leftlane4passing said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

Not enough people to pay into social security over a long enough period of time and old people will have to work until dead.

Edit: My wife and I went on a trip to South Korea and we saw maybe 50 young children in total, old people everywhere, a staggering amount of automation.

---

In other words, a ponzi scheme.

---

I mean, sure. I personally don't mind paying into a system that allows old people to retire without having to solely rely on their children or their own 401k/investments.

---

I am fine with the idea. But let's not lie to ourselves about it.

Social Security is also socialism. The fake capitalists on this forum will have no problem taking SS money claiming they "paid into it". I challenge them (whoever they are) to take a principled stand and not claim the money as they are fire-breathing capitalists and now dirty socialists.

So.
I still think there is nothing wrong in the population decreasing. It has to at some point else we will all explode. Cannot go on forever.

schmellba99 said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

Not enough people to pay into social security over a long enough period of time and old people will have to work until dead.

Edit: My wife and I went on a trip to South Korea and we saw maybe 50 young children in total, old people everywhere, a staggering amount of automation.

---

In other words, a ponzi scheme.

---

I mean, sure. I personally don't mind paying into a system that allows old people to retire without having to solely rely on their children or their own 401k/investments.

---

I mind, because that system is a net negative to my own 401k/investments.

Were it not for the forced participation in a system that has zero returns I could retire probably 10-15 years earlier than I will be able to. Which means I could be looking at a very comfortable retirement right now instead of the current situation.

---

You also make a good point. But then you are a smart educated person. This SS scheme is to help Uncle Jim and Aunt Martha types who get ripped off by corps and rendered homeless at 85. Either way it is a cost you have to pay.

AG N ASIA said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Generally speaking... The problem isn't the reduction. It's the rate at which the reduction occurs. Especially when it's biased on the older side due to life spans shifting to the right.

In a subsistence society it's probably not as bad. In a welfare state civilization with social safety nets it can be catastrophic, especially if it's too rapid.

---

we need to learn to let me people die naturally. My in-laws are in their mid to late 80's and their quality of life is nearly non existent for my MIL and my FIL has had full blown Alzheimer's for the past 4 years and is breathing but not living. He no longer takes any medications and his medical care is still roughly $10k a month, My MIL is still independent, but wishes she would just die as she is in constant pain and most of her friends have passed. This has opened mine and my wife's eyes and realize the number of years are not as important as the number of quality years. The elderly care "retirement" community they live in is nice, but most of the residents are just biding their time. It is really sad to see. The reason we need a high replacement rate is a result of an enormous economic burden by the long term non-productive elderly who are in essence either fully or partially funded by a welfare program (Medicare, etc…) that needs multiples of payees to fund the cost of a si gel recipient.

---

wow....

>> We need population growth for the welfare state
>> Corporations need their labor stock

My parents have a picture of our front lawn with over 30 kids playing on a summer night in the early 90s. There is one other family with young children on my street today and they have two kids who never play. Life is substantially less joyful when people have smaller or no families.

TriAg2010 said:

---

>> We need population growth for the welfare state
>> Corporations need their labor stock

My parents have a picture of our front lawn with over 30 kids playing on a summer night in the early 90s. There is one other family with young children on my street today and they have two kids who never play. Life is substantially less joyful when people have smaller or no families.

---

So just to be clear, this is a list of three reasons why rapid population decline would be bad.

from 1.4 billion to 400 million by end of this century...

Quote:

---

China's population collapse is now mathematically irreversible.

There simply aren't enough women left of childbearing age.

Even if the fertility rate magically returned to replacement level (2.1 children per woman) tomorrow, the country would still lose more than 40% of its population by 2100.

It won't. The real number is 75%. There's nothing like it in history

---

🧵 China’s population collapse is now mathematically irreversible.

There simply aren’t enough women left of childbearing age.

Even if the fertility rate magically returned to replacement level (2.1 children per woman) tomorrow, the country would still lose more than 40% of its… pic.twitter.com/sH8huPrXgT

— Rod D. Martin (@RodDMartin) June 8, 2026

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

Not enough people to pay into social security over a long enough period of time and old people will have to work until dead.

Edit: My wife and I went on a trip to South Korea and we saw maybe 50 young children in total, old people everywhere, a staggering amount of automation.

---

In other words, a ponzi scheme.

---

I mean, sure. I personally don't mind paying into a system that allows old people to retire without having to solely rely on their children or their own 401k/investments.

---

I mind, because that system is a net negative to my own 401k/investments.

Were it not for the forced participation in a system that has zero returns I could retire probably 10-15 years earlier than I will be able to. Which means I could be looking at a very comfortable retirement right now instead of the current situation.

---

You also make a good point. But then you are a smart educated person. This SS scheme is to help Uncle Jim and Aunt Martha types who get ripped off by corps and rendered homeless at 85. Either way it is a cost you have to pay.

---

It was marketed and sold as a mechanism to provide *some* safety in savings as a result of the crash of the 1930's. But over the years it somehow morphed into being and entire retirement plan and a whole lot of people bought into that lie and saved nada on their own.

It is pure socialism, by design. It is one of the single biggest contributing factors to people not being able to develop wealth. By design. Because FDR was an absolutely evil SOB who reveled at the prospect of the populace being more and more dependent on the feds in their day to day existence.

That's their own damn fault, not mine.

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

Not enough people to pay into social security over a long enough period of time and old people will have to work until dead.

Edit: My wife and I went on a trip to South Korea and we saw maybe 50 young children in total, old people everywhere, a staggering amount of automation.

---

In other words, a ponzi scheme.

---

I mean, sure. I personally don't mind paying into a system that allows old people to retire without having to solely rely on their children or their own 401k/investments.

---

I mind, because that system is a net negative to my own 401k/investments.

Were it not for the forced participation in a system that has zero returns I could retire probably 10-15 years earlier than I will be able to. Which means I could be looking at a very comfortable retirement right now instead of the current situation.

---

You also make a good point. But then you are a smart educated person. This SS scheme is to help Uncle Jim and Aunt Martha types who get ripped off by corps and rendered homeless at 85. Either way it is a cost you have to pay.

---

It was marketed and sold as a mechanism to provide *some* safety in savings as a result of the crash of the 1930's. But over the years it somehow morphed into being and entire retirement plan and a whole lot of people bought into that lie and saved nada on their own.

It is pure socialism, by design. It is one of the single biggest contributing factors to people not being able to develop wealth. By design. Because FDR was an absolutely evil SOB who reveled at the prospect of the populace being more and more dependent on the feds in their day to day existence.

That's their own damn fault, not mine.

---

SS was a fraud from the start. It was sold as an investment toward retirement. However it was set up as a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, assuming that worker population would always be growing to pay for retirees.

In the 1980's, I never thought that SS would be around when I retired. It has been hanging on a thread for decades.

A much better system would have been having 15% of an employee's wages invested into real stocks and bonds that would then be available when they retired.

Ogre09 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Harsh truth... if the world would stop sending food to countries where food can't be grown, the overpopulation in some places would naturally correct itself. Some cultures just multiply because they don't have anything else to do but f*** and wait on the next shipment of food to arrive.

---

Are these cultures accepting new citizens? Because that sounds pretty great...

---

I'm sure they'd love to have you in South Sudan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Niger, Malawi, Somalia, Madagascar, Yemen, etc.

BuddysBud said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

leftlane4passing said:

---

Not enough people to pay into social security over a long enough period of time and old people will have to work until dead.

Edit: My wife and I went on a trip to South Korea and we saw maybe 50 young children in total, old people everywhere, a staggering amount of automation.

---

In other words, a ponzi scheme.

---

I mean, sure. I personally don't mind paying into a system that allows old people to retire without having to solely rely on their children or their own 401k/investments.

---

I mind, because that system is a net negative to my own 401k/investments.

Were it not for the forced participation in a system that has zero returns I could retire probably 10-15 years earlier than I will be able to. Which means I could be looking at a very comfortable retirement right now instead of the current situation.

---

You also make a good point. But then you are a smart educated person. This SS scheme is to help Uncle Jim and Aunt Martha types who get ripped off by corps and rendered homeless at 85. Either way it is a cost you have to pay.

---

It was marketed and sold as a mechanism to provide *some* safety in savings as a result of the crash of the 1930's. But over the years it somehow morphed into being and entire retirement plan and a whole lot of people bought into that lie and saved nada on their own.

It is pure socialism, by design. It is one of the single biggest contributing factors to people not being able to develop wealth. By design. Because FDR was an absolutely evil SOB who reveled at the prospect of the populace being more and more dependent on the feds in their day to day existence.

That's their own damn fault, not mine.

---

SS was a fraud from the start. It was sold as an investment toward retirement. However it was set up as a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, assuming that worker population would always be growing to pay for retirees.

In the 1980's, I never thought that SS would be around when I retired. It has been hanging on a thread for decades.

A much better system would have been having 15% of an employee's wages invested into real stocks and bonds that would then be available when they retired.

---

Circling back around to the original topic, those stocks would also likely not perform well in a scenario of rapid population decline decade over decade. That's essentially permanent recession.

Lower population inevitably means fewer people for the military, fewer doctors doing research, fewer peons to do work most look down on, but are essential to a normal functioning society.

dds08 said:

---

Lower population inevitably means fewer people for the military, fewer doctors doing research, fewer peons to do work most look down on, but are essential to a normal functioning society.

---

Which normal functioning society would that be? The one where a third of adults can't earn themselves enough money to support themselves without the government's help?

Also - your post is kind of nonsensical - if there are fewer people there would be less demand for doctors, less demand for peon work, etc. And if every country is affected equally the effect on the military is the same. Also, rapid advances in automation free up more people to work more interesting jobs as well as make them more efficient (like medical research, etc).

Really the biggest thing reduced population affects are pyramid/ponzi schemes and investment mechanisms that rely on an overall market growth - SS, the stock market to a large extent, real estate investing, etc.

TriAg2010 said:

---

My parents have a picture of our front lawn with over 30 kids playing on a summer night in the early 90s. There is one other family with young children on my street today and they have two kids who never play. Life is substantially less joyful when people have smaller or no families.

---

Neigbhorhoods go thru cycles. The neighborhood I grew up in is finally getting back to having kids out playing, now that a lot of of the original homeowners have moved out (or up, as it were).

Logos Stick said:

---

from 1.4 billion to 400 million by end of this century...

Quote:

---

China's population collapse is now mathematically irreversible.

There simply aren't enough women left of childbearing age.

Even if the fertility rate magically returned to replacement level (2.1 children per woman) tomorrow, the country would still lose more than 40% of its population by 2100.

It won't. The real number is 75%. There's nothing like it in history

---

🧵 China’s population collapse is now mathematically irreversible.

There simply aren’t enough women left of childbearing age.

Even if the fertility rate magically returned to replacement level (2.1 children per woman) tomorrow, the country would still lose more than 40% of its… pic.twitter.com/sH8huPrXgT

— Rod D. Martin (@RodDMartin) June 8, 2026

---

Maybe Indian H1Bs can now move to China to make up the numbers.

There is always a silver lining.

javajaws said:

---

dds08 said:

---

Lower population inevitably means fewer people for the military, fewer doctors doing research, fewer peons to do work most look down on, but are essential to a normal functioning society.

---

Which normal functioning society would that be? The one where a third of adults can't earn themselves enough money to support themselves without the government's help?

Also - your post is kind of nonsensical - if there are fewer people there would be less demand for doctors, less demand for peon work, etc. And if every country is affected equally the effect on the military is the same. Also, rapid advances in automation free up more people to work more interesting jobs as well as make them more efficient (like medical research, etc).

Really the biggest thing reduced population affects are pyramid/ponzi schemes and investment mechanisms that rely on an overall market growth - SS, the stock market to a large extent, real estate investing, etc.

---

This is the crux of the matter though, isn't it? Everyone just assumes a proportional and equal down shift in needed talent and skill sets will happen when we have no idea if it will. Never underestimate the government's ability to f* that up and incentivize the wrong areas while disincentivizing the right ones while this is happening. We are living it today with decades of incentivizing worthless college degrees to the detriment of hard skills where we have massive shortages and headwinds.

YouBet said:

---

javajaws said:

---

dds08 said:

---

Lower population inevitably means fewer people for the military, fewer doctors doing research, fewer peons to do work most look down on, but are essential to a normal functioning society.

---

Which normal functioning society would that be? The one where a third of adults can't earn themselves enough money to support themselves without the government's help?

Also - your post is kind of nonsensical - if there are fewer people there would be less demand for doctors, less demand for peon work, etc. And if every country is affected equally the effect on the military is the same. Also, rapid advances in automation free up more people to work more interesting jobs as well as make them more efficient (like medical research, etc).

Really the biggest thing reduced population affects are pyramid/ponzi schemes and investment mechanisms that rely on an overall market growth - SS, the stock market to a large extent, real estate investing, etc.

---

This is the crux of the matter though, isn't it? Everyone just assumes a proportional and equal down shift in needed talent and skill sets will happen when we have no idea if it will. Never underestimate the government's ability to f* that up and incentivize the wrong areas while disincentivizing the right ones while this is happening. We are living it today with decades of incentivizing worthless college degrees to the detriment of hard skills where we have massive shortages and headwinds.

---

I don't really see that problem differing based on population. Gov will do whatever it wants regardless if the population is 350 million or 200 million.

Also - the slower the change, the easier it is for people to adapt. A population decline is much slower and easier to adapt to than say the jobs displaced by technology advancements. So people will have plenty of time to "re-equalize" themselves to meet job demand, regardless of population.

I don't buy the ponzi scheme of population rise all the time. There ain't no free lunch, so something has to give. I am for population reduction where people just have a max of 2 kids, immigration is severely curtailed, and we make do with what we have within these constraints.
Making more babies means more mouths to feed and jobs to provide for and opening up immigration means a potential situation like H1Bs here or Muslim invasion in Europe.

No perfect solution, but we can avoid dumb mistakes.

Quote:

---

The poor keep producing, the well off do not. That's where the problem comes in.

---

This was one page 1 I think and it is sadly correct. Just like the movie Idiocracy, lesser intelligent people will continue to breed without consequence and more intelligent people will either choose not to breed or limit their family growth to what they believe they can manage (either financially or emotionally)

Don't look now!

Let's disregard opening the floodgates of our borders and allowing the females outside of the US help the population problem in the US!

K188Ag said:

---

There is a great book on this by Mark Steyn called "America Alone".

In essence, you need more and more young people account for the older segment of the population. The economics get really bad with lots of elderly and a diminishing younger population to pay the bills.

This is why China is screwed with their many years of their one child policy.

---

Read it in 2005, very interesting. He also addressed the Islamization of Europe because of declining birth and unchecked immigration from the ME.