FlowMan

@RazAlSnool @Noahpinion My dude, I know. Been there, seen all that. Not interested anymore. Something genuine and high quality is far more valuable and hookup culture doesn’t really qualify for that.

@FlowMan92 @Noahpinion Then get some 20yr old hoes 🤷‍♂️. These bitches are desperate, I’m telling you.

The happily married Boomers are right, and the young idiot dudes who spend all their time on the internet shrieking about how they can't ever find love because of politics or evolution or whatever are not the people you should listen to.

@icryptSKY @ForestVolyn В Німеччині наші панянки ноги розводять (для німців, звичайно), але народжувати теж не поспішають

@ForestVolyn я за, а наші жінки хай їдуть до скучних німців я дуже за майбутніх латино-українців, хороші гени індо-українці і бангладешо-українці то таке собі

Значить пора завозити сюди Колумбійок І інших Латинок Якщо Українкі не справляються 🫪

@RazAlSnool @Noahpinion That works in your 20s. In your 30s people are too fed up with such things

@FlowMan92 @Noahpinion It is of use because people are not going out anymore. The first step is just going outside and talking to people with no end game in mind. Make friends, get drunk.

@Noahpinion Of course it’s men,who else would keep participating in a system they increasingly see as lopsided? Many men feel the exchange of value has become deeply unbalanced, so naturally the “transactions” happen less and less often.Your generic advice sounds disconnected from reality

@RazAlSnool @Noahpinion Nice advice! But it is too general to be of any use to anyone

@Noahpinion Honestly, if you are a dude and you just go out and be social there is so much to be taken. Now go out there and get your bitch!

@pitiklinov Here is a right conclusion from this fascinating study:when women gain resources and independence, many become less willing to share those resources through family formation/children.Men are more willing to distribute resources across a family unit That dynamic can explain a lot

¿Por qué cuando sube el sueldo de las mujeres baja la natalidad y cuando sube el sueldo de los hombres sube la natalidad? Por el costo de oportunidad: ¿Qué es el costo de oportunidad? Es todo lo que renuncias cuando decides tener un hijo. No solo los gastos directos (pañales, colegio…), sino sobre todo el tiempo y el dinero que dejas de ganar en tu carrera. Imaginemos dos mujeres que deciden tener un hijo y se toman 2 años más o menos fuera o con jornada reducida: -Mujer A gana 2.000 € al mes. Lo que renuncia ≈ 48.000 € (2 años). Además, su carrera no se daña tanto porque está en un puesto más reemplazable. -Mujer B gana 8.000 € al mes (abogada, ingeniera, directiva, médica…). Lo que renuncia ≈ 192.000 € (2 años).Además, en profesiones de alto nivel “desaparecer” dos años duele mucho más ya que te pierdes ascensos, clientes, proyectos importantes, actualizaciones de habilidades, etc. Lo que vemos es que para la mujer B, tener un hijo es mucho más caro en términos de oportunidades perdidas. Por eso, cuando las mujeres ganan más, muchas deciden tener menos hijos (o tenerlos más tarde). El trabajo compite fuertemente con la maternidad. ¿Y qué pasa con los hombres? Para ellos el costo de oportunidad es mucho más bajo ya que no se quedan embarazados, no dan a luz, la baja de paternidad es más corta y su carrera apenas se interrumpe. Su experiencia y sueldo siguen creciendo. Por eso, cuando un hombre gana más dinero, suele pasar lo contrario. Es como si se dijeran. “Ahora puedo mantener mejor a una familia más grande” y deciden tener más hijos. Esto es lo que midieron los economistas con datos reales de Dinamarca (usando cambios en impuestos como experimento natural para ver el efecto causal) en este estudio. Además, el estudio muestra que esta interrupción de las mujeres (y la pérdida de experiencia) es una de las razones importantes de la brecha salarial de género que persiste a lo largo de la vida. @AngelaAbad_

@Step_niak @nlawchyk Так тому у вас і немає дівчини, бо в когось є коханка)

@nlawchyk Тут, блядь, дівчини немає вже пару років, й в найближчому майбутньому не видать змін в цьому плані, а вони ще десь й коханок знаходять Нубляпіздєц

бачили новину, як дівчина після концерту Бумбокс виклала в Тредс фото парубка, який їй сподобався, щоб знайти його, а в результаті через те фото, розлучилася інша пара? бо на фото також був інший чувак зі своєю коханкою питаннячко ЗВІДКИ У ВАС СТІЛЬКИ ВІЛЬНОГО ЧАСУ ЩЕ НА КОХАНОК?

@dara_uaua @StorikV Лол

@StorikV Окей, я поясню. Саме через тіндер я знайшла теперішніх подруг, але вже майже зі всіма не спілкуюсь і типу можливо треба знову шукати собі нових подруг ) в мене в інфі написано, що шукаю тільки друзів, подруг. І нічого більше)

Троє з чотирьох дівчат в Тіндері мають хлопця. Навіщо ви там сидите?

@DimaZoer Лол. У всьому винні чоловіки) Не важливо від контексту

Емммм, так по суті це не з ним неможливо дивитися фільми, а з нею.

@jasonbourne4206 @PigeonFeatherz Mate, it can be a mix. Up to let's say 1950-1960 it can be US, France, etc., then other countries may be included

@FlowMan92 @PigeonFeatherz Mate how would see a graph with 20% childlessness in 1900 and assume it's global data. Only the very richest countries had tfr low in 1900. Usa, France, UK, and Switzerland. France gets badge for being first below 2.1 around 1910 USA around 1930

Let me lay out the unpleasant arithmetic of the replacement rate, and why a modern society finds it so hard to reach. A population of 100 women in an advanced economy needs 210 children to replace itself. Why? Absent sex-selective practices, roughly 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. Evolution overshoots male births because boys are more prone to early death from accidents and disease. Therefore, of 210 children, about 108 are boys and 102 are girls. Not all girls reach the midpoint of their fertile age: accidents, suicide, homicide, and illness take some. In an advanced economy, about 98% of them survive, leaving 100 women to replace the original 100. Now consider the distribution of children per woman. Imagine 15 women have no children. Five do so by choice, for various reasons (professional, affective, religious). Ten face unfixable fertility problems, theirs or their partner’s. The 10% figure is conservative: the medical literature points to around 13%, and that does not even count male fertility problems. Of the remaining 85, 10 have one child, 60 have two, 10 have three, and 5 have four. I am stopping at four to keep the post concise; very few women in younger cohorts have five or more children, but I could adapt the example to account for them. Hence, the 100 women in this population have 180 children, for a completed fertility rate of 1.8. Interestingly, this is roughly the rate we saw in many advanced economies until the early 1990s, and in the U.S. until around 2008. But we are still 30 children short of replacement! Voluntary childlessness is only 5%. Three-quarters of women have two or more children. Look around: most of your friends will have two, plenty will have three or four. And yet, we are well below replacement. You would not look at this population and call it selfish (is having two kids hedonistic?) or accuse it of losing family values (only 5% of women are choosing voluntarily not to have children). The point is simpler. To reach 210 births, you need a substantial share of women to have three or more children. Two as the “normal” pattern will not get you there. And modern society makes three or more a costly proposition for most families. Of course, current fertility rates in most advanced economies are well below 1.8. But my point is that, under present social arrangements, we should not expect 2.1, even if (to humor last weekend’s debate) we banned smartphones and TikTok. We need many, many more families with three or four children. More pointedly, there is no self-regulating mechanism that pushes a society back to 2.1. The market-clearing analogy many economists use is flawed; scarcity feedback does not work the same way. (Another post on this another day.) And, as I often read, the claim that “nature” somehow regulates current overpopulation is just childish mumbo jumbo. So yes, the arithmetic of replacement rate is unpleasant.

@PigeonFeatherz Is that global data? Because I’m pretty sure the picture looks very different if you focus only on the developed world.

@FlowMan92 Yes, fair few places! US census data probably has the most detailed breakdown but here:

@PigeonFeatherz Do you have statistics supporting that number?

@FlowMan92 Completed fertility childlessness (age 45) is still around 15%, indeed it’s lower than it was a generation ago.

@JesusFerna7026 Thanks. Honestly, I’d already consider it huge progress if we could even get to that 15–20%. Right now, I’m not convinced we’re even moving in the right direction.

@FlowMan92 Yes, the rate is higher. I am saying "EVEN IF THE RATE WERE MUCH LOWER" (as in the 1970s) we would not be at replacement rate.

@MoreBirths A smartphone is just a tool. Like any tool in human history, it can be used for good or bad. Blaming the tool itself for societal problems is an old and simplistic idea, which is why it’s surprising to hear it repeated even by reputable outlets like the FT.

An analysis by the Financial Times suggests that sharp birth rate decline followed the adoption of smartphones in a range of countries. But what does the literature say? A number of studies support the theory that smartphones and social media are driving fertility down. 🧵!

@TheRiceProphet @ICONOCLASTIAE @FT That’s fine.Women that stop reproducing eventually disappear (for good) on their own and this time it is happening voluntarily rather than through wars,persecution, coercion. We are witnessing a historically unusual form of self-correction driven by demographics rather than force

@ICONOCLASTIAE @FlowMan92 @FT I came to say the same thing! Women can smell yall out as losers and dont want to even risk yall being the father of their child

In more than two-thirds of the world’s 195 countries, the average number of children born to each woman has fallen below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 that keeps populations stable without immigration. ft.trib.al/Rn4qC6l

@jakozloski Computers, the internet, and social media already transformed dating and marriage and many would argue the results have been disastrous across much of the world. Why assume AI will somehow be different instead of amplifying the same trends even further?

The list of categories that will be reshaped by AI in the next decade is well-known: software, healthcare, education, finance, manufacturing, transportation. Marriage is not on most lists. It should be at the top. There is no consumer category where AI has more leverage than the one that mediates the highest-stakes decision of a person's life and is currently served by products that fail it at near-universal rates.

@jakozloski Which category? The problem is that most people today think compatibility is a precondition for love. In reality, compatibility is often the result of love, commitment, adaptation, and growing together over time.

Compatibility is the biggest variable in matchmaking outcomes. Readiness is the second. The category measures the first weakly and the second not at all.

@jakozloski Right, because according to some people the issue is supposedly smartphones and screen time - not increasingly unrealistic expectations and standards by women amplified by modern dating culture.

"Would you marry someone who earns less money than you?" Outright "no": Women: 27% Men: 2% Women are 12x more likely to rule it out.

@BiankaB12 @FT In most of these regions, gender roles have evolved in ways similar to the Western world. The Middle East is somewhat different, largely because modern feminist ideas there often clash much more directly with strong religious and traditional structures.

@FlowMan92 @FT Because it's effects are negligible. Birth rates are tanking even in the more conservative societies where traditional gender roles are still a thing, e.g. Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, etc.