The Nordic model, often touted as a paragon of progressive social policies, has long been the envy of many nations. Finland, in particular, has been praised for its generous parental support programs, designed to encourage and facilitate family growth. Yet, despite these well-intentioned efforts, the country has witnessed a startling decline in its birthrate, plummeting by nearly a third since 2010.
non member link: https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/the-birthrate-in-finland-has-plummeted-by-nearly-a-33-since-2010-despite-parental-support-7fd60220b109?sk=90d8976af82ed29268286a3d6e79b633
I don't think a decline in birth rate is inherantly bad. It could be because of a sudden decline in living standards (Post Soviet countries) or improvement in living standards (in many developing countries).
Voluntary extinction isn't happening. Too many people like having children for that to work. I think letting birth rate decline is fine.
That said, reducing working hours to 6hrs a day will give people more time to allow for children.
It's not bad but it's not good either. It will mean the future generation(or the next two) will have hard time supporting aging population for those country with social welfare, and supporting free healthcare. Less working young adult = less tax.
I don't care about taxes. Welfare and Healthcare can always be provided for prioritizing the sectors which need it the most. Right now we have many wasteful sectors like advertising and military taking up unnecessary labour and resources.
I always found it to be fascinating how capitalist economies function. Eg. Before 1991 Soviet Union had large industrial towns in the far east. Resources such was oil and ore were mined there. It was working fine until market arrived. Then magically, all those mines which were producing real resources were considered "unprofitable" and all those towns collapsed.
The possible output didn't change, just that under market system it was unprofitable. In money terms it wasn't worth it. Maybe we should stop looking at whether something costs a "lot" in money terms and instead look at whether workers and resources are available.
Another example. Climate crisis. Stopping climate crisis isn't profitable and it would require Governments to mobilize resources by deficit spending. It'll be costly in money terms but the alternative is way more expensive in real terms (people dying, environmental destruction etc)
This is homelessromantic yet again shilling their shitty Medium blog.
Chris Jeffries, please fuck off
Finland could always either allow for immigration or readjust for a lower population and degrowth.
They could, but they won't.
Finland has a history of fascism.
Many countries worried about declining populations could just.. allow more immigrants. But most of them won't, at least not voluntarily.
Whaddya know... it takes more than money to get people interested n baby making.
Who knew?
the data tells a different story
The data tell a different story.
That's my ration of pedantry spent. You'd swear these people never went to school.
The issue with pedantry is you have to make sure you're right - data here is the collective noun for a group of individual data, so is used correctly.
Plus "plummeted by a 33%" was literally right there
The phrase is “The data tells a different story”
Data itself is singular as it’s a defined entity. It is the sum of its parts.
If it said “data points”, then you would be right.
Data itself is a singular
It's clearly plural, in form and meaning. That's my point. If it were singular it'd be 'datum'. It has a second-declension plural ending.
data points
This also bothers me. Why say 'data point' instead of 'datum'? Illiterate bloody philistines.
It's clearly plural, in form and meaning. That's my point. If it were singular it'd be 'datum'. It has a second-declension plural ending.
They're referring to data as a single unified whole.
Family is singular despite being made of multiple members. Data is singular despite being composed of multiple data points.
They’re referring to data as a single unified whole.
That makes as much sense as "Countries says the story is different. I'm referring to countries as a single unified whole"
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/data-is-or-data-are/
Seems like "data tells" is fine according to this.
You’re technically correct but it’s one of those “technically correct”s that I would say is so far from people’s actual usage and the way other words work that it’s actually wrong and makes you sound stupid.
You wouldn’t say “The student body are…” or “the rat colony are…” They’re single bodies made up of smaller parts, so they get referred to as singular.
My PI always says “the data are” and it grates on me like nails on a chalkboard. It doesn’t make you sound smarter and more serious, it makes you sound like an out of touch, Reddit brained dipshit.
I think "data" can be both singular or plural, so both can work. I could be wrong though.
"What do the data say?"
"What does the data say?"
I always treat it like the latter since it's a singular body of datum points. A book isn't a plural collection of pages.
It's a British thing, like how they say aluminum with an extra i
...You mean the correct way to say "aluminium." Whose this aloominum fellow? I don't know him.
Don't tell me you also say "mischievEEous" and "drorring" or that you "go to hospital"
Nope. Australian. We just spell words correctly, then mispronounce everything in speech.
