> Or maybe, it's too expensive to start a family these days.

There's much more economic uncertainty for the average family as a result of two things.

1. Corporations innovating the labor market and successfully squeezing increasing amounts of wealth out of the workforce: successful union busting, ever more cleverly exploitative labor contracts, the gig economy, unpredictable scheduling, metrics and surveillance, etc.

2. Fewer funds proportionally available to labor thanks to increasing wealth capture by a tiny minority.

It's not only expensive, but it's statistically difficult to overcome the uncertainty and establish a homestead you can believe will prove stable over a kid-raising time frame.

It's easy to understand why people are hesitant to start families in such family-unfriendly economic conditions.

Simple solution: 1%/year tax on wealth and give these money to families with kids. The tricky part is wealth is often stored as shares and if you tax Bezos, he'd have to sell 1% of his shares, thus driving the price of those shares down; then if some hedge fund keeps buying the shares he sells, eventually he may lose control over his company, which is unfair. We might want to define wealth as savings above 5M dollars. This would be easy to work around: register a few companies with highly complex structure of ownership and spread money across them.

I agree with the GP, women are more selective these days. I've been in the dating pool a while and things are changing in weird ways.

Sexually speaking, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The implication of that chart is that women are increasingly having sex with the men who have sex with multiple women.

so you think this lack of hygiene or whatever has tripled in the last ten years or what? this betrays a total lack of consideration. sexual market dynamics are shifting rapidly.

I'll give you a hint: Using a market analogy for intimate relationships is not attractive, it's creepy.

i don't call my girlfriend my customer, it's a completely appropriate metaphor when speaking about culture-level aggregate effects. you should reflect on why all of your responses in this thread boil down to attacks on a perceived outgroup instead of engagement with ideas.

nobody would describe that as humorous. You might wanna try again without if if you want a decent response.