• NickwithaC@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will happen when you overwork your populace to the point that they haven’t the time to raise children.

    • anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In addition to a very xenophobic culture that doesn’t allow the addition of missing working-age people via immigration.

      • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am going to be downvoted but here we go: In addition to immigration that dont want to adapt to countries cultures and want to bring their own culture into the new countries.

  • LaChaleurDeLaNuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, who could have seen it coming? I thought working yourself to death, never going on vacation and despising workers who become mothers was a great way to encourage people to have babies!

  • i2ndshenanigans@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to Google their average life expectancy is 84. So in the next few years they can lose 10% of their population. With birth rates so low would they even be able to make up for that?

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      All these right wingers talking about population levels are unironically correct but they fail to see that it is directly related to the failure of public services and shite wages.

      Make childcare public, enable stronger trade unions and watch us bust nuts.

  • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regarding the actual article, I have nothing to add that hasn’t been discussed already (and at this point I bet nobody will see this comment anyway). However, the specific grammar error in the title annoys me to no end, so I wanted to vent.

    …one in 10 residents are…

    It should be “…one in 10 residents is…”

    People seem to forget how to conjugate after three words. Similarly, all too often I read something like, “None of these things are…” I don’t have an English degree, but in my mind parsing that phrase is like nails on a chalkboard.

    For the 0 of you still reading, a tip: You can omit certain parts of the sentence - and expand others - to test how the subject-verb pair sounds.

    “None of these things are…” -> “Not one of these things are…” -> “Not one are…” Wtf??

    Anyway, thanks for listening to my Ted Talk Ralph Rant.

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “1 in 10 residents” does not refer to a person but a proportion of people, which is a plurality of people. Change it to “10% of residents” and it’s clear that 'are"is more gooder.

      If you want to super expand it…

      A proportion of 1 in 10 residents are…

      Or

      Proportionally 1 in 10 residents are…

      Aaand also…

      “are” acts on “residents”, not “1 in 10”. “1 in 10” is an adjective phrase. Residents is the noun.

  • Lightsong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine being asked to work when you’re old and should be enjoying the last of your years.