Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Companionship is a primary human driver. We live in a society that is increasingly becoming hyper individualistic to the point family creation is put on the backburner by some in favor goals that don't bring fulfilling happiness. ...
Companionship doesn't necessarily mean parenting, or even the nuclear family. Companionship can occur among unmarried child-free romantic partners, or among Platonic friends. One is hard-pressed to find examples of tighter companionship than that of battlefield comrades, or fellow explorers on some dangerous mission, or say astronauts orbiting together on the space station.
You have a point about "hyper individualism", but I would argue that with higher birthrate and resurgence of conventional nuclear families, what we'd see is "hyper familyism", where the members of the family might look out for each other, but each family-unit is hyper individual. Or take it one level broader: families with blood ties (say, second cousins) merge into a kin-network, creating an in-group (those sharing kin) and and out-group (everyone else). The result is tribalism.
I'd argue that eschewal of parenthood is an important binding-agent between unrelated adults. Friendships suffer when individuals start forming families, buy their Single Family Houses, and reach a point where they interact only in the bleachers of their kids' soccer games. Compare that to young-adults who move through life, going into middle-age and beyond, who never had kids.
As for "goals that bring fulfilling happiness", this is... highly subjective. Your assertion evidently is that family brings a particularly intense and inimitable happiness, for which there is no surrogate or alternative. Yes? Then your making a normative call, that family-people have attained some higher plane of the human experience, that non-family-people can't reach or even fathom. Yes? While it's unlikely that you (or I!) will be swayed, perhaps we can just note, that there are alternative views, leading to diametrically opposite conclusions? And to the theme of this thread, it is apparent, that some substantial numbers of people are in fact concluding, that they prefer these alternatives, to the traditional family rubric.
Companionship doesn't necessarily mean parenting, or even the nuclear family. Companionship can occur among unmarried child-free romantic partners, or among Platonic friends. One is hard-pressed to find examples of tighter companionship than that of battlefield comrades, or fellow explorers on some dangerous mission, or say astronauts orbiting together on the space station.
You have a point about "hyper individualism", but I would argue that with higher birthrate and resurgence of conventional nuclear families, what we'd see is "hyper familyism", where the members of the family might look out for each other, but each family-unit is hyper individual. Or take it one level broader: families with blood ties (say, second cousins) merge into a kin-network, creating an in-group (those sharing kin) and and out-group (everyone else). The result is tribalism.
I'd argue that eschewal of parenthood is an important binding-agent between unrelated adults. Friendships suffer when individuals start forming families, buy their Single Family Houses, and reach a point where they interact only in the bleachers of their kids' soccer games. Compare that to young-adults who move through life, going into middle-age and beyond, who never had kids.
As for "goals that bring fulfilling happiness", this is... highly subjective. Your assertion evidently is that family brings a particularly intense and inimitable happiness, for which there is no surrogate or alternative. Yes? Then your making a normative call, that family-people have attained some higher plane of the human experience, that non-family-people can't reach or even fathom. Yes? While it's unlikely that you (or I!) will be swayed, perhaps we can just note, that there are alternative views, leading to diametrically opposite conclusions? And to the theme of this thread, it is apparent, that some substantial numbers of people are in fact concluding, that they prefer these alternatives, to the traditional family rubric.
But just because a person chooses not to have children, it doesn't mean they are not family-people. They are simply the youngest in their family tree with mother, father, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, not to mention the family of the unmarried child-free romantic partner. All families/tribes include unmarried and childless members and that individual choice doesn't exclude them from being part of the family.
That said, I agree with the other poster that there is a different, deeper form of happiness and love when you have your own children, deeper than the love you have for your own parents. It truly is different.
But just because a person chooses not to have children, it doesn't mean they are not family-people. They are simply the youngest in their family tree with mother, father, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins,............
Those people - the youngest ones who choose to remain childless - will, on average out-live mother, father, siblings, aunt and uncles. So at some point the phenomenon witnessed in China will arrive. The person will become without family.
China has the problem of a great many never-married male orphans and, of course, they have no family at all. Being the only child of parents who were also without siblings means you have none of the relatives you listed. You never did have cousins because your parents never had siblings.
It's a little hard for most people to get their mind around, but elderly orphans are the result of one child policy. There is simply no family. Anywhere.
Those people - the youngest ones who choose to remain childless - will, on average out-live mother, father, siblings, aunt and uncles. So at some point the phenomenon witnessed in China will arrive. The person will become without family.
China has the problem of a great many never-married male orphans and, of course, they have no family at all. Being the only child of parents who were also without siblings means you have none of the relatives you listed. You never did have cousins because your parents never had siblings.
It's a little hard for most people to get their mind around, but elderly orphans are the result of one child policy. There is simply no family. Anywhere.
Not hard at all to fathom... that's actually my own situation... and to your point, the results of generation after generation, of either having only one child per couple, or if there are multiple offspring, then all but one either choosing to have no children, or dying before they have the opportunity. So whenever I hear of "family values", or "working families", I cringe. What about "single values", or "working singles"?
A truly shrinking population, if indeed that's our fate, will have to learn how to form bonds of fidelity and bonds of cohesion, beyond those of blood-kin.
Here's some interesting news from China in today's NY Times. The gist is there's a lot of unease in China over job uncertainty as many are "too old" at 35, can't retire until 60, and their government is trying to raise the retirement age. Being shut out like this often leads to anger, despair, lashing out and typically a cause of political unrest. The "no kid" part of the story is especially of interest to this thread.
Title: No Job, No Marriage, No Kid: China’s Workers and the Curse of 35
Sub title: It’s widely discussed in China: Employers don’t want you after 35. Some job listings say it plainly, leaving a generation of prime-age workers feeling defeated.
Excerpts:
"When Sean Liang turned 30, he started thinking of the Curse of 35 — the widespread belief in China that white-collar workers like him confront unavoidable job insecurity after they hit that age. In the eyes of employers, the Curse goes, they’re more expensive than new graduates and not as willing to work overtime."
"Mr. Liang, now 38, is a technology support professional turned personal trainer. He has been unemployed for much of the past three years, partly because of the pandemic and China’s sagging economy. But he believes the main reason is his age. He’s too old for many employers, including the Chinese government, which caps the hiring age for most civil servant positions at 35. If the Curse of 35 is a legend, it’s one supported by some facts."
"China’s postpandemic economic rebound has hit a wall, ... no doubt that the job market is weak and that age discrimination, which is not against the law in China, is prevalent. That is a double whammy for workers in their mid-30s who are making big decisions about career, marriage and children."
"Mr. Liang has moved from Guangzhou in southern China back to his home village because he couldn’t afford his rent of less than $100 a month. He’s not married; neither are three of his cousins, all around his age. He said only people with stable jobs, such as government workers and teachers, could afford to start a family. Growing competition in the job market is one reason young Chinese are delaying marriages, ... "
"...around 50 million people ages 16 to 40 could be unemployed by 2028, adding, “It could trigger a series of deeper crises.â€
When we had our Great Recession there were news articles, and posts on this website, about how people over age 50 were among the first to be let go. Our economy recovered and most of those folks found work, but often at reduced wages. They often had to relocate, I know, we helped them on this website with locality and job advice.
There's great irony here in that a communist nation, ostensibly a worker's utopia, has rampant discrimination against workers.
That last part about stable jobs and family creation rings true in many nations, maybe most nations, as long-term employment prospects disappear into a vaporous haze of globalization, automation, capital flight and a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an increasingly few billionaires and massive international firms.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-28-2023 at 09:45 AM..
Here's some interesting news from China in today's NY Times. The gist is there's a lot of unease in China over job uncertainty as many are "too old" at 35, can't retire until 60, and their government is trying to raise the retirement age. Being shut out like this often leads to anger, despair, lashing out and typically a cause of political unrest. The "no kid" part of the story is especially of interest to this thread.
Title: No Job, No Marriage, No Kid: China’s Workers and the Curse of 35
Sub title: It’s widely discussed in China: Employers don’t want you after 35. Some job listings say it plainly, leaving a generation of prime-age workers feeling defeated.
Excerpts:
"When Sean Liang turned 30, he started thinking of the Curse of 35 — the widespread belief in China that white-collar workers like him confront unavoidable job insecurity after they hit that age. In the eyes of employers, the Curse goes, they’re more expensive than new graduates and not as willing to work overtime."
"Mr. Liang, now 38, is a technology support professional turned personal trainer. He has been unemployed for much of the past three years, partly because of the pandemic and China’s sagging economy. But he believes the main reason is his age. He’s too old for many employers, including the Chinese government, which caps the hiring age for most civil servant positions at 35. If the Curse of 35 is a legend, it’s one supported by some facts."
"China’s postpandemic economic rebound has hit a wall, ... no doubt that the job market is weak and that age discrimination, which is not against the law in China, is prevalent. That is a double whammy for workers in their mid-30s who are making big decisions about career, marriage and children."
"Mr. Liang has moved from Guangzhou in southern China back to his home village because he couldn’t afford his rent of less than $100 a month. He’s not married; neither are three of his cousins, all around his age. He said only people with stable jobs, such as government workers and teachers, could afford to start a family. Growing competition in the job market is one reason young Chinese are delaying marriages, ... "
"...around 50 million people ages 16 to 40 could be unemployed by 2028, adding, “It could trigger a series of deeper crises.â€
When we had our Great Recession there were news articles, and posts on this website, about how people over age 50 were among the first to be let go. Our economy recovered and most of those folks found work, but often at reduced wages. They often had to relocate, I know, we helped them on this website with locality and job advice.
There's great irony here in that a communist nation, ostensibly a worker's utopia, has rampant discrimination against workers.
That last part about stable jobs and family creation rings true in many nations, maybe most nations, as long-term employment prospects disappear into a vaporous haze of globalization, automation, capital flight and a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an increasingly few billionaires and massive international firms.
I've been following a couple of Youtube channels that report on China's situation, and this is consistent with what they say.
The job market in China is terrible for college graduates, unless they are willing to do manual labor or other unskilled types of work. They say at least a Master's degree is necessary to be competitive these days, and many professional jobs can attract hundreds or even thousands of applicants.
As a result, people are indeed postponing marriage and children. Japan has a rather grim economy as well; after the go-go days of the 1980s, when they were on top of the world, they experienced a real estate bubble followed by another 20 years of recession and today, it's very difficult to land a good spot in university followed by a decent paying job.
But in the West, particularly the U.S., there are plenty of university spots, and plenty of good jobs, relatively speaking; yet, the majority (mostly white) population are nonetheless putting off or eschewing families. Maybe for different reasons than in China.
Interestingly, employers in the U.S. are increasingly hiring over 50, because such people tend to have a stronger work ethic, bring less drama into the workplace, and are generally reliable.
I continue to believe that the U.S. should import some of these "surplus" Chinese people and perhaps they will become financially stable here and thus have families. This doesn't help China very much though.
China has released new information regarding population. Peter Ziehan breaks it all down for us.
.... A year ago China showed the world's fastest aging demographic, with fewer youngsters than was needed.
Labor, it was demonstrated, has increased at the fastest rate for any country in history, with 15 times being spent today than was spent in 2000. That has resulted in companies shifting and moving around since the only reason to be in China was cost.
New Data shows an absolute collapse in the number of babies being born in the last 5 years. Not just a decline, Zeihan reports - a demographic collapse. The extent of the collapse shows China probably passed the point of recovery probably about 20 years ago. It must be remembered the only way to create a 20 year old worker is to give birth to him 20 years before he is needed. China will simply not have the work force required to continue growing.
The demographic pyramid for 2025 is shown at time 2:00.
It's a short video crammed full of straight forward information.
China has released new information regarding population. Peter Ziehan breaks it all down for us.
.... A year ago China showed the world's fastest aging demographic, with fewer youngsters than was needed.
Labor, it was demonstrated, has increased at the fastest rate for any country in history, with 15 times being spent today than was spent in 2000. That has resulted in companies shifting and moving around since the only reason to be in China was cost.
New Data shows an absolute collapse in the number of babies being born in the last 5 years. Not just a decline, Zeihan reports - a demographic collapse. The extent of the collapse shows China probably passed the point of recovery probably about 20 years ago. It must be remembered the only way to create a 20 year old worker is to give birth to him 20 years before he is needed. China will simply not have the work force required to continue growing.
The demographic pyramid for 2025 is shown at time 2:00.
It's a short video crammed full of straight forward information.
I also watched the video. Those latest numbers, as drastic as they happen to be are still from the pre-COVID era. Five years ago was 2018. The COVID pandemic, lockdowns and economic aftermath are going to make things much worse for China's demographic situation. Pre-COVID China had half as many five year-olds than ten year-olds. That is simply an astounding drop for a short duration of only five years. It lends support to the theories that China's population could halve before the end of the 21st century.
China's labor costs are rising... well, how much of that is due to demographics and how much to a more prosperous society, where workers are demanding higher wages? In other words, is the rise in labor-costs a feature or a bug?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
The job market in China is terrible for college graduates, unless they are willing to do manual labor or other unskilled types of work. They say at least a Master's degree is necessary to be competitive these days, and many professional jobs can attract hundreds or even thousands of applicants.
And yet, we incessantly hear that China has insufficient number of young people! Seemingly we have simultaneous crises, of there being not enough young people to fill the jobs necessary to keep a modern industrialized society, and not enough jobs for said young people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
I continue to believe that the U.S. should import some of these "surplus" Chinese people and perhaps they will become financially stable here and thus have families. This doesn't help China very much though.
China's labor costs are rising... well, how much of that is due to demographics and how much to a more prosperous society, where workers are demanding higher wages? In other words, is the rise in labor-costs a feature or a bug?
You act like that question has not been answered. It has! Clearly, the population pyramid shows a dearth of young people entering the work force.
If you wanted to show China has a more prosperous society, you could lead a discussion in that direction. Asking a rhetorical question is not, in itself, an answer.....
Insofar as this discussion is concerned no one cares whether the Chinese people are more prosperous. The issue is, China's population is declining precipitously and will not be able to recover. Because China is the world's leading export economy, this will have wide spread repercussions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
