africa birth rates are falling fast

[Angelina]

Women have more agency now and they don't wanna have kids with there new found agency all places that have industrialised and have women fully in the urban workforce giving them financial freedom leads to higher standards and less willingness to want to have kids or that many so worldwide birth rates is dropping.

In South Korea we can see the extremes of this where women have banded together and don't go into relationships with korea men at all to make the birth rate zero because of whatever social issue they have a problem with over there.

Cost of living is high, they supposedly don’t get good maternity leave benefits and their career becomes stagnant after giving birth. Oh and to make thing worse both men and women have crazy working hours.

It’s very simple. If I was a South Korean politician, I’d make work life there more mother friendly. It’s either that or face extinction. They also need to sort out their misogyny problem. Women there can’t go to the rest room in peace. I don’t know these tourists go to Korea. There are devises that women take to scan toilets before using the rest room.

 

[mahamdov]

Good news

 

[Odious Delirium]

Cost of living is high, they supposedly don’t get good maternity leave benefits and their career becomes stagnant after giving birth. Oh and to make thing worse both men and women have crazy working hours.

It’s very simple. If I was a South Korean politician, I’d make work life there more mother friendly. It’s either that or face extinction. I’d also lower the working hours for men as well as it’s ridiculous.

My point is isn't it the same in China and Japan? The worklife of the Japanese is way worse if not the worst in that area along with there culture around it yet this problem between men and women isn't as bad as Korea.

Cost of living has increased everywhere were they have industrialised and now women are part of urban workforces they can afford to pay everyone less while doubling the workers. That was the goal of those who supported feminism behind the scenes in the first. This Lead to the break up of the nuclear family. These are the same people that say we are over populating the earth and we need to cut down our numbers.

Not saying women didn't work before but rather it was mainly there own private business in women specific field or for there family/master etc

The state won't put people before money they get paid of by the companies that are making all this money from how things are going right now. If they do take action they simply get voted out and lobbied against by the big corporations.

Plus Soical changes will slow things down they can't afford that because then shareholders will hold them accountable and there share prices will drop. Losing them money even more money.

Basically the economy will suffer short term and that's all they care about.

They could alternatively promote immigration and import cheaper labour which seems to be the direction they intend on going in thats basically what Europe is still doing despite the issues they have gotten with immigration but it make them money so they don't care

 

[Angelina]

My point is isn't it the same in China and Japan? The worklife of the Japanese is way worse if not the worst in that area along with there culture around it yet this problem between men and women isn't as bad as Korea.

Japan has also one of the lowest rates of Birth as well and a lot of it is due to their economy and maternal benefits.

Cost of living has increased everywhere were they have industrialised and now women are part of urban workforces they can afford to pay everyone less while doubling the workers.

You can’t make that argument when we also have immigration. That’s what people say about the poles and other groups. Ironic when I see Somalis who are migrants say that. You’re essentially saying women are stealing the jobs and lowering the salary. That the same case with foreigners coming in.

That was the goal of those who supported feminism behind the scenes in the first. This Lead to the break up of the nuclear family. These are the same people that say we are over populating the earth and we need to cut down our numbers.

If women working is lowering salary, then so is our presence as migrants. Having more people available will lower the salary threshold, why you’re adding gender into this is fueled by plain old misogyny. Why shouldn’t women have the right to work and look after their families? Women in the West have been working for centuries, shall I tell you the main difference? They’d be working for a lot less than men and middle class women wouldn’t work and if the men In their fam died they’d have to resort to begging their male distant relatives.

Not saying women didn't work before but rather it was mainly there own private business in women specific field or for there family/master etc

Not true. Ever since the industrial revolution which started in the late 1700s women worked in factories for peanuts but were barred from doing respectable jobs like accounting and being doctors.

The state won't put people before money they get paid of by the companies that are making all this money from how things are going right now. If they do take action they simply get voted out and lobbied against by the big corporations.

States do like the UK in which women are given 6 moths maternity leave, free health and the list goes on which helps families.

Plus Soical changes will slow things down they can't afford that because then shareholders will hold them accountable and there share prices will drop. Losing them money even more money.

Basically the economy will suffer short term and that's all they care about

Japan too has the same problem, but Jav how do you expect women to give birth if you’re not going to give them health benefits and maternity leave and top it off the cost of living is high? To make things worse, the misogyny there is rampant, women can’t even go to the bathroom without a perv hiding a mini camera there.

 

[Odious Delirium]

Japan has also one of the lowest rates of Bir

You can’t make that argument with regards to immigration. That’s what people say about the poles and other groups. Ironic when I see Somalis who are migrants say that. You’re essentially saying women are stealing the jobs and lowering the salary.


If women working is lowering salary, then so is our presence as migrants. Having more people available will lower the salary threshold, why you’re adding gender into this is fueled by plain old misogyny.


States do like the UK in which women are given 6 moths maternity leave, free health and the list goes on which helps families.


Japan too has the same problem, but Jav how do you expect women to give birth if you’re not going to give them health benefits and maternity leave and top it off the cost of living is high? To make things worse, the misogyny there is rampant, women can’t even go to the bathroom without a perv hiding a mini camera there.

I did state immigrant being in the same boat aswell. I literally said they would probably resort to adding more immigrant to the mix instead of changing soical policies and yes more available work force means cheaper labour and that what women where they literally doubled the work force. This has nothing to do with misogyny it's facts. Just like they cut the cost of things with imported labour via immigration

 

[iskufilann]

The world’s peak population may be smaller than expected​

New evidence suggests Africa’s birth rates are falling fast​

At conferences and in cabinet meetings across the continent, politicians and policymakers fret about how to educate, employ, house and feed a population that the UN expects to grow at breakneck speed from around 1.2bn people now, to 3.4bn people by 2100. In southern Europe, populists stoke up fears that hundreds of millions of Africans may try to cross the Mediterranean to escape poverty, war or hunger. Across the rich world, environmentalists fear the impact on the climate and planet of an extra 2bn people. Yet few have noticed a wealth of new data that suggest that Africa’s birth rate is falling far more quickly than expected. The UN’s population projections are widely seen as the most authoritative. Its latest report, published last year, contained considerably lower estimates for sub-Saharan Africa than those of a decade ago.
SOURCE: THE ECONOMIST

That means more children will not become fatherless
Don't ask how I came up with this conclusion

 

[Angelina]

I did state immigrant being in the same boat aswell. I literally said they would probably resort to adding more immigrant to the mix instead of changing soical policies and yes more available work force means cheaper labour and that what women where they literally doubled the work force. This has nothing to do with misogyny it's facts. Just like they cut the cost of things with imported labour via immigration

It is, since Working class women have been working in factories and industries since the industrial revelation since the late 1700s, side by side with men. Well before feminism was a thing. What’s changed is that women now demand equal pay and access to less tiring work that are middle class, such as being doctors and lawyers.

In the past misogynistic men had no problem exploiting mothers to work in factories or work in fields for 12 hours with half the pay of men. Doesn’t make sense to blame feminism for the advent of women In the work force when it actually provided equal pay along with access to less tiring jobs that are in fact better suited to the nature of women.

 

[Odious Delirium]

It is, since Working class women have been working in factories and industries since the industrial revelation since the late 1700s, side by side with men. Well before feminism was a thing. What’s changed is that women now demand equal pay and access to less tiring work that are middle class, such as being doctors and lawyers.

In the past misogynistic men had no problem exploiting mothers to work in factories or work in fields for 12 hours with half the pay of men. Doesn’t make sense to blame feminism for the advent of women In the work force when it actually provided equal pay along with access to less tiring jobs that are in fact better suited to the nature of women.

Why do you think women filled those roles in in in the 1700s?
to under cut the men you said it yourself they got paid half the pay men got which meant paying men to work those positions was not meta so they simply didn't hire men at all instead they got the women to fill all those roles as well as kids. But anyway back then it was 10 to 15% of women in the workforce it ramped up in the 1900s when up to 50% of women where now in the workforce because men had gone to war that's when the feminism stuff ramped up. Those at the top supported feminism at this point because they saw all the profit it brought them. At that point they couldn't afford to lose access to half there working force and women had done a great service and contributed to the war effort so they supported the movement and gave the concessions. Its the same way immigrants and people of other background got rights to entice them to come and futher cut the cost of things with even cheaper labour. It's why the North won the war and even went to war in America to free the slaves. Slave labour in the South wasn't profitable which is why the South fell behind economically.

The state will support anything that makes Labour cheaper is my point this wasn't me making a "misogynistic" point I'm just stating the obvious same with there support of immigration. This has nothing to do with how I feel about either of them and isn't even a point I'm making against them

 

[Angelina]

Why do you think women filled those roles in in in the 1700s?
to under cut the men you said it yourself they got paid half the pay men got which meant paying men to work those positions was not meta so they simply didn't hire men at all

Not true. Look at the data of the late 1700s, more men worked than women. They didn’t cut the amount of men. Men still worked. The reality is that women have always worked but never got paid as much and were barred from working in other fields. Even before the 1700s, women worked on the fields.

Also, cultural views and understanding changes. Even before the 1800s, poor men were also barred from middle class jobs so please explain what relevance that has to the economy? Society was a lot more stratified

instead they got the women to fill all those roles as well as kids.

more men actually worked. So I don’t know what you’re on about

But anyway back then it was 10 to 15% of women in the workforce it ramped up in the 1900s when up to 50% of women where now in the workforce because men had gone to war that's when the feminism stuff ramped up.

Did you know that women make up the world’s poor and at the time if a woman wasn’t able to secure factory work, maid or field work, they’d mostly have to go into prostitution or begging distant relatives?

class also has a huge impact as a poor man also didn’t have any opportunities apart from a select few industries. After the 1800s, roles were also opened up for working class men.

Those at the top supported feminism at this point because they saw all the profit it brought them. At that point they couldn't afford to lose access to half there working force and women had done a great service and contributed to the war effort so they supported the movement and gave the concessions.

They supported consessions because women demanded to continue being able to work in areas they weren’t allowed to work and the wages were increased for them.

it’s the same for working class men who fought for higher wages and trade union rights. The thing is class rights and women’s right’s have always been similar but as a man you’ll treat women’s rights as some sort of conspiracy theory.

Its the same way immigrants and people of other background got rights to entice them to come and futher cut the cost of things with even cheaper labour. It's why the North won the war and even went to war in America to free the slaves. Slave labour in the South wasn't profitable which is why the South fell behind economically.

The state will support anything that makes Labour cheaper is my point this wasn't me making a "misogynistic" point I'm just stating the obvious same with there support of immigration. This has nothing to do with how I feel about either of them and isn't even a point I'm making against them

I see where you’re coming from, but I think it isn’t the full picture. It isn’t a simple case of feminism is the reason why women are working in the work place. Women have always worked. Feminism simply demanded that women work in better working conditions and other areas besides factory work, maids, and the like. It’s the same for working class men fighting to have better human rights such as trade unions ect.

 

[Odious Delirium]

Not true. Look at the data of the late 1700s, more men worked than women. They didn’t cut the amount of men. Men still worked. The reality is that women have always worked but never got paid as much and were barred from working in other fields. Even before the 1700s, women worked on the fields.

Also, cultural views and understanding changes. Even before the 1800s, poor men were also barred from middle class jobs so please explain what relevance that has to the economy? Society was a lot more stratified

more men actually worked. So I don’t know what you’re on about




Did you know that women make up the world’s poor and at the time if a woman wasn’t able to secure factory work, maid or field work, they’d mostly have to go into prostitution or begging distant relatives?

class also has a huge impact as a poor man also didn’t have any opportunities apart from a select few industries. After the 1800s, roles were also opened up for working class men.




They supported consessions because women demanded to continue being able to work in areas they weren’t allowed to work and the wages were increased for them.

it’s the same for working class men who fought for higher wages and trade union rights. The thing is class rights and women’s right’s have always been similar but as a man you’ll treat women’s rights as some sort of conspiracy theory.


I see where you’re coming from, but I think it isn’t the full picture. It isn’t a simple case of feminism is the reason why women are working in the work place. Women have always worked. Feminism simply demanded that women work in better working conditions and other areas besides factory work, maids, and the like. It’s the same for working class men fighting to have better human rights such as trade unions ect.

Yes but my point was women didn't work for corporations I already stated they worked before all this in a previous comment I'm talking in the context of cooperations lobbying the government same with immigration. The west only moved to ban slavery because it wasn't profitable otherwise they wouldn't have made the move.

Slaves where poor and basically worked the same kind of jobs that women where limited to or in force heavy labour. However they where an expense which in the end Hurt the state.

Let me explain slaves didn't pay for anything they where all dependants just like women and the profit they made there masters is kind of off set by the fact they are housed fed etc and the amount they were paid was like women because they were slaves even less. They are all expense the master had to take care of monetarily meaning less money going back into business looking after them and less for the state.

The state needs consumers. The more independent people are the more dependent they become on the state and the more they consume making the standards of living higher.

An example would be Women are the major consumers so women products in comparison to men are very expensive and has created huge industries based around exploiting these women but they could only come about because women have expendable income due to financial freedom but that financial freedom is statw granted same thing will all these other equal rights laws granted to other disadvantaged groups the state only did it for more money via more consumers with expendable income (by the way aint arguing for or against anything lets not make it into that kind of discussion)

Women and slaves and all that didn't pay taxes now they do. My point is that all the stuff the states in the west have ever past have always been with money in mind and not for the greater good even if it apparently looks good on the surface which is why I said the guys at the top supported feminism because it brought them more money

 

[Angelina]

Yes but my point was women didn't work for corporations I already stated they worked before all this in a previous comment I'm talking in the context of cooperations lobbying the government same with immigration.

They did work for corporations. The moment corporations such as factories opened. Working class women were there, working.

Slaves where poor and basically worked the same kind of jobs that women where limited to or in force heavy labour. However they where an expense which in the end Hurt the state.

Yes, I know. But slavery wasn’t common in Europe. In places like London and Manchester, women were working in cotton factories produced by slaves.

Let me explain slaves didn't pay for anything they where all dependants just like women and the profit they made there masters is kind of off set by the fact they are housed fed etc and the amount they were paid was like women because they were slaves even less.

Saxib, women were working for pay the same time slavery existed, so your point is moot.

They are all expense the master had to take care of monetarily meaning less money going back into business looking after them and less for the state.

Again, what does that have to do with women working. Slavery was banned in 1850. A decade after the beginning of corps.

The state needs consumers. The more independent people are the more dependent they become on the state and the more they consume making the standards of living higher.

An example would be Women are the major consumers so women products in comparison to men are very expensive and has created huge industries based around exploiting these women but they could only come about because women have expendable income due to financial freedom but that financial freedom is statw granted same thing will all these other equal rights laws granted to other disadvantaged groups the state only did it for more money via more consumers with expendable income (by the way aint arguing for or against anything lets not make it into that kind of discussion)

Yes, you have a point when it comes to that.

Women and slaves and all that didn't pay taxes now they do. My point is that all the stuff the states in the west have ever past have always been with money in mind and not for the greater good even if it apparently looks good on the surface which is why I said the guys at the top supported feminism because it brought them more money

I never said it was for the greater good. But there is correlation between class struggle and women’s struggle but men only seem to have a conspiracy theory outlook towards women’s new found agency. They never seem to understand that working class men also had to fight and had the same struggle.

 

[Odious Delirium]

They did work for corporations. The moment corporations such as factories opened. Working class women were there, working.

Yes, I know. But slavery wasn’t common in Europe. In places like London and Manchester, women were working in cotton factories produced by slaves.

Saxib, women were working for pay the same time slavery existed, so your point is moot.

Again, what does that have to do with women working. Slavery was banned in 1850. A decade after the beginning of corps.

Yes, you have a point when it comes to that.

I never said it was for the greater good. But there is correlation between class struggle and women’s struggle but men only seem to have a conspiracy theory outlook towards women’s new found agency. They never seem to understand that working class men also had to fight and had the same struggle.

I know they where working I'm saying they where OK with passing consessions because in the end it meant more income for the state and women having more agency means more money for the government. I never said they didn't work at all before hand.

Slavery was very common in Europe it's what lead to the Russian communist revolution. The serfs had enough they basically were slaves in everything but name and even worse actually because they didn't get any of the privileges slaves got. They still had to pay taxes with no rights.

All the stuff I'm saying applies to men aswell I just used those things as examples plus like I said only 10% of women worked when corps came about my point is they supported women later when they reached up to 50% in the work force because losing that meant losing money and supporting that meant more women beyond 50% in the cooperate environment it's a no brainer and paying them more meant more consumers especially when women consume way more then men fueling the economy