introspection. In the abstract, they may feel that having kids is something they want or should do, despite their revealed preference being to not do so. They're just hoping that, somehow, someway, the prospect of raising families will finally seem ultra-compelling and they'll do it and live happily ever, having their cake and eating it too. But that won't happen. The sad reality is that the premise rested on more suffering than currently exists.

But it's okay:

> If this kind of birthdate collapse happened in other organized animal societies we’d have lots of news pointing to specific environmental hazards, like that insecticide and bird eggs.

Other animals won't be able to defy biology and grow transcended versions of themselves in pods, like we're surely gonna do eventually. That's the future, and it's unironically the solution to all the shitty Ponzi schemes our biological legacy left us with. :p Until then, all you can do is hang tight. (The only other solution is to go back to the Dark Ages, which is even worse.)

[bombcar]

People always do things "because they want to" - even if forced to do it at gunpoint (they could choose to die, of course).

Things on many metrics are likely better now than any point in human history, but people's perceptions of that are way off.

But it doesn't change that there are people who would like to start a family and feel they can't. Obviously they can, as the mechanics of it all hasn't changed in the last million years, but they choose not to.

[yowzadave]

Are you arguing that people in their 20s should not be able to start families?

[BytesAndGears]

Absolutely not! Just that it’s more likely for someone to be able to take a job like that without becoming homeless or hungry, since there are a decent amount of young people who don’t need a lot.

I was mostly just trying to give a steel-man for the previous person’s thoughts before sharing my bit of info. Because it’s a complex issue and I don’t want to dismiss anyone acting in good faith.

The other part of my comment was, I thought, the more interesting part. About how this weird “able to support a family” vs “not” dichotomy seems to be a US problem that hasn’t hit Europe.

The Netherlands does have a more complex minimum wage law though, which starts low for a 15-year-old, and gets progressively higher until you’re a young adult (at 21) [0]. And it also has a clause that if you’re supporting yourself, then the highest level minimum wage applies regardless of age. I think that helps resolve the issue I mentioned above.

[0] https://www.government.nl/topics/minimum-wage/amount-of-the-...

[giraffe_lady]

> someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents

They also might not? Why are we structuring access to fundamental needs around this assumption?

[BytesAndGears]

I replied above to someone else about this same thing — you might be interested in that reply!