TaldenNZ

Except the endangered pedestrians aren’t the buyers… The rules are to protect the pedestrians from buyers that value their purchase above the safety of others

As far as having children goes, I think it’s more than an economic effect. We also just have a change in personal goals, supported by a change in social expectation.

Choosing to start families at a later stage or just plain choosing not to at all, is sometimes a personal choice independently of economic pressures.

It should be noted that the article title is actually “Fewer young people are meeting these 5 milestones typically associated with adulthood”, and even it’s first sentence acknowledge these milestones as a mix of economic and family milestones - “Fewer young adults are achieving economic and family milestones typically associated with adulthood…”

Last I looked, we weren’t running out of humans, so the drop-off in breeding is mostly a capitalist concern, or a bigoted concern that the wrong humans are breeding.

If you start a ‘permanent role’ with them, having already secured a next role, then it is unethical. That means you know, going in, that this is not effectively ‘permanent’.

However. Having already started with them, if you find a better role, there is nothing unethical about taking that unless it contradicts an enforceable employment agreement. Maybe the role wasn’t what you thought, or someone else has valued you more highly (in remuneration, working conditions or other benefits). It goes both ways and incentivising retention is up to the business - it’s the flipside of lay-offs.

Probably a Thursday. Never could get the hang of Thursdays.